The US military role in Iraq has officially ended

[Ivan Seeking]

... In a makeshift parade ground in a corner of Baghdad airport, time was called on the war just after 1pm on Thursday, eight years, eight months and 26 days after its far more dramatic opening in March 2003. Nearby a plane was waiting to take home the US high command. And in southern Iraq, the 4,000 US troops who remain were steadily streaming towards Kuwait.

By Sunday all the troops will be gone, called home for Christmas by an administration that decided there was little point sticking to the original end date of 31 December...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/us-exit-iraq-withdrawal-ambivalence?newsfeed=true

For the US, IIRC, ~4500 dead, 30,000 injured, 1.5 million have served with perhaps 810,000 suffering from PTSD, and about $1 trillion in financial costs.

When the war started, I had been traveling extensively and needed a long break. I got home just in time to watch the invasion on TV. Not long after we took the palace, I joined PF.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Not to mention somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens.

 

[turbo]

Not to mention somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens.

And how many refugees that were driven to other countries due to religious differences?

 

[Pengwuino]

Not to mention somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens.

Link? I heard estimates a year ago saying such claims were wildly exaggerated and the WHO puts the estimate near 25k. I need to look for that study.

Edit: Nevermind, found a linking putting it around 250k "violent deaths" since 2003.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

And how many refugees that were driven to other countries due to religious differences?

I gather that there are several million Iraqi refugees worldwide.

Link? I heard estimates a year ago saying such claims were wildly exaggerated and the WHO puts the estimate near 25k. I need to look for that study.

The IBC lists roughly 100,000 and there are various other sources such as the lancet that suggest body counts of hundreds of thousands more, some estimating up to near 1,000,000.

I'm not vouching for the validity of any of these claims specifically, just pointing out that they are there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Link? I heard estimates a year ago saying such claims were wildly exaggerated and the WHO puts the estimate near 25k. I need to look for that study.

Edit: Nevermind, found a linking putting it around 250k "violent deaths" since 2003.

I know you were talking about citizens, but in regards to Iraqi sodiers, during the invasion I got up every morning at 4AM to watch the Pentagon briefing. At one point it appeared that we eliminated somewhere around 100,000 soldiers [perhaps twice as many] with a single wave of heavy bombs. When the announcment was made, the room fell dead silent. Even the brass looked shocked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

DONALD RUMSFELD, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense: The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under $50 billion.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, Anchor, "This Week": Outside estimates say up to $300 billion.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Baloney.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june08/warcost_03-26.html

January 2, 2003

If President Bush orders an attack against Iraq, the American force would be half the size of that in the 1991 war. The Pentagon's war plans call for deploying as many as 250,000 military personnel, but the initial offensive should start with a much smaller number, with a sizable force in reserve.

The budget director's projections today served as a more politically palatable corrective to figures put forth by Mr. Lindsey in September, when he said that a war with Iraq might amount to 1 percent to 2 percent of the national gross domestic product, or $100 billion to $200 billion. Mr. Lindsey added that as a one-time cost for one year, the expenditure would be "nothing."

Mr. Lindsey was criticized inside and outside the administration for putting forth such a large number, which helped pave the way for his ouster earlier this month. He could not be reached for comment this evening. (Congressional Democrats have estimated that the cost would be $93 billion, not including the cost of peacekeeping and rebuilding efforts after a war.)...

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

We also enhanced Iran's influence in the country and the region.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We also enhanced Iran's influence in the country and the region.

From Ivan's link:

The spectre of Iran stepping into an American vacuum gets regular play in non-government media and in Sunni areas of the country, which still feel collectively marginalised eight years after their power base was shattered.

I wonder if this is a serious possibility.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/us-exit-iraq-withdrawal-ambivalence?newsfeed=true

For the US, IIRC, ~4500 dead, 30,000 injured, 1.5 million have served with perhaps 810,000 suffering from PTSD, and about $1 trillion in financial costs.

When the war started, I had been traveling extensively and needed a long break. I got home just in time to watch the invasion on TV. Not long after we took the palace, I joined PF.

The story you linked to is titled:

"US exit from Iraq: 'this is not a withdrawal, this is an act on a stage'"

based on this quote:

Another man, Mundhar Kamel, 65, said the departure changed little. "This move is them exiting from one door and entering from another," he said. "In the embassy they still have 15,000 people and there is talk about 3,000 more [military] trainers. This is not a withdrawal, this is an act on a stage.

We have 15,000, what are they, embassy guards, that will remain?

 

[rhody]

An observation, why isn't this thread in P&WA, unless putting it there would result in a thread lock in short order.

Rhody...

 

[Bobbywhy]

An observation, why isn't this thread in P&WA, unless putting it there would result in a thread lock in short order.

Rhody...

From here this thread appears to be in the P&WA thread. For what reason would this thread be locked in short order? Guessing maybe I am totally naive and am missing the significance of and ?

 

[Evo]

From here this thread appears to be in the P&WA thread. For what reason would this thread be locked in short order? Guessing maybe I am totally naive and am missing the significance of and ?

The thread has just been moved to P&WA. Rules in P&WA are stricter than in GD.

 

[rootX]

The thread has just been moved to P&WA. Rules in P&WA are stricter than in GD.

.. or people tend to be more fierce in P&WA :rofl:

The US military role in Iraq has officially ended

"The Bush administration deserves credit for its long-term commitment to democracy in the Middle East. But even a good idea can be spoiled by clumsy execution. Worse still, the idea can backfire -- particularly if people come to suspect that ulterior motives are at work."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/08/opinion/the-wrong-way-to-sell-democracy-to-the-arab-world.html

:rofl:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An observation, why isn't this thread in P&WA, unless putting it there would result in a thread lock in short order.

Rhody...

I didn't care to create a thread meeting the P&WA guidelines, which it didn't and doesn't.

 

[navynuclear]

I got to watch the invasion on t.v in bootcamp! Also had a front row seat in the Gulf in 95 and 98.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I got to watch the invasion on t.v in bootcamp! Also had a front row seat in the Gulf in 95 and 98.

I was glued to the TV during Gulf War #1. CNN's on the spot coverage completely changed the experience of war for people who weren't actually there. It was surreal.

 

[edpell]

Please move the thread back to where discussion is allowed. I guess GD stands for general discussion.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Please move the thread back to where discussion is allowed. I guess D stands for general discussion.

I don't get what you mean here, all subforums allow discussions. This one is here for Politics and World Affairs. As such it is appropriate.

 

[edpell]

The thread has just been moved to P&WA. Rules in P&WA are stricter than in GD.

As I said, please move it back to the place where the rules are less strict. You and Evo see this differently. You say equal rules she says not equal rules?

 

[edpell]

Now at last Iraq can split into three separate countries. One for the Kurds, one for the Sunni, and one for the Shiites.

Of course, the question of who gets the water and who gets the oil are open for discussion amongst the locals.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As I said, please move it back to the place where the rules are less strict. You and Evo see this differently. You say equal rules she says not equal rules?

No I said:

all subforums allow discussions.

In response to:

Please move the thread back to where discussion is allowed.

The rules are there for a reason, if you want to discuss issues pertaining to politics and world affairs you must do it whilst complying with the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181. This is no different to how any topic is dealt with at the site. GD is not a subforum free from rules, it is a place for general (AKA casual) discussion.

 

[Evo]

Just like cosmology is not discussed in GD, P&WA topics aren't discussed in GD, GD is for humor, personal discussions, hobbies, etc...

 

[edpell]

If I were advising Iraq I would tell them to keep oil production low so that it lasts for a long time. For their children and grandchildren. I believe some folks in Saudi Arabia have said they are not going to build out new oil production facilities for just this reason.

 

[mege]

If I were advising Iraq I would tell them to keep oil production low so that it lasts for a long time. For their children and grandchildren. I believe some folks in Saudi Arabia have said they are not going to build out new oil production facilities for just this reason.

I'd be interested to see a quote on that. If KSA is slowing production, from my understanding, it's to keep the price higher (from supply being low) - not to outright conserve the oil.

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/us-exit-iraq-withdrawal-ambivalence?newsfeed=true

For the US, IIRC, ~4500 dead, 30,000 injured, 1.5 million have served with perhaps 810,000 suffering from PTSD, and about $1 trillion in financial costs.

When the war started, I had been traveling extensively and needed a long break. I got home just in time to watch the invasion on TV. Not long after we took the palace, I joined PF.

I'm curious. Did the US get significantly more oil, or anything else, out of this 8-year thing? We all know, more or less, what the cost was (ie., what was lost by all those involved). What was gained?

Ok, we killed Saddam. But it seems to me that if that was the goal, then it could have been done for a lot less. The rest of it, the WMD and democracy stuff, seems like a lot of fluff to me. Which seems to leave control of Iraq's oil as the primary motivation. Was that it? Or was/is there more or something else to it?

 

[navynuclear]

I was glued to the TV during Gulf War #1. CNN's on the spot coverage completely changed the experience of war for people who weren't actually there. It was surreal.

Funny thing is we watched CNN in the gulf too! We learned everything that was going on from them! I was stuck down in the main machinery room so not much intel filtered down there except what bell to answer or we need more steam for the cats.

 

[PatrickPowers]

I'm curious. Did the US get significantly more oil, or anything else, out of this 8-year thing? We all know, more or less, what the cost was (ie., what was lost by all those involved). What was gained?

Ok, we killed Saddam. But it seems to me that if that was the goal, then it could have been done for a lot less. The rest of it, the WMD and democracy stuff, seems like a lot of fluff to me. Which seems to leave control of Iraq's oil as the primary motivation. Was that it? Or was/is there more or something else to it?

There was something for everybody. One of the main reasons was to secure Saudi Arabia. The populace didn't like having US soldiers stationed there permanently, and there was danger of rebellion, as well as a possible Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. (Source, Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview.)

