The Obama Administration wants US troops to stay in Iraq past the Dec 31 deadline

[Cali_Democrat]

This is utterly shocking! :sarcasm:

Gates urges Iraqis to ask for US troop extension

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he hopes Baghdad asks U.S. troops to stay beyond their scheduled Dec. 31 departure in order to preserve the relative peace in a country where Americans have such an enormous investment in money and lives.

"I hope they figure out a way to ask, and I think that the United States will be willing to say 'yes' when that time comes," Gates said in response to a question about Iraq after delivering a speech on Pentagon budget cuts.

Gates said a longer U.S. military presence could help sustain the security and other gains Iraq has made in recent years. Iraq could become a model for a multisectarian society in the Arab world "that shows that democracy works," he said.

The Pentagon chief's comments on Iraq were in line with what he said while visiting the country last month. During that trip, he said Iraqi political and military leaders acknowledge they need further U.S. military support but are reluctant to ask for it because popular sentiment is strongly against an extended U.S. presence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/24/ap/world/main20065906.shtml

Apparently one of the main factors why the US wants to continue to occupy Iraq is to intimidate Iran.

Gates Sees Iran as a Consideration for U.S. Troops in Iraq
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: May 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Tuesday that if some American troops remained in Iraq beyond the scheduled withdrawal of all United States forces by the end of the year, it would be reassuring to Persian Gulf countries, but not to Iran. “And that’s a good thing,” Mr. Gates said.

<snip>

Although Mr. Gates and other American officials had held out the possibility that some United States forces could stay in Iraq beyond the end of the year, the defense secretary had never before cited Iran as a factor in the Obama administration’s thinking. Mr. Gates’s remarks coincided with the release of a report on Tuesday by Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, which said Iran’s use of military proxy groups poses the most serious threat to Iraq’s security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25military.html

So how do the Iraqis feel about this? It is their country after all. Well...thousands of Iraqi recently protested against continued US occupation of Iraq....

Tens of thousands protest in Baghdad to demand U.S. troops to leave

BAGHDAD (BNO NEWS) -- Tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Baghdad on Thursday to demand that American troops leave the country by the end of the year, local media reported.

The Aswat al-Iraq news agency reported that the demonstration began at around 8 a.m. local time when protesters, mainly followers of Shiite Sadrist leader Muqtada al-Sadr, gathered for a military-style parade and chanted anti-American slogans.

The protesters waved flags and chanted "No, no, America. No, no, occupation. Yes, yes, Iraq. Yes, yes, Zahra'a. Yes, yes, Mahdi." Zahra'a was the name of Fatimatul-Zahraa, the daughter of the Prophet Mohammed and wife of his cousin and grand-son, Imam Ali Bin-Abi Taleb.

http://channel6newsonline.com/2011/05/tens-of-thousands-protest-in-baghdad-to-demand-u-s-troops-to-leave/

I think this DU thread said it best....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1190176

Bring them home.

[ProSense]

1. It's a good thing

that Gates is retiring soon. From the NYT article:

<...>

Mr. Gates, who is to retire at the end of next month, made his comments at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research institution, in a question-and-answer session after delivering formal remarks on the defense budget. He described it as “my last major policy speech in Washington.”

<...>

Keeping American troops in Iraq would have political repercussions in both Washington and Baghdad. President Obama campaigned in 2008 on a platform of pulling all American forces out of Iraq, and breaking that promise is likely to antagonize his supporters on the left.

<...>

His "if Iraqis ask" comments don't make a lot of sense. There is no reason to stay in Iraq.

[tekisui]

9. Retiring or not, he is part of the Obama Administration and

there has been a steady drip of calls for troops to stay longer. If I were a betting man, I would bet the US will keep the 10,000 or so in Iraq past Dec 31. And, of course that doesn't include the for hire armies that the State Dept uses at its mammoth embassy.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. I'm not even sure if we can call it an embassy anymore

It's a de facto military base.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Why would Gates urge Iraq to extend the stay of US troops?

So the Administration hopes for US troops to stay, but they don't really want US troops to stay?

[great white snark]

6. Why do you consider the last gasps of Gates=the admin's position?

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Gates is Obama's defense secretary

The term "Obama Administration" includes the Secretary of Defense.

For example, when Hillary speaks out about the Middle East or Latin American policy, she is speaking for the Obama Administration.

Secretary of defense is a Cabinet-level position like Secretary of State.

Here's the entire cabinet...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

[vaberella]

19. That doesn't mean he speaks for the President. Gates also wanted 60,000+

troops in Afghanistan. And him and some of the other military publicly stated this. They got half of that. He doesn't speak for the President on all things. Obama had even said just 2 weeks ago that troops will be coming out in July. That has not changed so far, no matter the "wishes" of the Defense Secretary.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. So, in other words, Obama Administration officials don't really speak for the Obama Administration

When Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense for Bush, he wasn't really speaking for the Bush Administration. When Condi Rice was Secretary of State, she wasn't really speaking for the Bush Administration. When Colin Powell went to the UN and gave his WMD presentation, he really wasn't speaking for the Bush Administration. When Cheney spoke, it wasn't really for the Bush Administration. When Hank Paulson spoke about the financial crisis in 2008, he wasn't really speaking for the Bush Administration.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

[vaberella]

26. Unless in front of a comittee...they are independent people who come up with their own ideas.

I never suggested that. However, I think we can also say that everyone in the Bush White House was in total agreement on things and normally stayed on message. That has not been the case with the Obama Admin. Congressmen believe one thing Admin another. Clinton says one thing Obama says another. Panetta says one thing Obama another. Gates says one thing and Obama another. Gibbs used to say a lot of off things and would later have to correct his words. In the end, they all follow Obama's plan. But he allows his people to have a degree of independence it seems or they don't organize the message well or they're off message. Republicans rarely have that it seems.

So the comparison you're making between the Bush admin and the Obama Admin are on a false equivalence. In the end...I listen to the man in power and his direct actions than the words coming out of the mouth of his people unless they say they get it directly from him. But when a man says, "I think..." that in no way is equal to, "Obama thinks..." or "We thinks...".

[Cali_Democrat]

28. So, in other words, Obama Administration officials don't really speak for the Obama Administration?

Unless they are in front of a Congressional committee?

But Bush Administration officials did speak for the Bush Admin because "the Bush White House was in total agreement on things and normally stayed on message"

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Knight Hawk]

94. So ....................

True

[tekisui]

36. Unless, of course, the individual does or says something great.

Then, Obama gets the praise.

[vaberella]

91. Aye? Hardly...I stand only by what the President says. If O confirms then yeah it's fact.

But I've dealt with too much falsehoods from others working in the administration. To know by now that people's opinion are their own. I hate this one-size fits all narrative some of you seem to have---and this sort of well of course because I'm a fan of Obama then I will say this or do this. No, we don't act the same way and we don't respond the same way. I don't read Krugman---so when he goes on his one minute love rant of Obama or if he goes on his hate rant---I quote neither nor pay much attention. I wait until whatever the Obama passes through and how that is reflected through the economy. So when Gates says something--that's what HE thinks. When Panetta says something, that's what HE thinks. I don't see you saying any of this stuff when Panetta was saying pictures were going to be released---nor did this question of what one thinks versus the administration was even discussed. But when it's the same situation here---you have to be an Obama fan in order to have this opinion. It's BS and it's unfair treatment. You don't have to like what "Obama fans" have to say, but show a bit of bloody respect. The marginalizing tone is rather stupid.

[vaberella]

92. Why are we going in a circular discussion? Why is it so hard to grasp?

When he says "he thinks" he's speaking for himself. It's not hard to grasp. So when Panetta said "he thinks we should reveal the picture" ----you're saying that he then spoke for the admin? The same admin which had already said and continued to say (without directly renouncing Panetta's statement) that they would not release the pics. Obama had stated just about two weeks prior if not last week that troops will be removed in July 2011. So far whatever Gates is saying is on his own personal opinion and not that of the admin. Well until the admin says otherwise. So far Obama is keeping his word.

This is not hard to grasp, but you've asked me the same question about 3 times and I've answered all similarly...I hope it's understood now or I'm sure you'll ask again---at which I can't be bothered to repeat the same statement.

[Cali_Democrat]

93. Gates said something very similar 7 months ago.....

By ANNE GEARAN
updated 11/9/2010 7:51:47 AM ET
Gates: U.S. troops could stay longer in Iraq

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — The United States is open to the idea of keeping troops in Iraq past a deadline to leave next year if Iraq asks for it, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

"We'll stand by," Gates said. "We're ready to have that discussion if and when they want to raise it with us."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40084647/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/gates-us-troops-could-stay-longer-iraq/

Secretary of Defense Gates sure has been saying the same thing for a long time now. His recent remarks aren't some new development.

