Why Shouldn't ALL Our Troops Immediately Leave Iraq?

[wing2000]

Assad never gave the US permission to have troops is Syria in the first place

...nor did Saddam Hussein.

 

[dzheremi]

If Trump truly believed in America first

Come on, now! He does believe in America first! That's why he built his Trump-branded real estate and commercial ventures in America first, before moving on to build more of the same in Turkey, the Philippines, Uruguay, India, etc.

he would not pay out one American cent or one American life for the benefit of the interests of other countries' governments.

Are you saying that Trump would make a better 'president' of Saudi Arabia than of America? I am shocked! Shocked, I say!

 

[Hank77]

Seems to me that we had no business going there and no business staying. US forces and weaponry should be removed from not only Iraq but every other country in the world that is not the United States of America. Why is the US government , no matter which party or which chief executive is in place, so determined to protect the interests of other countries in direct contradiction to the US' own self interest? If Trump truly believed in America first, he would not pay out one American cent or one American life for the benefit of the interests of other countries' governments.

Are you suggesting that we remove all our ambassadors from around the world? If not, then troops are necessary to protect them.

 

[wing2000]

I just heard Trump declare we don't need middle east oil......so what is he waiting for? Get out. He has the Iraqi PM asking him to leave....take him up on it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It seems that someone is forgetting other more pertinent history: 9/11. The reason USA has bases in other countries is to try to keep the front lines and carnage out of American's back yards and schools and churches and such.

I seem to recall similar arguments being made before we went into Iraq.

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you suggesting that we remove all our ambassadors from around the world? If not, then troops are necessary to protect them.

But the embassies are legally US territory and so the troops, as long as they remain on embassy grounds, are in the US. Thus is that problem solved.

 

[FireDragon76]

The US military really has no choice but to leave or risk becoming unwelcome.

 

[Hank77]

But the embassies are legally US territory and so the troops, as long as they remain on embassy grounds, are in the US. Thus is that problem solved.

I don't think all US embassy grounds have enough land to house enough US troops to protect them?

 

[Desk trauma]

I don't think all US embassy grounds have enough land to house enough US troops to protect them?

If the threat is that high they need to expand to accommodate the needed troops, or shutter the embassy until the threat level is lower.

 

[Hank77]

But the embassies are legally US territory and so the troops, as long as they remain on embassy grounds, are in the US. Thus is that problem solved.

Here's an enlightening article with real examples, the most interesting being the story about the baby born in an US embassy.

Is the embassy territory sovereign territory?
Hopefully, by now you have an idea of the answer, which is no.

In story 1, my friend did not jump for joy on Argentine soil, in story 2, the baby does not become a US citizen, and in story 3, US sovereign territory was not attacked, but the US mission was.

Is an Embassy on Foreign Soil the Sovereign Territory of the Host Country or the Embassy's Country?

 

[Monksailor]

I seem to recall similar arguments being made before we went into Iraq.

It has always been the idea. That is the point. That is why we have all of the sky scrapers, mighty dams, and long, exorbitantly expensive bridges we do. Since our independence from Britain and excluding our own civil war we have not ever had the enemy fighting outright war on our turf till 9/11 if you want to count that as a "war." By maintaining our military presence in other countries we not only help them but ourselves by keeping those who would war against us fighting us on their or our allies' turf. If we pull all of our forces back to the US our allies lose our military power to protect them which simultaneously ensures our legitimate interest abroad which enables the advantage of a more timely and effective preemptive counter to an attack upon our soil where our children and heritage and wealth lie. Can you imagine all of the bombed out horror pictures you have seen abroad being your own neighborhood? Pull all of the military forces back to the US and see what happens.

 

[usexpat97]

100% of the fighting in the Middle East as it pertains to the United States stems directly from the United States being in the Middle East.

 

[wing2000]

It has always been the idea. That is the point. That is why we have all of the sky scrapers, mighty dams, and long, exorbitantly expensive bridges we do. Since our independence from Britain and excluding our own civil war we have not ever had the enemy fighting outright war on our turf till 9/11 if you want to count that as a "war." By maintaining our military presence in other countries we not only help them but ourselves by keeping those who would war against us fighting us on their or our allies' turf. If we pull all of our forces back to the US our allies lose our military power to protect them which simultaneously ensures our legitimate interest abroad which enables the advantage of a more timely and effective preemptive counter to an attack upon our soil where our children and heritage and wealth lie. Can you imagine all of the bombed out horror pictures you have seen abroad being your own neighborhood? Pull all of the military forces back to the US and see what happens.

