Obama says he's keeping his promise to take all of the troops out of Iraq.

[Dittohead not!]

Declaring victory in shaky Iraq

“I made it clear that by Aug. 31, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end,” Obama announced to cheers at the national convention of Disabled American Veterans. “And that is exactly what we are doing — as promised and on schedule.”

So, are all of the troops really going to be out of Iraq soon? Well, not exactly. All of the combat troops are going home, but a few are staying:

On the left, Iraq war skeptics must reconcile themselves to the reality that a president who shares their skepticism — Obama once called it a “dumb war” — is declaring the end to the combat mission but still proposing to leave 50,000 U.S. troops in the country.

Fifty thousand left doesn't seem like a withdrawal, exactly, does it?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

50,000 of what kind of 'troops'. Makes all the difference. I feel fine leaving some troops there for certain necessary tasks, much better than I feel about the 60k that were in Vietnam before the war there.

 

[schizoid]

Even with no formal war, the military or some other branch will stay to harvest the fruits of their labor. Whether it be the CIA or the Army, someone will stick around. An invasion would be a complete failure if their withdrawal resulted in a power vacuum or an unfriendly (to US interests) regime coming to power, the very reason for the attack in the first place.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Declaring victory in shaky Iraq





So, are all of the troops really going to be out of Iraq soon? Well, not exactly. All of the combat troops are going home, but a few are staying:



Fifty thousand left doesn't seem like a withdrawal, exactly, does it?

that's not quite what he promised..... It's easy to keep "Deadlines" when you can change the date at will. :shrug:

 

[justabubba]

that's not quite what he promised..... It's easy to keep "Deadlines" when you can change the date at will. :shrug:

how has the result been different than his promise?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

how has the result been different than his promise?

Promised "18 monts" over a several month timespan

Promise out by "aug 31st", now its begin withdrawing by aug 31st....


For starters.

 

[roughdraft274]

Promised "18 monts" over a several month timespan

Promise out by "aug 31st", now its begin withdrawing by aug 31st....


For starters.

Obama: 'By Aug. 31, 2010, Combat Mission in Iraq Will End' - ABC News

Feb. 27, 2009
President Obama made it official today, announcing that he will end U.S. combat operations for the majority U.S. troops in Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010.

Within 18 months, officials expect that 90,000 of the current 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will have withdrawn, leaving between 35,000 and 50,000 troops to train, equip and advise Iraqi Security Forces, support the Iraqi government and conduct targeted counterterrorism missions.

I'm guessing when he was elected he finally got all the details and became aware that maybe getting the majority of the troops out by 16 months after his inauguration was too quick and came up with the new strategy, which apparently he is following. He said from the very beginning that everything depends on the conditions on the ground.

I see this as good news depending on when were able to get a good bit of those 50000 troops out of there after they are done.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Obama: 'By Aug. 31, 2010, Combat Mission in Iraq Will End' - ABC News



I'm guessing when he was elected he finally got all the details and became aware that maybe getting the majority of the troops out by 16 months after his inauguration was too quick and came up with the new strategy, which apparently he is following. He said from the very beginning that everything depends on the conditions on the ground.

I see this as good news depending on when were able to get a good bit of those 50000 troops out of there after they are done.

That's fine, but then why say you did it in "18 months" as promised when all facts point to this being untrue. True a little nitpicky, but being less than honest about deployed troops and when they are coming home vs when promised. irks me.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

What's this?


Obama Drops 2009 Pledge to Withdraw Combat Troops from Iraq - IPS ipsnews.net

 

[roughdraft274]

Where did he say he did it in 18 months?

Ever since shortly after his inauguration he's said that we will start withdrawal and end the combat mission on Aug 31. That's what's happening apparently.

Are you irked that he changed the plan after he was elected or do you think he just recently changed it?

 

[spud_meister]

What's this?


Obama Drops 2009 Pledge to Withdraw Combat Troops from Iraq - IPS ipsnews.net

that article seems to have a fair bit of conjecture and spin about it, it's basically saying that because he's leaving 50,000 troops behind who are combat ready, even if they won't engage in combat, he's breaking the pledge.

it makes judicious use of words such as "may" and "implied"

WASHINGTON, Aug 3, 2010 (IPS) - Seventeen months after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by Sep. 1, 2010, he quietly abandoned that pledge Monday, admitting implicitly that such combat brigades would remain until the end of 2011.

Even the concept of "ending the U.S. combat mission" may be highly misleading, much like the concept of "withdrawing U.S. combat brigades" was in 2009.

The official also acknowledged that the troops will engage in some combat but suggested that the combat would be "mostly" for defensive purposes.

That language implied that there might be circumstances in which U.S. forces would carry out offensive operations as well.

