Poll: Do you consider that Obama kept his promise re Iraq Pull-Out

[Infohawk]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-ive-kept-promise-on-iraq-pullout-2066411.html

President Barack Obama will mark a promise kept in a speech today, declaring the end of America's combat mission in Iraq and wagering the wobbly Baghdad government can hold together against a still-dangerous uprising.

After taking office, the president vowed to withdraw all but 50,000 US troops by August 31, a reduction of about 90,000 forces by the end of his first 20 months in office.

...

The remaining US contingent, slightly fewer than 50,000, still faces a dangerous task in its mission to train Iraqi forces, to join Iraqi troops in targeted anti-terror operations and to protect Americans who remain in the country.

Mission Accomplished Part Deux? Comon. There's more troops in Iraq than in South Korea. I've posted other stories indicating Americans are still in fire-fights. What kind of bogus definition of combat operations is this? Bad political move. Best just to let it go. Don't go out of your way to brag about keeping a promise when it's debatable you actually did.

 

[nageov3t]

he could learn some lessons from Rome.

"Septimius Severus, wary of banging his head against the walls of Hatra, did what any good leader would do: declare victory and leave."

it seemed fortuitous that I was listening to my History of Rome podcasts yesterday, considering that ancient Hatra is in modern-day Iraq.

 

[Anarchist420]

I voted no, because the cost of the occupation is actually about to go up.

 

[Thump553]

He did exactly what he promised to do and in exact accordance with his promised timetable.

I can see how people may disagree with what he proposed, but the point of this poll is completely beyond me. You could have a poll as to whether this was a good solution, whether this solution will work, etc-those would make some sense.

But I guess there are some people who feel compelled to bash Obama no matter what.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I voted no, because the cost of the occupation is actually about to go up.

you still blowing smoke out your ass??

 

[dfuze]

While I am happy to see them come home, I think doing so could spell disaster as the Afghan gov is not ready to run the country and I think things will go south real fast. Keeping this promise may not be the best thing.

 

[Infohawk]

While I am happy to see them come home, I think doing so could spell disaster as the Afghan gov is not ready to run the country and I think things will go south real fast. Keeping this promise may not be the best thing.

We're talking Iraq here. Nobody says troops are out of Afghanistan.

 

[Infohawk]

He did exactly what he promised to do and in exact accordance with his promised timetable.

I can see how people may disagree with what he proposed, but the point of this poll is completely beyond me. You could have a poll as to whether this was a good solution, whether this solution will work, etc-those would make some sense.

But I guess there are some people who feel compelled to bash Obama no matter what.

Are you suggesting I like to bash Obama no matter what?

So you really think when Obama was running for election he meant, "I'm going to withdraw our troops (except for the 50,000 soldiers I'll call non-combatants but that actually will be in combat?" You think that's what people thought he meant?

 

[woolfe9999]

Are you suggesting I like to bash Obama no matter what?

So you really think when Obama was running for election he meant, "I'm going to withdraw our troops (except for the 50,000 soldiers I'll call non-combatants but that actually will be in combat?" You think that's what people thought he meant?

Your thread topic title and poll frame the issue very simply: did Obama keep his promise re: Iraq? This isn't about whether we approve of Obama's Iraq policy; it's about whether he kept his promise. So, if you think he didn't keep his promise, then I suggest quoting him, and describing what he actually did so that we can see the descrepancy.

- wolf

 

[DaveSimmons]

McCain agreed with Obama's plan:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/obama.troops/index.html

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, however, said in a speech on the Senate floor that he believes Obama's decision is "reasonable" and that he is "cautiously optimistic that the plan that is laid out by the president can lead to success."

McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that a "failing situation in Iraq has been arrested and reversed" due to the "dramatic success of the surge strategy."

He also praised Obama's willingness to leave behind a significant residual force and reassess the situation if conditions change in the future.

 

[Infohawk]

McCain agreed with Obama's plan:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/obama.troops/index.html

McCain is a source of authority?

 

[DaveSimmons]

McCain is a source of authority?

On war? certainly more than you are:

"McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, . . ."

 

[Infohawk]

On war? certainly more than you are:

"McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, . . ."

And GWB was commander in chief of the US armed forces. I guess he was a real military genius according to you...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Also, from here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

"This is consistent with Obama's promises from the campaign, when he emphasized removing combat troops but keeping other types of troops. Here's what Obama said at debate on Jan. 15, 2008: "We are going to have to protect our embassy. Were going to have to protect our civilians. We"re engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. ... but it is not going to be engaged in a war, and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that George Bush seems to be intent on.""

 

[woolfe9999]

I note we're still on the topic of whether or not this is a good policy, and avoiding the original topic of whether or not the promise was actually kept...

Edit: posted this without first seeing DaveSimmons on topic post.

- wolf

 

[Carmen813]

Seems consistent with what he has advocated doing all along.

 

[Infohawk]

Also, from here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

"This is consistent with Obama's promises from the campaign, when he emphasized removing combat troops but keeping other types of troops. Here's what Obama said at debate on Jan. 15, 2008: "We are going to have to protect our embassy. Were going to have to protect our civilians. We"re engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. ... but it is not going to be engaged in a war, and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that George Bush seems to be intent on.""

How do those 50,000 troops all fit into an embassy? Amazing.

Reality check: If you're exchanging gunfire you're still in combat.

 

[dfuze]

We're talking Iraq here. Nobody says troops are out of Afghanistan.

Oops, my mistake, but same premise would still apply. Iraq isn't in a position to handle things on its own at this point.