...this isn't 1980.
.

 

[usexpat97]

Pull all of the military forces back to the US and see what happens.

I agree, let's do that. Let's do exactly that.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Seems to me that we had no business going there and no business staying. US forces and weaponry should be removed from not only Iraq but every other country in the world that is not the United States of America. Why is the US government , no matter which party or which chief executive is in place, so determined to protect the interests of other countries in direct contradiction to the US' own self interest? If Trump truly believed in America first, he would not pay out one American cent or one American life for the benefit of the interests of other countries' governments.

Way back before the Internet, Marshall McLuhan spoke of the "global village" and how interconnected we would become. The fact of this has forced us out of being able to do what you suggested above. Too late. Wish we could.

 

[usexpat97]

so determined to protect the interests of other countries in direct contradiction to the US' own self interest?

AIPAC.

 

[lasthero]

Since our independence from Britain and excluding our own civil war we have not ever had the enemy fighting outright war on our turf till 9/11 if you want to count that as a "war."

The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and if you count 9/11 then you kind of have to count Pearl Flippin’ Harbor.

 

[usexpat97]

The Civil War counts.

The U.S. is the U.S.' enemy, then and now.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Assad never gave the US permission to have troops is Syria in the first place

Diane Sawyer asked President Bashar al-Assad: "What do you want from the United States?"

He replied: "Nothing. Just leave us alone."

(Whatever anyone may think of this quote, or of the gentleman who said it, this could be echoed by leaders and people all round the world — even if this may be unfair in some ways.)

 

[faroukfarouk]

It seems that someone is forgetting other more pertinent history: 9/11. The reason USA has bases in other countries is to try to keep the front lines and carnage out of American's back yards and schools and churches and such.

So: here is a quote — completely unedited — showing attempts at the ruthless exercise of lethal meddling in the Middle East; the references are to former CIA head William Casey and former long-serving Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC, Prince Bandar bin Sultan:

(Please bear in mind that this quote is completely unedited: )
.......

'The Saudis came up with an Englishman who had served in the British Special Air Services, the elite commando special operations forces. This man traveled extensively around the Middle East, and went in and out of Lebanon from another Arab state. He would be an ideal leader of a sophisticated operation. The CIA, of course, could have nothing to do with "elimination." The Saudis, if asked would back a CIA denial concerning involvement or knowledge. Liaison with foreign intelligence services was one CIA activity out of the reach of congressional oversight; Casey had flatly refused to tell the committees about this sensitive work. And in this case, the CIA as an institution did not know. Nothing was written down, there were no records. The Saudi $3 million deposited in the Geneva account was "laundered" through transfers among other bank accounts, making sure it could not be traced.
The Englishman established operational compartments to carry out separate parts of the assassination plan; none had any communication with any other except through him. Several men were hired to procure a large quantity of explosives; another man was hired to find a car; money was paid to informants to make sure they knew where Fadlallah would be at a certain time; another group was hired to design an after-action deception so that the Saudis and the CIA would not be connected; the Lebanese intelligence service hired the men to carry out the operation.
On March 8, 1985, a car packed with explosives was driven into a Beirut suburb about fifty yards from Fadlallah's high-rise residence. The car exploded, killing eighty and wounding two hundred, leaving devastation, fires and collapsed buildings. Anyone who had happened to be in the immediate neighborhood was killed, hurt or terrorized, but Fadlallah escaped without injury. His followers strung a huge "MADE IN USA" banner in front of a building that had been blown out.'
.......

The author of this quote is not some marginal, grudge-driven, blogging radical that is venting his imagination.

It's Bob Woodward.

Bob Woodward, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo: Simon and Schuster, p. 397.

(The Hollywood movie Spy Game (2001), with Robert Redford and Brad Pitt, is partly based on the US attempt to kill Sheikh Fadlallah.)

If you see history repeating itself and neo-colonial business as usual being carried out — with expected denials and moralizing against 'terrorism' — there is no need to be surprised.