Some Fear U.S. Pullout From Iraqi Cities

Iraqi Leaders Celebrate The Withdrawal, But Security, Logistical Concerns Remain

(CBS/AP)  On June 30, U.S. troops will withdraw from patrolling Iraqi cities. This is making many Iraqis and the American troops nervous. In the last week more than 250 have died in various attacks and bombings, and fears are growing about increased sectarian violence and terrorism once U.S. troops pull back.

Iraqi security forces bolstered checkpoints and banned motorcycles from the streets of Baghdad as they prepared today for more violence before this week's withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from the capital and other cities and towns.

Despite the increased checks, a roadside bomb targeting a U.S. convoy in eastern Baghdad wounded six bystanders. It was unclear if anyone in the convoy was injured, police said. A car bomb also exploded in the parking lot of a police academy in western Baghdad, killing one police officer and wounding six others, police said, speaking on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Iraq's main Sunni political bloc joined Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in describing the June 30 deadline for the U.S. withdrawal from urban areas as a turning point for the country. For the U.S., June 30 is also a turning point, and despite the uptick in violence, U.S. officials stand firm the withdrawal date.

"Iraqi forces are ready to take over this nation," U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill told CBS News correspondent Chip Reid. "What we are doing is implementing our obligation under the security agreement with Iraq," Hill continued. "We have worked very hard for this day. The U.S. has the world's greatest fighting force and the greatest trainers. We have every confidence we can do this."

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top military commander in Iraq, said the attacks ahead of Tuesday's pullout were aimed at diverting attention from the progress made by Iraqi security forces as well as local and national government. "We've seen constant improvement in the security force. We've seen constant improvement in governance. And I believe this is the time for us to move out of the cities and for them to take ultimate responsibility," Odierno said.

Reporting from Baghdad, CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan found that there is a lot of "grey area" in the security agreement.

"After a week of talking to U.S. and Iraqi soldiers on the ground here, it's stunning how much hasn't been worked out this close to the deadline," Logan said. "One example is what will happen to the U.S. trainers that will still be embedded with Iraqi forces in the cities. The U.S. military insists it still has the right to defend itself under the agreement, but if these U.S. trainers are attacked, in theory the U.S. would have to ask for Iraqi permission to send in reinforcements to help them.

"In the heat of battle, with American lives on the line, it's still a question how long U.S. commanders would wait for Iraqi authority - or if they'd wait."

Reid asked Ambassador Hill about the rules of engagement for troops in Iraq after June 30. "We always have the right of self defense," Hill said, but didn't address the issue of how the U.S. military command would deal with gaining permission from Iraqi commanders in situations where U.S. troops were in danger.

The U.S. still has 130,000 troops in Iraq, but hopes to reduce the number to 50,000 by next summer, Ambassador Hill said. All U.S. forces are slated to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

[motown67usa]

Iraqis are obviously apprehensive about what will happen after U.S. troops pull out of the cities, but anyone would be of such a large change. There will still be thousands of American advisers in Iraqi cities however, and bases just outside of, or sometimes inside of major cities. The Iraqi forces have plenty of problems but they can man checkpoints and carry out raids. The recent spate of bombings may have people in the U.S. worried as well, but there have actually been fewer of those attacks and deaths than in April 09. musingsoniraq.blogspot.com

[erasmus111]

by rrozsa June 29, 2009 7:26 AM PDT
Should we also "bring home our troops" from Germany, since that war is long over?


Yes, they should. But right now those troops are the ones being used in Iraq. So when the troops in Iraq are brought home, they probably will be too. They would have been brought home before, but then there was the Gulf War and it didn't happen.

[zonkzilla]

There is only one group that wants the US troops to stay in Iraq, that is the oil companies. No one else in the world wants US troops in Iraq.
Now that the US Oil companies have contracts with Iraq for their oil for the first time in 30 years, they need US troops to protect their profits for free.
Why do you think we invaded Iraq in the first place?

[rrozsa]

Are you really asking for an answer to that or was that a rhetorical quesion?