BTW...did you see the news today? Obama formally announced his nomination for the joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey. You know what he said a few weeks ago??? He also said that he's willing to keep US troops in Iraq past the deadline.

The nomination came just seven weeks after Dempsey became the Chief of Staff of the Army, a post normally held for four years. When he took that post, he told reporters he would support keeping U.S. troops in Iraq past the end of the year, the current departure deadline, if Iraq’s government agreed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-30/dempsey-would-support-keeping-u-s-troops-in-iraq-past-deadline-if-needed.html

Of course the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs have no real insight into administration policy. Obama Administration officials don't really speak for the Obama Administration. Why on earth do they keep entertaining the idea that the United States is open to keeping troops in Iraq past a deadline when Obama has said otherwise? Why don't they just zip their lips because it ain't happening. I think their boss should set them straight, or they could turn out to be real defectors.

Drip...drip...drip....

BTW, I wonder if Obama and Dempsey are gonna eat a nice steak dinner tonight in celebration of his nomination for the chairman of the joint chiefs.

[Forkboy]

100. +1

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

10. Bookmarking for Dec. 31 when we can count the number of US troops

still in Iraq.

[dionysus]

12. what's that thumbs down thingie? some kind of fist? time for some kickboxin!

:rofl: <--kickboxin'

:hi:

[great white snark]

7. Unrec. And your use of the "bring them home" thread for this purpose is disgusting.

[tekisui]

11. Get over your disgust. We still have 47,000 in Iraq.

And we may damn well have 10,000+ after Dec. 31st.

I agree with the OP, BRING THEM HOME!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe NoWay]

14. All that was ever needed was Seal Teams 1-500

Would have saved 2.5 trillon.....
Come on people stop with the emotion and think.
All of are dead GI's for nothing.
I support GI's but, cant support Bush's idea of wasting them..
But, Pres. Obama showed you the
best way to do things...Geee

[ClarkUSA]

16. Misleading OP headline. It's soon-to-be ex-Defense Sec. Gates opinion, not the WH or Pres. Obama's.

Considering Gates didn't call the shots for nailing OBL and he's leaving NEXT MONTH, his opinion means nothing to the eventual outcome. You are confusing personal opinion with Obama administration policy.

[vaberella]

20. I should have known. These old guys---whenever they're out they talk more. n/t

[Citizen Worker]

17. No surprise here. We're still occupying Germany, Japan and Korea and those wars ended decades ago.

We should be prepared for a decades long occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[davidpdx]

21. I hate to tell you this, but the two Koreas still technically are at war

There was no peace treaty only an armistice. My point is driven home by the fact that North Korea suck a naval ship and shelled a South Korean island all in the last year or so. If you think that is a country where the war has ended, you are dead wrong. The number of troops here last I heard was around 28,000.

You have a point about Germany. I know very little about our presence in Germany.

Japan still can only have a defensive military based on he WWII surrender agreement and have about 50,000 troops or so in Japan. I think a militarized Japan would be a very bad thing, it will only take a bat of an eyelash before they start developing nuclear weapons, then South Korea will want them, then we have almost every country in North Asia with nuclear weapons. Not a good idea.

[golfguru]

22. We are now flat broke and can't afford the military adventures

any more. 30 years ago we were a lender nation.
Now we are a debtor nation. That is how all empires
in history withered....debt & military adventures in foreign lands.

[Knight Hawk]

95. Big difference............

in North and South Korea.South Korea is one of the most advanced countries in the world.North Korea is an under populated third world country.I spent one year on the 38 parallel.South Korea can defend themselves.This is all about the MIC.

[vaberella]

18. Gates is not Obama. Obama makes the decision on staying or not. And Obama said we're out.n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Why on Earth....

Would Obama's secretary of defense say that he hopes Baghdad asks U.S. troops to stay beyond their scheduled Dec. 31 departure? Why on earth did he say that he thinks the US will approve of continued US occupation of Iraq? You're saying that Obama's secretary of defense didn't consult Obama at all and he's just mouthing off on his own? Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has no real insight into Obama Administration policy vis-a-vis Iraq?

[vaberella]

25. Panetta said, "I think we have to reveal to the rest of the world..."

What's my point? These guys all have their own mind and their own opinion. He did not speak on behalf of the White House, the Department of Defense, but his own personal opinions because in the end he is an advocate for war and has his own position on things. However, he is not President and he is not Obama.

