US troops deal is finalised. It could see US troops out by 2011...

[Каие]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7580968.stm

Today the supposed deal which will see American troops presence in Iraq ended by 2011, if the Maliki gets his way, has been made today. It is yet to be finalised by Parliamentary vote. I was against this war from the beginning, but is it the best idea to leave in the next 3 years? what will it do to the Presidential campaign of which Obama has promised withdrawal within 16 months? The US haven't agreed to any timetable, but the Iraqi PM Maliki is pushing for one by 2011, so should US troops leave by 2011 no matter what?

[cottontail]

About time! Speaking of which, how do you vote?

[Каие]

There's a poll at the top, or at least there should be.

[Ragabash]

It depends how the situation develops in Iraq but right now I would have to say no, 2011 withdraw seems a bit too soon. You should not leave until it's 100% sure that Iraq won't flame into another catastrophy.

You owe it to poor Iraqis who are now struggling to get their lives back. You cannot just leave them for the vultures after destroying all order and stability within the region.

[Mithie]

You should not leave until it's 100% sure that Iraq won't flame into another catastrophy,

So get ready to dig in for the long haul, eh?

Truth of the matter is, American military presence is not needed, but American economic and political presence need to be stepped up to compensate. Pull out the ground troops, yes, but step up the projection of economic and political power.

[BeastG33]

Argh, I hope so. I don't want to leave Iraq in anarchy, don't get me wrong, but... I don't know. I just want to leave at this point, you know? I'm tired of soldiers dying from IEDs and helicopter crashes and suicide bomb attacks.

I know we have a responsibility to fix or at least stabilize the infrastructure of a country we tore apart but I'm hoping beyond hope that by 2011, we'll have done that well enough to be able to back out and leave Iraqis to the Iraqis, as it probably always should have been... I guess. Especially if the Iraqis want us to go, then really, we need to go.

[Eskali]

It depends how the situation develops in Iraq but right now I would have to say no, 2011 withdraw seems a bit too soon. You should not leave until it's 100% sure that Iraq won't flame into another catastrophy.

You owe it to poor Iraqis who are now struggling to get their lives back. You cannot just leave them for the vultures after destroying all order and stability within the region.

Agreed

[Kleos]

I dont think the situation in Iraq will justify a withdrawal in such a short period of time. At the least you'd want Afghanistan reaching a similar capability for self rule, which seems far off; and the situation in Iran clarified and things to settle down in Pakistan a bit more. You at least want a stable Iraq to have the benefit of a semi-stable region.

However, there is little the US can do if the Iraqis themselves want them out. Perhaps this way more resources can be devoted to Afghanistan, a war which should have been finished before the US even thought of invading any other.

[eddy_purpus]

it is better for US to be off Iraq , you know why oil prices are high ?
because we have our troops in Iraq ..
thats why our economy is down .
we need them back .

[Holger Danske]

it is better for US to be off Iraq , you know why oil prices are high ?
because we have our troops in Iraq ..
thats why our economy is down .
we need them back .

And risk the entire country falling apart so we all can go there for a round 3? No thanks!

[Каие]

This is a little taster as to what the Iraqi Military's problems are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_A...and_criticisms

[Ragabash]

This isn't just some childrens play where you can leave when ever you want, go home and eat icecream while watching cartoons.

We are talking about human lives here; desperate need for stability and future of the people in the whole region. U.S.A invaded Iraq to bring in the democracy and rebuild the country and its governmental system, at least in official level if not in truth.

And now you want to leave when they need your help the most? Huh...

[Panzerbear]

hell no, US should stay there for as long as possible, hopefully indefinitely. and then invade Iran and occupy it as well.

[Thanatos]

hell no, US should stay there for as long as possible, hopefully indefinitely. and then invade Iran and occupy it as well.

You've got to be kidding me.

[Mikelus Trento]

You've got to be kidding me.

He wants the US to bleed itself, the same way the Soviets did in Afghanistan, a conflict he still insists the USSR won.

I don't think he has ever met Charlie Wilson.

[Surgeon]

Well, a lot can happen in the ~2 years leading up to 2011, so depending on what the situation is then will determine whether it's best for the troops to stay. Bit too soon to judge, methinks.

[Mikelus Trento]

I find it extremely hypocritical that both Bush and McCain have long opposed a timetable, and yet both now, right before the election, are endorsing it.

[LSJ]

Politicians make promises and then go back on them because they didn't want to actually do those things, they just did it for the votes. Yes/no/yes/no/yes/no on the timetable is part of that.

But I think its a bad idea to pull out on a timetable. What if the Iraqi army is not prepared? What if insurgents take over Baghdad right when the Americans are about to leave? What if some big civil war breaks out between Iraq west and Iraq East and Kurdistan? They should leave when the Iraqi army can take care of the situation. Although I do recognize that could be from one to twenty years from now...

[Каие]

I find it extremely hypocritical that both Bush and McCain have long opposed a timetable, and yet both now, right before the election, are endorsing it.

I think the answer is a bit obvious.

We are talking about human lives here, desperate need for stability and future of the people in the whole region and even beyond. U.S.A invaded Iraq pretty much on its own, declaring it would benefit Iraqis; you would bring in the democracy. And now you want to leave when they need your help the most? Huh...

To be fair the Iraqi government wants them out, but people are suspicious of Maliki, he's pro Iranian and has gotten used to power. Some other members were raising concerns about his intentions at the next elections and after the US leaves.

Truth is I was against the war at beginning on the grounds of stability in Iraq and the ME and escalation of the terrorist threat and alienation of Muslims as well as the widening rift of West-East. But now all that damage is already done it doesn't seem clever to leave Iraq in the time of problem, especially when the Iraqi Army is incapable of taking care of its own logistics. To be honest I'm largely torn.

[bleach]

Well, a lot can happen in the ~2 years leading up to 2011, so depending on what the situation is then will determine whether it's best for the troops to stay. Bit too soon to judge, methinks.

Agreed. There should never be an unconditional timetable on military matters.

Whether the war is right or wrong, the situation is too important and delicate to screw it up in the name of partisanship, spite for G.W. Bush, or any other petty reason.