Oh snap! That was from 2016 when he was in charge in fighting ISIS (for the second time we ran the original ISI to Syria in 2007). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Townsend He’s a Four Star now! Good for him. He was a great Brigade Commander. Huge respect from the officers all the down to the privates.
On the subject at hand, setting up a meeting to pick a date to start the discussion on a timeline for US withdrawal isn’t exactly GET THE FUCK OUT NOW. Let’s see where it goes before worrying about it. They know they need us. Iran is too stretched thin right now to be able to fight there AND Syria AND supply the Houthis AND supply Hezbollah AND maintain a credible defense at home.
This has been ongoing for quite some time. There is an agreement in place for how US forces can operate, and it is continually violated. But when asked to leave, it appears that the US either refuses or threatens sanctions (including against Iraqi sovereign wealth stored with the Fed).
They may seek help from Iran instead, you know. This is a big part of the reason that the US is determined to maintain a presence there.
Will the current government even have time to beg before they're overthrown Taliban-style by whoever's most prepared?
Yes, exactly right. As always when talking about "US should pull back" you have to think about who steps into the void we leave. Odds are it'll be someone less . . . pleasant.
Nevertheless, should US troops continue to stay against the will of Iraq? Or continue to violate their agreement with Iraq for how they operate?
Gee, who would have thought that getting out of a country you're occupying would be so much harder than occupying it to begin with?
What are the terms under which U.S. troops are in Iraq? Is it a "we're here at the pleasure of the government" thing, or is it like Guantanamo Bay where the U.S. has a lease on the land where they're stationed? Also, there's a strong likelihood that the government doesn't actually want U.S. troops gone, but needs to make some noise about it for domestic political purposes: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/09/iraq-us-troops-removal-00134564
The US and Iraq have an agreement since 2021 which indicates that the US forces are there to provide "assistance, advice and training". It replaced the old agreement in place to fight ISIS. As such it specifically disallows combat and requires the US forces to act only in concert with the Iraqis. The US has repeatedly violated this agreement, since as we know they have been unilaterally attacking targets within Iraq on a regular basis. The Iraqi government has been protesting this every time that it happens. The guy that they murdered on this occasion belonged to a militia which (while linked to Iran) is part of the structure of the Iraqi military itself. Guantanemo Bay is different, but not that different. In that case a lease exists which came with conditions for how the territory can be used. Specifically its use is limited to a "coaling and naval station". Having a military prison there (much less a torture camp) is a violation of the lease agreement. Said agreement is considered illegitimate in any event by the Cuban government, as it was signed at the barrel of a gun. As such are empires run.
Jesus, I know America is the devil and all, but has any independent government of Cuba been anything but the worst?
