Iraq demands US leave their country

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi lawmakers Thursday demanded U.S. forces leave the country in the wake of a surprise visit by President Donald Trump that politicians denounced as arrogant and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

Politicians from both blocs of Iraq's divided Parliament called for a vote to expel U.S. troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter.

"Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty," said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Trump, making his first presidential visit to troops in a troubled region Wednesday, said he has no plans to withdraw the 5,200 U.S. forces in the country.

Containing foreign influence has become a hot-button issue in a year that saw al-Sadr supporters win the largest share of votes in May elections. Al-Sadr has called for curbing U.S. and Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs.

U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq as part of the coalition against the Islamic State group. American forces withdrew in 2011 after invading in 2003 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the Iraqi government to help fight the jihadist group.

But after defeating IS militants in their last urban bastions last year, Iraqi politicians and militia leaders are speaking out against the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraqi soil.

Qais Khazali, the head of the Iran-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia that fought key battles against IS in north Iraq, promised on Twitter that Parliament would vote to expel U.S. forces from Iraq, or the militia and others would force them out by "other means."

Khazali was jailed by British and U.S. forces from 2007 to 2010 for managing sections of the Shia insurgency against the occupation during those years.

His militia is represented in Parliament by the Binaa bloc, a rival coalition to al-Sadr's Islah. Binaa favors close ties with Iran and is aligned with Tehran on regional political issues.

Trump spent three hours at a U.S. air base meeting with American troops during his visit. The president defended his decision to withdraw 2,000 U.S. forces from neighboring Syria, saying the U.S. military had all but eliminated IS-controlled territory there.

He left without meeting any Iraqi officials, though he spoke to Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi by phone.

The prime minister's office said in a statement after Trump's visit that "differences in points of view" over arrangements led to a face-to-face meeting between the two leaders to be scrapped.

Al-Shimiri said Trump's visit "violated several diplomatic norms."
Iraqi lawmakers demand US withdrawal after Trump visit

I say Hell Yes,

 

I think it is time to remove all US troops from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the immediate region.

Make no mistake. Bad things will happen. The good thing will be that the US will not be doing any of it. Yes. Minority groups will be harmed. They will need to re-figure out how to live in a region they have lived in for hundreds of year without US aid.

The economy may even slow down a bit in the US. Some people make money from producing the weapons and gear used by the military in the region. It's okay. It may take a couple of years but investment will shift to the manufacturing of different products that Americans and those who have a little spending money may want for themselves.

If the US really respects the sovereignty of other nations, we need to start with agreeing with the Iraqis that they get to decide what armies take up residence in their country and act accordingly.

 

I'm not into nation building. We should never have entered Iraq in 2002 and I said so then. With that said, should we simply walk away now the Kurds will be slaughtered by the Iraqis and Turks. Sadr is largely considered a puppet of Iran. If terrorist training camps weren't a "thing" pre-Gulf War II they certainly will be after we depart. We NEED influence within the Iraqi government. What you are seeing from the Iraqi government now is an outcome of the reduction in State Department in 2017 resources.

 

Simply put, our role should be this: Telling those in power of other countries that they will be removed by military force if they threaten our national security.

They know we have the will and the means to do it.

No occupation. No nation-building. No attempts to change a culture to mirror ours.

As for assuming the role of removing threatening regimes, I say this: The US hegemony is the ONLY thing keeping this world from being an even darker place than it is. Russia and China would assume full control in the absence of the US. Europe is too fragmented to stop them. It's up to us.

I believe in that.

You may ask, what about Russia and China? It's clear we do not want the final battle of humanity. We have to accept certain things in life; we have to hope Russia and China love their children as much as we love ours. But we cannot allow them to bully us because their leaders smell blood in weakness. We are not going to be a pacifist nation and hope for the best. We are going to make our presence known and we will aggressively pursue our agenda on the world stage because that is who we are. We will not cower from anyone. And it must be clear to these two despotic nations that they will not rule the world as they rule themselves.

We can lead in many ways; economically, environmentally and culturally. We can be the light but we can't force the light upon others. We can only ensure that ours is never extinguished.

 

Russia and China still have VASTLY less ability to project military power worldwide than we do.

As long as we don't end up supporting an equally-evil opponent of theirs and putting that guy into power and then aiding and abetting his evil deeds.

We should have finished off Saddam the first time rather than saying "Ok, you have to follow all these rules now, because we're going to come back if you don't."

 

Agreed but by 2002 that die had already been cast.

 

I could look it up but wasn't the coalition solely built upon the mission statement of liberating Kuwait and nothing else?

