War

[Anita6586]

President Obama vows to bring our military home finally! Is this to regain political power
with the people for 2012, Presidential votes,or rave promise when put into White House?

[Abrupt]

If you are talking about our brave troops in Iraq then the reason is because of an agreement that Bush had entered into and a fumbling in diplomacy by the current administration.

[jaymz462]

We never should've been there in the first place.  Bout time the troops were brought back.

Of course, we'll still be commanding about 5000 mercenaries in Iraq, so we're not exactly leaving.

[falcon9]

If you are talking about our brave troops in Iraq then the reason is because of an agreement that Bush had entered into and a fumbling in diplomacy by the current administration.

Just to clarify, what fumbled diplomacy was that again?

[Abrupt]

Whichever one resulted in the administration not being able to obtain what they claim they wanted to obtain.  Particularly they wanted to leave some US troops there but were unable to manage to do this under any sort of deal our military could agree too.  Specifically they wanted till the last days to try and broker such an agreement instead of beginning the details with sufficient time to reach a deal.  Had they attempted this earlier it would have been little or no problem, but by delaying it they sabotaged any such considerations (whether this was intentional or incidental I do not know and it doesn't really matter but it leaves us with two explanations for the reason -- ignorance or inexperience).

[falcon9]

Whichever one resulted in the administration not being able to obtain what they claim they wanted to obtain.  Particularly they wanted to leave some US troops there but were unable to manage to do this under any sort of deal our military could agree too.  Specifically they wanted till the last days to try and broker such an agreement instead of beginning the details with sufficient time to reach a deal.  Had they attempted this earlier it would have been little or no problem, but by delaying it they sabotaged any such considerations (whether this was intentional or incidental I do not know and it doesn't really matter but it leaves us with two explanations for the reason -- ignorance or inexperience).

Your response is significantly vague; whether this was intentional or, incidental, I have no way of knowing.  I can however, research the subject as fully as possible, (given the degree of confidentiality inherent in military matters).  Speaking of confidential military matters, I'm aware of such on a personal level, having served in the U.S. armed forces, are you?

[Abrupt]

Whichever one resulted in the administration not being able to obtain what they claim they wanted to obtain.  Particularly they wanted to leave some US troops there but were unable to manage to do this under any sort of deal our military could agree too.  Specifically they wanted till the last days to try and broker such an agreement instead of beginning the details with sufficient time to reach a deal.  Had they attempted this earlier it would have been little or no problem, but by delaying it they sabotaged any such considerations (whether this was intentional or incidental I do not know and it doesn't really matter but it leaves us with two explanations for the reason -- ignorance or inexperience).

Your response is significantly vague; whether this was intentional or, incidental, I have no way of knowing.  I can however, research the subject as fully as possible, (given the degree of confidentiality inherent in military matters).  Speaking of confidential military matters, I'm aware of such on a personal level, having served in the U.S. armed forces, are you?

Significantly vague?  I gave you more information than you even asked for, and why did you even ask if you so readily admit how easy it is to research the matter.  Do you even keep up with current events as I am surprised that you had to ask what I was referring to as that was possibly the reason you find it vague and I find it stunning that you asked?  Thank you for your service.  Yes I also served in the armed forces (71 lima -- wanted to be a 19 echo (indicates when I joined lol) but was color blind).  Military service is common in my family: father, brother, most of my uncles and many other relatives (It seems we are either military or law enforcement).

[falcon9]

Whichever one resulted in the administration not being able to obtain what they claim they wanted to obtain.  Particularly they wanted to leave some US troops there but were unable to manage to do this under any sort of deal our military could agree too.  Specifically they wanted till the last days to try and broker such an agreement instead of beginning the details with sufficient time to reach a deal.  Had they attempted this earlier it would have been little or no problem, but by delaying it they sabotaged any such considerations (whether this was intentional or incidental I do not know and it doesn't really matter but it leaves us with two explanations for the reason -- ignorance or inexperience).

Your response is significantly vague; whether this was intentional or, incidental, I have no way of knowing.  I can however, research the subject as fully as possible, (given the degree of confidentiality inherent in military matters).  Speaking of confidential military matters, I'm aware of such on a personal level, having served in the U.S. armed forces, are you?

Significantly vague? 

Yep; "Whichever one resulted in the administration not being able to obtain what they claim they wanted to obtain."

I gave you more information than you even asked for, and why did you even ask if you so readily admit how easy it is to research the matter.  Do you even keep up with current events as I am surprised that you had to ask what I was referring to as that was possibly the reason you find it vague and I find it stunning that you asked? 

There are quite a few "current events" to keep up on and one must be somewhat selective, or at least preferentially sequential.  As I mentioned, I could look up more detailed information on the subject as my interest warrants.

Thank you for your service.  Yes I also served in the armed forces (71 lima -- wanted to be a 19 echo (indicates when I joined lol) but was color blind).  Military service is common in my family: father, brother, most of my uncles and many other relatives (It seems we are either military or law enforcement).

Thanks for yours as well.  Then you are aware of certain operational security matters in the military arena; which makes your previous comments a little surprising.  Presumably, you'd be aware of at least the general operational aspects of a troop withdrawl?

[Abrupt]

Yep; "Whichever one resulted in the administration not being able to obtain what they claim they wanted to obtain."

