# Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3,000 By End of 2011



## High_Gravity (Sep 6, 2011)

This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!

Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3,000 By End Of 2011 









> The Obama administration is willing to drop American troop levels in Iraq to as low as 3,000 by the end of this year, The Huffington Post has confirmed.
> 
> The new figure, first reported Tuesday by Fox News, represents a significant drop in the number of American military personnel expected to remain in the country after the American mission in Iraq expires on Dec. 31.
> 
> ...



Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3,000 By End Of 2011


----------



## Rocko (Sep 6, 2011)

This is a travesty, but it's what I come to expect from Obama...The man who accuses his opposition of putting elections in front of country.

His loyal supporters will say it's not politics, and they will point to his so-called bold decision  on the surge in Afghanistan (which he's given up on), but that was politics too....He was considered soft on terror, and weak on foreign policy, so fine 30,000 more on the good war.

Now the left is mad and as is the right...he has to do something that will at least make a bit of sense, when it comes to jobs, so before he announces something that will make a little, he uses this as an olive branch to the left, because they don't like things that make sense...

Finally, right before the election he wants to rally the base by putting our troops in danger, all in the name of left wing peace and love..

he is a sociopath.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 6, 2011)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh


poor little con.

i bet you wish he would use color coded threat bombs to gain votes instead huh?


----------



## Rocko (Sep 6, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh
> 
> 
> poor little con.
> ...



as long as we agree it's all about votes.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 6, 2011)

He should reduce it to zero.


----------



## Rocko (Sep 6, 2011)

Sallow said:


> He should reduce it to zero.



conventional wisdom would tell you, in this case 0 is better than just 3,000 combat troops..Agreed.


----------



## Dude111 (Sep 7, 2011)

High_Gravity said:
			
		

> This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!


YES THEY SHOULD ALL COME HOME!!!!!

This is indeed disgusting,what happend to his promise??

"IF THE TROOPS ARENT HOME BY THE TIME I GET IN OFFICE I WILL BRING THEM HOME"

Amazing how many idiots fell for that!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh
> 
> 
> poor little con.
> ...



Tell you what, when Iran invades Iraq, builds a nuclear bomb, and starts making demands of us if we want to eat, don't expect any sympathy from anyone you are laughing at.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2011)

Barry44sucks said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > He should reduce it to zero.
> ...



True.

Keeping 3000 troops there will just give us 3000 more dead soldiers.


----------



## editec (Sep 7, 2011)

Good.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 7, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh
> ...



When was the last time Iran invaded another country with it's regular military? I mean, like, this century?

This is fine example of a country radicalized by outside interference. Ours.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

editec said:


> Good.



What is so good about this?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

I'm serious these 3000 Troops are going to be in serious danger, leaving behind a small force like that basically means we are putting their protection in the hands of the Iraqi Military and Security Forces who are not to be trusted, they are infiltrated by both the Sunni and Shite Militias. If this goes through I will be very scared for the Troops left behind.


----------



## editec (Sep 7, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Good.
> ...


 
Reduces spending among other things.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

editec said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I'd rather put all the Troops out and reduce the spending even more.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

Plan Would Keep Small Force in Iraq Past Deadline



> WASHINGTON  Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is supporting a plan that would keep 3,000 to 4,000 American troops in Iraq after a deadline for their withdrawal at years end, but only to continue training security forces there, a senior military official said on Tuesday.
> 
> The recommendation would break a longstanding pledge by President Obama to withdraw all American forces from Iraq by the deadline. But it would still involve significantly fewer forces than proposals presented at the Pentagon in recent weeks by the senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, to keep as many as 14,000 to 18,000 troops there.
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/world/middleeast/07military.html?ref=middleeast


----------



## Rocko (Sep 7, 2011)

I hope this move won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....I hope this is not that foolish of a move..

After everything we have sacraficed in this war, securing victory should be the first priority..Why would Obama not listen to his generals? 

I know he's the commander in chief, but why should we believe his judgment is better?

Everyone wants our troops home, but I don't think we should forget about those who died for this cause, and what it would be like for them to die in vain.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

Barry44sucks said:


> I hope this move won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....I hope this is not that foolish of a move..
> 
> After everything we have sacraficed in this war, securing victory should be the first priority..Why would Obama not listen to his generals?
> 
> ...



Leaving a small number of troops like this is even worse than pulling out completely, if we pull them all out we will ensure our troops are safe, the situation in Iraq for better or worse is pretty much as good as it is going to get. If you leave a small number of US Troops in a hostile country like Iraq they will be sitting ducks for all the insurgent groups out there, its a bad idea. This whole thing reminds me of the Beirut barracks bombing back in the 80s.


----------



## Rocko (Sep 7, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> > I hope this move won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....I hope this is not that foolish of a move..
> ...



I agree 0 is a better alternative than 3000, but im not sure that the situation is as good as it's going to get....I would defer to the men in charge of the war.

I will conced that its hard to imagine a total collapse...We'll still have amost 50,000 troops there any way, but we want a secure base, as well as a a secure Iraq..

In your opinion, would trusting the generals not be the right thing to do?


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 7, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!



Good point, get them all the hell out.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

Barry44sucks said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Barry44sucks said:
> ...



I totally trust the Generals however I think we have hit a wall, our economy is in the dumps and our people are tired of this war, you can't fight a successful war without the peoples support, what would the objective be if we stayed in Iraq? our presence gives the insurgents credibility and street rep with the Iraqi people, if we go the insurgents will have a harder time justifying their activities.


----------



## Nosmo King (Sep 7, 2011)

Gee!  I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq!  I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question.  Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.

The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops.  They are trainers, naval and air advisers.

But, to the stupid and lazy among us, it's just more fodder for their insipid hate every breath Obama takes campaign.  

I just worry that the American people can be mislead by the stupid and lazy.  Well, consider the election of 2000.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

Nosmo King said:


> Gee!  I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq!  I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question.  Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.
> 
> The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops.  They are trainers, naval and air advisers.
> 
> ...



You think the Iraqi insurgents give a flying fuck whether these troops are advisors and trainers? all the combat troops are pretty much out of Iraq, that makes it even easier for the insurgents to attack the Americans and plan operations. Do you seriously fucking think the average Iraqi Soldier or Policeman is going to risk his life to protect an American Soldier? when you leave a small number of troops like this in a country in essence you are depending on the Soldiers and Police of that country to protect them, the Iraqi Military and Police are infiltrated with both Sunni and Shite insurgents who would like nothing better than to pull off a spectacular attack on the Americans while we are vulnerable, for you to sit here and type up a post like this shows how disconnected you are with the realities on the ground in Iraq and how fucking niaeve you are.


----------



## Rocko (Sep 7, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



 It may  be the case that having combat troops in there is counterproductive, but that's not what the generals are saying..Iraq does want us out, which is also something to consider...it is a tough call, but IMHO I Think our generals are in the best position to make the call.

I know the war is unpopular, but every war since WWII has been unpopular...I feel domestic populist sentiment really shouldn't factor in to the decision.

My disappointment is I feel this decision is more about politics than winning, and insuring a safe return for our troops, but  maybe I'm being too cynical...I hope I am.


----------



## Nosmo King (Sep 7, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Gee!  I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq!  I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question.  Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.
> ...


American soldiers patrolling the streets, conducting raids in homes, stationed among the general population are the soldiers, in insurgent's eyes, worth attacking.  Advisers stationed on Iraqi military bases, particularly 3,000 stationed at various bases, are invisible compared to the presence Americans had just five years ago.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

Barry44sucks said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Barry44sucks said:
> ...



I trust our Generals however I don't think its a good idea to have our Generals over ride the Iraqi government if they don't want us to stay, not to mention leaving 3000 US Troops in a hostile country like Iraq is madness and suicide, even the Generals for the most part have said that. 3000 Troops is nothing we have never had enough Troops in this country from the get go.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

Nosmo King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



The insurgents are still firing mortars at bases where the trainers and advisors are, are you seriously telling me these trainers and advisors will be safe under Iraqi protection?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh
> 
> 
> poor little con.
> ...



Tell me something, if you can be honest for once, why aren't you upset that Obama is breaking his promise to bring everyone in Iraq home?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

Explain why we had our highest number of US Troops killed in June in the last 2 years, thats a few months ago, the US is still running missions in Iraq too.

U.S. Casualties At 2-Year High In Iraq, May Spike If Administration Pledges To Stay Longer









> Two American troops were killed in northern Iraq yesterday while &#8220;conducting operations.&#8221; The New York Times reports that the military &#8220;did not elaborate, but that terminology is usually meant to indicate the deaths were caused by enemy attack.&#8221; And earlier this month, an Iranian-backed Shiite militia group attacked and killed six U.S. soldiers. Now, total U.S. combat deaths in Iraq in June has reached 11, the most since May 2009. But despite the fact that Americans are still dying combat related deaths in Iraq, President Obama announced last year that the U.S ended hostilities in Iraq and said as recently as last week in his speech that America&#8217;s combat mission there was already over:
> 
> Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm&#8217;s way. We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country.
> 
> ...



U.S. Casualties At 2-Year High In Iraq, May Spike If Administration Pledges To Stay Longer | ThinkProgress


----------



## MikeK (Sep 7, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!


I agree with you about getting them all out of Iraq -- and Afghanistan, too, in my opinion.  But where leaving 3,000 behind is concerned, I believe their safety will depend on the type of weaponry they have and how widely distributed they are.

I understand we have built an enormous embassy in Iraq (for what reason I have no idea).  So I'm assuming the 3,000 troops will be billeted there and will serve mainly to secure that place.  And I'll wager they will be armed with a few sub-nuclear weapons to deal with a major assault.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Was December 2009 in this century, or do you want something after that?

Iran invades 'Iraqi' territory to seize oil field - Telegraph


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2011)

Nosmo King said:


> Gee!  I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq!  I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question.  Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.
> 
> The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops.  They are trainers, naval and air advisers.
> 
> ...



Is that supposed to make me feel better? Do you think the fact that they are there to train, not fight, will prevent insurgents from attacking them?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Gee!  I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq!  I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question.  Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.
> ...



The fact that people are this niaeve to think US Military trainers will be immune to attacks from insurgents scares and baffles me, the bases where these trainers live are mortared and having rockets fired at them every day.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2011)

Barry44sucks said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Barry44sucks said:
> ...



Since you think the generals should make the call, they actually want 27,000 troops to stay in order to handle the security and training needs. When Obama pushed they said they could do the job with 10,000. Do you feel better about the 3,000 figure now?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 7, 2011)

MikeK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!
> ...



No matter how heavily armed these 3000 brave men and women are, they will not all be at 1 base keep that in mind, you don't keep all your eggs in 1 basket. If we are going to train and advise Iraqis we can't have everyone at the Embassy. I am guessing most of the security at the embassy will be private contractors. The 3000 Troops will be spread out across Iraq in several bases having to heavily depend on the Iraqis for safety and security, that is the part I don't like about it. Even though the American public for the most part has their minds off of this war and we are scaling back our presence there, there are thousands of heavily armed insurgents who are at war with us and want American blood, don't forget that.


----------



## Dude111 (Sep 7, 2011)

High_Gravity said:
			
		

> Explain why we had our highest number of US Troops killed in June in the last 2 years, thats a few months ago, the US is still running missions in Iraq too.


Exactly bud!!!!

Time to get them out of harms way!!


----------



## Rocko (Sep 7, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



My problem with the 3000 has more to do with the concern of the lives of the 3000 troops...maybe the generals are just concerned with victory, and are not concerned enough with cost (fiscally and life)...we have to make the choice to trust someone though, and whether I trust Obama or not, I don't like the idea of 3000.

To the other poster...I call them combat troops, because that's what they are....calling them anything else is just politics....its like saying investment instead of spending.


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 8, 2011)

Barry44sucks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Barry44sucks said:
> ...



The insurgents will go after these Troops regardless of their MOS, even if they are cooks and shoe shine boys. People who think the insurgents are only going to target combat troops are niaeve and completely disconnected about whats going down on the ground in Iraq.


----------



## Rocko (Sep 8, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



exactly, lol maybe they should try to explain to the insurgents that their not combat troops..


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 8, 2011)

Barry44sucks said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Barry44sucks said:
> ...



All that will do is make them attack harder because they will feel the Troops we left in Iraq are not as prepared and well equipped as the ones that left, its better off letting them believe all 3000 of those guys are Rambo.


----------



## pgm (Sep 8, 2011)

Unfortunately, the most important thing is what the Iraqi government permits to remain, not what our generals believe is best. Fortunately, the role is quite limited. If U.S. troops aren't engaged in any direct combat, 3000 may be enough (so say the generals). I just hope the Iraqi government isn't trying to have their cake and eat it too by having a small number of troops that helps in anti-terrorism missions.

Anyone hear anything about CIA officers being deployed to Iraq?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 9, 2011)

pgm said:


> Unfortunately, the most important thing is what the Iraqi government permits to remain, not what our generals believe is best. Fortunately, the role is quite limited. If U.S. troops aren't engaged in any direct combat, 3000 may be enough (so say the generals). I just hope the Iraqi government isn't trying to have their cake and eat it too by having a small number of troops that helps in anti-terrorism missions.
> 
> Anyone hear anything about CIA officers being deployed to Iraq?



No but I am sure they are there, the CIA has a office in Somalia so I am sure they are there in Iraq but we won't hear too much about it. Even if those 3000 US Troops are not engaged in direct combat and staying in their bases, the insurgents ARE engaged in direct combat with them. US Troops for the most part in Iraq have been staying in their bases for the past year and are still getting attacked, that tells you all you need to know right there.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 9, 2011)

3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, 

Yes this is likely the plan....


----------