 

I have no idea but I doubt that was a reason we stopped before reaching Baghdad. We stopped because we didn't want to get stuck nation building, pure and simple.

 

George HW Bush made it clear from the beginning ( Look it up) it was NOT about overthrowing Sadddam. He HOPED the Iraqis would do it themselves

 

If so looks like Daddy Bush didn't teach his son the ropes.

 

No, recall Saddam tried to assassinate his Dad.

 

We should open up trade with Iraq and pull out the troops. It is their country and they get to decide what army takes resident within it. The US only has a moral case for housing troops there if their State directly threatens ours or has performed acts of war against our citizens. That is the case right now.

 

Don't forget it was the Iraqi Govt. who asked us to help.
I am ok with them now asking us to leave.

 

Yes, I remember that. I remember it was considered to be a prime motive for the 2nd Iraq War. If it was true, should we assume it to be personal or business? Should the United States stand by while the head of another nation openly plots to murder our President (or former President)? Tough question but it's an act of war to me.

But Bush the Younger only mentioned WMD or if he mentioned the assassination attempt it wasn't forcefully because my memory tells me that we were told the WMD were there and that there was no doubt about it.

 

I was for the the Iraq invasion at the time in 2003 because they were required to let UN inspectors in to oversee the demantling of their WMD capability. Once Saddam kicked out the inspectors and refused to let them in again, it seemed to me that legally there was justification to take him out. Maybe that was correct or maybe it was not.

However, it is unequivocal that most of the decisions after removing Saddam were bad. After 9 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, even the citizens started to catch on. Then Libya. Then Syria. Then the government in Iraq that we set up is "asking" us to leave. I think it is time for a little humility.

 

Politics is why we didn't overthrow Hussein in the first gulf war. Remember when that happened. It was 1990. Desert Storm was the first major military operation since Vietnam. We had done some smaller things, but this was the first relatively big one (though still very small by war standards). The country was willing to liberate a small and relatively peaceful nation, but it wasn't willing to engage a long war, take large numbers of casualties, or send an occupation force for long periods of time. Politically, Bush knew he had to be limited in his actions especially with reelection coming the next year.

In addition, we had divided government. Democrats controlled Congress, and they were far less interventionist and globalist than they are now. Bush had to sell the Operation to them to get it authorized and funded, and that meant significant concessions and limitations. If the GOP controlled Congress in 1991, things probably would have been different.

 

I seem to recall a major opinion piece penned by Ross Perot back then accusing the Bush Administration of giving the signal to Hussein that we would not object to his taking over of Kuwait. I've tried over the years to find that article, to no avail.

 

I wouldn't put much stock in such an accusation from Perot. Knowing that he was running in 1992, it was clearly self-serving. Furthermore, though he had some good points to raise that the major parties were failing to address (especially on the budget), he had some nuttiness in him and said some goofy things. In that regard, he was a little similar to Trump.

 

While I agree with you I seem to recall the opinion piece was written in 1990 or 1991. I can't say he had already declared his candidacy. But I get what you're saying.

 

I don't know that he had announced yet, but I'm sure he was at least seriously considering running in 1990 and 1991. Keep in mind that he had been a major political player (and a Bush hater) for years before he ever ran.

 

“Iran’s proxies have recently conducted several attacks against bases where Iraqi Security Forces are co-located with U.S. and International Coalition personnel,”
-- Pompeo said.​

Redline drawn, redline crossed, bombs dropped
Pompeo warns of ‘decisive US response’ if Iran harms US troops or allies

 

Read the original post of this thread. It is rich considering that Iran moves freely within their borders.

 

mghammer, "Iran" isn't moving freely within Iraq. Shia Muslims are. Guess what, Iraq is a majority Shia. It's like Mexicans coming over the border and working in Harlingen.

 

We should get out of the entire region. Our involvement has been a complete failure. The ME is not as vital to the US economy as it was several decades ago.

I understand there will be some negative consequences but they are not worth the cost. We need to focus on preventing domestic terrorism and energy independence.

Sadly we will likely never leave since many US companies make money off of perpetual wars.

 

I think this attitude is one leg of the currently re-forming Republican Party

 

I am OK with all that so long as we give Israel free reign (and arms) to do whatever they think is necessary to protect themselves.

 

UTChe96, I agree with all that you say. It isn't worth the cost. Any money spent needs to be for actual domestic defense.

I want to add one thing to this statement though. Even if the ME becomes more vital to the US economy, we don't need to militarily control the area. All we need to do is buy the fuel we need on the market.

 

But all of it already must be on actual domestic defense, as I'm repeatedly told that they are out putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom.....