Obama Administration Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq

[Cali_Democrat]

Well they are according to the NY Times. There's a lot of oil in that region, ya know.

U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq
By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: October 29, 2011

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

<snip>

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

The size of the standby American combat force to be based in Kuwait remains the subject of negotiations, with an answer expected in coming days. Officers at the Central Command headquarters here declined to discuss specifics of the proposals, but it was clear that successful deployment plans from past decades could be incorporated into plans for a post-Iraq footprint in the region.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=2&ref=world

When will we ever learn our lesson? Continuing to meddle in the Middle East will come back to bite us, not to mention that we can't afford it. All this while cuts to Medicare and Social Security are being discussed.

Please contact the White House and tell them this is completely unacceptable:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[msongs]

1. bush one, bush two.... nt

[jefferson_dem]

17. Worse.

Obamer = BusHitler! :crazy:

[ProSense]

2. Ah

more bullshit spin from the MSM.

<...>

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

<...>

Did the Obama administration "unsuccessfully" press the Obama administration?

One minute it's the Penatagon, and the next it's the administration.

One thing is certain, the war in Iraq is over and the troops are being pulled out.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. First sentence of the article

"The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats"

Ultimately, what the Pentagon wants and presses for doesn't matter. The final decision rests with the White House and the Commander in Chief, President Obama.

[ProSense]

5. Ah

"First sentence of the article...Ultimately, what the Pentagon wants and presses for doesn't matter. The final decision rests with the White House and the Commander in Chief, President Obama."

...third paragraph from the article:

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

That actually proves you right: "Ultimately, what the Pentagon wants and presses for doesn't matter."

The Pentagon doesn't always get what it wants.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Do you think this article is bullshit?

Can you assure me that the Obama administration does not plan to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf?

[ProSense]

8. Well,

"Do you think this article is bullshit?"

...yes. Yes I do. The U.S. already has a significant presence in the region, and ending the Iraq war isn't likely to change that.

The fact is that the article reads like fear mongering and spin.

<...>

At home, Iraq has long been a matter of intense dispute. Some foreign policy analysts and Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the United States has remained in Iraq for too long. Others, including many Republicans and military analysts, have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal, expressing fear that Iraq remained too weak and unstable.

“The U.S. will have to come to terms with an Iraq that is unable to defend itself for at least a decade,” Adam Mausner and Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote after the withdrawal announcement.

<...>

Why is the emphasis on Democrats and not Republicans? Seriously, which Democrats have criticized Obama for the announcement?

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Of course the US already has a significant presence in the region

The question is whether or not the Obama administration will BOLSTER that presence. The article says they plan to.

[ProSense]

12. The

"The question is whether or not the Obama administration will BOLSTER that presence. The article says they plan to."

...article says the Pentagon is "drawing" up a plan and implies that it's to press the administration.

The article also states that some Democrats "have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal."

Have you heard any Democrats criticizing the administration?

[Cali_Democrat]

15. See reply #14

[Vattel]

30. You are incorrect.

Prosense: The article also states that some Democrats "have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal."

Article: At home, Iraq has long been a matter of intense dispute. Some foreign policy analysts and Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the United States has remained in Iraq for too long. Others, including many Republicans and military analysts, have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal, expressing fear that Iraq remained too weak and unstable.

"Others, including many Republicans and military analysts" does not imply "some Democrats."

[mkultra]

31. "After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government "

"to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative. "


yup, pretty important omission by the "liberal" op.

[Autumn]

4. Money to burn

wonder which safety nets can be further cut by Obama to bring "this" horrendous deficit under control?

[Kolesar]

6. Bush fucked you all

but thanks for blaming it on the black guy.

[Lord Helmet]

10. you snipped the most important paragraph

edited -- Prosense already made the point that the op snipped

[Cali_Democrat]

11. First sentence of the article

"The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats"

[Lord Helmet]

13. you snipped the paragraph that is specific about who is behind this and it's not Obama

"After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative."

[Cali_Democrat]

14. I'm not sure I understand your point.

The article is quite clear.

The Pentagon pressed the Obama administration and the Iraqi government for 20,000 troops in Iraq. That was rejected. Now The Obama administration is planning to bolster US military presence in the region and the Pentagon is "drawing up an alternative."

That's how I read it.

[Lord Helmet]

16. Reading comprehension helps.

try again -- "After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative."

The Pentagon seems to be forgetting they are subordinates to the president.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Correct...they are subordinates

And the Obama administration is planning to bolster US troop presence in the region and the Pentagon is drawing up an alternative to US troops in Iraq which is a bolstered military presence in the Gulf region.

The White House is on the same page with the Pentagon in terms of a bolstered military presence in the region.

[Lord Helmet]

20. Obviously the WH is not on the same page. The Pentagon UNSUCCESSFULLY lobbied the WH.

try again -- "After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative."

You can try to twist this to fit your delusional pov, but it's crystal clear that the Obama admin refused the Pentagon's request.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. The Pentagon UNSUCCESSFULLY lobbied the WH

Correct. They unsuccessfully lobbied the WH for 20,000 additional troops in Iraq.

That's over and done with.

Now the Obama administration is planning to bolster US troop presence in the region and the Pentagon is drawing up an alternative to US troops in Iraq which is a bolstered military presence in the Gulf region.

[Lord Helmet]

22. Read the sentence one more time. You are embellishing it to skew the meaning.

try again -- "After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative."

You obviously have an ax to grind but that doesn't change the meaning of the above sentence omitted by you for obvious reasons.

Nice try bucko.

[Autumn]

23. That's the way it reads.

Thank you for pointing that out.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[BklnDem75]

26. Wow... this is so much fail...

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[great white snark]

25. Holy shit, even a link to contact the W.H at the end.

That link doesn't validate your concern in any way.

[bvar22]

27. The NY Times?.. That Right Wing RAG?

Why do you hate The President?


Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Vattel]

28. Don't you ever get tired of the bullshit replies you get?

The article says that the Obama administration is planning something and you get attacked for spin when you say that the article says that the Obama administration is planning something.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. I don't worry too much about personal attacks

The goal of those individuals is to ultimately try and silence me and my vehement opposition to our Military Industrial Complex.

[BlueIris]

32. Shocker.

Awful.

[GSLevel9]

33. hahahhahahahaha!! Saw this coming... nt