Obama: Troops may stay in Iraq indefinitely

[sgreger1]

http://newsflavor.com/opinions/obama...#ixzz14uYgofXO


In a stunning admission by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it appears the Obama administration is now seriously considering the option of leaving American soldiers in Iraq past the 2011 deadline indicated repeatedly by President Obama as recently as last summer. Gates indicated that the Iraqi government would likely not be ready to protect its important borderson its own, and that Iraqi officials were quietly asking if American soldiers could stay.

In recent weeks, violence in Iraq has spiked, with death and mayhem once again on the rise. Secretary Gates remarked the Obama administration appears willing to revise the 2011 if the Iraqi government deems it necessary. The move will likely not be well received by some supporters of President Obama.

“Just another lie the president has told us,” said Jan Amrine of the Iraq Peace Action Coalition. “We are escalating in Afghanistan, prisoners remain locked up in Guantanamo, and now Obama is going to pull a 180 after promising to leave Iraq in 2011. We are very disappointed to say the least.”

[TommyGunBC]

They have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can invade Iran when they see fit , such a waste of human lives and $

[truthwolf1]

That's why they are trying to move up the retirement age to 70 so they can pay the military industrial complex to keep our freedoms.

[justintempler]

They have to stay and protect our oil supply don't they?

[LaZeR]

I'm going to wait and see what Olbermann has to say on this before I add further comment.

Edit: Does he still do that "Countdown in Iraq" thingy whilst Matthews swings from Obama's scrotals and sends chills up the leg?

[sgreger1]

Anyone who thought Obama or anyone was going to withdraw the troops is naive. We have built permanent bases and one of the largest embassies ever over there, we ain't going nowhere.

We still have troops in Germany, and that war has been over for 60 years.

[RobsanX]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss...

[sgreger1]

The cold war has only been over since the early 90's. The US army of occupation was finished by the mid 1950's.

I don't think I mentioned the cold war, did I? I said we still have troops in germany, which was a conflict from nearly 60 years ago. We will always have some force in Iraq and Afghanistan, and likely Kuwait as well. The bases are built, it's already in motion. As for the main force, I figure they will keep it going at least till 2015.

The problem is that we can station troops in Germany, Japan, and even Korea without worrying about it. It's just another duty station to send soldiers to. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, there will ALWAYS be conflict over there. Troops in germany don't get attacked. Troops stationed in Iraq/Afgh will be constantly attacked, therefore it will make the news and make the appearance that we are still at war with them LONG after we pulled out our main force. Eventually they would have to send the main force back in to help stop the violence all over again.

[truthwolf1]

I don't think I mentioned the cold war, did I? I said we still have troops in germany, which was a conflict from nearly 60 years ago. We will always have some force in Iraq and Afghanistan, and likely Kuwait as well. The bases are built, it's already in motion. As for the main force, I figure they will keep it going at least till 2015.

The problem is that we can station troops in Germany, Japan, and even Korea without worrying about it. It's just another duty station to send soldiers to. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, there will ALWAYS be conflict over there. Troops in germany don't get attacked. Troops stationed in Iraq/Afgh will be constantly attacked, therefore it will make the news and make the appearance that we are still at war with them LONG after we pulled out our main force. Eventually they would have to send the main force back in to help stop the violence all over again.

Like Powell said, you break it and you will own it.
The established government under our watch is terrified, because they know if we left they are all marked for death.

So it is either pullout and let the place go into a Baathist, Shiite all out war or continue to keep our overpriced presence until we break the will of the people.

The second option is starting to take away funds from our own people and will not work anyways in my opinion.

So, my vote is to just leave now and let them fight it out. If the winner wants to mess with us after it is over we come back and kill them all over again.

but for now we cannot afford this anymore and the majority of people are just fed up with it.

[sgreger1]

Right, you skipped that 40+ year conflict for some reason - which is my point.

To suggest that our presence in western Europe is as remaining occupation forces from WWII isn't really the case.

Being partners in their defense (as we are in Japan and Korea) is a completely different mission then occupation forces. i.e., we still have troops in the UK and the last time we fought them was what? 1812?



Except when they do. Like the RAF bombings in the 70's and 80's.

Yes I am quite aware of the difference between having permanent station in a country that we are not at war with, as opposed to having an force occupying an entire country.

What I am saying is that we will have troops there at permanent duty stations to aid in their defense, like we do in other countries. Unlike the RAF bombings, troops in Iraq Afghanistan will have to constantly fight off the Alquaida who will not stop untill all troops are gone. We could not successfully do it with our entire army, so how can a few bases fend them off?

[Gritztastic]

Kinda like S. Korea and Japan. If we pull out of Iraq though, it's a short shot from Iran (troops through a friendly Shiite dominated Iraq and naval forces across the Persian Gulf) to the Ghawar oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia.