Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Staying in Iraq

I've been saying for years that we aren't leaving Iraq any time soon, despite our supposed withdrawal date, and a report from the Washington Post appears to confirm that assumption.
U.S. officials welcomed on Wednesday Iraq’s decision to negotiate with Washington on keeping some U.S. troops in the country into next year ... Iraq’s top political leaders agreed late Tuesday that the Iraqi military needs to continue training programs with U.S. forces, marking the first step in a process that still could take months to resolve.
On the one hand the U.S. has good reasons for retaining a military presence in Iraq, which are laid out in the article. But the problems lie in the details.
Significant details that remain unresolved include the length and focus of any training program, how many U.S. troops such training might require and how Iraqi leaders would formally request and approve a new partnership. Mullen and his colleagues also want legal immunity for any troops who stay behind.
One huge detail not mentioned is who is going to pay for the continuing U.S. presence. If Iraq wants and needs U.S. troops to remain in its country beyond the agreed upon withdrawal date, it should provide the financial support for that presence. With our fiscal situation as it is, we should not continue to maintain large foreign deployments, plus the aid programs that go with them, at our expense.

4 comments:

  1. "If Iraq wants and needs U.S. troops to remain in its country beyond the agreed upon withdrawal date, it should provide the financial support for that presence."

    100% agreement with you on that!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The USA invaded Iraq for dubious reasons... shouldn't the US be obligated to stay to help clean up the mess on the USA's dime?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The USA invaded Iraq for dubious reasons... shouldn't the US be obligated to stay to help clean up the mess on the USA's dime? "

    No. The U.S. has already poured countless amounts of money into Iraq, not to mention the lives of its soldiers. The U.S. owes Iraq nothing. And in any event, that's irrelevant to the situation in question. The U.S. and Iraq already have an agreement for the U.S. to withdraw -- which was desired by Iraq. If Iraq now needs U.S. forces to stay on, they should pay for them. If they don't want to pay, that indicates they don't need them badly enough.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does Europe pay for US troops in Europe? Does S Korea Pay for US Troops in South Korea? Does Japan pay for US Troops in Japan?

    ReplyDelete