| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq | ||
| Iraq willing to see US troops leave early | ||
| 2009-01-22 | ||
| BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq is willing to have the U.S. withdraw all its troops and assume security for the country before the end of 2011, the departure date agreed to by former President George W. Bush, the spokesman of the Iraqi prime minister said. Spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh made the comment Tuesday, a day before President Barack Obama and his senior commanders were to meet in Washington to discuss the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama promised during the campaign to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. The new president said in his inaugural address Tuesday that he would "begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people." The government-owned newspaper Al-Sabah reported Wednesday that Iraqi authorities have drafted contingency plans in case Obama orders a "sudden" withdrawal of all forces and not just combat troops. Al-Dabbagh told Associated Press Television News that Iraqis had been worried about a quick U.S. departure. But with the emphasis on a responsible withdrawal, al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi government was willing for the U.S. to leave "even before the end of 2011." The Bush administration agreed in a security agreement signed in November to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2011. The chairman of parliament's defense committee, Abbas al-Bayati, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the Iraqis hoped Obama would stick by the timeline laid the agreement. "Nevertheless, we already have a 'Plan B,' which is that we have the ability to deploy any needed troops to any hot area in Iraq," al-Bayati said. "We are capable of controlling the situation in the country and we believe we have passed the worst" despite a lack of air and artillery power.
| ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #4 I suspect this is all semantics from the Iraqi side and misinformation from the AP. Iraq's Army can handle an insurgency, but not a conventional invasion. They will continue to be dependent on us until they can. The challenge is especially difficult because Iran outnumbers them by 3:1, Turkey outnumbers them by 2.5:1 etc. Very simply every Iraqi soldier will need to be 4-5 times as good as his enemies in order to defend the country. The other major issue is that their Air Force consists of a few prop driven planes. A jet pilot can be trained in a couple of years, but it's going to take a minimum of 10 years to set up a competent air defence network. Until that happens, they will be dependent of the U.S. of A. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2009-01-22 11:42 |
| #3 the Iraq army's biggest problems are logistics, corruption, and payroll. Need to get these figured out before they can be worth a darn. Same problems the Sth. Viet. had. |
| Posted by: bman 2009-01-22 10:46 |
| #2 The US military knew from the start that the odds were high that eventually either the congress or the POTUS would turn chicken, or worse, mismanage things horribly. They still remember, and are as bitter as hell, about the Vietnam betrayal (Vets really have short memories, don't they, Jane Fonda and John Kerry?) So working off that assumption, the trained the Iraqis from day 1 to be completely self sufficient and on their own. Right now, the best I can tell is that their biggest weakness is in air defenses (aircraft and missile), and the lack of a combat air force. Right now they are bidding for 36 F-16s. Both of these, we had to hold off on, in case Israel was going to attack Iran. And we have protected their airspace with PAC-3 and Patriot systems--but Bambi could pull both of those out. Seeing the problem ahead of time is why Israel now has that loaner X-band radar. If Bambi tries to pull that out, Israel can just shrug and say that if attacked, they will use nuclear weapons and obliterate the Muslim world. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-01-22 08:45 |
| #1 Many of them expressed hope that the departure of the president who launched the Iraq war in 2003 would speed the return of peace. WTF? Bringing in a rookie who obviously had terrible judgement about the whole thing will "speed the return of peace" between parties slugging it out for their own reasons? OK, I get it. With a real administration in power in the US, it was not difficult to imagine the SOFA being re-visited (by mutual request) somewhere in late 2010, with a view to extending the US presence. Now, the prospect of a strategic stumble looms. Bumbling away our position in Iraq (a political, not just geographic, position) would certainly be a fine tribute to the thousands who've sacrificed to advance our interests there. Nausea is only prevented by lingering incredulity at the situation. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-01-22 02:03 |