Obama Retreat on Iraq

It's quite interesting how the Obama butt kissers can watch him change his Iraq withdrawal plans and defend it. Especially when the new plans match, practically word for word, the plan agreed to between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration, a plan which was LAMBASTED by these same lobotomized jackasses as leaving Iraq under the control of the U.S. military indefinitely.
 
It's quite interesting how the Obama butt kissers can watch him change his Iraq withdrawal plans and defend it. Especially when the new plans match, practically word for word, the plan agreed to between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration, a plan which was LAMBASTED by these same lobotomized jackasses as leaving Iraq under the control of the U.S. military indefinitely.

He shoots, he scores!
images
 
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.

Ok, so we'll be in Iraq how long? 2 months longer, 2 years longer, 20 years longer...
 
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

What the fuck are you blathering on about? Are you making the absurd argument that we didn't maintain troops in those countries to act as a deterrent to the Soviet Union? Both Japan and Germany had military forces during the Cold War you moron.
 
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.

Take that up with the jews who control us and foist upon us their deluded and theocratic Olam Ha Ba agenda.
 
Some weirdness going on here:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/031615.html

DIVERSIONS (III)

Greyhawk
Remember the Iraq drawdown you heard about last month? The one where a Brigade originally scheduled for Iraq was going to Afghanistan instead? Well, a funny thing about that...

Last weekend we noted this obscure bit of news from ABC:

Gen. Odierno will receive a Stryker Brigade to replace the incoming replacement brigade diverted to Afghanistan just a week ago. That means that he will continue to maintain the current level of two Stryker brigades in Iraq.​

While that story might be obscure, it's anything but insignificant. The diversion of the Stryker Brigade (one of two that were then scheduled to replace the two currently in Iraq) to Afghanistan made headlines as the President appeared at Camp Lejeune to announce his Iraq drawdown and Afghanistan "surge". As noted here at the time, that followup report - if accurate - "exposes everything you've heard about troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan over the past two weeks as an absolute hoax on the American public."

Read the first entry in this series for details of the preparations made by the Stryker Brigade for an Iraq deployment - 10-month Arabic language schools being just part of the training rendered useless by a reassignment to a country where the locals don't speak it.

Of course, "intensive, 10-month Arabic language training" and "exercises... where they had to help their commanders negotiate with native-speaker role players" were now useless - but if they were no longer needed in Iraq, so be it.​

But they were needed in Iraq - just not as badly as the Obama administration needed to make it appear that troops initially slotted for Iraq were going to Afghanistan instead - seemingly making good on a key campaign promise. So with much fanfare the Iraq drawdown (consisting entirely of the Stryker Brigade)/Afghanistan surge (Strykers plus a Marine unit) was announced, and subsequent polls indicated Americans were wildly enthusiastic about the idea.

And a few days later no one would notice the bombshell reported by ABC:

"Gen. Odierno will receive a Stryker Brigade to replace the incoming replacement brigade diverted to Afghanistan just a week ago" - perhaps because within 24 hours of reporting that news they changed it to this:

ABC News has also learned that Gen. Odierno will continue to maintain a Stryker Brigade presence in Iraq through the upcoming elections as he had requested. There are currently two Stryker Brigades in Iraq. When their tours end later this year, only one of those departing brigades will be replaced by an incoming Stryker Brigade.​

Not only was there no explanation of the "correction", there wasn't even an acknowledgment of the change on the site.

But wait... there's more...

*****
I don't like conspiracy theories - I suspected that ABC's initial report was due to some sort of simple misunderstanding and that the corrected version was in fact correct. But to confirm that I sent a simple email to them:

Greetings
Just linked this in a post, but subsequently discovered the line "ABC News has also learned that Gen. Odierno will receive a Stryker Brigade to replace the incoming replacement brigade diverted to Afghanistan just a week ago" has since vanished without explanation.

What happened?​

Even though it was the weekend they were kind enough to reply:

That was updated.​

I checked to see if they were referring to a subsequent update - they weren't. So I replied:

Clearly. But that's rather a dramatic change to make without explanation, don't you think? The original version indicates the entire narrative of diverting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a fraud perpetrated on the American public. The later version is hardly newsworthy.​

Aren't corrections of that magnitude worthy of an appended explanation?
It's been a week since that was sent and I've received no reply. But that's probably because other developments have rendered the point somewhat moot.
*****
Specifically, last Monday the DoD announced:

The Department of Defense announced today that 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based in Ft. Lewis, Wash., will deploy in the fall of 2009 to support Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The brigade consists of approximately 4,000 personnel and will deploy as a replacement unit for a formation currently operating in Iraq. Its deployment will provide commanders in Iraq the flexibility to maintain the appropriate level of effort based on their assessment of the security situation on the ground.​

The next day's Tacoma News Tribune would report:

A Fort Lewis Stryker combat brigade will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule, Army officials said Monday.
When the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division departs, all three Stryker brigades based at the Army post will be simultaneously deployed to combat for the first time. Each brigade has about 4,000 soldiers.​

And ABC would change their story once again - this time with an explanation:

Editor's Note: Over the weekend, additional information led us to rework this article. We have restored the original wording as additional reporting reconfirms the information posted Friday night.

