All US troops to pull out by end of year

Jaafa

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/10/20111021165649222733.html

Not even a small contingent will stay to train Iraqi troops. Some welcome news coming from the white house for a change.

I have a feeling Afganistan will take a little longer.

sdanseo

Good.

Now get out of Afghanistan and everywhere else they're not wanted.

Jaafa

I just noticed I forgot to put Iraq in the title....sad that I have to specify which country the US is pulling out of.

Manach

Given that many Irish Army barracks are being closed, perhaps the State might ask to relocate here.

TOMASJ

They never should have been in Iraq in the first place,
So good riddance,

Wonder will the Brit army stay on in Afghanistan when the Yanks pull out or follow as usual like little pet dogs.

SamHarris

TOMASJ wrote: »

They never should have been in Iraq in the first place,
So good riddance,

Wonder will the Brit army stay on in Afghanistan when the Yanks pull out or follow as usual like little pet dogs.

Brit forces pulled out years ago, before even the violence began to subside.

SamHarris

TOMASJ wrote: »

They never should have been in Iraq in the first place,
So good riddance,

Wonder will the Brit army stay on in Afghanistan when the Yanks pull out or follow as usual like little pet dogs.

Brit forces pulled out years ago, before even the violence began to subside.

FreudianSlippers

This is great news; unfortunately the planned DoD budget for next year is an estimated $707.5 billion.

Anyone taking bets on where they go next? There are too many people involved that make a lot of money off of the military that you'll see a significant reduction in DoD spending. Not being "at war" makes it very difficult to justify spending that much.

Jaafa

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is great news; unfortunately the planned DoD budget for next year is an estimated $707.5 billion.

Anyone taking bets on where they go next? There are too many people involved that make a lot of money off of the military that you'll see a significant reduction in DoD spending. Not being "at war" makes it very difficult to justify spending that much.

Everyone says Iran is next but I don't believe it. America simple can't afford an all out war with Iran, both financially and in terms of dead soldiers. I mean no doubt they'd 'win' but at a massive cost.

Personally I think they'll take 5-10 years break before the next war.

Fratton Fred

TOMASJ wrote: »

Wonder will the Brit army stay on in Afghanistan when the Yanks pull out or follow as usual like little pet dogs.

Who knows, will the Irish?

Slydice

So, I wonder what the chances are that Iraq will have a civil war in the absense of the Americans?

or...
- Could the Kurds spark a war with Turkey?
- Could Iraq become shiite dominated and ally itself with Iran?
- Could Iraq end up at war with Iran again?

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who knows, will the Irish?

The Irish who fight for Her Mag, might.

FreudianSlippers

Slydice wrote: »

So, I wonder what the chances are that Iraq will have a civil war in the absense of the Americans?

or...
- Could the Kurds spark a war with Turkey?
- Could Iraq become shiite dominated and ally itself with Iran?
- Could Iraq end up at war with Iran again?

Other than resource control, there is some sense in Iraq splitting into 2 or 3 smaller countries.

RMD

sdeire wrote: »

Good.

Now get out of Afghanistan and everywhere else they're not wanted.

Considering how small the Taliban are as a force and the majority of their recruitment comes from outside of Afghanistan, I think it's fair to say coalition forces are wanted there. The ANA has a strength of 164,000 while the Taliban is estimated to be 36,000 as of 2010. The average opium farmer can earn 4 times the monthly wage of a ANA soldier, so it's easy enough to see the Taliban have less support than the current Afghani regime do. Not to mention, the democratically elected government of Afghanistan stated they want ISAF forces to remain until the ANA is sufficiently trained and armed.

Of course though, they could leave and just left the Taliban potentially regain control of the country, install a regime of Islamo-Fascism where civil liberties are ignored for many and an extremely strict interpretation of Sharia law is implemented. Ye, that'd be a fantastic idea.

TOMASJ wrote: »

The Irish who fight for Her Mag, might.

No, Fred was referring to the Irish army advisers who are part of the ISAF forces stationed in Kabul.

