Some good news and its about time we got out of there.. Unfortunately it looks like we might be in Afghanistan for quite sometime.. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/01military.html?src=mv Obama Declares End to U.S. Iraq Combat By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and HELENE COOPER Published: August 31, 2010 Recommend Twitter comments (205) Sign In to E-Mail Print Single Page Reprints Share CloseLinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink WASHINGTON — President Obama formally declared an end to the combat mission in Iraq Tuesday night, telling the nation that, after seven years of war that claimed more than 4,400 American lives, it is ‘’time to turn the page’’ toward another war, Afghanistan, and toward pressing problems at home. Doug Mills/The New York Times President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office about the end of combat in Iraq on Tuesday night. Multimedia Interactive Feature Drawing Down and Moving Ahead in Iraq Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog » Related Text: President Obama’s Address on Iraq (September 1, 2010) Readers' Comments Share your thoughts. Post a Comment » Read All Comments (205) » In an address from the Oval Office – only his second as president – Mr. Obama reminded Americans that, in giving responsibility for Iraqi security to the Iraqis, he was fulfilling a promise he made while running for office. He conceded that Americans are ‘’understandably asking tough questions’’ about Afghanistan, but urged the nation to stick with him on that war. “We must never lose sight of what’s at stake,’’ Mr. Obama said. Sounding much like his predecessor, former President George W. Bush, he warned, “As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us.’’ But it was clear that, at a time when Americans are anxious about the economy, Mr. Obama also wanted to use the address to pivot toward problems at home. As he praised the courage and resolve of the American troops, he reminded the nation of the blood and treasure that had been spilled during the Iraq war, and said it is time for him to focus on his “central responsibility’’ as president: restoring the economic health of the nation. “At this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad,’’ Mr. Obama said. “They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for – the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.’’ Mr. Obama also spoke directly to Iraqi leaders, urging them to “move forward with a sense of urgency’’ to form a government – a task that has eluded them since elections were held there earlier this year. He vowed Iraq would have ‘’a strong partner in the United States,’’ declaring, “Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.’’ For Mr. Obama, who had opposed the Iraq war from the outset, one of the central challenges of the speech was conveying to the nation that he did not believe those killed had lost their lives in vain. Another was whether – or how – to mention former President Bush, who was the architect of the 2007 troop buildup, opposed by Mr. Obama, that many military experts say helped stabilize Iraq enough to make the troop withdrawal possible. Many Republicans, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, had called on the president to publicly credit his predecessor for the surge policy. Mr. Obama did not. Mentioning that he had spoken by telephone with Mr. Bush earlier in the day, he said, “It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from the outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his live of country and commitment to our security.” Earlier in the day, he had said that there is a “tough slog” ahead in the war in Afghanistan, as he told troops in Fort Bliss, Texas, on Tuesday. Speaking just hours before he delivered the Oval Office address, he addressed the situation in Iraq, where some 50,000 troops will remain until next year in a mainly advisory and training role, Mr. Obama warned that the American mission was not yet accomplished. Mr. Obama told the troops that his address was “not going to be a victory lap; it’s not going to be self-congratulatory. There’s still a lot of work.”
Its nice to see the republicans come out and not be petty about this, pointing out that they supported the surge and Obama didn't and that's really what got the win.
At the time, and really back in '90, I really thought overthrowing a murderous psychopathic dictator was a righteous cause the whole free world should get behind and that the war was about the liberation of the Iraqi people. In hindsight, Saddam might have been just taking the steps he thought necessary to govern a factious, violent people; in the face of an Iranian/Shiite threat. Like The Shah of Iran and the Saudi Royal family, a measure of cruelty might have been required if the other alternative is mass chaos and sectarian war.
at the very least how about if we just mind our own business. we backed saddam while he was killing his own people and during his war w/ iran provided arms and support (we also covertly supported iran and used the profits to fund terrorism and drug dealing in latin america). we overthrew irans democratically elected leader, mossadeq in 53 and put in the shah, who killed a quarter million iranians. we are totally in bed w/ the saudi royal family despite them being one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. imo, to say its either we invade or its mass chaos is a false choice - in many cases we are the ones creating or instigating the chaos.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-29/iraq-mission-accomplished-or-just-semantics-and-broken-promises/ Iraq: Mission Accomplished – Or Just Semantics and Broken Promises? by Ron Paul 08/30/2010 Amid much fanfare last week the last supposed combat troops left Iraq as the administration touted the beginning of the end of the Iraq war and a change in the role of the United States in that country. Considering the continued public frustration with the war effort and with the growing laundry list of broken promises, this was merely another one of those administration operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq war is at last ending. However, military officials confirm that we are committed to intervention in that country for years to come, and our operations have in fact changed minimally, if really at all. After eight long draining years I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore. The end of a war to most people means all the troops come home, out of harm’s way. It means we stop killing people and getting killed. It means we stop sending troops and armed personnel over and draining our treasury for military operations in that foreign land. But much like the infamous “mission accomplished” moment of the last administration, this end of the war also means none of those things. 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and they’re still receiving combat pay. One soldier was killed in Basra just last Sunday, after the supposed end of combat operations, and the same day 5,000 men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Division at Fort Hood were deployed to Iraq. Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay because they will be serving a combat role. Of course the number of private contractors who perform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lot more money, is expected to double. So this is a funny way of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are still meddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men and women in danger and we are still spending money we don’t have. This looks more like an escalation than a draw-down to me. The ongoing war in Iraq takes place against a backdrop of economic crises at home, as fresh numbers indicate that our economic situation is as bad as ever and getting worse. Our foreign policy is based on the illusion that we are actually paying for it. What we’re doing is borrowing and printing the money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as our economic decline continues. Unemployed Americans have been questioning a policy that shifts hundreds of billions of dollars overseas while their own communities crumble and their frustration is growing. An end to this type of a foreign policy is way overdue. A return to the traditional American foreign policy of active private engagement and non-interventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.
I almost always agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy or military issues. Thanks for posting that Jo.
good post.. great more double speak from our leaders.. Obviously I am no Obama fan but the one thing I hope he would do and I support is getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Except there was no win. Are you kidding? The Shia ethnically cleansed Baghdad so some of the killing has stopped as there are virtually no mixed neighborhoods there. We left behind a complete mess that is worse than when we first occupied Iraq. There are still millions of refugees internally in Iraq and in Syria and throughout the world. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. We have still forces fighting and dying there. They aren't called "combat" forces. We still have our huge bases that we will continue to occupy perhaps for generations. Despite the cluster**** Bush created in Iraq. I don't begrudge Obama doing a fake end to the war, provided he actually does end it sometime.
It depends on where you draw your line to define "we". At the time I considered myself a part of the human race along with the Iraqi people who needed freeing. Sometimes my "we" stops at my front door.
Unfortunately, that will never happen. As Dubious pointed out, the people over there need a dictator in place like Sadam. Now, we are the dictator. Democracy has never worked in that part of the world and it never will. Just ask Winston Churchill: Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it...right?
i draw the line at propping up and supporting dictatorial regimes. saddam only became who he was b/c of support from the reagan administration. and how many innocent iraqis died and how much destruction was done to their country in our attempt to 'free' them from the very guy we put in power in the first place? how many iraqi children died in the 90's as a result of clintons sanctions?
Saddam was propped up as a counter to Iran, who appeared at the time to be the greater "radicalized" threat under the the enemy of my enemy doctrine. And if we hand't done it, the Soviets would have. It was a sh**ty choice among a cluster of sh**ty choices that only seems wrong after the passage of time. Also remember The Shah was an ally against the Soviets too which at the time seemed to be the #1 threat to the US.
