US combat in Iraq began in March 2003, and it will end in August 2010, according to plans unveiled by President Obama this morning. The commander in chief spoke at Camp Lejeune, NC, explaining that 35,000-50,000 troops will remain in Iraq after August 2010 as a transitional force. About 142,000 troops currently serve in Iraq.
Obama's cautious approach stems from Iraq's dangerous reality. The president explained:
But let there be no doubt: Iraq is not yet secure, and there will be difficult days ahead. Violence will continue to be a part of life in Iraq. Too many fundamental political questions about Iraq’s future remain unresolved. . . . And even as Iraq’s government is on a surer footing, it is not yet a full partner – politically and economically – in the region, or with the international community.
You can read the full text of the speech here. One part almost sounded like it came straight from a Bush speech. Of course, praise for the troops knows no political party. Obama said:
To this very day, there are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer, and some who want to leave faster. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved. And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.
And of course, Obama got a resounding applause (and some chuckles) when he said he would raise military pay. Do you agree with Obama's plan to end the war in Iraq?
My-Wardrobe.com
I think the plan sounds good as long as there is room for it to be changed if there is an incident or security declines...
As for the pay, eh, Bush raised pay too so I don't think thats a big deal unless he means significantly.
1Not soon enough for me, but at last there's an end in sight.
2The problem I have with this is that the troops left there will be "Peacekeeping." In the past, that has put them in a vulnerable position where they basically can't do anything unless they have actually been attacked, shot at, or whatever. I just worry about putting them in danger.
3modus - thats an intersting point because more deaths now are coming from troops embedded with the iraqi forces. the iraqi forces are just not ready and we need to help them, but helping them is a very dangerous job.
4Things might be different (and I hope they are) but my cousin was a "Peacekeeper" in Kosovo and he said it was almost worse than combat because they were so restricted.
5just get every troop - UK and US out NOW!
6I agree with Modus. I also worry about the 'peacekeeping' troops. I know all troops face a great danger in being in Iraq, but I'm afraid that risk will be even greater once we take x number out and leave x number in. I also agree with haus in that it needs to be a flexible plan in the event things turn bad or their is an incident.
I am very glad to hear that there is a plan though.
7I am glad there is a plan, and that they arent just pulling out super quick (and anyone who says to do that clearly doesnt understand military actions and the reality behind them) my BIL is in afghanistan and asked to not to be pulled out.
8This is a question from someone who is completely ignorant of how the military works: What happens to all the troops now? Will they go other places, be let back into the US workforce, what?
9They all come home and continue training or do other jobs (ie. move around, the military doesnt usually move a family when the spouse is deployed so there's probably some moving around to be done).
Chances are a lot of them will go back to Afghanistan. The rest will just continue to train until their number is called.
But they won't be able to get out of their contracts any earlier unless there is some kind of special circumstance (ie like the Air Force cutting down its officer ranks by letting people out early)
10Speaking of getting out early! Obama said that he put the funding to grow the military?? Uh no. Bush did that. He wanted to expand it and got the ball rolling, Obama is just not changing that.
11haus!
First - thanks for the info.
And YES! I was wondering what was bothering me... I thought that Obama was cutting military spending - what's this about?
Also, I find it ironic that the great critic of Bush'd policies in Iraq now thinks that we are doing a good enough job to leave it in a year. I'm sure I must be missing something, but this is how it reads to me.
12A lot of the troops in Iraq are reservists and national guardsmen, they will go back to their regular jobs.
13my dia - yes you are right! i was thinking of active duty military types
krank - I thought that too. Because the fact is that it was the surge that allowed us, or at very least was a huge part of what allowed us, to get to this point. The surge that he voted against and never acknoledged the success of.
14for active duty, you go back to your jobs in the military at home, but you probably leave for Afghanistan a year later. Unless you are part of the small group left behind in Iraq (shudder) When you are not fighting a war, you still have your military job at home- training, practice, etc....
15Actually, Obama said the surge of U.S. troops has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."
16See, I figured that I missed something, actually I missed two thing... thanks haus and TS for some context.
17yea after he was pressed and was campaigning. he went on and on for months before that saying it wasn't successful.
18Yay we have a plan
19Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.