Short answer: Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait back in the early 90's. The UN took military action against him and freed Kuwait, but agreed to leave him in power under the condition that he would submit to random inspections from UN officials, going forward. Early in 2000's, the UN got reports that he had WMD, so the UN sent inspectors to investigate. Saddam would not allow them in. The UN extended their deadline week after week after week, but Saddam would still not allow the inspectors in. This was a violation of his earlier surrender conditions so they had no choice but to remove him from power.

Any other questions?

[erasmus111]

by mljohns00 June 28, 2009 10:12 PM PDT
Something's wrong here. Why would Iraqis blow things up in ADVANCE of the scheduled withdrawal by the U.S.? If they want the U.S. out on schedule, they would wait until the U.S. is gone before resuming the violence. So whoever is blowing things up DOESN'T want the U.S. to leave.


I agree.

[erasmus111]

by Solarrays247 June 28, 2009 9:17 PM PDT

I think I will stay away from these message boards...


Don't do that! I enjoy reading your comments.: )

[Solarrays247]

Thank you, erasmus111.

Sorry that I misunderstood. It did seem out of character for you!

I have enjoyed reading your comments, also.

Peace. ;=)

[mljohns00]

Something's wrong here. Why would Iraqis blow things up in ADVANCE of the scheduled withdrawal by the U.S.? If they want the U.S. out on schedule, they would wait until the U.S. is gone before resuming the violence. So whoever is blowing things up DOESN'T want the U.S. to leave.

[erasmus111]

by Solarrays247 June 28, 2009 9:17 PM PDT

I can read, erasmus111, and I expect Obama to keep his word if at all possible! I supported him, and campaigned for him, and I wasn't even a Democrat.


My post wasn't aimed at you. I actually didn't read any of the posts. : )

The other day someone was yakking how Obama didn't keep his word on bringing home the troops and I tried to tell him that he never said they were bringing them home right away. I said that there was a date in which they would be coming home. I figured it was 2011, but wasn't exactly sure. So when I saw that date in this story, I had to say something.: )

I do agree that they should be brought home as soon as possible.

[rrozsa]

Should we also "bring home our troops" from Germany, since that war is long over?

[willcad]

by rrozsa June 29, 2009 7:26 AM PDT
Should we also "bring home our troops" from Germany, since that war is long over?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Darn right we should!

American troops were quartered all over Europe following WWII, and those bases were made permanent by the necessity of the Cold War, which many people felt could and would heat up in Europe from 1945 until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

But the Cold War is long over. The Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, as such, and the major threat to our allies in Europe is now from terrorism. And terrorism of the type seen in Europe doesn't require half a million American troops stationed along the former Iron Curtain.

I say, bring the troops home from Europe, too. Close down all of those bases, saving billions each year that can be pumped into the domestic economy, or other aspects of the defense budget like developing more effective body armor for the average soldier, improving battlefield medical treatments, and developing new weapons systems that give the average American dogface a better advantage in one-on-one combat.

[erasmus111]

by gravyboat3000 June 28, 2009 8:44 PM PDT
Have I told you lately, that I love you?


Well at least somebody does. : )


"Mimosa?"

What's "Mimosa"?

[erasmus111]

"All U.S. forces are slated to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011."

I don't know how many times I have seen people b*tchin' on here about how Obama hasn't done what he said he was going to do. They keep saying that he was supposed to pull the troops out of Iraq. He has always said that he would have them out by the end of 2011. It's funny how people only hear what they want to hear, isn't it?

Now, if he doesn't have them out by the end of 20ll, then you can b*tch. Until then, shut the hell up.

[Solarrays247]

"by government-control June 28, 2009 3:52 PM PDT
Obama is surrendering to the terrorists."

I can read, erasmus111, and I expect Obama to keep his word if at all possible! I supported him, and campaigned for him, and I wasn't even a Democrat.

However, I am sick and tired of all of these idiots who sit in front of their puters, hiding behind their keyboards and BS like this guy that I have quoted here! I only wish that it were possible to send every one of their a**es to Iraq! I chuckle to imagine how quickly their assinine statements would disappear!

And I admit that I am bit upset, because I received a call Friday evening from a young man who has always been like a son to me. He just graduated from boot camp, and was on a bus heading towards Alabama for more training for ten weeks, and then Florida for approx. six months. He has chosen to learn Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)and will be in training for this over the next nine months. During our conversation, this young man apologized to me because he could not be here to help me this past spring. That is the kind of person that he is, and everyone here in our small town adores him.

