What's going to happen when Obama pulls troops out of Iraq?
- Thread starter Scarpozzi
- Start date
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
I don't who this "they" is you refer to, but what makes you think Obama will actually pull the troops out in his 16 month timetable?
- Jun 13, 2000
- 26,391
- 1,780
- 126
Frostedflakes picked up on my sarcasm.
I think he'll do it in conjunction to cutting military spending. It should be done....as long as the ground command agrees. The problem is that staying there isn't really decreasing attacks. For instance:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq
US News media only picks up on some of the stories. There are still kidnappings and a lot of violence over there. We almost need to find ourselves another dictator to go over there and put a stranglehold on the violence.
I know the current Status of Forces agreement is saying the end of 2011, but I believe that is a deadline rather than a guarantee. Seeing how well things are going in Iraq, I can see leaving mid 2010 as a feasible solution. There is no reason to believe the Iraqi Army and citizens wont be able to take over full control by then. We are, after all, doing far more over there these days than just driving around killing insurgents.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Iraq will collapse no matter how long we stay. We are the stabilizing force there, taking over the role of Saddam. When we leave, the Iraqis will revert to whatever fate would have awaited them regardless. We'll do just as the Brits did, playing our "noble" card, then blaming the Iraqis when they don't toe our line when we leave. It's now all about saving face.
Topic: What's going to happen when Obama pulls troops out of Iraq?
We couldn't safely get out of Iraq in 2 years if we wanted to - force levels are around 145k IIRC.
I think the DoD feels that they can safety pull two brigades a month with their equipment and support elements. I would guess you would see 3 or 4 brigades rotate out with maybe one specialized group rotating back in.
While US troops are 'confined' and evacuated I betcha the Article 140 vote will take place and Kurdistan will effectively be partitioned from 'Arab' Iraq. The Shia will continue to resist Sunni indoctrination - they may pay 'lip service' - so 'Arab' Iraq will be 'partitioned' in a fashion.
So this is how it pretty much breaks down ...
Kurds - standing army around 125k
Iraq 'Arab' - regular army around 125k primarily Shia
Mahdi 'Army' - hard to say, I've seen 'guesstimates' of up to 45k+ including sympathizers but I'll guess 18k loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr (maintaining his 'truce') and 7k 'hardcore' Mahdi that will fight at the drop of a head scarf
"Concerned Local Citizens" - the Sons of Iraq, Sunni, armed and paid by the US. Probably around 85k. The Gov't has shown no interest in paying them their $300/month or rolling elements into the regular Iraqi Army.
When the Sunni get a perceived 'shaft' it might get wacky - the Gov't is still dragging on 're-Bathification' and oil revenue sharing. If the Sunni feel screwed look for the Saudi border to open to more 'insurgent' elements.
We couldn't safely get out of Iraq in 2 years if we wanted to - force levels are around 145k IIRC.
I think the DoD feels that they can safety pull two brigades a month with their equipment and support elements. I would guess you would see 3 or 4 brigades rotate out with maybe one specialized group rotating back in.
While US troops are 'confined' and evacuated I betcha the Article 140 vote will take place and Kurdistan will effectively be partitioned from 'Arab' Iraq. The Shia will continue to resist Sunni indoctrination - they may pay 'lip service' - so 'Arab' Iraq will be 'partitioned' in a fashion.
So this is how it pretty much breaks down ...
Kurds - standing army around 125k
Iraq 'Arab' - regular army around 125k primarily Shia
Mahdi 'Army' - hard to say, I've seen 'guesstimates' of up to 45k+ including sympathizers but I'll guess 18k loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr (maintaining his 'truce') and 7k 'hardcore' Mahdi that will fight at the drop of a head scarf
"Concerned Local Citizens" - the Sons of Iraq, Sunni, armed and paid by the US. Probably around 85k. The Gov't has shown no interest in paying them their $300/month or rolling elements into the regular Iraqi Army.
When the Sunni get a perceived 'shaft' it might get wacky - the Gov't is still dragging on 're-Bathification' and oil revenue sharing. If the Sunni feel screwed look for the Saudi border to open to more 'insurgent' elements.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
How are those costs calculated?
Technically infrastructure is contracted to American companies, troops wages are spent at home, manufacture of weapons and equipment is technology intensive and all done at home.
I really question how much money is actually "saved" by ending the war. Don't get me wrong i do not support the war and I'd like to see a pull out but you aren't going to save $10B a month...that's just politicians simplifying things for the sheep.
$10B on military won't harm or benefit the economy any more than spending on healthcare.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
But seriously: American soldiers will stop being crippled or dying to act as another nation's security force.
Iraq has oil money piling up, they can take over paying the mercs we've allowed to work there, and/or they can keep up the bribes to tribal chiefs to stay on the government's side.
But seriously: American soldiers will stop being crippled or dying to act as another nation's security force.
Iraq has oil money piling up, they can take over paying the mercs we've allowed to work there, and/or they can keep up the bribes to tribal chiefs to stay on the government's side.
Except healthcare will benefit the citzens of this country instead of a foreign one. It may not matter to you but there will be less US soldiers killed & injured.
it's like asking what's going to happen when Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny get drunk and go to Vegas.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
Exceedingly very well put
When we leave Iraq will fall into "civil unrest", or have a military coup where a military leader takes over their country. I don't agree with going over there in the first place, but now that we are we *should* be there as long as needed.
On a side note I got in a huge debate with a friend in the military about this, and he said we needed to go over there. I asked why, and his response was "when an Iraqi woman runs up to a buddy of mine thanking him for removing Saddam, because he killed her whole family". Frankly I don't care. We went over there publicly because of WMD's, not for the ethical/moral/help the people stuff. We have yet to find WMD's, and while Saddam might have moved them out of the country we went for that reason but couldn't find ANY evidence/proof of it. When I mentioned that, he said "we found WMD's a few months ago" so obviously I asked for proof and what did we find. He says "we found a stash of explosives that were made to look like (some random item found in every house, but I forget what exactly he said. I kind of think he said they looked like lamps)." Iraq was/is the Vietnam of the first decade of the 21st century, and will be known as a war that we shouldn't have been involved in.
Who cares if we found them. They had them at some point; all we asked for was proof they got rid of them, which they would not provide. Running around telling the world you have WOMD does not help your cause, either. The WOMD category generally includes chemical and biological weapons. Saddam launched mustard gas as the Kurds regularly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter