[Dork.]

I know we've talked about the Iraq war ad nauseum here. I know that there are some folks who are thrilled with the new leadership in Washington, and others who are not so optimistic.

But Obama talked about his plan for Iraq a few days ago, and was surprisingly blunt.

“Let me say this as plainly as I can,” Mr. Obama said. “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
He added: “I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”

What's more, it seems that many Democrats are upset that ending the "combat mission in Iraq" entails leaving 50,000 troops in the country (and how clear is the line between combat troops and non-combat troops, anyway? Don't they all know how to use guns?), while other folks say things like:

Mr. McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate who clashed sharply with Mr. Obama over the future of Iraq during the campaign last year, called the withdrawal “reasonable” and said he was “cautiously optimistic that the plan as laid out by the president can lead to success.”

It's almost like Bizarro World now. Obama announces an actual timetable for withdrawal, but which doesn't withdraw all the troops, and McCain praises it. (The Bush Administration also thinks that this was just like their idea all along, but nobody listens to them anymore.)

In any case, what I'd like to humbly suggest for this thread is that we state what we expect to happen in August of 2010, then we can come back to this thread in 18 months and laugh at how wrong we all were.

I'll go first: I am shocked that he stated the withdrawal date so plainly, without the usual caveats of "subject to conditions in the country" or some weaselly excuse like that. I firmly believe that there will be some big event in Iraq close to the withdrawal date which prompts the Iraqi government to ask Obama to let the combat troops stay a little longer. Obama agrees, there are 50,100 troops in Iraq in September of 2010, and the media (who are over the honeymoon by now and looking towards the elections) skewer him for it. It will turn into his "Mission Accomplished" moment.

I'm probably wrong, but who cares? It's only the Internet....

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I firmly believe that there will be some big event in Iraq close to the withdrawal date which prompts the Iraqi government to ask Obama to let the combat troops stay a little longer.

Sounds about right.

Or...

Originally Posted by Barry

I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011... ...because they'll be needed in Iran when we invade in January 2012

[Dork.]

Or....

Originally Posted by Barry

I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011... ...because they'll be needed in Pakistan when we invade in January 2012

Not that I think that's likely, but I think it's more likely than invading Iran. Plus, I honestly don't think that this administration has plans to pre-emptively invade any country without provocation like the last one did. If we do invade Pakistan, it won't be on any timetable, it will be in response to something. Luckily for us, the troop withdrawal in Iraq will be coupled with a troop increase in Afghanistan, so if we do need to invade we'll be that much closer!

[nonhuman]

What I want to know is since when is Nancy Pelosi an expert on troop deployments? How does she know that 50,000 troops is excessive and we only need 20,000? Wasn't it this kind of thinking that turned Iraq into such a big mess in the first place?

I'm really getting completely fed up with just about everyone involved in American politics today.

[ebuddy]

I personally think it's political wrangling of the highest order. In other words, "All combat missions in Iraq will end by August 31st" while in reality as long as 50,000 combatants remain, there will be potential combat missions. The large print giveth, the small print taketh away. There's pragmatism in there somewhere so I'm trying not to be too hard on Obama. He's just riding the political grey.

Suffice it to say if anyone takes the "combat missions ending" thing seriously, this will be their own problem. We're not investing over $700 million in an embassy in Iraq 10 times larger than any other, spanning more than 27 buildings and 104 acres so we can pull "everyone" out.

Future of Iraq? Staging grounds for the inevitable.
China and others simultaneously pull their investments in our securities causing substantial economic woes in the US.
Russia and China ramp up their talks resulting in additional material support to Iran while subsequently combining and bolstering their own naval capabilities. Sensing US weakness, Iran announces nuclear weaponry by 2011.
Israel will attack Iran shortly thereafter. The US already staged in Iraq and Afghanistan, will intercept hostility from Syria, cover Israeli movements, and monitor the movements of Iran.
Reinstatement of the draft or of some form of mandatory military service in the US.
Allegiances will begin to solidify more apparently, laying the groundwork for WWIII by 2012.

[Dork.]

I understand that Obama is riding the political grey area, which is why I find his sound bites so puzzling. He is not giving himself much leeway in the court of public opinion.

I don't think that China will pull their investments in the US since we're one of their largest export markets. It's in their best interests to keep America addicted to debt, because as long as it's easy for Americans to borrow money we're going to buy stuff made in China. At some point in the future, of course, this will not be the case, since there will be other major markets for Chinese products. I hope we've got the deficit paid off by then and are not relying so much on Chinese imports.

I also don't think that events in Iran will lead to World War III (or IV or V, depending on how you count) because as much as I believe Russia and China will provide support to Iran to try and counteract the projection of US power in the region, I don't believe either side has the determination to actively fight the US directly, and I believe any confrontation between Israel and Iran will be contained in the region.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sounds about right.

Originally Posted by Obummer

I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011... ...because they'll be needed in Iran when we invade in January 2012

-t

[Chongo]

We kept hearing Viet Nam analogies. Let's hope 09/01/2010 doesn't look like this:


Evacuation - MSN Video Fleeing Saigon - MSN Video

[Big Mac]

1. 50,000 troops in country is not the immediate, extensive pullout Obama ran on. That's a very pregnant pullout indeed. Only a truly reckless individual would advocate pulling out of Iraq completely, but committing to a 50,000 strong permanent troop level is surprising. What was our pre-Surge level again? 130,000. Obama wants to leave more than a third of the initial troop level.

2. The rest of the world will never pull out of the dollar willingly. If the dollar starts careening the rest of the world will move to strengthen it because it's in their best interests to do so. Look at what happened to the currency markets last year as evidence - when the dollar plunged every other currency AND gold went with it. The demise of the dollar means the demise of the every economy on earth, and the rest of the major powers in the world certainly don't want that. The dollar truly is the world reserve currency, and too many powerful countries have too many dollar denominated assets. That doesn't mean we can't wreck its value with wildly excessive deficit spending, but it does mean that no sane actor on the world stage will be looking to topple it. Even when Iran declared last year it would no longer do oil deals using the dollar, it had little effect on the price of oil.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Allegiances will begin to solidify more apparently, laying the groundwork for WWIII by 2012.

There's that number again...

[ebuddy]

As far as Obama not giving himself much leeway in the court of public opinion, I'm not sure he's all that concerned about it. He's going forward with a plan most Americans don't appreciate and ran on a platform partially built upon "pay as you go".

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I don't think that China will pull their investments in the US since we're one of their largest export markets. It's in their best interests to keep America addicted to debt, because as long as it's easy for Americans to borrow money we're going to buy stuff made in China. At some point in the future, of course, this will not be the case, since there will be other major markets for Chinese products. I hope we've got the deficit paid off by then and are not relying so much on Chinese imports.

China has its own economy to worry about. It thought it was investing in low-risk investments, but as it turns out they may soon become more concerned how we could possibly ever pay them back. Sort of a "run" on securities. At least, this is one thing the Obama administration is concerned about. MSN Money

I also don't think that events in Iran will lead to World War III (or IV or V, depending on how you count) because as much as I believe Russia and China will provide support to Iran to try and counteract the projection of US power in the region, I don't believe either side has the determination to actively fight the US directly, and I believe any confrontation between Israel and Iran will be contained in the region.

I hope you're right.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Allegiances will begin to solidify more apparently, laying the groundwork for WWIII by 2012.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There's that number again...

December 21 2012, The official Website for 12/21/12 Information
...and that other number as well

[Dork.]

I'll make a note to unearth this thread on December 22, 2012, as well.

(that is, if there is one! )