US troops in Iraq

[JoeTheJuggler]

I saw an interesting juxtaposition of articles on CNN:

Panetta vowing to get immunity for US troops in Iraq protecting them from criminal prosecution by that host country (despite the fact that Iraq is unwilling to grant it); http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/08/world/meast/iraq-troop-withdrawal/index.html

and

U.S. military re-imposing a curfew on its troops in South Korea following two more rape accusations. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/07/world/asia/south-korea-us-rape/index.html

At any rate, why won't the U.S. simply withdraw all troops from Iraq? It's clear that Iraq doesn't want them there now.

 

[Bikewer]

I guess for the last couple of years, I've been listening to analysis of the Afghanistan situation.
The administration keeps insisting that we are on the brink of "winning" and that by continued military pressure on the Taliban they'll be forced to negotiate a peaceful settlement of some sort.
However, almost everyone else, from analysts to on-the-ground reporters to Afghans who are interviewed.... Say that the Taliban is in no way diminished or being thwarted, that the government is deeply corrupt and unable to provide even the most basic services in areas outside of Kabul, that warlords and narco-traffickers remain the power brokers in the countryside, and that the economy and infrastructure are so terrible that even if peace broke out tomorrow the country would still be a shambles and would still suck billions from the rest of the world.
Then there's Pakistan, widely acclaimed "the most dangerous place in the world" with religious extremists possibly overthrowing the weak government and yet armed with nukes...
While providing safe haven for the Taliban and apparently actively supporting them...

It's certainly looking like a "well, we did what we could, guys. See ya later." moment approaching.

 

[TimCallahan]

We should get all our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. In the latter case, Karzai is, in effect, the mayor of Kabul. In reality, Afghanistan is a region, not a nation. The British couldn't impose order there in the nineteenth century, the Russians failed miserably - particularly because we were helping the forerunners of the Taliban - and we will also fail.

We can claim success in killing Osama bin Ladin, deeply injuring Al Qaeda, and driving back the Taliban for long enough for their opposition to form, if they have any significant opposition. We should consider those worthy, fulfilled objectives and leave.

 

[sarge]

At any rate, why won't the U.S. simply withdraw all troops from Iraq? It's clear that Iraq doesn't want them there now.

Iraqis (some/many/most) may want us gone. Iraq can not seem to make up its mind on that question. It is more likely that Iraq would like some American presence, but under a host-nation agreement, rather than an Army of Occupation arrangement.

I expect that we will stay, and eventually negotiate some form of SOFA that allows Iraq to gain some limited authority over US Troops that commit crimes against Iraqi civilians - probab.y a right of first refusal to try.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Iraqis (some/many/most) may want us gone. Iraq can not seem to make up its mind on that question.

I don't think that's accurate anymore. I think aside from the Kurds, the consensus is very strong.

ETA: Even a few years back (the latest info I could find with a few seconds' Googling), opinion polls showed a very strong majority that wanted Coalition troops out and saw continued U.S. presence as a threat to security. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/517.php

 

[Maya22]

U.S. to Send 600 More Troops to Iraq