USA: Bush Surrenders. War In Iraq is Over

[RYP]

Peanut Eating Surrender Monkey Throws In The Towel.

Bush, in Shift, Accepts Idea of Iraq Timeline

By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: July 19, 2008

HOUSTON — President Bush agreed to “a general time horizon” for withdrawing American troops in Iraq, the White House announced Friday, in a concession that reflected both progress in stabilizing Iraq and the depth of political opposition to an open-ended military presence in Iraq and at home.

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

The White House offered no specifics about how far off any “time horizon” would be, with officials saying details remained to be negotiated. Any dates cited in an agreement would be cast as goals for handing responsibility to Iraqis, and not specifically for reducing American troops, said a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe.

But the White House statement said that the two leaders “agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”

The announcement could alter the American political debate over the war in Iraq and how best to end it now that even Mr. Bush is willing to speak of an end to the American presence. It came on the eve of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who has vowed to pursue a strict phased timetable for withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq over 16 months beginning next year. He has cited Iraq’s eagerness for a timetable as support for his strategy.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, called the announcement “a step in the right direction,” but derided what he called the vagueness of the White House commitment. Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, praised the agreement as evidence that Mr. Bush’s strategy of sending additional forces last year had worked and he sought to use it as a cudgel against Mr. Obama.

“An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat,” Mr. McCain said.

Mr. Bush and his aides, traveling in Tucson and Houston to attend Republican fund-raisers, insisted again that the administration was not accepting any timetable for withdrawing American forces, which now total roughly 140,000. But the administration has faced increasing resistance from a newly confident Iraq, where some officials have said publicly that Iraq can take charge of much of its security by 2009, and be able to operate without American help by 2012.

Under pressure from political parties wanting a diminishing American role, Mr. Maliki began demanding something in the agreement that would make it clear that American troops were on the way out. Iraq’s statement on Friday, reflecting those internal sensitivities, referred more specifically than the American version to “a time frame for the complete transfer of the security responsibilities to the hands of the Iraqi security as preface to decrease the number of the American forces and withdraw them later from Iraq.”

In Baghdad, a member of Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party, Ali al-Adeeb, said the withdrawal of American and other foreign forces was fundamental to an accord. “The Iraqi government considers the determination of a specific date for the withdrawal of foreign forces an important issue to deal with,” he said. “I don’t know what the American side thinks, but we consider it the core of the subject.”

Mr. Adeeb suggested that a final agreement was not imminent, but White House aides said they were confident one would be reached by the end of the month. “We’re converging on an agreement,” an administration official said, noting that negotiators continued to hammer out provisions involving security matters. Those include command of military operations, legal immunities for civilian contractors and the authority to detain prisoners.

On the prospect of dates for American withdrawals, Mr. Johndroe, the White House spokesman, said that the agreement would not prescribe American troop levels over time, but rather reflect a transition to Iraqi command. “The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions,” Mr. Johndroe said in an e-mail message. “The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be.”

The agreement that American and Iraqi negotiators are now completing is more modest than the long-term strategic pact that Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki pledged last November to negotiate to replace the United Nations mandate at the end of this year.

The administration dropped a promise in that initial agreement to provide long-term security for Iraq, something that would require a treaty and Congressional approval. It has also backed off other demands for sweeping powers to continue military operations there indefinitely.

The negotiations have been bogged down by issues involving the laws governing American troops, diplomats and civilian contractors, as well as details like customs duties and drivers’ licenses for American soldiers.

Administration officials now say that they are negotiating an agreement that would establish the legal authority for American commanders to conduct combat operations, control airspace and detain Iraqi prisoners, while deferring the more complicated details of a “status of forces agreement” to the next administration. The United States has such agreements that govern its military presence in Germany, South Korea and some other nations. Some Bush administration officials had envisioned concluding a similar accord with Iraq before Mr. Bush left office.

Friday’s statements noted the gradual handover of security to Iraqi forces, now complete in 10 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, though not in the most volatile ones, where American and Iraqi troops continue to wage war with insurgents. The statements suggested that the final agreement could link the complete transition of control in the remaining provinces to the withdrawal of American forces — a timetable, though, without specific dates.

The statements also referred to the withdrawal this month of the last of five additional combat brigades that Mr. Bush ordered to Iraq last year. The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, is now reviewing the possibility of withdrawing more beginning in September.

On Wednesday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said that he hoped that more brigades could come out; some administration and military officials have previously indicated that as many as 3 of the remaining 15 brigades could begin to withdraw by next year.

In Congress, even a more modest agreement with the Iraqis over the American military presence still faces opposition.

Representative Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts who has held hearings on the legality of the agreement the administration is seeking, said that “a timetable with specific dates is critical,” calling the White House’s time horizon “very vague and nebulous.”

He welcomed the pending agreement as “far less grandiose than what was initially articulated,” but said he remained concerned about the legal authority allowing American military operations in Iraq once the United Nations mandate expired on Dec. 31 of this year.

Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad, Larry Rohter from Warren, Mich., and Thom Shanker from Washington.

[Jumper]

What the fuck are you talking about? This article is pure clown shoes.

First off, how the fuck did we get to this point of success in Iraq in the first place? The surge fuckers. How many bench marks have been met do to this hard work? 15 out of 18. What is the security situation like in Iraq? Pretty fucking peachy!

So how the fuck is that surrendering, if the generals feel it is alright to pull a few brigades out? I call that kicking ass and taking names, and slowly handing the security of Iraq, back to Iraqis. That is only a sign of winning. Surrender? What the fuck are you talking about, you quivering sack of vaginas? Pffftttt.

Oh, and speaking of surrender monkeys, Obama came up with his 16 month withdrawal plan, not because of the success of the surge in Iraq. He came up with it because of all you defeatist fuckwads were yelling doom and gloom in Iraq. Yes, that includes you Pelton, and he listened. And guess what, he was fucking wrong, just like the rest of you defeatist fucks were wrong.

We are winning in Iraq, and this is further proof of that, and Bush is doing what any victor would do if he could. And that is to bring home some victorious troops. Surrender? What the fuck ever. Go get me a soda.






Underneath this pile of shit, is this article. I am sorry, but I had to wipe my ass with something.

[Zero]

Ew jumper, why is the wiping paper underneath the crap, that implies wiping before taking the dump...

I never thought I would find your views on anything ass-backwards, but I imagine that some of the posters here are unsurprised.

[el3so]

Jumper, looks like you really need some fibre in your diet...

[Mikethehack]

First off, how the fuck did we get to this point of success in Iraq in the first place?

Easy. Over 4000 dead American soldiers, around 30,000 troops wounded and around 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

[thewalrus]

What the fuck are you talking about? What is the security situation like in Iraq? Pretty fucking peachy!

July 14, 2008

Soldier Master Sgt. Mitchell W. Young, 39, of Jonesboro, Ga., died on July 13 of wounds suffered when his vehicle struck an improvised explosive device in Kajaki Sofla, Afghanistan. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, N.C.

July 13, 2008

Two soldiers died July 10 in Babo Kheyl, Afghanistan, from wounds suffered when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device:

Spc. Brian S. Leon Guerrero, 34, of Hagatna, Guam.

Spc. Samson A. Mora, 28, of Dededo, Guam.

They were assigned to 1st Battalion, 294th Infantry Regiment, Guam Army National Guard, Barrigada, Guam.

July 11, 2008

On July 10, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner positively identified human remains recovered in Iraq July 9 to be those of two soldiers who had been previously listed as "Missing-Captured." Killed were:

Sgt. Alex R. Jimenez, 25 at the time of his capture, of Lawrence, Mass.

Pfc. Byron J. Fouty, 19 at the time of his capture, of Waterford, Mich.

Jimenez and Fouty were part of a patrol that was ambushed by enemy forces south of Baghdad on May 12, 2007. They were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. Previously announced by the Department of Defense was Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack, Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif., who was also killed in the attack. The incident is under investigation.

July 10, 2008

Soldier Sgt. 1st Class Steven J. Chevalier, 35, of Flint, Mich., died July 9 in Balad, Iraq, of wounds suffered in Samarra, Iraq, when his patrol vehicle was struck by a grenade. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

Soldier Sgt. Douglas J. Bull, 29, of Wilkes Barre, Pa., died July 8 at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered in Chow Kay Valley, Afghanistan, when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device during a mounted patrol. He was assigned to the Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

Soldier Spc. William L. McMillan III, 22, of Lexington, Ky., died July 8 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his patrol was struck by an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

July 7, 2008

Soldier Sgt. 1st Class Anthony L. Woodham, 37, of Rogers, Ark., died on July 5 of injuries suffered in a non-combat incident at Camp Adder, Tallil, Iraq. He was assigned to the 39th Brigade Support Battalion, 39th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Arkansas Army National Guard, Heber Springs, Ark. The incident is under investigation.

Soldier 1st Lt. Daniel Farkas, 42, of Brooklyn, N.Y., died on July 4 of injuries suffered from a non-hostile incident in Kabul, Afghanistan (Camp Phoenix). He was assigned to the 27th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Syracuse, N.Y. The incident is under investigation.

July 3, 2008

Soldier Spc. Estell L. Turner, 43, of Sioux Falls, S.D., died July 2 at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., of wounds suffered on June 28 in Malikheyl, Afghanistan, when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

[Texas Carnie Roadshow]

Comparatively peachy?

[Penta]

Jumper: did you not see or hear Robert Gates' speech last week? An important one, I think, in which, among other sensible things, he pointed out that:

we cannot kill or capture our way to victory

and

What the Pentagon calls “kinetic” operations should be subordinate to measures to promote participation in government, economic programs to spur development, and efforts to address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies and among the discontented from which the terrorists recruit

and

much of our national security strategy depends upon securing the cooperation of other nations, which will depend heavily on the extent to which our efforts abroad are viewed as legitimate by their publics. The solution is not to be found in some slick PR campaign or by trying to out-propagandize al-Qaeda, but rather through the steady accumulation of actions and results that build trust and credibility over time

and

Broadly speaking, when it comes to America’s engagement with the rest of the world, you probably don’t hear this often from a Secretary of Defense , it is important that the military is – and is clearly seen to be – in a supporting role to civilian agencies.

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/spe ... echid=1262

It seems your one-man propaganda campaign may no longer be required or helpful.

[flipflop]

It seems your one-man propaganda campaign may no longer be required or helpful.

So, we're left with just yours, which is equally as helpful and required?

Cheers

[RYP]

We are leaving.Behind us we leave a nation of armed thugs on our payroll, uncounted dead civilians, the most corrupt government in the middle east and a bigger mess than before we arbitrarily invaded. What we have been watching has been a crudely staged high school play to convince the world that we have "fixed" Iraq.
But the good news is that someone in the White House figured out that the majority of the violence against us is because we are there. As for Iraq "getting better". Better than what? Better than when we fucked it up or better than when we tried to fix it. Or better than when old Saddam was in charge and containing Iran? I think we all know the answer.

Here is how the Iraqis express their love and admiration for our efforts...

U.S. Troops in Iraq Face A Powerful New Weapon
Use of Rocket-Propelled Bombs Spreads

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 10, 2008; A01

BAGHDAD, July 9 -- Suspected Shiite militiamen have begun using powerful rocket-propelled bombs to attack U.S. military outposts in recent months, broadening the array of weapons used against American troops.

U.S. military officials call the devices Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions, or IRAMs. They are propane tanks packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives and powered by 107mm rockets. They are often fired by remote control from the backs of trucks, sometimes in close succession. Rocket-propelled bombs have killed at least 21 people, including at least three U.S. soldiers, this year.

The latest reported rocket-propelled bomb attack occurred Tuesday at Joint Security Station Ur, a base in northeastern Baghdad shared by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. One U.S. soldier and an interpreter were wounded in the attack.

U.S. military officials say IRAM attacks, unlike roadside bombings and conventional mortar or rocket attacks, have the potential to kill scores of soldiers at once. IRAMs are fired at close range, unlike most rockets, and create much larger explosions. Most such attacks have occurred in the capital, Baghdad.

The use of the rocket-propelled bombs reflects militiamen's ability to use commonly available materials and relatively low-tech weaponry to circumvent security measures that have cost the U.S. military billions of dollars. To combat roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices or IEDs, U.S. and Iraqi troops have set up scores of checkpoints throughout the capital, increased patrols and purchased hundreds of armored vehicles that can resist such attacks.

A June report on the Web site Long War Journal called the explosives-filled propane tanks "flying IEDs."

Militia members and insurgents have at times increased the sophistication of their weapons, but the rocket-propelled bombs are makeshift devices that also have been used in recent years by insurgents in Colombia. Propane tanks are ubiquitous in Iraq, where the fuel is widely used for cooking, making it hard for security forces to stop production of the bombs.

U.S. military officials in Baghdad have noted the use of rocket-propelled bombs in press releases in recent months. But they have not publicly discussed their use or their concerns about the weapons at length because most of the information about them is classified, U.S. military officials said.

"IRAM attacks could be very tragic against us," said Col. William B. Hickman, the commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division, which operates in northwestern Baghdad. "We take them very seriously."

As the number of U.S. soldiers in Baghdad has begun to drop with the end of the "surge" of additional forces, U.S. military officials are placing a higher percentage of their troops in small outposts in densely populated neighborhoods. U.S. military officials say this is crucial to ensure the continued training of Iraq's security forces, win the trust of the capital's residents and improve local governance. But deployments in small outposts -- some are manned by just one platoon -- also have made soldiers more vulnerable.

To counter the threat posed by rocket-propelled bombs, soldiers have stepped up patrols around outposts, fortified their buildings and offered tens of thousands of dollars for information about networks that use the weapon.

The weapon first emerged as a threat here last fall and has become a top concern in recent months following a series of deadly attacks.

Most such attacks have been carried out during the day and some have been videotaped and aired on the satellite television station operated by Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia and political movement. U.S. military officials said they have found Iranian-made 107mm rockets at some of the blast sites, which they said suggests the weapons -- or parts -- may have come from Iran.

The deadliest reported rocket-propelled bomb attack occurred June 4 in the Shaab neighborhood of eastern Baghdad. U.S. soldiers stationed at a small base called Forward Operating Base Callahan heard a series of blasts shortly after 2 p.m.

The explosions were caused when a rocket on the back of a small flatbed truck exploded, igniting the other four to five IRAMs on the truck, the U.S. military said. The attack killed 18 Iraqis, wounded 29 and damaged 15 buildings, the military said.

"It is believed that the intended targets were U.S. soldiers at FOB Callahan and while in the final stages for the attack, for an unknown reason one rocket prematurely detonated causing the remaining rockets to explode erratically," the military said in a statement.

U.S. military officials said two suspected assailants were killed in the attack, describing them as members of "special groups" or Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

The second-deadliest attack occurred April 28 at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in eastern Baghdad. The attack, which took place shortly after 1 p.m., killed three soldiers. Militiamen fired 14 rocket-propelled bombs from the back of a cargo truck.

That same day, Joint Security Station Thawra, the U.S. military's only outpost in Sadr City, in eastern Baghdad, was also attacked with rocket-propelled bombs.

A man walked into an office at the station where Iraqis can file claims for compensation, and told soldiers of a U.S. military civil affairs unit that his truck had sustained damage during recent clashes between American troops and militiamen, according to two U.S. military officials who described the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the information has not been publicly released.

The soldiers told the man to drive his truck close to the station so they could inspect it. The man pulled up in a small delivery truck containing eight IRAM launch tubes. The station was attacked soon afterward. At least 15 soldiers were wounded.

Although most rocket-propelled bomb attacks have taken place in eastern Baghdad, a joint security station in northern Hurriya, western Baghdad, was targeted last month.

On June 24, at approximately 3 p.m., a man walked up to the gate of the base and told soldiers, "You have a truck over there that goes boom," according to Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a company commander with the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment.

When soldiers inspected the truck, they realized an attempt to ignite nine IRAMs, with roughly 200 pounds of explosives apiece, had been unsuccessful.

"Just think of what could have happened," Ussery said. "Eighteen hundred pounds of explosives dispersed over this JSS."

The battalion approved a $50,000 reward for information on the attack and soldiers have handed out fliers to residents seeking tips. Ussery said the battalion typically offers rewards in the $10,000 range for "high value individuals," or prominent wanted militiamen.

The amount offered for information on the IRAM attack "is a very large reward," he said. "It's a small price to pay."

Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report from Washington.

[Jumper]

Ok, let's talk about deaths. How many Americans were killed during Korea? How about World War 2? How about Vietnam?

Compared to those conflicts, we did pretty good in Iraq. Hell, we lost more guys in one day on Iwo Jima than we have in the entire war in Iraq. And now we are talking about peace keeping, 5 star hotels, new airlines, oil companies coming in, handing over provinces to the Iraqis, and a government that has put the smack down on Sadr and company. I love it. And now both Iraq and the Coalition is discussing security and pulling out troops because they can handle things. Isn't that just peachy? How is that surrender? I call that progress derived from a good strategy and hard work. Go get me a soda.

And you know, I am not going to sit here and allow you fuckers to dishonor those deaths and sacrifices by allowing you to use those statistics as some kind of a punch line. I have several comrades on that list. Iraq is becoming a success story and the people of Iraq will forever be thankful for those sacrifices. And as we head further into the future of our oil based economy and our insatiable desire for more oil, Iraq will certainly be a major supplier and savior. And I invite anyone here, to have tea with me in Baghdad in the near future, when that country is in full economic swing and enjoying the good life of peace and stability.

Pelton- IRAM's are yesterday's story Clarence. You should really try to keep up. I have already done two postings about IRAM's in Iraq on my blog ever since Long War Journal came out with the story, and it looks like the rest of the media is just catching up like you. Furthermore, these things are kind of stupid. They have terrible range and terrible accuracy. In otherwords, it is a homemade munition that takes too much effort without enough of a guarantee of a kill. If they do hit, they are deadly though and to be effective they are launching them in salvos out of the back of trucks. The Coalition have been on these things since last year.

Zero- Maybe I read the article, took a big shit on it, and then grabbed another copy of it to wipe my ass with? But yes, I do concede that I might have confused the shit experts here with that sentence. I am surprised Penta didn't say anything about it. -hee hee

[Mikethehack]

And you know, I am not going to sit here and allow you fuckers to dishonor those deaths and sacrifices by allowing you to use those statistics as some kind of a punch line. I have several comrades on that list.

Ditto, but I liked my friends better when they were alive. I don't think their deaths would be regarded as sacrificial. They weren't trying to sacrifice anything. In most cases they were trying to avoid the violence.

[Wayne]

I'm still waiting for the $1/gallon gasoline.

[Moosehead]

1 MAY 2003

[RYP]

"peace keeping, 5 star hotels, new airlines, oil companies coming in, handing over provinces to the Iraqis, and a government that has put the smack down on Sadr and company. I love it."

Sounds like Saddam's era...and before my friends were dead too. You express your anger by pretending that somehow Iraq is going to be made any different by dead Americans. I look at how Iraq is the same and look at how many dead iraqis it too to be the same. It feels better being angry at the people who launched this war and are trying to pretend it was good. Its wasn't, it won't be and that is our legacy. Its got nothing to do with how many people were killed while Bush and his crew tried to justify the single stupidest foreign policy decision in our history. Thankfully our generals revolted, the government of Iraq revolted and the people of America revolted and forced him on this path.