When Panetta made his comment about wanting or thinking the pictures should be released, which is contrary to the White House Press secretary's opinion and statements on behalf of the President. In the end, Obama did not release the pictures, aside to those in Congress who wanted to see the pictures. But Panetta had something to say.

Don't just sit there and assume that these people don't have a mind or a mouth of their own. They do...and sometimes it runs contrary to the President. And don't assume everything they think or say is in line or coming from the White House. However, it looks like you want to think that.

And sadly for this White House---there has been a lot of defectors who say their own thing while the Administration believes and supports something else.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Did you read the first article?

- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he hopes Baghdad asks U.S. troops to stay beyond their scheduled Dec. 31 departure

- "I hope they figure out a way to ask, and I think that the United States will be willing to say 'yes' when that time comes," Gates said

- Gates said a longer U.S. military presence could help sustain the security and other gains Iraq has made in recent years.

- The Pentagon chief's comments on Iraq were in line with what he said while visiting the country last month.

- In his remarks Tuesday he was more expansive, asserting that a longer U.S. stay would send a reassuring signal

- Behind the scenes, Pentagon officials are trying to sort out how they would manage an extended troop presence

- Gates said the U.S. could provide further assistance to the Iraqi military

Please note the bold text above. The Pentagon is apparently preparing for something that their commander in chief says will never happen and is totally against?

Why is Gates continuing to float the idea of continued US troop presence in Iraq again and again and again over several months? Why has Obama failed to correct him over this time?

So Gates, Obama's secretary of Defense, is just whacked out of his mind? Not only does he not speak for the Obama Administration even though he's an Obama Administration official, but the Secretary of Defense has no real insight into US defense policy?

[vaberella]

29. Uh...I don't listen to "behind the scenes" stuff---because that's based on rumors and assumptions.

They don't have the full facts on what's going on. While nothing else in the article even supports "the behind the scene" claim. This is like the people who said, Obama set out to destroy countless progressive bills that failed in Congress. A reporter taking liberties while Gates puts out his own opinion---and while Obama himself has said we're way too over extended and reasserted troop removal starting in July---one month sooner than I thought was the August date.

On this...I'll wait until Obama sets out the plan before I drive myself into a tizzy. As I mentioned---Obama hasn't failed to correct him---it would seem that Obama laid out his plan and stated it. Because Gates is interjecting his opinion into the story is not what I take into account. As I stated earlier---there are a lot of defectors in this Admin. In the end, I'd sooner listen to the President than a lot of the people around him.

Again as I said I don't think Obama allows a degree a freedom, and please don't interject words that are not there into my views on Gates. I never stated that. But when a person says, "I think..." I take it as their personal opinion and not them as rep for anything else. Again, Gates is not the president. As I stated as well and you seem to choose to ignore. Panetta had stated, "I think..." several times on things that are different from the Admin. You don't seem to be anxious about the lack of conformity there.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Gates has been saying the same thing for a while now....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12990912

7 April 2011 Last updated at 12:34 ET

US troops could if required by Iraq stay in the country beyond the agreed withdrawal date of 31 December, 2011, the US defense secretary has said.

That was almost 2 months ago, well before his recent statements in my OP. Why does Obama's defense secretary keep saying US troops could stay in Iraq beyond the deadline?

Is Gates essentially a defector?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

34. lol! Wrong again. Apples and oranges. Gates wasn't expressing his personal opinion in your quote.

What Gates said is not "the same thing" as what he said in the OP.

Why are you trying so hard to conflate Gates' opinion with administration policy?

[DCBob]

31. This is not official US policy.. its a comment by Gates..

Regardless, the Iraqi people do not want us there and I think that is not going to change.

[ClarkUSA]

35. The OP is conflating soon-to-be retiring Gates' personal opinion w/administration policy.

When repeatedly told of this, the OP refuses to acknowledge the difference.

One wonders why.

[tekisui]

37. Bullshit. Gates spoke in his official capacity and Maliki is acting.

Maliki is now trying to lobby support in Iraq to get a majority in Parliament to request an extension.

At any rate, I am bookmarking this thread to come back to on Dec 31st and we can count the number of US troops left in Iraq. We are still at 47,000.

[DCBob]

39. Bet you a 50 buck donation to DU Obama keeps his word on this.

deal?