Gen. Odierno will maintain a two-Stryker Brigade presence through the rest of this year even though a replacement Stryker Brigade had been redirected to Afghansitan [sic]. The Pentagon's announcement Monday that the 4th Stryker BCT, 2nd Infantry Division will head to Iraq in the Fall means both brigades currently in Iraq will be replaced by Stryker Brigades. In shorthand, the 4th SBCT/2nd ID will replace the 1st SBCT/25th ID and the 3rd SBCT/2nd ID will the 56th National Guard Stryker Brigade.

Kudos to them for reporting it, but they fail to connect the dots - removing a Brigade from Iraq (or from the schedule to go to Iraq) and replacing it with another Brigade is no way to accomplish a "drawdown" (except in newspaper headlines).
*****
Let's recap the salient points here:

1. In September, 2008, the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) - after months of preparation - is ordered to Iraq. (One of two SBCTs that were then scheduled to replace the two currently in Iraq)

2. In February, 2009, President Obama announces his Iraq drawdown/Afghanistan surge - the 5th SBCT will be diverted to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

3. March, 2009, the DoD announces the 4th SBCT will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule replacing the 5th SBCT in the rotation in order to maintain two Stryker Brigades in Iraq.

For the record, I'm in favor of commanders on the ground getting the forces they need to get the job done. I have no doubt that two Stryker Brigades are needed in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.

I'm deeply concerned when I see troop rotations "adjusted" in what appears to be an effort to fool the American public. But I appreciate that the Obama administration can do that in plain sight, even providing press releases detailing exactly how they're doing it.

I'm even more concerned that those efforts - and the ramifications thereof - are obvious to an American media assumed to be independent of the Executive Branch but apparently unconcerned about reporting its activities. Item two above was headline grabbing/TV news lead story material - item three indicates it was a fraud.

One year ago that would have been a hell of a story, don't you think?
 
What the fuck are you blathering on about? Are you making the absurd argument that we didn't maintain troops in those countries to act as a deterrent to the Soviet Union? Both Japan and Germany had military forces during the Cold War you moron.

you are so fucking stupid. You cannot POSSIBLY think that a civil defense force is equal to a standing military. In case you were wondering, that is exactly what Japan had after WW2.....a civil defense force. OUR military forces were there for national protection, both from within and without.
 
Why can you never just "bottom line" anything, Annie? Why is it always a snide us of single quotes or some other backhanded implication? jesus h.
 
Annie. Can you summarize that shit and maybe inspire me to read it?

let me do that.

Senator Palpatine has disentigrated the senate. What's left of the rebellion is scattered among the star systems. It's only a matter of time before the outlying regions are brought in to line with the empire. The jedi are finished.
 
let me do that.

Senator Palpatine has disentigrated the senate. What's left of the rebellion is scattered among the star systems. It's only a matter of time before the outlying regions are brought in to line with the empire. The jedi are finished.


Shit and I got a Sith Lord on my ass.
 

The weirdness is nothing more than political sleight of hand that has a media unwilling or too obsessed to report a story like this in the same anti-war way they did when Bush was president.

I posted the link showing that all Obama did was adopt the Bush withdraw agreement and try to take credit for it...Obama is Bush III on Iraq and the war on terror except he's such an idiot he actually thinks he can make pals with ...ehhem, moderate Taliban.
 
i highly doubt Americans will every fully pull out of Iraq anytime soon. As stated above changes to troop roles and names may be more in line with the master plan for that country. We built infrastructure bases that that may not be "permanent" but certainly would last for quite some time to come.
 
The weirdness is nothing more than political sleight of hand that has a media unwilling or too obsessed to report a story like this in the same anti-war way they did when Bush was president.

I posted the link showing that all Obama did was adopt the Bush withdraw agreement and try to take credit for it...Obama is Bush III on Iraq and the war on terror except he's such an idiot he actually thinks he can make pals with ...ehhem, moderate Taliban.


There is nothing weird about it. In the end, Bush agreed to something along the lines of what Obama was proposing, but that was not the starting point. It was Bush that roughly adopted the Obama timeline, not the other way around.
 
At least 60 would be nice. We need a nice air base over there between Iran and Israel, and this seems like the perfect place.

i think you are much closer then people who think we are going to leave completely. id say maybe like 20-40k people for the next 20years at least.
 
There is nothing weird about it. In the end, Bush agreed to something along the lines of what Obama was proposing, but that was not the starting point. It was Bush that roughly adopted the Obama timeline, not the other way around.

Hahahaha! Leave it to Obama's followers to give him credit for something he didn't do!

Bush, NOT Obama negotiated the time-line that Obama has adopted. So, not only did Obama adopt this plan, but he kicked his own plan to the way side and is claiming Bush's for his own!!!
 
Back
Top