A U.S. Troop Presence in Iraq Does Not Serve U.S. Security Interests

[Catawba]

The conservative CATO Institute thinks it would be best to remove all troops from Iraq by the end of the year:

Sept. 7 ~
[h=1]A U.S. Troop Presence in Iraq Does Not Serve U.S. Security Interests[/h] "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is reportedly supporting a deal for 3,000 to 4,000 troops to remain in a training capacity past the end of the year, provided a deal can be struck with the Iraqis.

Those few Americans who are still paying attention to Iraq cannot be enthusiastic about this. We have long since tired of the ruinous, pointless war. The cheerleaders for invading Iraq said it would be a cakewalk, and that the costs would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues, not U.S. taxpayers. It has instead consumed nearly $800 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars, claimed the lives of over 4,400 U.S. troops, and wounded many thousands more. The costs of caring for the wounded and recapitalizing equipment will likely top an additional $1 trillion.
Haven’t we had enough already?"

"Bush might have been gambling that the Iraqis would not ask us to leave, at least not right away, and the polling data at the time suggested that was a safe bet.


It isn’t any longer. A few people here in the United States might want U.S. troops to stay in Iraq; but very few Iraqis agree.
Realist IR scholars will repeat ad nauseum the mantra from Thucydides: “The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must.” To the extent that this is true, no U.S. president would gamble this country’s security on the whims of a nascent parliamentary democracy rife with anti-American sentiment. We would never hand such a decision over to the Iraqis if it was truly vital to our national security to remain there.

It isn’t. It never has been. The Iraq war was a war of choice; we can choose to leave. We should."

Read more here: A U.S. Troop Presence in Iraq Does Not Serve U.S. Security Interests | Cato @ Liberty

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[liblady]

The conservative CATO Institute thinks it would be best to remove all troops from Iraq by the end of the year:

Sept. 7 ~
[h=1]A U.S. Troop Presence in Iraq Does Not Serve U.S. Security Interests[/h] "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is reportedly supporting a deal for 3,000 to 4,000 troops to remain in a training capacity past the end of the year, provided a deal can be struck with the Iraqis.

Those few Americans who are still paying attention to Iraq cannot be enthusiastic about this. We have long since tired of the ruinous, pointless war. The cheerleaders for invading Iraq said it would be a cakewalk, and that the costs would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues, not U.S. taxpayers. It has instead consumed nearly $800 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars, claimed the lives of over 4,400 U.S. troops, and wounded many thousands more. The costs of caring for the wounded and recapitalizing equipment will likely top an additional $1 trillion.
Haven’t we had enough already?"

"Bush might have been gambling that the Iraqis would not ask us to leave, at least not right away, and the polling data at the time suggested that was a safe bet.


It isn’t any longer. A few people here in the United States might want U.S. troops to stay in Iraq; but very few Iraqis agree.
Realist IR scholars will repeat ad nauseum the mantra from Thucydides: “The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must.” To the extent that this is true, no U.S. president would gamble this country’s security on the whims of a nascent parliamentary democracy rife with anti-American sentiment. We would never hand such a decision over to the Iraqis if it was truly vital to our national security to remain there.

It isn’t. It never has been. The Iraq war was a war of choice; we can choose to leave. We should."

Read more here: A U.S. Troop Presence in Iraq Does Not Serve U.S. Security Interests | Cato @ Liberty

I wholeheartedly agree!

as do i..........no troops in iraq, and i'm all for getting the hell out of afghanistan as well.

 

[Catawba]

as do i..........no troops in iraq, and i'm all for getting the hell out of afghanistan as well.

It looks like Obama is planning on removing troops as per our agreement with Iraq at least, as he included a 1.5 trillion dollars cut in spending for war costs.

This great news to me! It is a start in reducing our most wasteful spending.

