U.S. willing to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq past year's end, officials say

[High_Gravity]

TERRIBLE idea, those Troops are going to left at the mercy of the Iraqis, I see some big terrorist attacks on the remaining US Troops when most go....

U.S. willing to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq past year's end, officials say

Reporting from Washington and Baghdad— The White House is prepared to keep as many as 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of the year, amid growing concern that the planned pullout of virtually all remaining American forces would lead to intensified militant attacks, according to U.S. officials.

Keeping troops in Iraq after the deadline for their departure at the end of December would require agreement of Iraq's deeply divided government, which is far from certain. The Iraqis so far have not made a formal request for U.S. troops to remain, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Some powerful Iraqi political forces are staunchly opposed to a continued U.S. presence.

The Obama administration has been debating how large a force to propose leaving in Iraq. It made its proposal now in hopes of spurring a request from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government, and to give the Pentagon time to plan, the officials said.

The troops would be based around Baghdad and in a small number of other strategic locations around the country, the officials said.

Noting that Iraq had not asked yet for troops to stay, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: "There's only so much time here available for the Iraqi government to make such a request. If they do, we will consider it. Otherwise, we are keeping on schedule."

Unless Iraq asks for a change in its 2008 agreement with the George W. Bush administration, only about 200 active-duty troops would remain as advisors after December, the officials said. More than 166,000 American troops were in Iraq in 2007 when the U.S. military presence there peaked. There are about 46,000 remaining.

The idea of keeping any U.S. forces in Iraq remains deeply controversial, both in Iraq and the United States. Maliki faces pressure from hard-line members of his governing coalition not to extend the U.S. presence, and some American lawmakers strongly favor bringing all the remaining troops out on schedule.

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama promised to end the conflict in Iraq, and after taking office, he pledged to abide by the deadline. But administration officials have also signaled that they would be open to discussions with Maliki's government about extending the U.S. presence.

Though violence in Iraq has greatly diminished in recent years, car bombs and other attacks remain an almost daily occurrence. Iraqi and U.S. officers say that Iraq continues to need assistance, both in dealing with insurgents and in training its army and air force.

Iraqi government officials are divided on whether the Americans should stay. Of the country's major ethnic and religious groups, only the Kurds have come out publicly in favor of U.S. forces staying. In private, Maliki is thought to want troops to stay, but his Islamic Dawa Party released a statement in mid-June declaring that American troops should honor the agreement to leave at the end of the year.

Iraq U.S. troops: U.S. willing to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq past year's end, officials say - latimes.com

 

[High_Gravity]

US 'offering' to keep troops in Iraq? More like begging for permission to stay.

The Associated Press reported late yesterday (citing the ever-popular White Houses "sources" – that is, officials probably authorized to speak and plant a message in the press but granted anonymity anyways) that the Obama administration is "offering" to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq in 2012, beyond the agreed deadline with the Iraqis to withdraw all troops.

While that word "offer" has been repeatedly used by US officials named and unnamed in recent months, a better word might be "pleading." US officials insist that Iran has been expanding contacts and assistance to some Shiite militias inside the country. Less often stated is the fact that Iraq never had the kind of national reconciliation needed for lasting domestic peace, and that Sunni militias appear to be on the move again.

A number of senior officers in the Iraqi Army appear eager for the extended presence of the US and the additional training and equipment that would mean. In addition, the ethnic Kurds, who hold a semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq (carved out thanks to a US imposed no-fly zone against Saddam Hussein's forces following the first Gulf War), are lobbying for the US to stay.

But Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been largely mum on the matter. A key to his shaky coalition are loyalists of Shiite preacher Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army repeatedly targeted US forces while also participating in the country's sectarian civil war between 2005 and 2009. Sadr has warned of extended bloodshed if what he terms a US occupation is extended beyond the end of this year. Some small Sunni groups are also staunchly opposed to an extension.

Yesterday was a bloody reminder that while Iraq may be safer today than two years ago, sectarian violence continues to flare. At least two deadly blasts at Taji, a key oil pipeline hub just north of Baghdad, killed 37 people at a government building. The second blast was timed to kill and maim more people as they rushed to the assistance of those caught in the first, a tactic common in Iraq as elsewhere. Iraqi officials blamed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni insurgent group.

Hard-core Sunni insurgent groups view the Shiite-led government of Iraq as illegitimate. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq's minority Sunni Arab community was privileged. The aftermath of his removal saw years of Sunni-Shiite score settling. Thousands of ex-officials,-soldiers, and-politicians were abducted and killed by shadowy death squads, many severely tortured before death. Tens of thousands more were killed in market blasts and roadside bombings. Those wounds have not yet healed in both communities.