I think I will stay away from these message boards...my patience has worn thin with people who think they are being cool, and cute. They can't even begin to measure up to this young acquaintance of mine!

[Solarrays247]

by government-control June 28, 2009 3:52 PM PDT
Obama is surrendering to the terrorists.


Why don't you go over and fight then? Put up or shut up!

The terrorists were not in Iraq to begin with, Bush drew them in, and Cheney's Halliburton reaped the cash!!

We have lost enough of our young men and women in this illegal war!

The Iraqi's have lost too many innocent men, women, children, infants....and, unfortunately the killing won't stop for them!

Our military have performed over and beyond the call of duty....it is time to bring them home! We need our best and brightest here at home!

So go....do your thing!
Hint: Osama bin Laden was never in Iraq to begin with....try Afghanistan/Pakistan. Have a good time! Don't let the door hit you in the rear! :=)







You can go in their place!

[pensacola8-2009]

This same scenario occurred in Sarievo and Bosnia with the ethnic cleansing taking a dramatic spike upwards then tapered off.

There won't be to much that anyone can do to stop it, anymore than the similar types of violence that is common in the USA with organized crime.

The good news is that we wont be there. Most of it will happen after we leave and present the opportunity.

[naj1953]

USA Troops need to come home...Wars cost money and lives......These countries have been fighting forever...and it won't stop...I think we have lost enough boys to these two wars....Bring our boys home.

[indivthinker]

"Yet California's Governor is a Republican."
by stuart2021 June 28, 2009 7:04 PM PDT

Just because California's governor is Republican does not mean much. First, the legislature has been Democratic for decades. Second, Schwarzenegger is a LIBERAL Republican. He caters to the illegals, and he supports high regulation, taxes, and welfare. If he talks like a liberal, acts like a liberal, and thinks like a liberal, then he is a liberal.

[John_Merritt]

If I was a citizen of Iraq, I would fear US leaving as well. Once we do, the cities and regions and people will be overrun with the evils within and outside the borders of that country. If they think things were bad under our help, it can and probably will be worse when we step back. But it has to be done. I pray, especially now, they all do not turn on our soldiers. Pray one and all.

[indivthinker]

"America has spent Trillions on these jacked up wars!

send the bill to the neocons, bush, cheney and their middle east buddies!

pull out of all these wars and make the money avaliable to health care or someone in America that is an American!"
- by didserve June 28, 2009 4:27 PM PDT

Though I don't consider myself a neocon, I can agree to these terms. BUT, you have to agree to pay for everything that Obama pumps out. I and the neocons will pay for the half a trillion a year for defense budget, plus that one time trillion dollar Iraq War bill. The neolibs will pay for the first $400b bailout bill passed by the Democratic congress last year, the $800b "stimulus" bill passed earlier this year, the $1.5 TRILLION for the future health care reform (which only covers ten years), the hundreds of billions currently for medicare and medicaid, the trillions for social security, the hundreds of billions for the future "energy" bill, the billions of dollars for other government welfare/"entitlement" programs, the hundreds of billions lost by businesses because of regulation, and the billions for all of the illegals to get their free healthcare, education, and jobs, and pay for the illegals to be "properly" integrated into society.

The fact is, the Democrats and Republicans have always had about a 50/50 split in the population. Generally, the richer half of the country (which includes the upper class and most of the middle class) tend to vote Republican, and since there is not much of a bill other than defense and some basic bureaucracy to pay for for the Republicans, they should pay it off EASILY.
On the other hand, the Democrats are generally the lower class and the working class, with a minority of the middle class. They can pay for all of the entitlement, regulation, illegal immigration, and "infrastructure" programs that are in place. But, since they substantially less of the gross domestic product, and since they have so much MORE to pay off, they will be left in poverty for decades.

The truth is, liberals take and expect more out of the system than conservatives do, yet they contribute less. There is NO denying that. Just look at California. Massive welfare, high regulation, and even with Hollywood they still cannot pay it off. Today, the illegals and liberals keep sucking the system dry, while conservatives and the rich are leaving the state to its doom.

The whole point of the story is, liberals expect OTHERS to pay for their LOADS of stuff, but they whine when conservatives want something done.

