arack Obama, who made a name for himself with a passionate speech in 2002 arguing against the Iraq War before campaigning for president in 2008 on the promise that he'd end the war once and for all, announced on Friday that, "as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year." That timetable was actually set in place by a 2008 agreement George W. Bush signed with Iraq, which called for all troops to be out by year's end. In fact, the Obama team had been negotiating with Iraq for a few thousand U.S. troops to stay on past 2011. Iraq balked at American demands that U.S. troops retain legal immunity, and a new deal was scuttled. So really, the U.S. "is being kicked out by the very people that we liberated," says GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). Is that a fair assessment?
America is being ejected due to Obama's ineptitude: This irresponsible withdrawal is worse than a politically motivated military retreat, says Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post. If not for Team Obama's "inept negotiations," U.S. forces could have stayed on to help Iraqis and fend off Iran, as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, U.S. generals, and apparently even Obama himself wanted. Congress should investigate this "bungled diplomacy."
"Obama: A dishonest withdrawal from Iraq"
Actually, this is cause for "real celebration": Pulling out by Jan. 1, 2012 "is the right decision, at the right time," says Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy. "It may have been forced upon the administration by Iraqi political realities," but that's the democracy we fought for. Except for some Iraqi elites who privately hoped U.S. troops would stay in larger numbers, our military isn't wanted or, increasingly, even needed. That's why Obama's negotiators "seem satisfied with the outcome, as they should."
"Yes, the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq"
Good riddance to a bad situation: Let's be honest, says Reid Smith at The American Spectator. The withdrawal is an "absolutely political" move by Obama, aimed at his anti-war base. But it's also the only decision that makes sense, since America isn't willing to greatly expand our troop presence. Fewer than 5,000 troops would be nothing more than a polarizing target for politicians and armed militants. Iraq will stand or fall on its own now, and it's "just as well American soldiers and Marines do not remain as fodder."
"And that's a wrap in Iraq"
- How typeface influences the way we read and think
- Huawei's new super-thin P6 smartphone is also perfect for selfies
- WATCH: Australia's army chief demonstrates how you address sex abuse
- The last telegram ever is about to be sent
- The last word: He said he was leaving. She ignored him.
- 5 takeaways from Obama's sit-down with Charlie Rose
- Can fetuses masturbate?
- The 10-cent revolution: Everything you need to know about Brazil's massive protests
- New Snowden leak: NSA, Britain's GCHQ, eavesdropped on foreign leaders
- Is the momentum for gay marriage real, or just media hype?
- WATCH: Australia's army chief demonstrates how you address sex abuse
- How typeface influences the way we read and think
- The last word: He said he was leaving. She ignored him.
- Why are Japanese teenagers licking each other's eyeballs?
- Sarah Palin's Fox return proves conservative media outlets don't care about conservatism
- The week's best photojournalism
- Where are the honest atheists?
- Scientists discover an entirely new human body part… in the eye
- Girls on Film: Of course we need more female directors!
- Why conservatives can't whitewater Obama
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||