On Monday, at least 10 people were killed in Baghdad and surrounding towns like Abu Ghraib. Security incidents ran the gamut from homemade bombs attached to the underside of civilian cars (rigged to blow when they're moved), to two suicide bombers, to the targeted assassination of a leader of the Awakening Movement and his wife. The so-called Awakening Movement is a group of Sunni insurgents who switched to the side of the US military and Iraqi government in exchange for promises of jobs and money a few years ago, and have been the target of reprisals ever since.

US 'offering' to keep troops in Iraq? More like begging for permission to stay. - CSMonitor.com

 

[Ropey]

I don't like that at all. I remember Lebanon (Beirut) as I was in Israel in 1983.

This is not good. Take them all out.

 

[uscitizen]

They should never have been sent there in the first place.

 

[elvis]

wait I thought the ossiah was going to pull ALL the troops out.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah a major part of why I say he is a thrid Bush term.

 

[Ropey]

"They should never have been sent there in the first place."

Looking back in history with that thinking does not allow for a forward looking attitude that can deal with the present issues.

Rather useless. Time spent recriminating the past could be put to better use in deciding the future from the present.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8]YouTube - ‪Jethro Tull - Living In The Past 1969‬‏[/ame]

I pick the present and look to the future.

Move the troops out now, failing now, as soon as possible.

 

[uscitizen]

"They should never have been sent there in the first place."

Looking back in history with that thinking does not allow for a forward looking attitude that can deal with the present issues.

Rather useless. Time spent recriminating the past could be put to better use in deciding the future from the present.

YouTube - ‪Jethro Tull - Living In The Past 1969‬‏

I pick the present and look to the future.

Move the troops out now, failing now, as soon as possible.

I said they should never have been sent there before they were sent there.
Of course I was ridiculed a lot for that stance as well.

 

[Moonglow]

Noting that Iraq had not asked yet for troops to stay, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: "There's only so much time here available for the Iraqi government to make such a request. If they do, we will consider it."
it's nothing really but a goodwill gesture

 

[Ropey]

"They should never have been sent there in the first place."

Looking back in history with that thinking does not allow for a forward looking attitude that can deal with the present issues.

Rather useless. Time spent recriminating the past could be put to better use in deciding the future from the present.

YouTube - ‪Jethro Tull - Living In The Past 1969‬‏

I pick the present and look to the future.

Move the troops out now, failing now, as soon as possible.

I said they should never have been sent there before they were sent there.
Of course I was ridiculed a lot for that stance as well.

I'm not ridiculing you. I'm only saying that you might wish to move into the present to deal with these present issues that are coming up which are the 10,000 troops. You know. The ones that might be left. What do you think about that?

Then you can go back into the past and recriminate.

 

[Jroc]

"They should never have been sent there in the first place."

Looking back in history with that thinking does not allow for a forward looking attitude that can deal with the present issues.

Rather useless. Time spent recriminating the past could be put to better use in deciding the future from the present.

YouTube - ‪Jethro Tull - Living In The Past 1969‬‏

I pick the present and look to the future.

Move the troops out now, failing now, as soon as possible.

I said they should never have been sent there before they were sent there.
Of course I was ridiculed a lot for that stance as well.

I'm not ridiculing you. I'm only saying that you might wish to move into the present to deal with these present issues that are coming up which are the 10,000 troops. You know. The ones that might be left. What do you think about that?

Then you can go back into the past and recriminate.

Well.. I think they should be left there, why do all U.S. troops have to be out? In fact we should keep a military base there in my opinion. What’s to stop Iran from expanding their influence in Iraq once we are out? Why do we still have troops in Western Europe? They should be out. But Middle East is going to be a hot bed for quite some time, what are the advantages in removing all our troops after spending all this money and lives liberating the place?

 

[Ropey]

Well.. I think they should be left there, why do all U.S. troops have to be out?

Firstly, history in the middle east has shown what happens to such small forces remaining from occupation and small forces left to maintain security of puppet governments in the me. It is not a good history and Americas response in this history has been a poor one as well, leading to a very strong chance that thousands upon thousands of marines could be slaughtered between the Shia and Sunni civil war in Iraq.

The foe knows this and has no problem with driving huge amounts of explosives into Marine bases. Iran supports the Shia and with what they've allowed across which are now in the hands of Moqtada Sadr and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim a small remaining force is just asking for a response. It now looks as though Sadr will win out and soon his "Mehdi" Army will expand (he stood them down to reorder the entire hierarchy) and he is now is coordinating entirely with Iran for direction. Shia vs Sunni is the conflict that America has been holding back. It's coming to a head and will begin there first imo.

