US troops to be out of Iraq by Jan 1.

If "diplomacy" did not get in the way of us taking Hussein out when I was in Iraq in 91, there would have been no need in 2003. Ceasefire agreements only accomplish one thing... extending the misery indefinitely. Al Qaeda is severely weakened by US and allied efforts over the last 10 years. Before that, terrorists felt free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, where ever they want. It was only after the US was attacked by Al Qeada that the world stood up to them. But pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan should not be construed as an end to the war on Islamist Extremist terrorism. It is only acknowledging that the OIF and OEF have done enough in those two countries, and it's time for the people of those countries to show the world what they are made of. Whether they rise to the occasion, or fall from the weight, what we gave them was a chance to have the government they deserve.

Well now we did win in Kosovo and that area is better for it. It wasn't a big war but we also won in Grenada. We essentially won the first Iraq war and that was when most of the world was with us. The world was with us when we went into Afghanistan. The second Iraq war soured the world against us and gave the radical muslims more reason to hate us.

Trillions are spent in our own country. Personally, I have more military awards for domestic disaster recovery operations than for war. So much is done here in the states, but all we hear is demands for more.

I can't argue that. Thankyou!!

Ignorant drivel. There is a huge need for a US presence of ground based troops in the Middle East. The fact that Al Qaeda is still allowed to flourish in so many middle eastern countries is proof of that. But the fact is, too many people in the Iraq government don't want a permanent US presence there. So Obama is merely responding to their wishes.

Prs. Bush already tried that, and much of the population of the US rejected it. There are more reasons to have a semi permanent presence in the Middle East than in Europe.

We need to close most of our Military bases from the world their is little to no need for them. And Al Qaeda may still be around in the mountains and such and if they come after us again we should make it clear any nation that harbors them inside their borders will be considered to be in support of their actions and it will be seen as an act of war. In which case we bomb that country back into the stone age like we did Japan and Germany in WWII then we pull out and let them rebuild. We need to get away from our current foreign Policy and go back to the Walking softly and carrying a big stick foreign policy because it never failed us.

New flash, Bush is no longer president! Obama is! Therefore it is Obama's job to set policy for the military actions. Denying that is convenient, but it's a lie. By all rights, we never should have accepted a Ceasefire in 1991. We should have accepted nothing short of a full surrender by Hussein, and then kept a presence and turned the occupied areas of Iraq over to the Kurds, who fought with us. Obama has never had a clear policy in either Iraq or Afghanistan. He has simply continued the Bush policies. Now that all of the reasons Bush gave for being in both countries have been fulfilled, there is no reason to continue the war. There are many reasons to keep a presence in Iraq though... Afghanistan, not so much.

It really is convenient to blame Obama for the disasters Bush created. "Now that all of the reasons Bush gave for being in both countries have been fulfilled" I guess you refer to all the weapons of mass destruction we found, and, of course, the pursuit of Osama. No, wait, Bush said Osama was of no importance. So what exactly was the reason for invading Afghanistan? Maybe just to provide some real-life training so he could send troops after his real target, which was Iraq from the beginning. "By all rights, we never should have accepted a Ceasefire in 1991. We should have accepted nothing short of a full surrender by Hussein, and then kept a presence and turned the occupied areas of Iraq over to the Kurds, who fought with us." A little history is in order here. In the first Gulf War, we were part of a very large coalition. Unlike W invading Iraq, which we pretty much did on our own, we had allies and agreements. We were not acting alone. If we had defied our agreements and the decisions of our coalition partners and invaded Iraq then, it would have been a mess, for sure. Turning Iraq over to the Kurds would never work. There are three separate groups running, Iraq, each with its own sphere of influence. The Turks were a lot smarter than anybody has been since. They administered that area as three separate provinces. Anyway, those who enthusiastically supported Bush while he made a shambles of this nation are now the ones screaming loudest for Obama's head. Instead of blaming the man who had all these problems dumped in his lap, maybe we should seriously look for some solutions. Blaming Obama is like blaming Harry Truman for World War II. Or blaming Nixon for Vietnam.

All I said was that Obama is the commander in chief, and should be held responsible as such. Once he become president, he accepted those responsibilities. What is it about Obamabots that keeps them from accepting this fact?

Well, Mike, Obama has started 2 maybe 3 wars since being in office.

I don't think we would need troops near Iran if we had to attack there. We have (or should have) enough missiles to take out their aerial defenses and then we could use planes to bomb what we need to. Hopefully then, the people might revolt and overthrow the government. The trouble is, what comes after that.

burrito88, When Bush invaded Irag, we had to man up in Kiewitt for almost a month. We bombed our way in before the troops. It is very nice to have leverage in the mid-east like this. I think this is half the reason we invaded Irag.

Oh so am I thanks

Well, we agree with the concept and some of the execution. We can't just pull all the troops out at once, lest we cause another "Fall of Saigon" incompetency. One thing that would make this a total crime... and partially on Obama's head, is if the pullout results in another "killing fields". If Obama has any reason to believe that pulling the troops out will lead to that kind of slaughter, he has an obligation to change his mind here. As it stands, for the stated reasons, I support Obama's decision. But if he is only willingly turning Iraq over to terrorists just to win brownie points in the election, then there is nothing anyone will be able to say to me to try to prove he isn't an inhuman, terrorist loving, satanic piece of monstrous vomit.

I honestly don't think this is being done for political reasons. If this were next year I might buy into that theory, but not this far out from the election. Annie

Absolutely!