 

[justabubba]

yes, let's complain that Obama is doing what he said he intended to do
thanks for the laugh

 

[Dittohead not!]

I suppose it can be spun whichever way the spinner wants, but the bottom line is that the US is going to have troops in Iraq and Afganistan for a very long time to come. Maybe not "combat" troops, but what other kind of troops are there in a war zone? Are they going to be like the troops we have in Germany, doing what again? Drinking beer and chasing fraulines?

That little invasion that was going to last "maybe six weeks, maybe six months, but I doubt six months" is going to last for another decade or two at least.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Where did he say he did it in 18 months?

Ever since shortly after his inauguration he's said that we will start withdrawal and end the combat mission on Aug 31. That's what's happening apparently.

Are you irked that he changed the plan after he was elected or do you think he just recently changed it?

ALL DURING THE CAMPAIGN.... :doh:


I started threads on it back then. :lol:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I suppose it can be spun whichever way the spinner wants, but the bottom line is that the US is going to have troops in Iraq and Afganistan for a very long time to come. Maybe not "combat" troops, but what other kind of troops are there in a war zone? Are they going to be like the troops we have in Germany, doing what again? Drinking beer and chasing fraulines?

That little invasion that was going to last "maybe six weeks, maybe six months, but I doubt six months" is going to last for another decade or two at least.

Whenever they are attacked, they will send out a strongly worded letter of dismay. :lol:

 

[roughdraft274]

ALL DURING THE CAMPAIGN.... :doh:


I started threads on it back then. :lol:

No need to be a dick about it. It was a question because what you were pointing out was less than obvious. After his election he addressed the troops and said we'd start pulling out Aug. 31, after talking it over with the generals, but you're getting upset that he had a different date before the election. He always said that he'd consider the conditions on the ground and he obviously did. Complaining about that seems petty at best.

You were very correct when you pointed out that your complaint was "nitpicky".

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No need to be a dick about it.

:lamo


you don't know the Good Reverend very well, that's not him being a "dick" impdaddy:

It was a question because what you were pointing out was less than obvious. After his election he addressed the troops and said we'd start pulling out Aug. 31, after talking it over with the generals, but you're getting upset that he had a different date before the election. He always said that he'd consider the conditions on the ground and he obviously did. Complaining about that seems petty at best.

You were very correct when you pointed out that your complaint was "nitpicky".

He said we would be withdraw BY aug 31, which is later than starting to withdraw "aug 31", I posted a picture from a link where they said by 31 Aug we'd have 50k troops left there.... Not that we'd start...


Also all during the campaign he claimed 18 months. he's on his 19th month as we speak.

Iraq war
Main article: Iraq War
During his presidential transition, President-elect Obama announced that he would retain the incumbent Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, in his Cabinet.[180]
On February 27, 2009, Obama declared that combat operations would end in Iraq within 18 months. His remarks were made to a group of Marines preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. Obama said, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."[181] The drawdown is scheduled to be completed by August 2010, decreasing troops levels from 142,000 while leaving a transitional force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq until the end of 2011. The plan is to transition the mission of the remaining troops from combat operations to counter-terrorism and the training, equipping, and advising of Iraqi security forces.[182]

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So is it 18 months to start? 18 months to complete?

IRAQ

STATEMENT: “Based on the conversations we’ve had internally as well as external reports, we believe that you can get one to two brigades out a month. At that pace, the forces would be out in approximately 16 months from the time that we began. That would be the time frame that I would be setting up,” Obama to the New York Times, November 1, 2007

EXPIRATION DATE: March 7, 2008: Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, to the BBC: “You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that [Obama has] crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.”

Also: July 3, 2008: “My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I’ve said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe,” Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota. “And my guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

STATEMENT: On June 14, Obama foreign-policy adviser Susan Rice called the RNC’s argument that Obama needed to go to Iraq to get a firsthand look “complete garbage.”

EXPIRATION DATE: On June 16, Obama announced he would go to Iraq and Afghanistan “so he can see first hand the progress of the wars he would inherit if he’s elected president.”

A Long Post: The Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online



Like I said, it's easy to reach your time frame when you move the due by date at will. :shrug:

 

[Chris12]

Something that can easily be said about Barack Obama, and something than even myself took into consideration when choosing whether or not to support him, was that during his campaign he had little to no idea what the limitations of being the president of the united states would be.

Him saying that in 18 months he would end the combat mission in Iraq can easily be argued that he did not complete it within his own given time limit, it can even more simply be argued that he made the date of August 31st because it gave citizens a sense of closure while also evading the fact that he had already missed his previous deadline (A distraction if you will)

However one thing that greatly bothers me about this entire conversation is that Barack Obama did as he promised in ending the combat mission in Iraq, something that many presidents have failed to do in the past with their own international conflicts.

