Gates: US troops could remain in Iraq after 2011

Associated Press ^ | April 8, 2011 | ROBERT BURNS

[Free ThinkerNY]

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, visiting Iraq on the eve of the eighth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, said Friday the United States could extend its troop presence in the country beyond the scheduled 2011 pullout.

Gates said that if Iraq wants American troops to remain, a deal could be negotiated for the long term or for as little as two or three years.

[WayneS]

Anyone who is surprised by this is either a brain-dead Obama sycophant or an Obama sycophant who happens to be brain-dead.

[MestaMachine]

After what happened this morning, I think this will be changing sooner rather than later.

[Wolfie]

Good. Gotta fight ‘em over there so we don’t have to fight ‘em over here.

[dfwgator]

We’ll be there 50 years from now.

[screaminsunshine]

Obama is trying to get all loyal troops out of the country.

[RC2]

Mr. Gates....give us a date when they will all come home and when people in the Middle East will have to stand up and take care of themselves. We’re through with the Middle East and don’t really care any more. Ten years is long enough.

[tumblindice]

Hear that? Those popping noises? Those are rat brains exploding over at DU.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/28/obama-outlines-withdrawal-from-iraq/?page=2
“The president’s plan would remove between 92,000 and 107,000 troops from Iraq over the next year and a half, until full withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011, ... “

[Buckeye McFrog]

So much Leftard brain-explosion-triggering material.
So little time.

[okie01]

We’re through with the Middle East and don’t really care any more. Ten years is long enough.

You object to our having a base, in a friendly country, on Iran's flank?

Only if you "don't care" about Iran and their nuclear program...

[Colonel Kangaroo]

You object to our having a base, in a friendly country, on Iran's flank?

Only if you "don't care" about Iran and their nuclear program...

If it came to the extremes of nuclear force, we have a much bigger nuclear program than Iran. The benefits to having ground troops next door is not worth the expense in blood and money. Serving as the world's ubiquitous policeman is not a wise long-term choice for a country facing a debt crisis.

[ArmstedFragg]

Gates has kept me puzzled for several years, but I think I've finally figured it out. He's the administration's dedicated truth teller. Every time their ideology bumps up against reality, they trot Gates out to break the news. The rest of them then proceed to poo poo him, keeping the base happy. When the public finally finds out that the narrative doesn't match the truth, they say, “hey, we told you that”, pointing at Gates’ comments and ignoring the fact that they trashed him for two weeks after he made them. It's a nice tactic that lets them embrace both sides of a dichotomy without that old cognitive dissonance problem.

[RC2]

How long to you think it would take us to get planes over Iran? Especially in today’s world and with the technology we have. We flew our bombers over Iraq in one day and that was from the states to Iraq. Being close to them is not necessary.

[okie01]

We flew our bombers over Iraq in one day and that was from the states to Iraq. Being close to them is not necessary.

Bombers are not troops.

And, in Iran's case, we cannot discount the possible need for troops.

[RC2]

If it comes to that, we can send in our troops. We can no longer afford to have our troops in every country that may be a problem next year or the next 20 years.

[okie01]

Serving as the world's ubiquitous policeman is not a wise long-term choice for a country facing a debt crisis.

Protecting America's national interests is always worth our while.

Maintaining the free flow of oil at market prices is absolutely necessary to our being able to exit this debt crisis.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

But we have a navy to maintain our access to what the region produces. I don’t care who sells us the oil, Sunni or Shiite, Arab or Persian. Let the regional powers sort things out and we’ll buy from the winner. They have to sell. They can’t eat the stuff.

[okie01]

I don’t care who sells us the oil, Sunni or Shiite, Arab or Persian. Let the regional powers sort things out and we’ll buy from the winner.

You'd be okay with Iran nuking Israel, then?

You'd be okay with Iran gaining effective control over the entire Middle East, then?

No, I know you wouldn't. But your expressed policy would allow that situation.

Can we afford to let it happen? I think not. Correcting such an outcome would be far more expensive than not letting it occur in the first place.

[okie01]

We can no longer afford to have our troops in every country that may be a problem next year or the next 20 years.

And we don't.

[dfwgator]

I still believe that was one of the motivations for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam, the whole “War on Terror” thing was a convenient excuse, now did Bush maybe exaggerate the WMD claims? Maybe so, but I also believe, it was just being opportunistic to provide the US with a crucial base of operations, and a backup plan if the SHTF in Saudi Arabia.