 

[OscarB63]

and then 3 years from now when the place goes all to hell, the bleeding hearts club will piss themselves and squeal "we've got to do something to help them" and we'll send thousands of troops back over and start the whole process over again.

 

[liblady]

and then 3 years from now when the place goes all to hell, the bleeding hearts club will piss themselves and squeal "we've got to do something to help them" and we'll send thousands of troops back over and start the whole process over again.

do you even have the ability to post without name calling?

 

[OscarB63]

do you even have the ability to post without name calling?

pot, meet kettle. you're not the one whose life is on the line because some wishy-washy politicians can't make up their freakin minds.

 

[liblady]

pot, meet kettle. you're not the one whose life is on the line because some wishy-washy politicians can't make up their freakin minds.

completely off topic. you're advocating that we stay, right? why?

 

[OscarB63]

completely off topic. you're advocating that we stay, right? why?

no, I think we should get the hell out and never go back...UNLESS it is to kill every single man, woman and child there.

 

[Utility Man]

no, I think we should get the hell out and never go back...UNLESS it is to kill every single man, woman and child there.

Seems like the politicians have made up your mind already. Kill them all aye, that sort of sounds like something the terrorists might say.

My guess is someone needs to have their membership card to the human race taken away.

 

[liblady]

no, I think we should get the hell out and never go back...UNLESS it is to kill every single man, woman and child there.

then what was the point of your rant?

and then 3 years from now when the place goes all to hell, the bleeding hearts club will piss themselves and squeal "we've got to do something to help them" and we'll send thousands of troops back over and start the whole process over again.

 

[ecofarm]

Presuming this means that democratic infrastructure can stand on its own, great.

 

[OscarB63]

Seems like the politicians have made up your mind already. Kill them all aye, that sort of sounds like something the terrorists might say.

My guess is someone needs to have their membership card to the human race taken away.

reading comprehension not your strong suit I take it. kill them all is the only reason we should go back. notice I said we should not go back. :roll:

 

[OscarB63]

then what was the point of your rant?

really? too dense to get it?


what I think we should do and what the dumbass politicians tell us to do are almost certainly two different things.


jeez

 

[Catawba]

and then 3 years from now when the place goes all to hell, the bleeding hearts club will piss themselves and squeal "we've got to do something to help them" and we'll send thousands of troops back over and start the whole process over again.

It wasn't the bleeding hearts club that took us to war with Iraq in the first place. The majority of Democrats voted against authorization of force in Iraq.

Its way past time to let the Iraqis get on with the task of deciding how they wish to govern themselves, without foreign intervention.

It required a civil war for our country to come to terms with how this country was to be governed. It is likely that is what will happen in Iraq.

 

[OscarB63]

It wasn't the bleeding hearts club that took us to war with Iraq in the first place. The majority of Democrats voted against authorization of force in Iraq.

who sent us there is not the point.

Its way past time to let the Iraqis get on with the task of deciding how they wish to govern themselves, without foreign intervention.

agreed

It required a civil war for our country to come to terms with how this country was to be governed. It is likely that is what will happen in Iraq.

no arguement there. I just don't want to have to go back over there in 5 years. to hell with them

 

[Catawba]

Presuming this means that democratic infrastructure can stand on its own, great.

What if they decide they do not wish to keep the government system we set up and protected with the force of our military?

 

[Catawba]

who sent us there is not the point.

Why isn't it? Those that took us there in the first place are the ones most likely to push for us going back to protect their investments.

 

[OscarB63]

Why isn't it? Those that took us there in the first place are the ones most likely to push for us going back to protect their investments.

what investments?

 

[Catawba]

what investments?

Our military bases there, and big oils investments in Iraqi oil.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Why isn't it? Those that took us there in the first place are the ones most likely to push for us going back to protect their investments.

what investments?

Our military bases there, and big oils investments in Iraqi oil.

I agree with Catawba. The oil industry will demand the politicians they own return if their interests are threatened by an unstable government or external invasion.

