# The US military role in Iraq has officially ended

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
... In a makeshift parade ground in a corner of Baghdad airport, time was called on the war just after 1pm on Thursday, eight years, eight months and 26 days after its far more dramatic opening in March 2003. Nearby a plane was waiting to take home the US high command. And in southern Iraq, the 4,000 US troops who remain were steadily streaming towards Kuwait.

By Sunday all the troops will be gone, called home for Christmas by an administration that decided there was little point sticking to the original end date of 31 December....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/us-exit-iraq-withdrawal-ambivalence?newsfeed=true

For the US, IIRC, ~4500 dead, 30,000 injured, 1.5 million have served with perhaps 810,000 suffering from PTSD, and about $1 trillion in financial costs. When the war started, I had been traveling extensively and needed a long break. I got home just in time to watch the invasion on TV. Not long after we took the palace, I joined PF. Last edited: ## Answers and Replies Ryan_m_b Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Not to mention somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens. turbo Gold Member Not to mention somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens. And how many refugees that were driven to other countries due to religious differences? Pengwuino Gold Member Not to mention somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens. Link? I heard estimates a year ago saying such claims were wildly exaggerated and the WHO puts the estimate near 25k. I need to look for that study. Edit: Nevermind, found a linking putting it around 250k "violent deaths" since 2003. Ryan_m_b Staff Emeritus Science Advisor And how many refugees that were driven to other countries due to religious differences? I gather that there are several million Iraqi refugees worldwide. Link? I heard estimates a year ago saying such claims were wildly exaggerated and the WHO puts the estimate near 25k. I need to look for that study. The IBC lists roughly 100,000 and there are various other sources such as the lancet that suggest body counts of hundreds of thousands more, some estimating up to near 1,000,000. I'm not vouching for the validity of any of these claims specifically, just pointing out that they are there. Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Link? I heard estimates a year ago saying such claims were wildly exaggerated and the WHO puts the estimate near 25k. I need to look for that study. Edit: Nevermind, found a linking putting it around 250k "violent deaths" since 2003. I know you were talking about citizens, but in regards to Iraqi sodiers, during the invasion I got up every morning at 4AM to watch the Pentagon briefing. At one point it appeared that we eliminated somewhere around 100,000 soldiers [perhaps twice as many] with a single wave of heavy bombs. When the announcment was made, the room fell dead silent. Even the brass looked shocked. Last edited: Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member DONALD RUMSFELD, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense: The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under$50 billion.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, Anchor, "This Week": Outside estimates say up to $300 billion. DONALD RUMSFELD: Baloney. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june08/warcost_03-26.html [Broken] January 2, 2003 If President Bush orders an attack against Iraq, the American force would be half the size of that in the 1991 war. The Pentagon's war plans call for deploying as many as 250,000 military personnel, but the initial offensive should start with a much smaller number, with a sizable force in reserve. The budget director's projections today served as a more politically palatable corrective to figures put forth by Mr. Lindsey in September, when he said that a war with Iraq might amount to 1 percent to 2 percent of the national gross domestic product, or$100 billion to $200 billion. Mr. Lindsey added that as a one-time cost for one year, the expenditure would be "nothing." Mr. Lindsey was criticized inside and outside the administration for putting forth such a large number, which helped pave the way for his ouster earlier this month. He could not be reached for comment this evening. (Congressional Democrats have estimated that the cost would be$93 billion, not including the cost of peacekeeping and rebuilding efforts after a war.)...
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
We also enhanced Iran's influence in the country and the region.

We also enhanced Iran's influence in the country and the region.

The spectre of Iran stepping into an American vacuum gets regular play in non-government media and in Sunni areas of the country, which still feel collectively marginalised eight years after their power base was shattered.
I wonder if this is a serious possibility.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/us-exit-iraq-withdrawal-ambivalence?newsfeed=true

