Coalition Partners Pull Out of Iraq
[Guest post by DRJ]
The last Coalition partners have pulled out of Iraq:
“The war in Iraq was truly an American-only effort Saturday after Britain and Australia, the last of its international partners, pulled out.
***
The quiet end of the coalition was a departure from its creation, which saw then-U.S. President George W. Bush court countries for support before and after the March 2003 invasion.”
NATO and private contractors are still working in Iraq but I thought Barack Obama promised to re-engage our allies through renewed American leadership:
“To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security.”
I guess keeping Coalition partners in Iraq isn’t what Obama meant by rebuilding alliances.
— DRJ
But its consistent with his utter lack of leadership in foreign affairs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2009 @ 4:20 pmMay God be with the Iraqis as they move forward.
I mean, this was expected, right?
Techie (482700) — 8/1/2009 @ 4:28 pmHas all of Barcky’s apologizing achieved even a token success to date?
JD (b9ca6b) — 8/1/2009 @ 4:31 pmI don’t know for sure, but I think Britain and Australia leaving was already planned.
Bush had gotten some 40 countries to commit troops to Iraq. I can’t see Obama accomplishing anything close to that.
Steverino (69d941) — 8/1/2009 @ 4:52 pmI think you are right that these pull-outs have been planned for some time. I’m not being sarcastic when I say this: I honestly thought Obama campaigned on the express or implied idea that he could get them to stay around.
DRJ (8d138b) — 8/1/2009 @ 4:58 pmI thought Teh One and his supporters had told us that they were going to restore the world’s respect and trust and that by doing so he would be able to convince them to do things that the evil BushCo Chimpy McHitlerBurton could not do.
JD (204bee) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:13 pmI guess we are not the only ones who don’t trust o.
Jim (582155) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:22 pm“The war in Iraq was truly an American-only effort Saturday…
I thought it always was. Didn’t we “go it alone”?
More absurd than that is to still be reading the phrase “the war in Iraq” in 2009. What “war”? Where is the front? Who is the enemy? What territory are we trying to take at this point?
Yes, we have troops stationed in Iraq. Apparently that alone makes it a “war”, and always will. This alone is enough to make me root for the troop presence to be withdrawn.
Sonic Charmer (8c1456) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:23 pmSonic,
Try reading the link or the post. Does the term “Coalition partners” ring a bell?
DRJ (8d138b) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:28 pmSonic Charmer,
U.S. troops are deployed all over the world. In 2005, there were 14 countries that had over 1000 U.S. troops (and in some of those countries there are many thousands of troops) and 30 countries with 100-1000 troops. Follow the link and click on “Troops dataset” or paste this into your browser: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/troopsdb.cfm
DRJ (8d138b) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:37 pmTo me this is a sign of success. There’s no need for an occupation force any more.
Let’s hope we can do as well in Afghanistan.
Evil Pundit (42e904) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:44 pmCoalition partners have bailed from Iraq,
AD - RtR/OS! (486a83) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:51 pmand NATO nations are very reluctant to continue their involvement in Afghanistan.
So much for revitalized leadership on the World stage.
DRJ,
Huh?
Try reading my post.
Sonic Charmer (8c1456) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:51 pmDRJ, I think Sonic’s first post needed some sarcasm tags.
We’ve been told that we “went it alone” in Iraq, that Bush alienated allies, etc. But now the press is saying that Iraq has suddenly become an American-only effort.
Steverino (69d941) — 8/1/2009 @ 5:57 pmBoy, this one is a barrel of laughs.
JD (204bee) — 8/1/2009 @ 6:02 pmI did read your post, Sonic Charmer. The U.S. has been at war in Iraq since 2003 and it makes sense to continue to use that terminology. In addition, it appears you oppose keeping American troops in Iraq, not only now but perhaps you’ve always opposed them.
Is it only in Iraq that you oppose an American military presence? I assume if you feel that way that you also oppose them elsewhere in the world, which is why I linked to the places where U.S. troops are deployed. If you don’t oppose those other deployments, why do you oppose Iraq and not any others?
DRJ (8d138b) — 8/1/2009 @ 6:03 pmSteverino,
I don’t think he was being sarcastic but I could be wrong.
Sonic,
Were you being sarcastic? If so, I’m sorry I missed it. I have a difficult time spotting sarcasm on the internet.
DRJ (8d138b) — 8/1/2009 @ 6:04 pmI got the same vibe, DRJ. That should concern you when your instincts track with mine.
JD (204bee) — 8/1/2009 @ 6:19 pmThere is no love lost between Maliki and the Brits. They didn’t just leave Iraq on July 31, they were kicked out. The British simply had lost the will to fight. Without notifying the Coalition, they had reached an agreement with al Sadr’s thugs in the South (Basra) they wouldn’t conduct offensive operations against them. They then withdrew to a safe area near the airport outside of Basra and left the city under militia control. They were simply unavailable for combat operations.
When Maliki decided to drop the hammer in the south, the Brits were nowhere to be found. So Maliki used his supposedly untrained forces instead of the “well trained” Brits and cleaned house in three days. It was a great success and a morale builder for the Iraqis and a humiliation for the Brits.
In January Maliki notified the British government to remove all forces by the end of July, a year before the US was to remove its combat forces. It was a slap in the face and barely enough time for them to make an orderly withdrawal.
Corky Boyd (8ee79b) — 8/1/2009 @ 7:32 pmExcellent summary of the British role in Iraq, Corky.
Terry Gain (da64bd) — 8/1/2009 @ 8:07 pmThe U.S. has been at war in Iraq since 2003 and it makes sense to continue to use that terminology.
Who is our military fighting? Who’s the enemy? Where’s the front? Which battles are taking place? Which territory remains to be gained?
Traditionally, these questions could all be answered quite readily in a “war”.
In addition, it appears you oppose keeping American troops in Iraq, not only now but perhaps you’ve always opposed them.
Actually no, not ‘perhaps’. There was never a time when I ‘opposed’ keeping American troops in Iraq.
As for now, I’m actually indifferent at this point to whether we have troops stationed in Iraq. We have troops stationed lots of places. I see no reason for a lay person to take particular interest either way in whether Iraq is one of those places. Most scenarios of us removing our American troop presence from Iraq seem to involve them going somewhere else, like Afghanistan or Kuwait. This makes me scratch my head: why is Kuwait, or Afghanistan, or some other place, ok, but not Iraq? But whatever.
Is it only in Iraq that you oppose an American military presence?
See above. I don’t ‘oppose’ it (except for the semi tongue in cheek reason, as I stated, that at least if we didn’t have a troop presence in Iraq I could stop hearing silly thoughtless MSM comments about the “war” we’re supposedly fighting there).
Sonic,
Were you being sarcastic?
Yes, on both counts. Sigh. To be pedantically clear:
1. I was making fun of all the people (like MSM) who used to claim we were “going it alone” but now
2. I was making fun of people who still speak of “the war in Iraq” as if it is 2003 and nothing is changed since then and the mere fact that we have garrison somewhere makes it a “war” (which, if it were really true, would mean we are fighting a “war in Germany” and a “war in South Korea” and a “war” in tons of other places – the places you pointed out).
Sonic Charmer (8c1456) — 8/1/2009 @ 8:18 pmoops one part got cutoff
…but now when UK leaves say it has “become” an American effort.
Sonic Charmer (8c1456) — 8/1/2009 @ 8:22 pmWell, I was wrong. My bad.
JD (2ed087) — 8/1/2009 @ 8:24 pmI question whether or not Sonic has a grasp on “asymmetric warfare”, and what is involved in it?
AD - RtR/OS! (486a83) — 8/1/2009 @ 9:18 pmSonic:
You came along just when I thought there was no one crazier than Roseanne Barr.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 8/2/2009 @ 12:55 amAD: What in particular is your question? Yes I’m aware of the phrase “asymmetric warfare”. And? Oh, so that’s what you think it is in Iraq? Who’s the enemy then? (Or is “asymmetric warfare” such a special category that there doesn’t even need to be an enemy?) Look, we have troops stationed there, they patrol and pacify and (I imagine) sometimes go on raids and suchlike to catch this or that guy or perhaps weapons stash. In my book, that’s not “a war”. That has never been called “a war” before recent MSM history. One might call that pacification, peacekeeping, counterterrorism, or (at times – but I haven’t seen a lot of this lately) counterinsurgency. I don’t feel the need to glorify any of that with the term “war in Iraq”, is that okay? And anyway, why does everyone else? This was my point. It is not 2003.