Here's a graph to prove my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Defense is 21% of the budget. Medicare and Medicaid is 23% and Social Security is 21%. The rest of the stuff is mostly bureaucracy and regulatory agencies put in place by Democrats.

[skyk-2009]

The People of Iraq are going to have to learn to govern themselves, just like we did and everyone else has. This MISTAKE has cost America FAR to much as it is and we can NOT afford it any longer. When it comes to who's bridges get fixed or who's health care gets the tax dollars, my vote goes with the People right here in the good old USA. President Obama was elected to get us OUT of this country and THAT is what he should do.

[tautomer]

HaHa..do you really think Obama's handlers at Halliburton will let him exit Iraq? Of course not. They didn't get him elected to take their Golden Goose away. He'll also give then a great payday in Afghanistan/Pakistan. You must be pretty young and naive if you don;t realize that Skyk

[u-r-right]

According to Bush, the Iraqui security forces were being trained to effectively take control of their own country. Remember the weekly, seemingly daily updates we used to hear? "Only 30 more day and Iraqui security forces will be ready." It's time to pull out completeley and the Iraquis should have planned for the day long ago. We cannot continue/afford to drag this on any longer.

[didserve]

more duel passport aipac babble!

[didserve]

America has spent Trillions on these jacked up wars!

send the bill to the neocons, bush, cheney and their middle east buddies!

pull out of all these wars and make the money avaliable to health care or someone in America that is an American!

[vistavermin1]

So 9/11 never happened and terrorist are not well organized and in the process of taking control of several counties.. The bombing of the Nave ship Cole or the Corblat Towers or the first trade center bombing, or the two embassies in Africa those never took place..

The only thing that is jacked up is, well you know don't you...

[skyk-2009]

PLEASE!! We HAD this debate... for TWO YEARS we had this debate. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the Attack on this nation. That, along with EVERY OTHER REASON given the people for attacking this nation was and will always be a LIE! We can't go forward as a nation unless we get OUT of there and on to doing what should have been done in the first place. Bringing those who ATTACKED us to justice... PERIOD! IT's time to get back to being AMERICAN, which first and foremost is taking care of AMERICA. We get to work HERE, develop our OWN energy and let these people continue to do what they have been doing now for 2,000 years! We can't "give" these people Democracy any more that someone else could "Give" it to us. You must be willing to live in a democracy... there is NO OTHER way.

[tautomer]

Heck Obama is giving money to everybody but Americans. He's spending $700 Billion/yr on his Military Machine and they aren't doing squat. Heck the US military has sustained more casualties than it has inflicted since Obama took over. The only Americans Obama is giving money to are Bankers and his Halliburton friends.

[willcad]

So 9/11 never happened and terrorist are not well organized and in the process of taking control of several counties.. The bombing of the Nave ship Cole or the Corblat Towers or the first trade center bombing, or the two embassies in Africa those never took place..

The only thing that is jacked up is, well you know don't you...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Terrorists" to whom you refer are not in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks, which were, in fact, carried out by several different groups with different compositions, different bases of operation, different aims, and different targets throughout the world.

9/11 was carried out by Saudi members of al-Qaeda, operating from Taliban-sponsored training camps in Afghanistan, and funded by Osama Bin Laden, also a Saudi. How did invading and occupying Iraq have anything to do with that?

The bombing of the USS Cole was also perpetrated by Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda cronies, trained and operating out of Afghanistan. How did invading and occupying Iraq have anything to do with that?

The bombing of the "Corblat Towers" (I'll assume you're referring to the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia) was perpetrated by Hezbollah Al-Hejaz, a terrorist group made up of Saudia and operating in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Bahrain. What did the invasion and occupation of Iraq have to do with that?

The first Trade Center bombing in 1993 was also perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda group. What did the invasion and occupation of Iraq have to do with that?

The bombings of the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 were perpetrated by The Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group made up mostly of Egyptians, dedicated to overthrowing the government of Egypt and replacing it with an Islamic state. EIJ later broadened its aims to attacking American and Isreali interests in the Middle East and abraod. EIJ was the first terrorist group joined by Osama Bin Laden. What did the invasion and occupation of Iraq have to do with that?