Obama Retreat on Iraq

T

Timshel

New member
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131971.html

During the campaign, Obama pushed a plan to withdraw one or two combat brigades per month until they were all out. Only two things have changed in Obama's 16-month departure plan: It will take longer than 16 months, and we won't depart.
Instead of May 2010, the target date has been pushed back to August of that year. Nor will he bring back one or two combat brigades each month. Instead, The New York Times reports, Obama plans to withdraw only two between now and December, or one combat brigade every five months.

The administration claims it will speed up the pace of withdrawal next year. But if someone says he's going to sober up tomorrow, it doesn't mean he will definitely do it tomorrow. It just means he definitely won't do it today.

What we can deduce from the new timetable is that for now, we are staying put. As for what happens next year—well, why cross that bridge before we come to it?

Assuming the president adheres to this backloaded schedule, a large U.S. force will remain for some time. After August 2010, the administration plans to keep as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. That's 16,000 more than we currently have to fight the war in Afghanistan. We'll also be spending $50 billion on the effort in 2011.

Oh, and remember that promise to remove all the combat brigades? Here's the trick to it: leaving some of them there but under a different designation. They would be referred to as "Advisory Training Brigades" or "Advisory Assistance Brigades," says The New York Times.
 
He had always said that he would listen to the Military experts while forming the exit plan.

Bush would just demote or fire the military people who would not SAY what he wanted.
 
There is one excuse from the phony peace-niks. Howq many people has Obama killed so far?

Good thing war just results in a temporary boost in government.
 
Last edited:
Rickstringtool,
wild guess you didn't go fight and you don't have kids overthere.
Peaceniks, what a fucking NAZI
 
evince said:
He had always said that he would listen to the Military experts while forming the exit plan.

Bush would just demote or fire the military people who would not SAY what he wanted.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha; what a load of spin! Obama basically adopted the Bush exit plan and not his campaign promised one that you swallowed as a kool aid drinker.

The Bush administration has signed a "Status of Forces Agreement" that requires most troops to be out of Iraq by 2011.
 
Evince has basically turned off her brain, and is a mindless partisan hack, waiting for talking points from leadership. She could be so much more. Let's be patient with her.
 
RStringfield said:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131971.html

During the campaign, Obama pushed a plan to withdraw one or two combat brigades per month until they were all out. Only two things have changed in Obama's 16-month departure plan: It will take longer than 16 months, and we won't depart.
Instead of May 2010, the target date has been pushed back to August of that year. Nor will he bring back one or two combat brigades each month. Instead, The New York Times reports, Obama plans to withdraw only two between now and December, or one combat brigade every five months.

The administration claims it will speed up the pace of withdrawal next year. But if someone says he's going to sober up tomorrow, it doesn't mean he will definitely do it tomorrow. It just means he definitely won't do it today.

What we can deduce from the new timetable is that for now, we are staying put. As for what happens next year—well, why cross that bridge before we come to it?

Assuming the president adheres to this backloaded schedule, a large U.S. force will remain for some time. After August 2010, the administration plans to keep as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. That's 16,000 more than we currently have to fight the war in Afghanistan. We'll also be spending $50 billion on the effort in 2011.

Oh, and remember that promise to remove all the combat brigades? Here's the trick to it: leaving some of them there but under a different designation. They would be referred to as "Advisory Training Brigades" or "Advisory Assistance Brigades," says The New York Times.
Click to expand...

Obama never promised that all America troops would be out of Iraq in 16 months. He's always been pretty clear about combat troops being removed and the fact that he is delaying it for three months at the request of the military shows he's at trying to meet them halfway. I would like troops to be withdrawn in 16 months but if it can't be realistically accomplished after a thorough evaluation then I'll give the administration the benefit of the doubt. That being said I would not approve of training brigades conducting combat operations unless they were supporting Iraqi units.
 
I just use the excuse the Bush people gave us after MR Bush told us no nation building and then he went and made Afghanistan ours and Iraq, too.

They use to say, well, he got into office and read all those secret reports he wasn't privy to and now as President he has read them and sees the bigger picture!

I love to turn the table on the Obamahaters
 
ImaTanArmyMan said:
Obama never promised that all America troops would be out of Iraq in 16 months.
I would like troops to be withdrawn in 16 months but if it can't be realistically accomplished after a thorough evaluation then I'll give the administration the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

translation: obama said it, I concur. he is the messiah.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
translation: obama said it, I concur. he is the messiah.
Click to expand...

Nope, I just think he makes well reasoned policy decisions. If he combat troops remain past 19 months then I would not agree. You of course missed the part where I said he never promised to remove all troops within 16 months, which I attribute to you being from Texas and functionally illiterate.
 
ImaTanArmyMan said:
Nope, I just think he makes well reasoned policy decisions. If he combat troops remain past 19 months then I would not agree. You of course missed the part where I said he never promised to remove all troops within 16 months, which I attribute to you being from Texas and functionally illiterate.
Click to expand...


I am with you, they stay there longer and I will have a problem with Obama.
 
So you all see Iraq as Japan and Germany where we have troops stationed over 60 years later, call them whatever you will?
 
Annie said:
So you all see Iraq as Japan and Germany where we have troops stationed over 60 years later, call them whatever you will?
Click to expand...

I write constantly asking them to remove the troops from Japan and Germany.
The Japanese hate us there. It is nothing but a country club assigment for military! Germany as well. We only need these bases to stage attacks from.
I am tired of us being the military police of the world.
 
Annie said:
So you all see Iraq as Japan and Germany where we have troops stationed over 60 years later, call them whatever you will?
Click to expand...

Radically different situations. The units we based there were combat units which were deterrents against the Soviet Union. They were no Middle Eastern nations, these nations were defeated in much different wars, they were internally less fractured, there was less of a history of colonialism, etc. You're comparing applies to oranges.
 
Watermark said:
Well I agree this is bad.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but I disagree with "ZOMG HE LIED TO US". Three months extra, not ideal, but not that much different than what he promised previously. A lot of his campaign criticisms of McCain and Bush were centered around the idea that now we were committed to Iraq because of the war (which I agree with).
 
froggie said:
I just use the excuse the Bush people gave us after MR Bush told us no nation building and then he went and made Afghanistan ours and Iraq, too.

They use to say, well, he got into office and read all those secret reports he wasn't privy to and now as President he has read them and sees the bigger picture!

I love to turn the table on the Obamahaters
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of polls but 90% of America agreed with us going into Afghanistan after 9/11 so you in an extremely limited group in arguing we shouldn't have.
 
ImaTanArmyMan said:
Radically different situations. The units we based there were combat units which were deterrents against the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
they were there to police those countries because the agreed to treaty prevented them from having armed forces. It's called history. maybe you should take a few classes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top