Well in fairness there is only one current topic that would prompt the OP so deduction is simple in determining exactly what I was talking about.  Anyone aware of current events knows that all our troops are leaving Iraq and that this is not what was wanted and we couldn't reach a diplomatic solution to allow us to leave troops there under conditions that our military would agree to.  We have known about this date since Bush was president and there is no surprise in it.  We intended to leave some troops behind and this was strongly advised from the pentagon and even the administration stated they wanted to leave troops beyond the date.  The conditions provided us by the Iraqi government for us leaving behind 20k troops were unacceptable to the Military (i.e. no immunity for our remaining troops) and there is no reason that we could not have come to a diplomatic solution to this problem had we approached it earlier or used even a little pressure.

So when you asked what fumble my response was whatever one caused this end as there was absolutely no reason we couldn't have had exactly what we wanted and there has hardly ever been an easier diplomatic objective than this.

There are quite a few "current events" to keep up on and one must be somewhat selective, or at least preferentially sequential.  As I mentioned, I could look up more detailed information on the subject as my interest warrants.

Again, there is only one current even that would trigger the statement of the OP.  We are only bringing back 1k from Afghanistan next month so that surely wasn't what was meant and we are sending troops to Africa so it certainly cannot be that.

Thanks for yours as well.  Then you are aware of certain operational security matters in the military arena; which makes your previous comments a little surprising.  Presumably, you'd be aware of at least the general operational aspects of a troop withdrawl?

I worked under both S4 and S2 and am familiar with as much as can be from handling incoming and outgoing communications (especially outgoing since I had to proof and type many to military standards).   In this case, though, troop withdrawal operations are irrelevant as the topic pertains to the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement forged under Bush.  That we wanted to leave some troops behind is no mystery either as this was to protect Iraq from Iran and the way such things work, loosely, behind the scenes is that the Iraqi parliament asks us (and makes it public) to leave behind some forces for 'insert reason here' and thus the Iraqi people will be more apt to feel good about the situation since it is a request from their own government and not a demand from us.  Anyone who doesn't see what is coming after we leave has their head in the sand as I can almost guarantee there will be khurd/sunni/shiite turmoil across Iraq.  Already Turkey is engaging the Khurds in Iraq and Iran is ready to rally the Shiite against the Sunni.  What I see coming there will make the war look like a park re-enactment.  So I stand with my ignorance or incompetence position as nobody in the US is going to feel good about what comes out of us leaving in the situation as it is.

Don't get me wrong, I hope I am wrong but if history is any lesson and current events any indicator/lignitor,  I am not wrong.

[falcon9]

Well in fairness there is only one current topic that would prompt the OP so deduction is simple in determining exactly what I was talking about.

I wasn't referring to the current topic, (which was deduced as Iraqi troop withdrawls).  The reference was to what I'd indicated however, the point is moot so, moving on ...

Anyone aware of current events knows that all our troops are leaving Iraq and that this is not what was wanted and we couldn't reach a diplomatic solution to allow us to leave troops there under conditions that our military would agree to. We intended to leave some troops behind and this was strongly advised from the pentagon and even the administration stated they wanted to leave troops beyond the date.

Are you directly implying that the objective was to leave U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely or, at least past the end of this year?

So when you asked what fumble my response was whatever one caused this end as there was absolutely no reason we couldn't have had exactly what we wanted and there has hardly ever been an easier diplomatic objective than this.

I see; you are alluding to some unspecified "fumble", (hence my use of the word "vague"), which lead to the current situation, yes?

I worked under both S4 and S2 and am familiar with as much as can be from handling incoming and outgoing communications (especially outgoing since I had to proof and type many to military standards).   In this case, though, troop withdrawal operations are irrelevant as the topic pertains to the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement forged under Bush. 

The topic does pertain to the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement however, operational security matters extend beyond that agreement and include other aspects of theatre-wide operations.  For instance, the geographic proximity of Afghanistan to Iraq and deployed forces therein.  All I'm suggesting is that there is more than meets the eye to the situation than the I.S.F.A. alone.

That we wanted to leave some troops behind is no mystery either as this was to protect Iraq from Iran ...

Alternate reasons for this are also apparent from a perusal of recent events, (such as Iran's apparent pusuit of nuclear weaponry, for instance).  Be that as it may, I agree that there are valid operational reasons for having troops in the region.

Anyone who doesn't see what is coming after we leave has their head in the sand as I can almost guarantee there will be khurd/sunni/shiite turmoil across Iraq.  Already Turkey is engaging the Khurds in Iraq and Iran is ready to rally the Shiite against the Sunni.  What I see coming there will make the war look like a park re-enactment.  So I stand with my ignorance or incompetence position as nobody in the US is going to feel good about what comes out of us leaving in the situation as it is.

Such an outcome as you speculate upon is a strong possibility however, there comes a point when it is realized that such long-standing animosities cannot be resolved by foreign occupying forces.  If such animosity remains an internal security problem for Iraq, the international community, (U.N., U.S., others?), would likely intervene at some level.  The level of intervention would no doubt increase significantly were such problems to cross borders.  Time will tell.

Don't get me wrong, I hope I am wrong but if history is any lesson and current events any indicator/lignitor,  I am not wrong.
[/quote]

[MCRmy29]

even if it is for political power its still a great thing to bring them back!

[Getinonthis]

No matter the cause whether its for another term, as long as he delivers on the his vow.
That'll quench the hopes and fears of many.