Other reasons included the security of Israel, and huge sums of money transferred to major campaign contributors. Ultimately the plan was to invade Syria in order to secure a supply line for an invasion of Iran, both to topple regimes unfriendly to the United States. I recall George W. appearing on TV and declaring that the weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Right.

As for the WMD thing, I recall reading that if we found them then we had to invade, and if we didn't find them then they were hiding them and we had to invade.

 

[ThomasT]

There was something for everybody. One of the main reasons was to secure Saudi Arabia. The populace didn't like having US soldiers stationed there permanently, and there was danger of rebellion, as well as a possible Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. (Source, Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview.)

Other reasons included the security of Israel, and huge sums of money transferred to major campaign contributors. Ultimately the plan was to invade Syria in order to secure a supply line for an invasion of Iran, both to topple regimes unfriendly to the United States. I recall George W. appearing on TV and declaring that the weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Right.

As for the WMD thing, I recall reading that if we found them then we had to invade, and if we didn't find them then they were hiding them and we had to invade.

Ok. Thanks for the feedback. Food for thought/research(if I get time).

 

[CAC1001]

Not to mention somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens.

That's because al-quaeda decided to start a war with the U.S. in Iraq.

We also enhanced Iran's influence in the country and the region.

We took out Saddam Hussein, a very brutal dictator and a danger in that region. On Iran, I liken it to if the U.S. had taken out Hitler in the 1930s, only to then get blamed for "strengthening" the influence of the Soviet Union in the region as Nazi Germany was seen as serving as a balance. Iran's influence would be limited in Iraq I think if we were maintaining a residual force there, like we did in South Korea at the end of the Korean War, or in Germany after WWII.

 

[PatrickPowers]

That's because al-quaeda decided to start a war with the U.S. in Iraq.

As reported by the Christian Science Monitor, "Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, [were] known to despise each other."21 Bin Laden referred to Saddam as a "socialist infidel" and, according to the 9/11 Report, was sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.22 Conversely, a 2006 report by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support.

On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." The head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich, commented, "I think it's obvious that the administration was scrambling then to try to find a connection, a link (between al Qaida and Iraq). They made out links where they didn't exist."

'to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind of "apostate" regime' --- Pentagon-sponsored study entitled Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents

The New York Times called the 2008 Senate report "especially critical of statements by the president and vice president linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and raising the possibility that Mr. Hussein might supply the terrorist group with unconventional weapons." The Chair of the Committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), commented in an addendum to the report, "Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.

 

[BobG]

We also enhanced Iran's influence in the country and the region.

From Ivan's link:

The spectre of Iran stepping into an American vacuum gets regular play in non-government media and in Sunni areas of the country, which still feel collectively marginalised eight years after their power base was shattered.

I wonder if this is a serious possibility.

I think we did increase Iran's influence in Iraq, but how much we increased that influence is also important.

Religion isn't the only influence on the politics of the region. Iraq is an Arab country and Iran is a Persian country. That will limit just how much influence Iran will have, or at least influence how they play their cards. Plus, in Saudi Arabia, you still have a Sunni Arab country that also influences things in Iraq.

It's true Iran has been increasing its influence on the region just by tightening its ties to Syria (and through them, with Hezbollah and Hamas), so the Shiite angle is important, and the Arab Spring could also improve Iran's position at least a little, but I don't see Iraq becoming a satellite state of Iran. I just see this as another way for Iran to increase its ties by emphasizing what it has in common with some Arab countries as opposed to a rather major difference in ethnicity - if Arab countries allow that to happen.

Keep in mind that Arab countries are doing more to pressure Syria right now than the US is. If Assad were to fall in Syria, then that would be a blow that would outweigh anything Iran is likely to gain with Iraq.

All in all, I think the US put out a whole lot of effort to make things just a little bit worse for us in the Middle East. Not good, but not a disaster either.

Provided, of course, that tensions between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites don't eventually result in the country falling back into civil war, which is still a good possibility if you use other ethnically divided countries as an example (Lebanon in the late 50's/early 60's and Sudan in the 90's being two examples of a peaceful resolution eventually falling apart).

 

[edward]

Addressing who will remain behind other than embassy personnel:

Even so, American civilian officials will primarily be guarded by private security contractors, not U.S. troops. The State Department has talked of hiring as many as 8,000 such guards.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021

I caught a news broadcast that stated "over 10,000" private security personnel.

We built several large bases in Iraq that were intended to keep an America presence in the area?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Asad_Airbase

 

[russ_watters]

We built several large bases in Iraq that were intended to keep an America presence in the area?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Asad_Airbase

We were not able to reach an agreement with Iraq about the legal status of our troops, so we couldn't keep them there.

 

[russ_watters]

...

I think you missed the point, since your post has nothing whatsoever to do with what you quoted. The point was that after the war in Iraq started, foreign terrorists streamed into Iraq to fight against Americans. I actually consider that a positive thing.