War In Iraq Officially Over

[mortify]

He waited long because the war is not over

[OnlySunshine]

[quote name='MaterMisericordiae' timestamp='1319255299' post='2325010']
Is anyone else worried that it could cause the Taliban to retaliate if we pull out too quickly? This has been a worry of mine for a while and something I don't want to see happen. I'm not of the belief that we should have sent the troops over there so quickly, anyway, but drawing them out too fast could cause something terrible to happen if we aren't too careful. It makes me wonder if that is why Obama waited so long?
[/quote]

Whoops! I meant to say Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, although, that could still be a risk.

[Maccabeus]

imo, they should have pulled out the moment they got Saddam, thus saved themselves the recession etc.

[BG45]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1319235124' post='2324870']
Afghanistan? Not so much. It's business as usual there and the people are merely biding their time until we go away and leave them alone. So bringing any lasting change there is...more like a pipe dream.
[/quote]

Have to agree. The last person who successfully held Afghanistan after invading it was Alexander the Great, and as soon as he died, his generals were thrown off by the populace in record time. And that was effectively holding the country, not like the British, the Russians, and now the US control it by controlling the major cities and nothing else...

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

hopefully iz good news and iraq can live in peace again without the threat of death from all sides including islamic extremists.

[MithLuin]

Leaving is tricky, yes, but that's why we've been training the local forces to take our place. The last time my brother-in-law was stationed in Iraq (maybe...4 years ago?), they were sending Iraqi forces out on patrols, not Americans. The idea is not to leave a vaccuum...in politics, in power, in arms, however you want to measure that. I would think the local forces are ready to hold the fort down at some point here, but...there are some interesting caveats.

For one thing, the people we're fighting there aren't (for the most part) Iraqis. They're from other countries and came for the chance to shoot at Americans. Seriously, it's a lot easier to do it in Iraq than it is to try to get to the US to do it. So...remove the American troops, and suddenly their incentive for being there decreases. It is thus [i]possible[/i] that some of the problems will dissappear when we do. There's also plenty of people who would like to take over the country, be the next Saddam Hussein. So, the US forces leaving will be seen as an auspicious time to make a power grab. So, no matter when/how we leave, it will be a major change and shake up, with lots of people doing rash things in the (hopefully temporary) chaos.

But you don't drag out leaving, because that just puts the troops at risk. You make the decision, and then you do it.

[4588686]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1319303013' post='2325204']
Leaving is tricky, yes, but that's why we've been training the local forces to take our place. The last time my brother-in-law was stationed in Iraq (maybe...4 years ago?), they were sending Iraqi forces out on patrols, not Americans. The idea is not to leave a vaccuum...in politics, in power, in arms, however you want to measure that. I would think the local forces are ready to hold the fort down at some point here, but...there are some interesting caveats.

For one thing, the people we're fighting there aren't (for the most part) Iraqis. They're from other countries and came for the chance to shoot at Americans. Seriously, it's a lot easier to do it in Iraq than it is to try to get to the US to do it. So...remove the American troops, and suddenly their incentive for being there decreases. It is thus [i]possible[/i] that some of the problems will dissappear when we do. There's also plenty of people who would like to take over the country, be the next Saddam Hussein. So, the US forces leaving will be seen as an auspicious time to make a power grab. So, no matter when/how we leave, it will be a major change and shake up, with lots of people doing rash things in the (hopefully temporary) chaos.

But you don't drag out leaving, because that just puts the troops at risk. You make the decision, and then you do it.
[/quote]


Obama's pretense, that this was necessitated by the Iraqi government's refusal to extend immunity to US troops from Iraqi law, seems rather flimsy. And given the immense blood and treasure and the geopolitical dangers at stake (Iraq becoming a puppet state for Iran) this seems like a rushed decision.

I disagree that no matter when we left there would be an equal chance of chaos erupting. The odds of the Iraqi state collapsing absent the US presence today is significantly lower than it was four years ago and I don't see any reason that 4 years from now those odds wouldn't be further diminished. The initial invasion of Iraq was a disaster, domestically and internationally, but it was a decision that we made and I think we have a pretty serious responsibility, to ourselves and to the Iraqi people, to ensure the best outcome possible. I don't think that leaving the still fledgling Iraqi government even more to the mercy of Iran is the best way to ensure that. Even if the Iraqi presence became a purely symbolic presence (although it would almost certainly have real strategic value at least for our special operations forces) it would still show America's commitment to the future of the Iraqi state, while this signals to Iran that we want out and won't be returning.