 

[ecofarm]

It wasn't the bleeding hearts club that took us to war with Iraq in the first place. The majority of Democrats voted against authorization of force in Iraq.

What? House 82-126, Senate 29-21. A majority of democratic senators voted for the resolution, and plenty of the house did.

What if they decide they do not wish to keep the government system we set up and protected with the force of our military?

We'll see. It's not often that democratic nations give way to totalitarianism. They've already advanced decades in years regarding freedom, justice, equal rights and governance. I expect Iraq to develop quickly. Of course, Iraq becoming a fierce success doesn't work for you politically; too bad.

 

[Catawba]

What? House 82-126, Senate 29-21. A majority of democratic senators voted for the resolution, and plenty of the house did.

Here are the total Congressional votes on the Authorization of Force (AOF) in Iraq:

Democrats - 247 nays vs 111 ayes; Republicans - 7 nays vs 263 ayes

To summarize, a majority of Democrats voted against AOF, vs a near unanimous majority of Republicans voting for AOF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

We'll see. It's not often that democratic nations give way to totalitarianism. They've already advanced decades in years regarding freedom, justice, equal rights and governance. I expect Iraq to develop quickly. Of course, Iraq becoming a fierce success doesn't work for you politically; too bad.

Thanks for your opinion!

 

[OscarB63]

Our military bases there, and big oils investments in Iraqi oil.

hate to break it to you bub, not much in the way of investment in military bases there. they are all crapholes. and where is all this Iraqi oil I keep hearing about?

 

[ecofarm]

Last I heard, the US wasn't even getting any of the oil work contracts, let alone a good deal on oil.


@cata: where are you getting your numbers?

H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives... by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate... by a vote of 77-23.

Your link. My previous numbers are correct.

 

[Catawba]

hate to break it to you bub, not much in the way of investment in military bases there. they are all crapholes. and where is all this Iraqi oil I keep hearing about?

Last I heard, the US wasn't even getting any of the oil work contracts, let alone a good deal on oil.

You've evidently not been to or heard of the four super-bases in Iraq then Oscar. My son was stationed at Balad during his last tour of duty in Iraq. It is feakin' huge and cost billions as did the other 3 super-bases we built in Iraq. Here is some more info about them.

"When one looks closely, it becomes clear that the US is creating a two-tiered base system. In a hundred or so medium-sized bases, the Pentagon is making medium-sized investments, and handing the bases over to the Iraqis. But the US is making super-sized investments in "super-bases" - Tallil in the south, Al Asad in the west, Balad in the center and Qayyarah in the north. These bases are specifically designed not to service the Iraqis, but to provide long-term staging platforms for the US military.


Why Such Bases?
These super bases have been designed to do three things: accommodate enormous numbers of troops; concentrate on air power; and keep their occupants isolated from Iraqi society. These features are useful to the US, not Iraq.

The base at Balad, for example, already the beneficiary of a quarter billion US taxpayer dollars, is currently completing a $7-million post office, designed to receive huge quantities of international mail. Gargantuan airstrips have been built to accommodate mammoth USC-130 personnel transports and giant C-5 cargo planes. Iraq neither possesses such aircraft, nor - as indicated by declassified US Air Force documents - is it likely to, since the US has no plans to support the development of an independent Iraqi air force.

Balad is surrounded by a forbidding 12.4 mile long, 13 foot high fence whose main function is to ensure that troops do not encounter Iraqis. This is hardly a base designed for the Iraqi military. Meanwhile, at Tallil in the south, $110 million has already been spent on a dining hall to feed between 6,000 to 12,000 troops, and a center whose only purpose is to receive supplies from Kuwait (such a center only makes logical military sense from a US, not Iraqi standpoint)."
756super



Here is a link where you two can read up on how the world oil market works. Big oil was banned from Iraq for 35 years until our invasion and occupation.

BBC NEWS | Business | Oil markets explained