Yes we have troops there, however for the last several months orders have been circulating to allow the local guard handle any issue's within Iraq (AKA their own police force) The point being that we are easing our way out of Iraq to make sure that the government we have set up does not completely collapse in on itself.

Again it is reasonable to complain that he did not complete his promise in his given amount of time, but the fact that nearly everyone in the nation was aware that Obama did not actually know his resources, and the fact that upon taking office he gave us a new, and very concrete date (That was not to far off in either direction) leads me to believe that "nitpicking" the fact that a president did not complete one of his campaign promises on time is very idiotic. Frankly because campaign promises are not officially recorded as presidential statements (Because at that moment they are not president) the American citizen is going to have to be flexible, he is only human, and no matter what candidate you put forth, they are bound to do something wrong, even if it is not in a timely fashion.

So if i may be so bold as to say, the simple fact that he is actually taking a campaign promise into action is causing me to double take. His presidential address to the nation impressed me in a time that i was very strongly beginning to dislike Obama.

So please, in this one situation, out of all the things we could choose to complain about, can we please just look at this one as a win, even if it was not done as quickly as we may have wanted?

 

[Catawba]

I suppose it can be spun whichever way the spinner wants, but the bottom line is that the US is going to have troops in Iraq and Afganistan for a very long time to come. Maybe not "combat" troops, but what other kind of troops are there in a war zone? Are they going to be like the troops we have in Germany, doing what again? Drinking beer and chasing fraulines?

That little invasion that was going to last "maybe six weeks, maybe six months, but I doubt six months" is going to last for another decade or two at least.

While I am very disappointed in Obama for not bringing the the troops from Iraq home immediately, I knew he was a moderate hawk and much more pragmatic than myself when I voted for him. However, if he sticks to the agreement to have ALL troops out by the end of 2011, we are still better than we would have been under McCain, who was fine with having troops there for a hundred years, like in South Korea.

However, if he does not have all troops out of Iraq by the end of this year, he will face a difficult race in 2012.

 

[OscarB63]

Are you irked that he changed the plan after he was elected or do you think he just recently changed it?

well...he did promise change. we just weren't expecting that it would be his promises that kept changing

 

[OscarB63]

However, if he does not have all troops out of Iraq by the end of this year, he will face a difficult race in 2012.

doubtful, the diehard libs will find some reason to excuse it and vote for him anyway.

 

[Wiseone]

Obama has changed a few of his promises or "commitments" which is often used as a a weaker word than promise since it essentially means "Ill try hard" rather than "I will." However things in war never stay the same, and whats more important is that he makes a pragmatic decision towards an achievable goal instead of trying to keep a promise made years, a year, or months ago.

Which is why when I heard Obama moved back the timetable on Iraq and Afghanistan, I thought "Thats probably a good idea looking at the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the political situation in the US."

 

[OscarB63]

Obama has changed a few of his promises or "commitments" which is often used as a a weaker word than promise since it essentially means "Ill try hard" rather than "I will." However things in war never stay the same, and whats more important is that he makes a pragmatic decision towards an achievable goal instead of trying to keep a promise made years, a year, or months ago.

Which is why when I heard Obama moved back the timetable on Iraq and Afghanistan, I thought "Thats probably a good idea looking at the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the political situation in the US."

Don't make promises you can't or don't intend to keep. It was stupid of Obama to ever put a timetable on the withdrawal of troops. IMHO, he only did it to pander for votes from the anti-war crowd.

 

[Wiseone]

Don't make promises you can't or don't intend to keep. It was stupid of Obama to ever put a timetable on the withdrawal of troops. IMHO, he only did it to pander for votes from the anti-war crowd.

Time lines are fine as long as they aren't followed without regard for anything else, but there's no denying that a timeline can help with getting people working faster and give them a stick to measure their progress by. As for the promises ya I wouldn't have made them either, but the demands of the people ya know?

 

[Catawba]

Obama has changed a few of his promises or "commitments" which is often used as a a weaker word than promise since it essentially means "Ill try hard" rather than "I will." However things in war never stay the same, and whats more important is that he makes a pragmatic decision towards an achievable goal instead of trying to keep a promise made years, a year, or months ago.

Which is why when I heard Obama moved back the timetable on Iraq and Afghanistan, I thought "Thats probably a good idea looking at the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the political situation in the US."

The Iraqis have made it very clear they want all US troops out by the end of this year. We have an agreement to that effect. If we respect the sovereignty of Iraq we will honor that agreement. If Obama doesn't honor that agreement than he would not be considering what the Iraqi people want, or what the American people want, and that will hurt him in the 2012 election in my opinion.