Jaafa

RMD wrote: »

Considering how small the Taliban are as a force and the majority of their recruitment comes from outside of Afghanistan, I think it's fair to say coalition forces are wanted there. The ANA has a strength of 164,000 while the Taliban is estimated to be 36,000 as of 2010. The average opium farmer can earn 4 times the monthly wage of a ANA soldier, so it's easy enough to see the Taliban have less support than the current Afghani regime do. Not to mention, the democratically elected government of Afghanistan stated they want ISAF forces to remain until the ANA is sufficiently trained and armed.

Of course though, they could leave and just left the Taliban potentially regain control of the country, install a regime of Islamo-Fascism where civil liberties are ignored for many and an extremely strict interpretation of Sharia law is implemented. Ye, that'd be a fantastic idea.



No, Fred was referring to the Irish army advisers who are part of the ISAF forces stationed in Kabul.

If they are so small why do they control or contest half the country? Able to launch monthly attacks on Kabul with devastating consequences.

Also the average Taliban member earns far more than the average ANA soldier or police officer.

No doubt that if the US pulls out anytime soon, the Taliban could challenge for full control again.

TOMASJ

Originally Posted by RMD

Of course though, they could leave and just left the Taliban potentially regain control of the country, install a regime of Islamo-Fascism where civil liberties are ignored for many and an extremely strict interpretation of Sharia law is implemented. Ye, that'd be a fantastic idea.

Would this be a regime similar to that in Saudi Arabia & Bahrain,

Border-Rat

They're pulling out because Al Sadr has told them to get out by December, or face Fallujah every day of the week.

RMD

TOMASJ wrote: »

Originally Posted by RMD
Would this be a regime similar to that in Saudi Arabia & Bahrain,

Nope, the Taliban's interpretation of Sharia law makes the Saudi's look civilized, a pretty hard feat. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are irrelevant to this though, I don't support the regimes they have in place either.

Manic Moran

Jaafa wrote: »

If they are so small why do they control or contest half the country? Able to launch monthly attacks on Kabul with devastating consequences.

Because they don't "play fair", as it were. The nature of their operations are such that short of some pretty draconian measures, there's no way to completely wipe them clean of operations in any single area without a lot of wooing of the populace, which is still ongoing. Hence the requirement for a lot of boots on the ground to minimize the damage they can cause

NTM

A Primal Nut

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because they don't "play fair", as it were. The nature of their operations are such that short of some pretty draconian measures, there's no way to completely wipe them clean of operations in any single area without a lot of wooing of the populace, which is still ongoing. Hence the requirement for a lot of boots on the ground to minimize the damage they can cause

NTM

Agreed, if the US suddenly stopped caring about civil liberties, civilian casualties, etc, something like Saddam Hussein would have they could wipe out the taliban pretty quickly. I am very pessimistic about Afghanistan though. No matter how long US troops stay, as soon as they leave, it will be hell again. Well its not much better now but it will become much worse when they eventually do leave. That war will go down with Vietnam as a big waste of time in terms of liberating a population, although it has proved successful in terms of fighting Al-Qaeda and preventing terrorist attacks on US soil, the original intention.

I am more optimistic about Iraq. The Iraq War is terrible for those who lost their lives, but I think it will have been a good thing for those who can look forward to a future without Saddam Hussein or one of his sons, or US troops. Hopefully the lack of US troops will slow down support for the brutal insurgency.

I also think that in spite of the impact it will have on the defense industry, the Bush era will have had the last crazy American wars. Whereas last time John McCain was talking up war on Iran, the republican candidates this time are more interested in fiscal responsiblity and they recognise that the American people no longer want to spend American money and lives on crazy, never-ending wars. Iran isn't a major issue among the Republican candidates.

I think Obama recognised that Libya was an easier war to win and was clever enough to not put troops on the ground, and even then there wasn't as much support as previous wars.

Then again, if another 9/11 happens, it will be hard to predict what the response might be but this time the American people will be more aware of the risks of an immediate response. Another incident that would cause an American response would be an attack on Israel. So I guess there are still some possibilites for another American war but I think it will be will be much more of a last resort kind of thing.

