USA agrees to pull troops out of Iraq by 2011

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080825/ts_nm/iraq_dc

This is a victory for the Democrats, the Iraqis, and all those brave souls around the world who marched and protested to get us out of that damn country.

[pgwenthold]

I think it is part of the Administration's strategy to keep Obama out of the White House, by implementing the things that he has promised to do.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

All praise be to my noodely Lord! Without whom we would not have received such a fast, cheap, and bloodless victory.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

"Until we have a deal, we don't have a deal," he said. U.S. officials declined to comment on Maliki's 2011 withdrawal date.'

Profound...

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080825/ts_nm/iraq_dc

This is a victory for the Democrats, the Iraqis, and all those brave souls around the world who marched and protested to get us out of that damn country.
I'd say it's at least a partial success for the Bush team that they are moving forward with the original plan, rather badly stalled by three years of civil war, to turn the country back over to the Iraqis when they have a government in place that functions.

I am trying to understand how you arrive at a cause and effect relationship between protest and this final bit of good news.

The original plan included leaving once that rather difficult task was done. (And yes, a whole lot of assumptions and handwaving went into the original timeline Rummy was selling early on. :mad: )

DR

[Thunder]

i didnt exactly say the protests caused this result. i only stated it was a victory.

=)

[Tailgater]

i didnt exactly say the protests caused this result. i only stated it was a victory.

=)

That's a funny way of looking at it.

[Toke]

Does leaving mean abandoning all those fancy new bases?

Or is it just a refrasing of occupation.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Does leaving mean abandoning all those fancy new bases?

Or is it just a refrasing of occupation.

I suspect the USA's goal is to have Iraqis keeping order on the streets, while the USA just parks their stuff in the fancy new bases so they're ready to go any time someone in the Middle East gets uppity.

[Toke]

Sounds likely.
Wonder how the irakis like the idea.

[Ziggurat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080825/ts_nm/iraq_dc

This is a victory for the Democrats, the Iraqis, and all those brave souls around the world who marched and protested to get us out of that damn country.

Yeah, because marching in protest against the US is so dangerous. :rolleyes:

[CapelDodger]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080825/ts_nm/iraq_dc


Taking it from the top

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq and the United States have agreed that all U.S. troops will leave by the end of 2011, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday, but Washington said no final deal had been reached. "

Reuters is a credible feed.

The Yahoo headline

"Iraq PM: U.S. agrees to withdraw troops by 2011 "

is most likely accurate. Maliki was addressing tribal leaders; as a politician he'll say what they want to hear.

This is a victory for the Democrats, the Iraqis, and all those brave souls around the world who marched and protested to get us out of that damn country.

It was just Maliki addressing tribal leaders. Washington says something different. No victory, no progress, nothing at all really.

[Darth Rotor]

I suspect the USA's goal is to have Iraqis keeping order on the streets, while the USA just parks their stuff in the fancy new bases so they're ready to go any time someone in the Middle East gets uppity.
Kuwait already serves that function. Where do you think the US effort to invade Iraq was staged from?

IMO, no need to station US troops permanently in Iraq unless, and I repeat unless, the Iraqi government explicitly requests such basing. (Don't see that happening, for internal political reasons.) If they aren't interested, good, come on home once the deal is reached.

DR

[mrbaracuda]

Taking it from the top



Reuters is a credible feed.

The Yahoo headline



is most likely accurate. Maliki was addressing tribal leaders; as a politician he'll say what they want to hear.



It was just Maliki addressing tribal leaders. Washington says something different. No victory, no progress, nothing at all really.

Yea. If parky would actually read what he links to, he would have noticed right there at the top the following bit that was there when I first had a look:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq and the United States have agreed that all U.S. troops will leave by the end of 2011, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday, but Washington said no final deal had been reached.

[Toke]

IMO, no need to station US troops permanently in Iraq unless, and I repeat unless, the Iraqi government explicitly requests such basing. (Don't see that happening, for internal political reasons.) If they aren't interested, good, come on home once the deal is reached.

Somehow I can´t see america abandoning those rather expensive bases, much closer to iran and syria.

[Mark Felt]

The bases will probably have whatever status is given to bases in other foreign countries, and there'll be minimal staffing, but there will still be US troops in Iraq for the forseeable future. They probably won't be policing (with any luck the Iraqi gubmint will have taken that over soon), but there'll be some small presence.

[CapelDodger]

Kuwait already serves that function. Where do you think the US effort to invade Iraq was staged from?

The British created Kuwait for that very purpose, and invaded from there in both World Wars. Overlooking the Shatt Al-Arab, Kuwait is a hand at the throat of Iraq.