Thomas Jackson: feel free to elaborate? Are you too sarcasm-challenged?
Sonic Charmer (8c1456) — 8/2/2009 @ 5:14 amSonic, you really need to read the histories of the asymmetric warfare/counterterrorism in both Algeria and Burma.
AD - RtR/OS! (afd830) — 8/2/2009 @ 12:04 pmWhen people are shooting at you, and blowing things up, you are involved in a “war”:
a process of killing people and destroying things.
I too disagree with the term “War in Iraq”.
We are engaged in a world-wide war against IslamoFascism, and Iraq (and Afghanistan) are but campaigns in that endeavor, just as Grant’s thrust south in the Mississippi River valley to capture Vicksburg, and Sherman’s March to the Sea, were but campaigns of a larger Civil War (both of which BTW involved far larger numbers of combattants, and casualties, than have occurred in either Iraq or Afghanistan).
When people are shooting at you, and blowing things up, you are involved in a “war”
Oklahoma City, 1995: what “war” was that?
Sonic Charmer (8c1456) — 8/2/2009 @ 2:46 pmp.s. And I said “one might call that…counterterrorism”. I guess my point is that something over and above that is connoted by this continued insistence on calling it “the Iraq war” or “the war in Iraq”. Sounds like you should be agreeing with me that a more appropriate term might be “the counterterrorism efforts in Iraq” or “the pacification effort in Iraq”. The problem is: those phrases, or similar constructions, wouldn’t quite have the propaganda value, to the left, that continuing to call it a “war” does.
Sonic Charmer (8c1456) — 8/2/2009 @ 2:52 pmoh. I just had glanced earlier and I thought y’all were talking about this NYT leaked memo thinger they discussed here about how Barack Obama is all about kicking the Iraqi people to the curb like dogs.
I predicted they would do this by the way and I’m an idiot. The dirty socialists want the Iraqi people to pay dearly for their complicity in the embrace of democracy. How very very shameful it will be to be an American in Barack Obama’s America if the dirty socialists succeed.
happyfeet (42470c) — 8/2/2009 @ 3:30 pm#8 — Comment by Sonic Charmer — 8/1/2009 @ 5:23 pm
Didn’t we “go it alone”?
No. In 2003, 30 other nations went with us into Iraq. Additional support was found in the Security Council of the United nations, as they repeatedly supported us — most notably in the unanimous vote of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Other UN Resolutions included 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284. Please keep in mind that the Security Council includes permanent members such as China and Russia.
More absurd than that is to still be reading the phrase “the war in Iraq” in 2009. What “war”?
American Soldiers are still shedding blood in the LOD in an official military operation (Operation Iraqi Freedom) whether you care or not.
Where is the front?
It is a counterinsurgency war, which by definition does not have a front in the typical manner of European strategic wars. Here are two locations of recent attacks: neighborhood of Baghdad and north of Mosul at Tal Afar.
Who is the enemy?
If you mean tactically, then the US is facing suicide bombers from Syria and Iraninain agents.
What territory are we trying to take at this point?
If by “we” you are referring to United States troops, then know that the US is not attempting to take any territory, nor has that ever been an objective.
Yes, we have troops stationed in Iraq.
True.
Apparently that alone makes it a “war”, and always will.
False; as DRJ pointed out, we have troops all over the world and we are not necessarily at war with those nations. If you really did not know any of this, you should become better informed. As in this instance, your ignorance led you to a false conclusion.
This alone is enough to make me root for the troop presence to be withdrawn.
Not certain what you mean by “root” as that implies a game or contest of some sort, but if you mean that you are hoping for our troops to get out of harm’s way as soon as possible, that is the universal wish of every sane American. Let us hope that our nation is a bit more secure and our world contains less evil than before their sacrifices. And then let us pray that their efforts and sacrifice have not been made in vain by inept polices of our nation’s leaders.
Pons Asinorum (814e7b) — 8/3/2009 @ 12:23 amTrue coalitions only work when you have willing and capable allies. Token coalitions are often more trouble than they are worth.
How many millions were paid to redeem European captives? Perhaps we should have paid some of them to stay home.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 8/3/2009 @ 7:42 amPons
[“go it alone”] No. In 2003, 30 other nations went with us into Iraq
as I explained several times now, this was the point of my sarcasm. Rest assured, I won’t use sarcasm of any sort here again.
American Soldiers are still shedding blood
American soldiers have shed blood lots of places, from embassies in Africa to nightclubs in Berlin. We don’t automatically call them all “wars”.
in an official military operation
I would hope that anywhere/anytime the military is stationed/deployed somewhere, it’s an “official” military operation, yes. (The alternative being, unofficial?)
It is a counterinsurgency war, which […]
Correction: it is a counterinsurgency. A bit awkward to add that second, nonsynonymous noun “war” after the noun “counterinsurgency”
the US is facing suicide bombers from Syria and Iraninain agents.
So we’re fighting a war against Syrian suicide bombers and Iranian agents? Why are we doing that in Iraq of all places?
If by “we” you are referring to United States troops, then know that the US is not attempting to take any territory
My point exactly. Cuz we already did – you know, during the actual, well, war.
False; as DRJ pointed out, we have troops all over the world
..which, as stated previously, was my point.
If you really did not know any of this, you should become better informed.
I see. What if, instead, we’re in the scenario where I did know it, and indeed was making that exact point, but you didn’t read my post very closely or with sufficient reading comprehension to glean this? Who should become better informed (or better something) then?
[This alone is enough to make me root for the troop presence to be withdrawn.]
Not certain what you mean by “root” as that implies a game or contest of some sort,
Root is an English word, I’m sure you could find a definition.
In fairness, I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. I don’t really wish for the US troop presence to be withdrawn merely because the propaganda terms surrounding the troop presence annoy me. As stated before, explicitly, I am in fact indifferent to whether US troops remain stationed in Iraq.
but if you mean that you are hoping for our troops to get out of harm’s way as soon as possible, that is the universal wish of every sane American.
Ok, sure. Let me just add the caveat that “harm’s way” is not a synonym for “Iraq”. Many people who urge withdrawal from Iraq are anxious (or at least pretend to be) for those troops to be sent to, say, Afghanistan, as if that (or other places) is somehow axiomatically, and permanently, as a sort of law of nature, less “harm’s way” than Iraq..
Sonic Charmer (991f52) — 8/3/2009 @ 1:00 pmActually, could we send the troops from Iraq to Los Angeles so that we could reclaim it from Mexico?
AD - RtR/OS! (d9867d) — 8/3/2009 @ 1:17 pmOr maybe Chicago, to reclaim it from ACORN.
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/3/2009 @ 11:10 pm#33 — Comment by Sonic Charmer — 8/3/2009 @ 1:00 pm
American soldiers have shed blood lots of places, from embassies in Africa to nightclubs in Berlin. We don’t automatically call them all “wars”.
Indeed, but that is not a comprehensive review of the facts in the case of the Iraqi War.
In Iraq, our soldiers are assigned combat missions as part of military campaigns involving numerous command sections and logistics units. Our soldiers are shedding their blood for these patrols and missions. By every meaningful definition, that is war; hardly the equivalent of a nightclub bombing.
My apologies, as I thought that the distinction was obvious.
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/3/2009 @ 11:15 pm#33 — Comment by Sonic Charmer — 8/3/2009 @ 1:00 pm
I would hope that anywhere/anytime the military is stationed/deployed somewhere, it’s an “official” military operation, yes. (The alternative being, unofficial?)
No. An operation is not always a deployment or assignment. The use of the term “operation” is a specific military term.
In the case of Operation Iraqi Freedom, several (sub) operations, campaigns and missions (official and unofficial) have been and are taking place. Operation Iraqi Freedom is a war in every logical and measurable way.
(There are unofficial operations, missions, and tasking, but that is not the issue here.)
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/3/2009 @ 11:19 pm#33 — Comment by Sonic Charmer — 8/3/2009 @ 1:00 pm
Correction: it is a counterinsurgency. A bit awkward to add that second, nonsynonymous noun “war” after the noun “counterinsurgency”
Agreed; the proper term should have been “asymmetrical war”. My apologies if I confused you. The larger point remains, which was in reply to your question about the location of the “front”.
Allow me to rephrase:
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/3/2009 @ 11:20 pm#33 — Comment by Sonic Charmer — 8/3/2009 @ 1:00 pm
So we’re fighting a war against Syrian suicide bombers and Iranian agents?
I did supply links supporting these assertions. This is the nature of asymmetrical warfare, on an evolving battlefield, with an on-going war.
Why are we doing that in Iraq of all places?
That is where the enemy is and if we are to conclude this war, we must fight them. The other option is to surrender and leave.
My point exactly. Cuz we already did [take territory] – you know, during the actual, well, war.
We do have bases of operation, which are necessary to conduct warfare operations. If you mean that since we are no longer taking ground to operate and support missions (the military term is taking positions), then we are no longer in a state of war; false. First, we still patrol and have mobile checkpoints, which means taking positions. Second, this was never a war of taking territory. What bases and positions we have are to be handed over to the Iraqi government. That has always been the case, even in the opening chapters of the war (which I think you agree was a war at that point anyway).
..which, as stated previously, was my point [US troops being stationed all over the world].
Okay…
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/3/2009 @ 11:25 pm#33 — Comment by Sonic Charmer — 8/3/2009 @ 1:00 pm
Your claim that I did not read or comprehend your argument is false. I answered your questions, supplied supporting links, and parsed nearly every sentence; almost the complete opposite of your counter-replies (arguing a point of grammar, zero links, and zero knowledge of military terms and doctrine).
Your principle topic appeared to be that the Iraqi War is not a war. For support you offered, well, nothing except mostly questions, which I answered. If I misunderstood that or if that was not the topic of thread #8, then I suggest you reread what you wrote.
If you wish to disagree with the answers, please by all means do so. With the exception of the first two counter-replies, you have offered no substantive counterpoints, only more questions and more sarcasm (didn’t you say “Rest assured, I won’t use sarcasm of any sort here again.”).
As for the term “root”, I do not know your mind or intent.
For myself, I root for the Denver Broncos or the Fighting Irish, but for our troops fighting and bleeding in that war, I pray and hope they come back alive and whole. The term “root” just seems wrong to me. I know I am oversensitive about such things.
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/3/2009 @ 11:28 pm#33 — Comment by Sonic Charmer — 8/3/2009 @ 1:00 pm
In fairness, I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. I don’t really wish for the US troop presence to be withdrawn merely because the propaganda terms surrounding the troop presence annoy me.
In this, we are in absolute agreement.
As stated before, explicitly, I am in fact indifferent to whether US troops remain stationed in Iraq.
In this, we are in absolute disagreement.
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/3/2009 @ 11:29 pm#33 — Comment by Sonic Charmer — 8/3/2009 @ 1:00 pm
Ok, sure. Let me just add the caveat that “harm’s way” is not a synonym for “Iraq”. Many people who urge withdrawal from Iraq are anxious (or at least pretend to be) for those troops to be sent to, say, Afghanistan, as if that (or other places) is somehow axiomatically, and permanently, as a sort of law of nature, less “harm’s way” than Iraq.
True. Aside from the danger, putting more conventional troops into Afghanistan is the exact wrong strategy anyway (see Appendix E, page 53).
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/3/2009 @ 11:31 pmPons, no offense, but did you know you can use the “quote” feature and make multiple points in a single comment? 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/4/2009 @ 12:21 amThanks for the tip Scott, but if i did that, i wouldn’t get to see multiple postings of my virtual name on the side bar 😉
Besides, I would have had a really long post and i get confused easily.
Pons Asinorum (a0d8a8) — 8/4/2009 @ 12:33 am