For the US, IIRC, ~4500 dead, 30,000 injured, 1.5 million have served with perhaps 810,000 suffering from PTSD, and about $1 trillion in financial costs. When the war started, I had been traveling extensively and needed a long break. I got home just in time to watch the invasion on TV. Not long after we took the palace, I joined PF. The story you linked to is titled: "US exit from Iraq: 'this is not a withdrawal, this is an act on a stage'" based on this quote: Another man, Mundhar Kamel, 65, said the departure changed little. "This move is them exiting from one door and entering from another," he said. "In the embassy they still have 15,000 people and there is talk about 3,000 more [military] trainers. This is not a withdrawal, this is an act on a stage. We have 15,000, what are they, embassy guards, that will remain? rhody Gold Member An observation, why isn't this thread in P&WA, unless putting it there would result in a thread lock in short order. Rhody... Bobbywhy Gold Member An observation, why isn't this thread in P&WA, unless putting it there would result in a thread lock in short order. Rhody... From here this thread appears to be in the P&WA thread. For what reason would this thread be locked in short order? Guessing maybe I am totally naive and am missing the significance of and ? Evo Mentor From here this thread appears to be in the P&WA thread. For what reason would this thread be locked in short order? Guessing maybe I am totally naive and am missing the significance of and ? The thread has just been moved to P&WA. Rules in P&WA are stricter than in GD. The thread has just been moved to P&WA. Rules in P&WA are stricter than in GD. .. or people tend to be more fierce in P&WA :rofl: The US military role in Iraq has officially ended "The Bush administration deserves credit for its long-term commitment to democracy in the Middle East. But even a good idea can be spoiled by clumsy execution. Worse still, the idea can backfire -- particularly if people come to suspect that ulterior motives are at work." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/08/opinion/the-wrong-way-to-sell-democracy-to-the-arab-world.html :rofl: Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member An observation, why isn't this thread in P&WA, unless putting it there would result in a thread lock in short order. Rhody... I didn't care to create a thread meeting the P&WA guidelines, which it didn't and doesn't. Last edited: I got to watch the invasion on t.v in bootcamp! Also had a front row seat in the Gulf in 95 and 98. I got to watch the invasion on t.v in bootcamp! Also had a front row seat in the Gulf in 95 and 98. I was glued to the TV during Gulf War #1. CNN's on the spot coverage completely changed the experience of war for people who weren't actually there. It was surreal. Please move the thread back to where discussion is allowed. I guess GD stands for general discussion. Ryan_m_b Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Please move the thread back to where discussion is allowed. I guess D stands for general discussion. I don't get what you mean here, all subforums allow discussions. This one is here for Politics and World Affairs. As such it is appropriate. The thread has just been moved to P&WA. Rules in P&WA are stricter than in GD. As I said, please move it back to the place where the rules are less strict. You and Evo see this differently. You say equal rules she says not equal rules??? Now at last Iraq can split into three separate countries. One for the Kurds, one for the Sunni, and one for the Shiites. Of course, the question of who gets the water and who gets the oil are open for discussion amongst the locals. Last edited: Ryan_m_b Staff Emeritus Science Advisor As I said, please move it back to the place where the rules are less strict. You and Evo see this differently. You say equal rules she says not equal rules??? No I said: all subforums allow discussions. In response to: Please move the thread back to where discussion is allowed. The rules are there for a reason, if you want to discuss issues pertaining to politics and world affairs you must do it whilst complying with the P&WA rules. This is no different to how any topic is dealt with at the site. GD is not a subforum free from rules, it is a place for general (AKA casual) discussion. Evo Mentor Just like cosmology is not discussed in GD, P&WA topics aren't discussed in GD, GD is for humor, personal discussions, hobbies, etc... If I were advising Iraq I would tell them to keep oil production low so that it lasts for a long time. For their children and grandchildren. I believe some folks in Saudi Arabia have said they are not going to build out new oil production facilities for just this reason. mege If I were advising Iraq I would tell them to keep oil production low so that it lasts for a long time. For their children and grandchildren. I believe some folks in Saudi Arabia have said they are not going to build out new oil production facilities for just this reason. I'd be interested to see a quote on that. If KSA is slowing production, from my understanding, it's to keep the price higher (from supply being low) - not to outright conserve the oil. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/us-exit-iraq-withdrawal-ambivalence?newsfeed=true For the US, IIRC, ~4500 dead, 30,000 injured, 1.5 million have served with perhaps 810,000 suffering from PTSD, and about$1 trillion in financial costs.

When the war started, I had been traveling extensively and needed a long break. I got home just in time to watch the invasion on TV. Not long after we took the palace, I joined PF.
I'm curious. Did the US get significantly more oil, or anything else, out of this 8-year thing? We all know, more or less, what the cost was (ie., what was lost by all those involved). What was gained?

Ok, we killed Saddam. But it seems to me that if that was the goal, then it could have been done for a lot less. The rest of it, the WMD and democracy stuff, seems like a lot of fluff to me. Which seems to leave control of Iraq's oil as the primary motivation. Was that it? Or was/is there more or something else to it?

I was glued to the TV during Gulf War #1. CNN's on the spot coverage completely changed the experience of war for people who weren't actually there. It was surreal.

Funny thing is we watched CNN in the gulf too! We learned everything that was going on from them! I was stuck down in the main machinery room so not much intel filtered down there except what bell to answer or we need more steam for the cats.

I'm curious. Did the US get significantly more oil, or anything else, out of this 8-year thing? We all know, more or less, what the cost was (ie., what was lost by all those involved). What was gained?

Ok, we killed Saddam. But it seems to me that if that was the goal, then it could have been done for a lot less. The rest of it, the WMD and democracy stuff, seems like a lot of fluff to me. Which seems to leave control of Iraq's oil as the primary motivation. Was that it? Or was/is there more or something else to it?

There was something for everybody. One of the main reasons was to secure Saudi Arabia. The populace didn't like having US soldiers stationed there permanently, and there was danger of rebellion, as well as a possible Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. (Source, Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview.)

Other reasons included the security of Israel, and huge sums of money transferred to major campaign contributors. Ultimately the plan was to invade Syria in order to secure a supply line for an invasion of Iran, both to topple regimes unfriendly to the United States. I recall George W. appearing on TV and declaring that the weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Right.

As for the WMD thing, I recall reading that if we found them then we had to invade, and if we didn't find them then they were hiding them and we had to invade.

There was something for everybody. One of the main reasons was to secure Saudi Arabia. The populace didn't like having US soldiers stationed there permanently, and there was danger of rebellion, as well as a possible Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. (Source, Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview.)

Other reasons included the security of Israel, and huge sums of money transferred to major campaign contributors. Ultimately the plan was to invade Syria in order to secure a supply line for an invasion of Iran, both to topple regimes unfriendly to the United States. I recall George W. appearing on TV and declaring that the weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Right.

As for the WMD thing, I recall reading that if we found them then we had to invade, and if we didn't find them then they were hiding them and we had to invade.
Ok. Thanks for the feedback. Food for thought/research(if I get time).

CAC1001
Not to mention somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens.

That's because al-quaeda decided to start a war with the U.S. in Iraq.

We also enhanced Iran's influence in the country and the region.

We took out Saddam Hussein, a very brutal dictator and a danger in that region. On Iran, I liken it to if the U.S. had taken out Hitler in the 1930s, only to then get blamed for "strengthening" the influence of the Soviet Union in the region as Nazi Germany was seen as serving as a balance. Iran's influence would be limited in Iraq I think if we were maintaining a residual force there, like we did in South Korea at the end of the Korean War, or in Germany after WWII.