[tekisui]

40. Easy bet. I'll take it.

:toast:

We'll count the US troops still in Iraq on December 31st and if that number is greater than zero, in any capacity, I win.

[DCBob]

41. Obama's commitment is this..

"Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."

That's the bet.

:toast:

See ya Dec 31 and have your credit card ready. ;)

[tekisui]

73. Unfortunately, I look to already be winning this:

250-300 troops just deployed to Iraq for one-year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1198473

[DCBob]

83. We shall see.. I still think Obama will be good to his word on this..

I will cough up the donation if Im wrong.

[Knight Hawk]

96. Get ready to...................

cough.

[Eagle Mall]

44. Are we still at war in Germany and Japan? Because we still have troops there.

If you are willing to apply the actual definition of a hot war to this bet, I would like to add a $100 DU Donation to the mix.

Are you up for it?

[ClarkUSA]

48. Exactly. And don't forget Korea.

[tekisui]

50. The Koreas are still officially at war. Not the best example to use.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Not in reality, though. Furthermore, we are not at war with North Korea.

Not the best argument to make.

[tekisui]

49. I am talking about troop deployment, as Obama promised.

I don't recall Obama promising to get all the troops out of Japan or Germany, although I think we should.

[Eagle Mall]

54. Obama promised to end the Iraq War, and that's what he's doing.

You know as well as I do that there is a difference between having some troops based in a country and being at all-out war in that country.

I know you like to confuse this issue in your efforts to try and make a point,
but that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq War is over.

Obama has kept his promise and will continue to do so.

[tekisui]

57. So, are you suggesting that when Obama said point blank

all troops out of Iraq by end of 2011, as the agreement signed by US and Iraq requires, he did not necessarily mean all troops out by 2011?

[Eagle Mall]

61. If the Iraqi's want all troops out, they will be out. If they don't, they won't.

Quit acting like you don't know how this works.

[tekisui]

65. You finally seem to understand. The promise is conditional

and may not be fulfilled.

[Eagle Mall]

67. Conditional based on what the Iraqi's want. Why is that surprising?

[tekisui]

71. It isn't. It is par with the function of US military. Wars without end.

As long as a reason for staying (or entering) can be found, we will latch on. War is far too profitable to give up easily.

It is especially telling when the Iraqi politician out front in shoring up support is the favorite of the US. Again, not surprising.

[Eagle Mall]

85. I ask again. Is there currently war in Germany or Japan?

US Troop presence <> War

[tekisui]

89. I say again, that is not what this thread or debate is about.

Obama said, without qualification, ALL US troops would be out by end of 2011. That is the debate.

[Knight Hawk]

97. A question...............

Even if almost all the troops are going to be out,how many independent contractors will remain?Are they being paid by the American taxpayers?What is going to be the cost to keep and maintain a very large and expensive embassy in a third world country?It is ALL ABOUT MONEY.It will always be so unless we change many of our leaders,both parties.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Prove it. Quote a WH press release that states the same policy decision as Gates' personal opinion

It's clear to me that Gates stated his personal opinion. And unless you provide proof this is administration policy, then you're the one spewing "bullshit".

Since you're so determined with ridding Iraq of all troops, I wonder why you are not similarly concerned re: US troops based in Germany, Korea, and Japan? What's your beef? Furthermore, given President Obama is a wonderfully successful CIC who knows far better how to handle this issue than you.

And handle it he will. Like my sig? :D

[tekisui]

47. How do you know I'm not similarly concerned?

I can see you are already hedging your bet by drawing parallels to Germany and Japan. You are already prepping the ground for the upcoming broken promise.

Gates is the Defense Secretary. If the Obama Administration thought he was out of line, they would make it clear. They are letting him (or perhaps requesting him) to lay this groundwork for troop extension. And Maliki is responding by trying to find support.

I am against US imperialism and our stationing of troops all over the world, for the record.

[ClarkUSA]

51. Where's your proof? You only offer more empty rhetoric = "bullshit" re: what Gates really means?

<< How do you know I'm not similarly concerned? >>

Easy. Because you have never stated so before now. Forgive me if I am dubious.

<< I can see you are already hedging your bet by drawing parallels to Germany and Japan. You are already prepping the ground for the upcoming broken promise. >>

lol! Wrong. You are desperately conflating what I said re: your {b}concern with how I feel re: President Obama's promise to withdraw troops in Iraq.
Apples and oranges, m'dear.