Baked.noodle

I'll believe it when I see it. When you consider how withdrawing from Iraq would affect the wider picture, particularly the pressure it would take off Iran, it doesn't seem plausible. No doubt there will be a reduction in troops but I suspect there will be developments in the not to distant future that will alter any plans for a full withdrawal.

jackiebaron

Jaafa wrote: »

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/10/20111021165649222733.html

Not even a small contingent will stay to train Iraqi troops. Some welcome news coming from the white house for a change.

I have a feeling Afganistan will take a little longer.

Yep. America's 8 year debacle in Iraq has ended in failure and defeat. The intention was to quickly attack and occupy the country and turn it into America's bitch in the Middle East, a place where they could amass troops and equipment and essentially control the entire region. They constructed 505 bases in the country and are now just handing this sh!t over to anyone who wants it. It's cheaper than lugging the crap back to the US. So basically now you can get just about anything for nothing from these bases... beds, linen, computers, tvs, cutlery, exercise equipment, ovens, cars, motorcycles, golf carts, satellite dishes, pinball machines, you name it. These bases weren't just a bunch of tents with a bit of barbed wire around them. They have/had their own telephone area codes, traffic light and electricity grid systems, Taco Bell, Starbucks, Wal-Mart/PX, swimming pools, driving ranges. The largest, Camp Victory, (:pac:) just outside Baghdad International Airport was where Saddam was kept for 3 years before he was executed. Apparently the Americans are taking the metal toilet bowl that he used and bringing it home to put in some goddamn museum.

So after 8 years, 5000 servicemen dead, 50,000 maimed, 300,000 with PTSD and/or TBI, 1.5 million Iraqis dead, 4 million displaced and an unknown number wounded or crippled, over 1 TRILLION dollars p!ssed into the sand along with the gallons of blood, what does America have to show for this colossal failure? A fcuking commode. :pac:

jackiebaron

SamHarris wrote: »

Brit forces pulled out years ago, before even the violence began to subside.

The Brits are still in Afghanistan and the violence there has done nothing but escalate rather than subside.

jackiebaron

RMD wrote: »

Considering how small the Taliban are as a force and the majority of their recruitment comes from outside of Afghanistan, I think it's fair to say coalition forces are wanted there. The ANA has a strength of 164,000 while the Taliban is estimated to be 36,000 as of 2010. The average opium farmer can earn 4 times the monthly wage of a ANA soldier, so it's easy enough to see the Taliban have less support than the current Afghani regime do. Not to mention, the democratically elected government of Afghanistan stated they want ISAF forces to remain until the ANA is sufficiently trained and armed.

Of course though, they could leave and just left the Taliban potentially regain control of the country, install a regime of Islamo-Fascism where civil liberties are ignored for many and an extremely strict interpretation of Sharia law is implemented. Ye, that'd be a fantastic idea.



No, Fred was referring to the Irish army advisers who are part of the ISAF forces stationed in Kabul.

This has to be the dumbest post I've ever read.

jackiebaron

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because they don't "play fair", as it were. The nature of their operations are such that short of some pretty draconian measures, there's no way to completely wipe them clean of operations in any single area without a lot of wooing of the populace, which is still ongoing. Hence the requirement for a lot of boots on the ground to minimize the damage they can cause

NTM

If you're stating that launching guerilla attacks is not "playing fair", then how do you feel about the couragous operators sitting on their asses in an air conditioned room in Nevada, sucking down can after can of Diet Coke and launching missiles from unmanned drones at civilian centres? That's hardly the definition of battlefield valour. Not only that but the US threatens civilians that they would cut off aid if they didn't provide information about Pashtun fighters.
Now this is yet another example of staggering American stupidity, not to mention a war crime. So now when aid agencies bring assistance to certain villages, the Taliban or whoever see this and immediately associate the villagers as collaborators and target them for reprisal....even if they haven't said a word.
Way to go American geniuses :rolleyes: