US willing to leave 10K troops in Iraq past 2011

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-iraq-20110706,0,1121046.story

(excerpt)

<NOTE: Headline shortened to fit>

ARTICLE HEADLINE: U.S. willing to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq past year's end, officials say

Reporting from Washington and Baghdad— The White House is prepared to keep as many as 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of the year, amid growing concern that the planned pullout of virtually all remaining American forces would lead to intensified militant attacks, according to U.S. officials.

Keeping troops in Iraq after the deadline for their departure at the end of December would require agreement of Iraq's deeply divided government, which is far from certain. The Iraqis so far have not made a formal request for U.S. troops to remain, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Some powerful Iraqi political forces are staunchly opposed to a continued U.S. presence.

The Obama administration has been debating how large a force to propose leaving in Iraq. It made its proposal now in hopes of spurring a request from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government, and to give the Pentagon time to plan, the officials said.

The troops would be based around Baghdad and in a small number of other strategic locations around the country, the officials said.

Noting that Iraq had not asked yet for troops to stay, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: "There's only so much time here available for the Iraqi government to make such a request. If they do, we will consider it. Otherwise, we are keeping on schedule."

Unless Iraq asks for a change in its 2008 agreement with the George W. Bush administration, only about 200 active-duty troops would remain as advisors after December, the officials said. More than 166,000 American troops were in Iraq in 2007 when the U.S. military presence there peaked. There are about 46,000 remaining.

The idea of keeping any U.S. forces in Iraq remains deeply controversial, both in Iraq and the United States. Maliki faces pressure from hard-line members of his governing coalition not to extend the U.S. presence, and some American lawmakers strongly favor bringing all the remaining troops out on schedule.

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama promised to end the conflict in Iraq, and after taking office, he pledged to abide by the deadline. But administration officials have also signaled that they would be open to discussions with Maliki's government about extending the U.S. presence.

Though violence in Iraq has greatly diminished in recent years, car bombs and other attacks remain an almost daily occurrence. Iraqi and U.S. officers say that Iraq continues to need assistance, both in dealing with insurgents and in training its army and air force.

Iraqi government officials are divided on whether the Americans should stay. Of the country's major ethnic and religious groups, only the Kurds have come out publicly in favor of U.S. forces staying. In private, Maliki is thought to want troops to stay, but his Islamic Dawa Party released a statement in mid-June declaring that American troops should honor the agreement to leave at the end of the year.

Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr's political movement is strongly opposed to the presence of U.S. forces and probably would present the biggest obstacle to large numbers of American troops remaining. Maliki needs Sadr's support to stay in office. Political leaders are expected to convene a meeting this week to discuss power-sharing in the Iraqi government, but they are also likely to broach the issue of whether American troops should be authorized to stay on.

Sami Askari, a senior member of Maliki's State of Law alliance who played a key role in negotiating the 2008 agreement, said political rifts in Iraq make it far more difficult this time to keep American forces on the ground.

"Maliki in 2008 took the lead on pushing everyone to agree on this; now he can't do that. Why would he do that and pay the political price?" Askari said. "It is madness for him to do this without being assured of support from others."

U.S. officials are concerned that Iraqi politicians will only make a decision after most or all of the remaining U.S. troops already have left, forcing the White House into the politically difficult position of deciding whether to send some forces back.

[robbase]

and why would this be totally unexpected? we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy, etc. after various conflicts so why not keep some in Iraq after the war too? Not saying that I agree, but past experience indicates this would not be a great surprise.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 6, 2011 12:31:10 GMT -5 @robbase said:

and why would this be totally unexpected? we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy, etc. after various conflicts so why not keep some in Iraq after the war too? Not saying that I agree, but past experience indicates this would not be a great surprise.

As I said before here, it is not up to us..it is all on Malicki and the Iraquis..Iran wants us out, Sadr, the militant and powerful cleric , he escaped to iran for a few years, wants us out..iran is trying to influence iraq and put them under their wing, and want desperatly all American forces out of the area..Iran has the support of many pro iranian gropups and it hhas been said Malicki feels if he askes Americans to stay he could be assasinated, iran, sader, the pro iranian groups at any time..

Whether he asks us to stay, I wonder, in a way, doubt it, I feel if asked then good..we should have a presence there for a while , but time is running out...

[ed1066]

As I said before here, it is not up to us..it is all on Malicki and the Iraquis

It's not up to us how we deploy our military forces? I know Obama is a "citizen of the world" and all, but that's ridiculous...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 6, 2011 12:31:10 GMT -5 @robbase said:

and why would this be totally unexpected? we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy, etc. after various conflicts so why not keep some in Iraq after the war too? Not saying that I agree, but past experience indicates this would not be a great surprise.

...good point... and just curious, but what would be the arguments against having a somewhat permanent installation in the area?

[deziloooooo]

Jul 6, 2011 13:06:34 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

As I said before here, it is not up to us..it is all on Malicki and the Iraquis

It's not up to us how we deploy our military forces? I know Obama is a "citizen of the world" and all, but that's ridiculous...

As far as where to deploy the troiops, regarding Iraq, if they do not invite us, we have to go...unless your saying we have the right to impose our troops on them..to stay even if they ask us to go..the agreement has already been signed and delivered, we are out of there at the end of the year..

If you are saying that..wen have the right to over ride our sined agreement with them..then IMHO your idea is what is rediculouse

[deziloooooo]

dupe again

[deziloooooo]

dupe

[cme1201]

Jul 6, 2011 13:07:07 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 6, 2011 12:31:10 GMT -5 @robbase said:

and why would this be totally unexpected? we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy, etc. after various conflicts so why not keep some in Iraq after the war too? Not saying that I agree, but past experience indicates this would not be a great surprise.

...good point... and just curious, but what would be the arguments against having a somewhat permanent installation in the area?

With Pledges to Troops and Iraqis, Obama Details Pullout Published: February 27, 2009
www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html
CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — President Obama declared the beginning of the end of one of the longest and most divisive wars in American history on Friday as he announced that he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011.

That's just One.

Here is Candidate Obama in his own words.
Obama Says That His First Action as President Would be to Bring U.S. Troops Home from Iraq January 5, 2008
blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/322

Barack Obama: Well, we will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will give them a new assignment and that is to bring our troops home in a careful, responsible way, but to end this occupation in Iraq. I will call in my Secretary of State and initiate the diplomacy that's needed to make sure that exit is accompanied by negotiations between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Obama renews pledge to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by August
08:50 28/01/2010
en.rian.ru/world/20100128/157701101.html
"As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president," Obama said in a State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. "Make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home."

He said that all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by August 31, 2010, and that the 35,000-50,000 non-combat troops to remain would leave by December 31, 2011, as per the terms of a deal between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration.

And now instead of this is the day I set for us to be out, we have heard for close to a year now from the President's men that we are "willing" to leave troops on the Ground indefinitely if the Iraqi government asks.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 6, 2011 13:18:01 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jul 6, 2011 13:07:07 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...good point... and just curious, but what would be the arguments against having a somewhat permanent installation in the area?

With Pledges to Troops and Iraqis, Obama Details Pullout Published: February 27, 2009
www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html
CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — President Obama declared the beginning of the end of one of the longest and most divisive wars in American history on Friday as he announced that he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011.

That's just One.

Here is Candidate Obama in his own words.
Obama Says That His First Action as President Would be to Bring U.S. Troops Home from Iraq January 5, 2008
blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/322

Barack Obama: Well, we will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will give them a new assignment and that is to bring our troops home in a careful, responsible way, but to end this occupation in Iraq. I will call in my Secretary of State and initiate the diplomacy that's needed to make sure that exit is accompanied by negotiations between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Obama renews pledge to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by August
08:50 28/01/2010
en.rian.ru/world/20100128/157701101.html
"As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president," Obama said in a State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. "Make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home."

He said that all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by August 31, 2010, and that the 35,000-50,000 non-combat troops to remain would leave by December 31, 2011, as per the terms of a deal between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration.