There's another DUer who wants to bet you $100. Better reply to him.

[tekisui]

56. The Pentagon spokesperson said

that U.S. forces could stay beyond 2011 to help the Iraqi Security Forces fill the "gaps" in their operations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/iraq-withdrawal-2011-delay_n_860188.html

The spokesperson was acting in her official capacity.

[ClarkUSA]

59. seld-delete

[ClarkUSA]

60. lol! That is completely different than what the OP claims in the misleading headline.

OP headline: "The Obama Administration wants US troops to stay in Iraq past the Dec 31 deadline"

The spokesperson said nothing of the sort. Honest folks would admit that.

[tekisui]

63. The spokesperson said the door is open if the Iraqis want it.

Gates is pushing for the Iraqis to ask for it. In the end the effect is the same. If the Iraqis ask, we will stay. That is the point.

The 'promise' is not so assured as you would like to present it.

[ClarkUSA]

66. Not what the OP headline says. Where's the proof that Pres. Obama "wants" troops to stay past 2011?

Pssst! I'll save you the trouble.

There is none.

BTW, I recall folks whining when the same speculative bullshit came up re: Pres. Obama ending the Iraq war as promised and withdrawing combat troops from Iraq by August of last year. There was shit-stirring about whether he'd be late to follow through with that, as well.

Guess what happened? He kept his promise, much to the shit-stirrers' chagrin.

Then the goalpost moved to ALL troops. Well, we'll see, won't we? :D

[tekisui]

70. To be fair, relabeling combat troops as non-combat troops, while

simultaneously increasing the private contractors was a relatively easy move and an achievement based on a technicality.

Oh yeah, we'll see. I wonder what he'll rename them now to keep them there?

I am not suggesting that Obama wants to keep troops there. I am dubious, though, that he will meet the promise he set out during the campaign.

[ClarkUSA]

74. The correct term, minus the snide implication, is "re-assigning" which is a different duty mission.

It means President Obama ended the Iraq war, as promised.

<< I am not suggesting that Obama wants to keep troops there. I am dubious, though, that he will meet the promise he set out during the campaign.>>

That's fair. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

What is not fair is the bullshit OP headline by Cali_Democrat, however; it is totally false to say that the Obama administration (and thereby implying President Obama himself) "wants" to keep troops past Dec. 31, 2011.

[tekisui]

75. Did you see this?

It seems the Administration is forgoing the formality of waiting for Iraqi request. 250-300 deployed, today, to Iraq for one year:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1198473

[ClarkUSA]

81. Yes, I did. I have replied to you already.

[GSLevel9]

38. lol is ANYONE surprised? lol nt

[GSLevel9]

42. deadlines are a living, breathing concept... they're FLEXIBLE!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[BklnDem75]

45. Unrec

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

53. What do you mean Gates isn't in charge anymore?

[Eagle Mall]

55. His retirement date is set. His replacement is selected.

He is not making decisions for the future.

He's just biding his time until he's through.
And doing a little blabbing while he's at it.

Panetta will be such an improvement.

[Cali_Democrat]

58. So that fact that Gates has been talking about US troops staying past the deadline means nothing?

The Defense Secretary has been essentially saying this same thing going back to last year.

Should we take what Gates is saying with a grain of salt, even though he's been saying it for months and months?

[Eagle Mall]

62. Gates has said alot of things. He doesn't get to make the final call, though.

And soon, he won't even have an advisory position.

[ClarkUSA]

64. How true. Gates wanted to send in drones to get OBL but Pres. Obama made the final "gutsy call"

The rest is history.

Not to mention Gates will be a memory next month, as so many have already said but some people just want to keep digging.

[Cali_Democrat]

68. Also, the new chairman of the joint chiefs said the same thing today

Off base? Doesn't get to make the call, but he's just floating it out there anyways for the hell of it?

The fact that he said it the day Obama announced his nomination doesn't give you pause?

[ClarkUSA]

69. Bullshit. Quote him. Did he say exactly what you claim in your OP headline?

Did he say: "The Obama Administration wants US troops to stay in Iraq past the Dec 31 deadline"?

[tekisui]

72. The US just deployed 300 combat troops for another year!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1198473

It seems we aren't even going to wait for the pony show of the Iraqi request.

