Obama wants war forever and ever more, amen

[MadHound]

"There are still questions about whether some U.S. troops will remain in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline set for the end of this year. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in December that there's no need for a continued U.S. troop presence, but top American commanders are not so sure.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently told Congress that talks about extending the deadline are ongoing. One congressman suggested there could be 20,000 troops in Iraq next year, down from the roughly 50,000 now."

<http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134141465/will-u-s-follow-withdrawal-deadline-in-iraq>

Another day, another promise broken. And while we apparently don't have money for teachers, firefighters, the poor, job creation, and the general welfare of our country, which is suffering, we apparently do have money to conduct two endless wars and give money back to the rich.

This so sucks, this pisses me off, and depresses me to no end.

[RKP5637]

1. Yep, more MIC forever. n/t

[tabatha]

2. No, he does not.

He inherited a mess and is trying to get out of it.

[MadHound]

4. Trying to get out of it by keeping troops in the middle of it?

Oxymoronic, like waging war for peace, or screwing for virginity.

If Obama wants to get out of this mess, then the answer is real clear, pull the troops out and bring them home, all of them.

[tabatha]

8. He has brought a bunch of troops back.

Did you not notice?

And he doing in Afghanistan what he said he would do before being elected.

To me, he has followed what he said he would do.

[MadHound]

11. Doing what he promised, yeah.

The question though is whether what he is doing is the right thing, morally and ethically. Somehow I don't think that ordering the death of hundreds of innocents while being the occupying military force in two other countries is either ethical or morally right.

There is no end in sight. Obama has made vague promises about getting out of Afghanistan by 2014 at times, at other times the date is pushed back to 2017, but who really knows.

Meanwhile we continue to be an occupying force in Iraq, and though the promise was to be out by the end of this year, now it looks like that is being pushed back.

This isn't about Obama's promises, this is about the ongoing bloodshed that we're responsible for in two illegal, immoral wars. It is time to bring the troops home, now.

[tabatha]

13. If Obama could bring the troops out now, he would.

[MadHound]

14. Umm, he can bring the troops home now, he is, after all, the Commander in Chief.

If he wanted to bring the troops home, he could hand down an order that would make it so.

Thus, since he hasn't signed that order, one has to conclude that he doesn't want to bring the troops home.

[qazplm]

15. 20K troops is not an occupying force

particularly when almost none of them are combat troops and a treaty is negotiated for us to remain anymore than the troops in Germany are or the troops in Korea are or the troops in Okinawa are.

[MadHound]

16. Except that the term "non-combat troops" is a misnomer in this case,

Designed to fool and befuddle folks like yourself into thinking that we're not fighting there anymore. But we are. Our troops are going out on "training missions" with Iraqi troops, fighting, killing, dying. Does that sound like anything we're currently doing in Europe, or have done there for the past twenty years?

<http://www.military.com/news/article/2-gis-first-casualties-in-iraq-of-2011.html>

[frylock]

18. 100000 mercenaries makes for an occupying force..

and a rebranding campaign doesn't make troops trained for combat NOT combat troops.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orsino]

5. Wanting war is not quite the same thing as lacking the courage or political capital to end it.

The president is too complacent for my tastes, but so is most of America.

That's not a coincidence.

[MadHound]

19. Yet most of America wants us to end these wars of empire,

And have been speaking out about it. Trouble is the media ignores these protests, these facts, deliberately.

[Orsino]

20. No. Most of America *thinks* it likes the idea of less war...

...or that it might be nice not to have so many people taken so far away for so long, killing and even dying. In the meantime, though, most of us are quite willing to put up with it.

When most of America really wants to end war, then perhaps we'll find out how the president feels about it. For now, he realizes that there's change in the wind, but that he'd be crucified for cutting and running until he comes up with a sufficiently macho excuse for withdrawal. He might think that he can get away with setting a long timetable and letting us get used to the idea gradually, but his timidity is showing, I think. I hope it's mostly timidity, anyway, and not mere war-war-war corruption.

But we Americans haven't yet gotten behind actual withdrawal, with all the tacit admission of failure that could entail.

[TBF]

6. Haven't you heard -

it's the new jobs program! :D

:sarcasm:

[Octafish]

7. For Empire.

An Evil Empire, at that.

Michael Parenti, PhD, Yale, '62, spells it out.

[alsame]

17. That is a very powerful read. Thanks. nt

[ProSense]

9. That is not what Gates said

Here is what Gates said before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 17, transcript (PDF):

<...

Chairman LEVIN. We will have a 7-minute first round. Mr. Secretary, you indicated that we are on track to end the presence of our combat troops in Iraq by the end of this year as decided upon by President Bush. Do you continue to support that decision?

Secretary GATES. Yes, I do.

<...>

Senator MCCAIN. So is there any discussion that you know of going on with the Iraqi Government concerning the future role of the United States in Iraq besides the fact that we are now scheduled to leave by the end of the year?

Secretary GATES. There have been a number of informal conversations with the Iraqis about this. Our concern, as I indicated yesterday, is principally in three areas: intelligence fusion, logistics and maintenance, and in air cover in providing the ability to protect their own air space. Right now, under current circumstances, as of the 1st of January, we will have 157 Department of Defense military and civilians, along with several hundred contractors, basically processing foreign military sales, and that would be it. As I have indicated, I think this Government is very open to a continuing presence that would be larger where we could help the Iraqis for a period of time. I am not actually concerned about the stability of the country, but I am concerned about their ability to address these three issues in particular. But the fact is we have a signed agreement that President Bush signed with the Iraqi Government, and the initiative for this needs to come from the Iraqis. My hope is that once they sort out who their new defense minister is going to be, which has been a problem in putting together their government, that then we will be able to move forward with this dialogue with the Iraqis. I think it is little bit, frankly, in Iraq like the strategic agreement itself in the sense that our presence is not popular in Iraq. And so the politicians, I think, the leaders understand the need for this kind of help, but no one wants to be the first one out there supporting it, very much like the security agreement itself. So we will continue that dialogue, but at the end of the day, the initiative has to come from the Iraqis. They have to ask for it.

<...>

[tabatha]

10. Thanks for that.

Some of the criticisms here are worthy for FR logic and facts.

[MadHound]

12. And here is what Gates said the day before,

"There is certainly on our part an interest in having an additional presence," Gates said. "And the truth of the matter is the Iraqis are going to have some problems that they are going to have to deal with if we are not there in some numbers."

Hmmm.