And now instead of this is the day I set for us to be out, we have heard for close to a year now from the President's men that we are "willing" to leave troops on the Ground indefinitely if the Iraqi government asks.

cme...it's what our military feels is the best situation, and many others... Iran is a problem here..after all that sacrifice, do you feel it is ok if iran becomes miore of a force there, Iraq, then they already are. if iran wants us out..don't you feel there must be a reason for that that is not in our interests..

what ever, it is out of our hands...it is up to the Iraqui's...whether we keep a force there or not...not ours, our hands are tied on that one.

[ed1066]

Jul 6, 2011 13:17:31 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jul 6, 2011 13:06:34 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

It's not up to us how we deploy our military forces? I know Obama is a "citizen of the world" and all, but that's ridiculous...

As far as where to deploy the troiops, regarding Iraq, if they do not invite us, we have to go...unless your saying we have the right to impose our troops on them..to stay even if they ask us to go..the agreement has already been signed and delivered, we are out of there at the end of the year..

If you are saying that..wen have the right to over ride our sined agreement with them..then IMHO your idea is what is rediculouse

Interesting that cme posted above as I was about to respond likewise. I don't really care about agreements with Iraq and their corrupt government, made by Bush or otherwise. Obama made a promise to the American people, which turned out to be just another lie. like all his other promises. And we do not need to be "invited" or "disinvited" by the Iraqi government, they have failed to live up to their end of the agreement anyway, which was to gain control of the security situation in country.

I've also noticed that Obama has an obvious "tell"; every time he says "make no mistake" or "let me be clear", he is about to tell a lie.

[cme1201]

Jul 6, 2011 13:23:20 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jul 6, 2011 13:18:01 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

cme...it's what our military feels is the best situation, and many others... Iran is a problem here..after all that sacrifice, do you feel it is ok if Iran becomes miore of a force there, Iraq, then they already are. if iran wants us out..don't you feel there must be a reason for that that is not in our interests..

what ever, it is out of our hands...it is up to the Iraqui's...whether we keep a force there or not...not ours, our hands are tied on that one.

Do I care, not in the least. If Iran goes in and takes over great for them, we allowed them the ability to build a nuclear bomb now we deal with the consequences of those choices.

The one thing, the one thing, the one thing that resonated with me during Obama's entire run for President was his adamant and fervent desire to remove American fighting forces from the theater of Iraq.

As for it being out of our hands Deziloooooo, it's not, we still hold a majority of the cards in the deck, what I want is for our President to stop talking out of both sides of his face and pick a freaking plan of action, stop flapping in the political breeze, and actually lead.

(before mkitty decides to pick a word here or there to play some type of oh oh gotcha, we are discussing Obama and his Presidency not George W Bush, I personally am discussing exactly what the President (Obama) has explicitly said in regards to Iraq)

[deziloooooo]

Jul 6, 2011 13:40:17 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jul 6, 2011 13:23:20 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jul 6, 2011 13:18:01 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

cme...it's what our military feels is the best situation, and many others... Iran is a problem here..after all that sacrifice, do you feel it is ok if Iran becomes more of a force there, Iraq, then they already are. if Iran wants us out..don't you feel there must be a reason for that that is not in our interests..

what ever, it is out of our hands...it is up to the Iraqui's...whether we keep a force there or not...not ours, our hands are tied on that one.

Do I care, not in the least. If Iran goes in and takes over great for them, we allowed them the ability to build a nuclear bomb now we deal with the consequences of those choices.

The one thing, the one thing, the one thing that resonated with me during Obama's entire run for President was his adamant and fervent desire to remove American fighting forces from the theater of Iraq.

As for it being out of our hands Decile, it's not, we still hold a majority of the cards in the deck, what I want is for our President to stop talking out of both sides of his face and pick a freaking plan of action, stop flapping in the political breeze, and actually lead.

(before mkitty decides to pick a word here or there to play some type of oh oh gotcha, we are discussing Obama and his Presidency not George W Bush, I personally am discussing exactly what the President (Obama) has explicitly said in regards to Iraq)

"As for it being out of our hands Deziloooooo, it's not, we still hold a majority of the cards in the deck,"

And how do we have these cards..to just refuse to go, that puts in there as a occupying power..we have no rights there..agreements have been signed..they have a representative government..while definitely not perfect, lets face it, with what is happening in Washington right now, who does.

If it is in our and their interests, and if Malicki over rides what so many Iraqis want..and invites us to stay in a limited way, your saying , even if it's in our interests to have a presences there , because four years ago he said we will be gone..better he goes along with that then what today would be a better choice..and if he still pulls out , even if asked to stay and shortly it is seen it would have behooved us to still be there, you will not come back with criticism of his pulling us out when we shouldn't?

I doubt that very much...

The thing I get here from so many of the non lovers of the POTUS..so important to hold to every syllable that he might have said, even as a POTUS he finds somethings just are not as clear once one is in that oval office, things have a different way of being when the responsibility is now in your hands , yet according to so many here, once a idea is posted by him, he has to hold by that no matter what, changing situations, new events happening, the realism of what is really going down..

That's why this forums are really so silly, the ideas posted are for the most part done by emotion , never logic and real thought of the events, just shoot from the hip ideas of the non knowledgeable, so few really want to give time to real thoughts on the topics discussed.

[cme1201]

4 years ago, 2 years ago, last year, 8 months ago. All these times he has flat out said he will end the war in Iraq.

In what way is it in our best intrest to stay in Iraq? Oil, wouldn't that be a great left wing reason to get the hell out, less oil means more money for green energy.

We can leave 10,000 troops and get another version of the fall of Saigon, our men dyeing just to get on the last bird out when Iran decides it wants to own the country.

That's why this forums are really so silly, the ideas posted are for the most part done by emotion , never logic and real thought of the events, just shoot from the hip ideas of the non knowledgeable, so few really want to give time to real thoughts on the topics discussed.

pot/kettle?

[privateinvestor]

Molly here's another article Re: US Willing to leave @10,000 troops in Iraq after the end of this year..we are also debating this on our miitary.com website so I just thought I would hitchike onto your OP


Iraq's top military commander, Gen. Babaker Shawkat Zebari, has long maintained that Iraqi security forces need another decade of training and aid before they are ready to protect the country alone, especially its air space and borders. Iraq sits on the fault line between Shiite powerhouse Iran and mostly Sunni nations across the rest of the Mideast, which share U.S. concerns about Tehran's influence growing in Baghdad if American troops leave.


Iraqi Kurds, who have long relied on American forces to protect them, are lobbying for U.S. troops to stay.

But Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refuses to publicly endorse a troop extension. One of his critical political allies -- a Shiite movement headed by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- has threatened widespread violence if troops stay. Al-Sadr's militias once waged fierce attacks on U.S. forces.

Some of Iraq's Sunnis also oppose an extension. The Sunni Islamic Party in Iraq's northern Ninevah province, in a statement this week, called allowing the so-called "occupation forces" to remain "a great mistake against Iraq and its people."

President Jalal Talabani plans a meeting as early as this week of Iraq's political leaders to discuss the troop issue -- which al-Maliki says he does not want to make alone.

"All political groups should be making this decision, because we do not want to shoulder the responsibility alone for such a grave and sovereign issue," said Shiite lawmaker Ali al-Shilah, a member of the State of Law coalition headed by al-Maliki. "The situation is still complicated because all the political blocs are avoiding giving a final and clear decision on this."

One of the main sticking points is how to ensure that troops on duty all have legal immunity from Iraqi courts if they remain. Al-Shilah called it "very difficult, if not impossible due to the complicated political situation."

The U.S. will not keep thousands of troops in Iraq without immunity. But it's far from certain parliament will approve it. Iraq is still seething from the 2007 shooting by guards from the security firm then called Blackwater Worldwide, which left 17 people dead but could not be prosecuted by Iraq courts because of an immunity deal at the time.

Al-Maliki also would not want any remaining U.S. troops to look like combat forces, and potentially would strip them of huge armored trucks or have them live on Iraqi bases. The U.S. will not agree to that.

In a July 1 letter, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey told U.S. forces in and around Baghdad to expect to stay in Iraq "longer than they expected" until at least after Christmas, just days before the withdrawal deadline.

There is no end-date stated in Dempsey's letter, which was posted on the website of the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division that is currently headquartered in Baghdad.

"We're well aware that the request means many of you will be separated from your families for a second consecutive Christmas holiday," Dempsey wrote. "I can assure you we wouldn't have asked this of you if it wasn't vitally important for the accomplishment of our mission in Iraq."


www.military.com/news/article/obama-offers-to-keep-10k-troops-in-iraq.html

[privateinvestor]

We also have some Liberal Congressmen and Congresswomen in the San Francisco Bay area who wrote a letter to Obama a few weeks ago requesting that he bring all of our troops home from Iraq by the end of this year. So I guess what I am saying is there could be some movement in congress to support ending our involvement in Iraq ASAP...I don't think Liberals wil be too happy to know we will have 10,000 troops in Iraq after Christmas since we were told essentially that war in Iraq was over by our Commander in Cheif with a false declaration that combat operations are over in Iraq, what is now Operation New Dawn has ironically become a forgotten war," said Ashwin Madia, a former Marine who served in Iraq in 2005-06 and is now interim chairman of VoteVets.org. "That is about to change."

So I think our so called Commander in Chief needs to address this issue or if he did answer the letter from his Liberal buds in congress from the Bay Area..

[deziloooooo]

Jul 6, 2011 14:07:53 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

4 years ago, 2 years ago, last year, 8 months ago. All these times he has flat out said he will end the war in Iraq.

In what way is it in our best intrest to stay in Iraq? Oil, wouldn't that be a great left wing reason to get the hell out, less oil means more money for green energy.

We can leave 10,000 troops and get another version of the fall of Saigon, our men dyeing just to get on the last bird out when Iran decides it wants to own the country.

That's why this forums are really so silly, the ideas posted are for the most part done by emotion , never logic and real thought of the events, just shoot from the hip ideas of the non knowledgeable, so few really want to give time to real thoughts on the topics discussed.

pot/kettle?

Oil has nothing to do with it..it's not our oil..though in a way , oil does enter into it..

Iraq is modernizing their oil industry, new pipe lines, the old are limiting the amount that can be flowed to abiout 1/2 of their capascity for one, plus modernizing their fields. There is a article I just read a week ago on that fact, I can get it for you.

Shortly, with in a year thy will be able to increase their out put by almost 1.8 million per day..new fields have been found..and this increase in out put is worrying Iran, who's fields are older, their infrastructure is old and inefficient , they, Iranians are basically broke plus with sanctions hard to opurchase products off shore, and the increase from Iraq can hurt their markets, depress prices, that would be detrimental to the Iranians..

Politically and for control in the gulf, Iran wants us out of the area..they have hugh support from political Shia groups in Iraq, as does al Sader..the militant cleric..Iran feels they should have political control over the Iraquis, and while there was a bitter war with them, it was started by the former leader of Iraq, and if Iraq is kept as a weak State, as it is now, they have no Air Force, their military still is limited, Artillery , Armor just being built up, they would be over shadowed by the the Iranins so to stay there in a small way, IF invited, that is the key..it would help put the kabosh on Iranians plans to over influence the new democracy..

Right now our relationship with the Sauds is not very good, they are basically setting their own policy , supporting those in the area who will side with them..see Jordan for example, even the Palastinians..naturally the emerets..

There would be no "Saigion " that's only a emotional response by you..IMHO..

What it would be if asked, again it is all depending, 100 % on the Iraquis, not us, is a good decision for us to still have a presence there, not leave right away, let it go year by year..Iraq needs our presence there for a while longer, and if 10,000 troops in a important part of the world, and it is, especially now with Syria, Lebenon, Egypt, Palastinians...it would be a good thing..but again,. up to the Iraqui's.

[deziloooooo]

A new article regarding the US desire to keep some troops in Iraq after the end of the year when now they all have to be gone according to the treaties signed between the two Governments.

It discusses the attacks on US forces by Iranian backed Shia Groups in Iraq to push the American Populace to demand our troops to leave, thus gaining credit that they were the ones to get the Americans to go, thus building up their political credentials as a force, a party to be reckoned with in future political elections and also do do the bidding of the Iranians who want us out and they in greater influence over the Iraqis.

I question those here who are wanting this to happen , all troops out, why you would want what the Iranians would want..they are not our friends,all sides, libs and cons, know and agree on this..and if they want something this badly, it can't be good for our interests.

Personally, if we aren't wanted and not asked to stay, I would wonder if we shouldn't be talking to the Kurds in the north, see if they want us to stay, and arrange to set up camp there , [they do not want us to leave, they fear the central government will come after them, after our presence is gone, there are great deposits of oil in that region that they are using the revenue for improvements in their area } and while it would be going against the Iraqis official wishes, I doubt they would try to move us out, and by being close there, we would still be in the area, a influence on, and possible a way to protect the Kurds and even Malicki's government indirectly, just by our presence from the influence of the Iranians.

Just a thought IMHO.
--------------------------------------------
news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/still-awaiting-iraqi-request-u-plans-possible-10-212831156.html
--------------------------------------------------
"The United States is planning for keeping as many as 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq next year, the Associated Press reports. The decision would require a formal request from the Iraqi government, which as yet has not issued it, though U.S. leaders have dropped numerous hints it might be a good idea.

"Already ... the White House has worked out options to keep 8,500 to 10,000 active-duty troops in Iraq to continue training security forces in 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials," the Associated Press reported, citing foreign diplomats in Baghdad who have also been briefed on the matter.

"We have said for a long time now if the Iraqi government asks us to maintain some level of troops beyond that end of the year deadline, we would consider it," White House spokesman Jay Carney told journalists Tuesday, adding the United States has not yet received such a request.

"Right now there are no plans to keep troops in Iraq beyond" the end of the year, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told the Washington Post Tuesday. He added that an Iraqi request for a follow-on force "would be given serious consideration by this administration."

One troubling recent shift in the Iraqi conflict: the increasingly brazen use by Iranian-backed Shiite militias of Iranian-origin weapons in their attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq, U.S. envoy to Baghdad Jim Jeffrey and the top U.S. military commander in Iraq Gen. Lloyd Austen told the Post.
The weapons "are coming in from Iran, we're certain of that," Austen told the paper.

"We're seeing more lethal weapons, more accurate weapons, more longer-range weapons," Jeffrey told the Post in an interview. "And we're seeing more sophisticated mobile and other deployment options, and we're seeing better-trained people."

Military analyst Michael Eisenstadt described the open display of Iranian fingerprints on the anti-U.S. violence in Iraq as opportunistic and designed to try to demonstrate that they are chasing U.S. forces out.

Eisenstadt, an analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, laid out for The Envoy the strategic thinking behind the new Iran-based offensive in Iraq:

One reason that the Iranian-supported 'special groups' are ramping up attacks is to generate domestic opposition in the US to an extension of the US troop presence beyond the end of 2011. They reason if the costs of maintaining a presence will go up, few will support the extension of the presence, and more will oppose it. So they hope to make a troop extension problematic in terms of both US and Iraqi politics.

Moreover, if these Iranian-supported groups can credibly claim that they scuttled efforts to extend the US presence and that they were therefore responsible for ending the occupation, they might be able to translate their resistance 'cred' into political capital in the future, as Hizballah did after expelling Israel from Lebanon in 2000.

The growing economic, political and cultural ties between the Shiite government in Baghdad and Iran were on display when Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with a visiting senior Iranian envoy Tuesday. Maliki and Iranian First Vice President Mohammed Reza Rahimi "signed six agreements to bolster shared economic, health, technology and culture interests," the Associated Press reported.

Such loyalties may mean the Iraqi government will find it too politically difficult to request a follow on U.S. force to provide stability in Iraq."

..

[billisonboard]

Jul 7, 2011 15:07:44 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

...

I question those here who are wanting this to happen , all troops out, why you would want what the Iranians would want..they are not our friends,all sides, libs and cons, know and agree on this..and if they want something this badly, it can't be good for our interests.

Personally, if we aren't wanted and not asked to stay, I would wonder if we shouldn't be talking to the Kurds in the north, ...

It would be "good for our interests" to have troops in Iran as well as Iraq. It would be "good for our interests" to have troops in North Korea. It would be "good for our interests" to have troops in many more places around the world than we already have them. It would great to never have the sun set on the "American Empire". Is that the direction we should be going in 2011 and beyond?

As far as the Kurd issue raised: How would we feel about a foreign country negotiating with one state to allow for something that our federal government had said no to? Sounds like a dangerous game to me.

[privateinvestor]

US willing to leave 10K troops in Iraq past 20

This may not be the case since the Pentagon is still reviewing the exact troops strength they plan to have in Iraq , and as always politics have not yet been factored in that is usually one of the last things to do these days in Washington DC

[fairlycrazy23]

We need to do everything we can to become energy independent, then we could tell that whole region to pound sand.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 7, 2011 15:45:47 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

We need to do everything we can to become energy independent, then we could tell that whole region to pound sand.

That was one of the twitter comments addressed to Obama yesterday and he just gave the usual comment that we need to have an energy policy and blames the Repubs for slow rolling it in congress.

[billisonboard]

Jul 7, 2011 15:44:42 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

US willing to leave 10K troops in Iraq past 20

This may not be the case since the Pentagon is still reviewing the exact troops strength they plan to have in Iraq , and as always politics have not yet been factored in that is usually one of the last things to do these days in Washington DC

Interesting wording in the above. In our system, the Pentagon does not have authority to "plan to have". They may well be making a review to determine what they will recommend. Then there is the pesky little Status of Forces Agreement which indicates that "requires the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40011.pdf

[privateinvestor]

My point is how polically expedient will it be for Obama to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq after Christmas of this year? Will his liberal base be ok with it...leave 10,000 indefinitely?? ...but Iraq has not sent their request, and their government factions in Iraq are all divided on this issue.. Don't forget debt reduction is also a consideration because the long knives are out in congress to cut defense or bring our troops home ASAP..

BTW when I worked for the Pentagon we had long range planning that extended out for several years and were updated at the end of each week...so you know Iraq is included in the planning..

Oil is also a consideration in this planning because our troops do monitor the Iraq Oil Production and a member of congress from San Diego CA wants to hold hearing to learn why Iraq with all of their billions in Oil revenue has not repaid our country for the billions we gave them since 2003 to rebuild their country...and his need for hearings is being considered but probably low on the priority list in the House I guess??

[billisonboard]

Jul 7, 2011 16:20:58 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

My point is how polically expedient will it be for Obama to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq after Christmas of this year? Will his liberal base be ok with it...leave 10,000 indefinitely?? ...

Speaking for myself only, I will not be okay with it. It would certainly be one more staw on my camel's back (which is getting very loaded down).

[privateinvestor]

What bothers most American about Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the tremendous costs in lives lost and ruined and billion wasted is the sad reality that when our troops leave both countries they could both fall under Islamic Fundamentalists who want to destroy our country...think about that for a few minutes...

[billisonboard]

Jul 7, 2011 16:57:22 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

What bothers most American(s) ...

This statement is based on what exactly?

[privateinvestor]

Jul 7, 2011 17:01:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 7, 2011 16:57:22 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

What bothers most American(s) ...

This statement is based on what exactly?

Other forums that concentrate mainly on both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here you go you might just learn something about what is really going on in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of relying on the Huffington Post

www.military.com/


Obama to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq after 2011

www.military.com/news/article/obama-offers-to-keep-10k-troops-in-iraq.html?col=1186032325324

[billisonboard]

Jul 7, 2011 17:17:15 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Jul 7, 2011 17:01:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

This statement is based on what exactly?

Other forums that concentrate mainly on both Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

"most American(s)" - "forums that concentrate mainly on both Iraq and Afghanistan."

[privateinvestor]

"most American(s) = most "real" americans who don't rely on the biased Liberal Media for their news

NATO denies aiding Libyan rebels..

www.military.com/news/article/nato-denies-aiding-libyan-rebels-advance.html