[ClarkUSA]

76. Read your own article, tekisui. 250 troops will play an advisory role ONLY. Quotes ->

"The 2nd Brigade Combat Team will be deploying to Al-Anbar Province in western Iraq in an "advise and assist" capacity. The unit's mission is to train Iraqi Security Forces and conduct joint counterterrorism missions with them.

The U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement says coalition troops will be out of the country by Dec. 31, but Roddenberry said the paratroopers could be gone up to a year, depending on the decisions from the Iraqi and U.S. governments."

Again, there's that word "could". Doesn't mean "will".

[tekisui]

77. So. They are still a combat brigade and will be there for ONE YEAR.

That is 5 months longer than what Obama promised, and there has not been any (public) change in agreement with the Iraqis.

[ClarkUSA]

78. Wrong. You really didn't bother reading the article or my quotes. Substitute "could" for "will".

Outrage FAIL.

[tekisui]

79. No outrage here. Just watching the predictable unfold.

They are combat troops, regardless of how the pentagon wants them labeled and they are going to be deployed to Iraq for a year.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Does your crystal ball do lottery tickets, too?

<< They are combat troops, regardless of how the pentagon wants them labeled and they are going to be deployed to Iraq for a year.>>

I'm not into conspiracy theories, so I will say to you once more that these 250 (not 300) troops are being re-assigned to a duty mission that confines them to a advisory role.

If you have proof that the Pentagon intends otherwise, please share it.

[tekisui]

82. You left of assist. What do you think assist means?

Assist in combat, naturally. They are training by going into combat along side, actively or as support/back-up. Again, these are still troops operating in Iraq. This isn't hard to understand. And, they will be there a year. You cant bury your head in the sand all you like, but it doesn't change to reality of the deployment.

[ClarkUSA]

84. That's ludicrous. lol! Prove it. So far, you have proven none of your claims.

Prove your latest claim that these troops will "assist in combat".

[tekisui]

88. Yep. And I stand by it.

:hi:

They have been this past year.

[ClarkUSA]

You "stand by" your completely unproven & unfounded claim aka. bullshit.

Gotcha.

[tekisui]

101. lol. Bless your blinded little heart.

[Knight Hawk]

98. That is exactly how....................

we got started in Vietnam.Advisers were sent in .It all about money.Between defence,medicine,law, higher education ,many non essential and over lapping government functions the working middle class is being decimated.

[Vattel]

99. Read your own quote.

It contradicts your claim that they "will play an advisory role only." They will "advise and assist," "train and conduct joint counterterrorism missions with them." Do you believe that assisting Iraqi troops by conducting counterterrorism missions with them is purely advisory in nature?

As for whether Obama will keep his word on all troops leaving by the end of 2011 (assuming he did make that promise), I think a lot depends on what the Iraqi's decide. If Iraq kicks us out we will leave.

[Cali_Democrat]

86. Another shocking development

:sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

87. How is re-assigning 250 combat troops to an advisory role a "shocking development"?

tekisui's claim that they "will be" in Iraq for a year is not faithful to what the news article says, either. They "could be" in Iraq for a year, depending on whether the Iraqis whine, which is doubtful.

You have yet to prove your OP headline is not complete bullshit, BTW.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

90. It sounds like a pretty weak and conditional statement by Gates

Could be a trial balloon? Or Gates could just be proffering his personal opinion, which is more what it sounds like. I'm not exactly sure why an extended military commitment would be desirable and I'm not aware of President Obama or really anybody in Congress lobbying for an extended presence there. Given that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, there is REALLY no reason to keep a presence there, particularly if the Iraqis want us out. It's not as though we would ever be too far away to offer aid if needed either.

[Enrique]

102. it's about Iran

that's what Gates says right in the story. Regarding people lobbying for an extended stay, look at all the neocons doing just that, the ones that wanted the war in the first place. Why would they want the troops ever to come home?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

104. The neocons, no

They wouldn't to leave----EVER. I'm sure that some of them still want a chance/reason/opportunity to invade Iran (things have been pretty quiet in regards to Iran recently). Fortunately, I don't think that they carry much influence within the Obama Administration and I'm not sure that Gates was ever on board with the PNAC agenda. It sounds like he just thinks it might be a good idea but doesn't seem to be really pushing for it and, at any rate, President Obama will make the final decision and I haven't heard anything directly from him that suggests that he's eager to keep lots of troops over there, particularly with the Presidential election coming up next year.

[golfguru]

103. Obama is acting like cowboy Bush?