I pray that all Americans are removed from that arena. It is a civil war that comes riding the back of a far wider engagement. Weapons are being juggled all over the me like I've never seen before. Iran could easily have more than a few nuclear piles considering how much uranium is out there for sale and the centrifuges are back on line with new controls in place.

I fear for these possible deaths Jroc.

 

[High_Gravity]

I said they should never have been sent there before they were sent there.
Of course I was ridiculed a lot for that stance as well.

I'm not ridiculing you. I'm only saying that you might wish to move into the present to deal with these present issues that are coming up which are the 10,000 troops. You know. The ones that might be left. What do you think about that?

Then you can go back into the past and recriminate.

Well.. I think they should be left there, why do all U.S. troops have to be out? In fact we should keep a military base there in my opinion. What’s to stop Iran from expanding their influence in Iraq once we are out? Why do we still have troops in Western Europe? They should be out. But Middle East is going to be a hot bed for quite some time, what are the advantages in removing all our troops after spending all this money and lives liberating the place?

They should not be left there because with a country the size of Iraq, 10,000 US Soldiers really isn't a sufficient force especially if they are spread out and keep in mind, most combat operations forces are already out of the country including all the infantry units, they are all in Afghanistan right now. Most of the troops in Iraq are trainers, support troops, and advisors. Keeping such a small force in another country requires alot of cooperation, trust and security with the local Iraqi forces, much of with are filled with Shia and Sunni insurgents. This is not like Germany or England where we can keep 10,000 US Troops and some bases there and depend on local security to help us, keeping a force this size in Iraq basically means we are going to have to depend on the Iraqis for alot of our protection and security and I do not like this one bit, I agree with Ropey get them the fuck out of there before we start seeing some huge attacks occur like the Beirut barracks bombing.

 

[High_Gravity]

They should never have been sent there in the first place.

Ok thats fine and maybe you are right, however, this does nothing for the 10,000 US Troops whose lives will be in grave danger if they are left behind.

 

[Mr. President]

Ya know I think we should set up shop in Iraq. No soldier believed we would be out by the end of the year. Now Iran is testing missles and getting bolder as it believes the US presence is close to dwindeling. Saying it can reach our battleships. Oh to be so bold there must be a plan. We should take some of our funded bases out of Europe and place them in Iraq allowing a close presence at all times.

 

[Jroc]

Well.. I think they should be left there, why do all U.S. troops have to be out?

Firstly, history in the middle east has shown what happens to such small forces remaining from occupation and small forces left to maintain security of puppet governments in the me. It is not a good history and Americas response in this history has been a poor one as well, leading to a very strong chance that thousands upon thousands of marines could be slaughtered between the Shia and Sunni civil war in Iraq.

The foe knows this and has no problem with driving huge amounts of explosives into Marine bases. Iran supports the Shia and with what they've allowed across which are now in the hands of Moqtada Sadr and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim a small remaining force is just asking for a response. It now looks as though Sadr will win out and soon his "Mehdi" Army will expand (he stood them down to reorder the entire hierarchy) and he is now is coordinating entirely with Iran for direction. Shia vs Sunni is the conflict that America has been holding back. It's coming to a head and will begin there first imo.

I pray that all Americans are removed from that arena. It is a civil war that comes riding the back of a far wider engagement. Weapons are being juggled all over the me like I've never seen before. Iran could easily have more than a few nuclear piles considering how much uranium is out there for sale and the centrifuges are back on line with new controls in place.

I fear for these possible deaths Jroc.

A base is a base, that doesn't mean we provide security, we can help out and prop up the government with air support if needed, I wouldn't worry about any car bombs and such the base can be secured. We can't just leave it to Iran, and if what you say might happen did happen, we'd have to be back in there anyway, so we might as well keep a base there as a deterrent this is not Lebanon Ropey that was a totally different situation we're just going to have to disagree on this one.

 

[Ropey]

Well.. I think they should be left there, why do all U.S. troops have to be out?

Firstly, history in the middle east has shown what happens to such small forces remaining from occupation and small forces left to maintain security of puppet governments in the me. It is not a good history and Americas response in this history has been a poor one as well, leading to a very strong chance that thousands upon thousands of marines could be slaughtered between the Shia and Sunni civil war in Iraq.

The foe knows this and has no problem with driving huge amounts of explosives into Marine bases. Iran supports the Shia and with what they've allowed across which are now in the hands of Moqtada Sadr and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim a small remaining force is just asking for a response. It now looks as though Sadr will win out and soon his "Mehdi" Army will expand (he stood them down to reorder the entire hierarchy) and he is now is coordinating entirely with Iran for direction. Shia vs Sunni is the conflict that America has been holding back. It's coming to a head and will begin there first imo.

I pray that all Americans are removed from that arena. It is a civil war that comes riding the back of a far wider engagement. Weapons are being juggled all over the me like I've never seen before. Iran could easily have more than a few nuclear piles considering how much uranium is out there for sale and the centrifuges are back on line with new controls in place.

I fear for these possible deaths Jroc.

A base is a base, that doesn't mean we provide security, we can help out and prop up the government with air support if needed, I wouldn't worry about any car bombs and such the base can be secured. We can't just leave it to Iran, and if what you say might happen did happen, we'd have to be back in there anyway, so we might as well keep a base there as a deterrent this is not Lebanon Ropey that was a totally different situation we're just going to have to disagree on this one.

I would say that they will all be taken out anyway. I doubt America will leave troops on the ground in that arena when the civil war ramps up. They are waiting for the full stand down.

America's paid for it. I doubt if they will keep any troops there regardless if Iraq asks for them Time will tell Jroc.

And it's going to start.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well.. I think they should be left there, why do all U.S. troops have to be out?

Firstly, history in the middle east has shown what happens to such small forces remaining from occupation and small forces left to maintain security of puppet governments in the me. It is not a good history and Americas response in this history has been a poor one as well, leading to a very strong chance that thousands upon thousands of marines could be slaughtered between the Shia and Sunni civil war in Iraq.

The foe knows this and has no problem with driving huge amounts of explosives into Marine bases. Iran supports the Shia and with what they've allowed across which are now in the hands of Moqtada Sadr and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim a small remaining force is just asking for a response. It now looks as though Sadr will win out and soon his "Mehdi" Army will expand (he stood them down to reorder the entire hierarchy) and he is now is coordinating entirely with Iran for direction. Shia vs Sunni is the conflict that America has been holding back. It's coming to a head and will begin there first imo.

I pray that all Americans are removed from that arena. It is a civil war that comes riding the back of a far wider engagement. Weapons are being juggled all over the me like I've never seen before. Iran could easily have more than a few nuclear piles considering how much uranium is out there for sale and the centrifuges are back on line with new controls in place.

I fear for these possible deaths Jroc.

A base is a base, that doesn't mean we provide security, we can help out and prop up the government with air support if needed, I wouldn't worry about any car bombs and such the base can be secured. We can't just leave it to Iran, and if what you say might happen did happen, we'd have to be back in there anyway, so we might as well keep a base there as a deterrent this is not Lebanon Ropey that was a totally different situation we're just going to have to disagree on this one.

With only 10,000 US Troops in the country we will have to depend alot more on the Iraqis for our security, these 10,000 Troops will be spread out in several different locations because you can't put all your eggs in 1 basket.I don't like it, this would only work if these Troops were stationed in Kurdistan, the Kurds are friends to the US and no US Troop has lost one hair on his head in the Kurdish territories, but if you are trying to put them in the Sunni or Shite areas forget about it, they will be targeted and attacked daily as their numbers decrease, Al Sadr is licking his chops at the chance.

 

[High_Gravity]

Ya know I think we should set up shop in Iraq. No soldier believed we would be out by the end of the year. Now Iran is testing missles and getting bolder as it believes the US presence is close to dwindeling. Saying it can reach our battleships. Oh to be so bold there must be a plan. We should take some of our funded bases out of Europe and place them in Iraq allowing a close presence at all times.

How are US bases in Iraq going to prevent the Iranians from developing weapons? unless you go into Iran and physically stop them, they will keep developing.

 

[Mr. President]

Ya know I think we should set up shop in Iraq. No soldier believed we would be out by the end of the year. Now Iran is testing missles and getting bolder as it believes the US presence is close to dwindeling. Saying it can reach our battleships. Oh to be so bold there must be a plan. We should take some of our funded bases out of Europe and place them in Iraq allowing a close presence at all times.

How are US bases in Iraq going to prevent the Iranians from developing weapons? unless you go into Iran and physically stop them, they will keep developing.

Indeed, however setting up bases in Iraq shows a commitment to the middle east. The people over here want us to be here but if they take our side and we leave then they are defenseless so they strattle the fence just in case we leave and they need a new loyalty. If we show them we are here to see change through then change will come. Iran is sending fighters and weapons into Iraq trying to influence local governments and convince them they can not only help but defeat any who oppose them ie. the threat that missles can reach America.