Utah servicemen, officials react to Obama's plan for Iraq withdrawal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Oct. 23, 2011 6:36 a.m.

    As Obama continues to pick up foreign policy triumphs from the catching of Osama to the pulling out of Iraq to the "low-cost, low-U.S. casualty" regime change in Libya, Obama is likely to appeal to independent voters given that Romney, Perry, and other likely GOP opponents will have no credibility on the foreign policy front -- or worse, sound too much like Bush.

    America's image abroad has clearly been enhanced by Obama's policies, even if Romney and others frame Obama's policies as signs of weaknesses (e.g., Romney's book entitled, "No Apologies" is a direct attack on Obama through the narrative that Obama has been apologizing for America's behavior abroad).

    The reality is that Americans are tired of costly wars abroad with unclear objectives that continue to threaten America's middle class.

    Another fact we need to deal with: Most of the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have been directed at security forces escorting fuel convoys (e.g., Oil). Our next objective should be getting off foreign oil as a nation, and our military needs to move quickly to new energy technologies that will not continue to put our soldiers' lives at constant risk.

  • sports fan Provo, UT
    Oct. 22, 2011 6:43 p.m.

    It's time for this one to end, it was a good thing to get rid of saddam but its time to go home. I am very worried however about rifts between Sunni and Shiite being taken advantage of by regional neighbors thereby causing further human rights issues in the area.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Oct. 22, 2011 5:38 p.m.

    Idaho stranger

    having had family who served over seas I know of additional costs saved, including lives.

    Pres Obama has used extensively unmanned drones which have saved countless lives,

    In addition to saving lives (if he saved one he is to be commended, not condemned) He has also with those drones orchestrated the killing of dozens of Al Qaeda leaders. We had the technology for years but he has brought it to the forefront and made it into something to be frightened of if you are the enemy.

    I join with others in expressing relief and happiness this boondoggle is over.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Oct. 22, 2011 2:44 p.m.

    @ Idaho Stranger - That is a fair question. I would argue that the pursuit of democracy abroad and safety at home would be two of them Toppling Ghaddafi occurred with the US only playing a minor role at a low cost. Other regimes have also been toppled with minimum involvement. Now, what we end up with in those countries is another issue that is a bit unpredictable. Safety at home would seem to be another goal of our foreign policy. Getting out of Iraq will cut costs. Having said that, President Obama gets only partial credit on this. Getting us out of Afghanistan would also cut costs. Having a good reputation around the world would also be another goal. My own interactions abroad suggest this is the case but there may be data out there to give us a definitive answer on this. Improving out international trade would be another goal. We have recently had 3 trade agreements signed though they are probably no different in cost. So, overall, I would say definite improvement in costs of the democracy and homeland security fronts.

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    Oct. 22, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    Ricardo Carvalho: "While I will not be voting for President Obama ... I do think he has been very successful on the international front. US standing around the world is much better than when he took office and we seem to be reaching our goals at a lower and lower cost."

    For heaven's sake, why NOT vote for him? Do you all NOT realize that $3 TRILLION of the national debt is tied to the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars -- and that Obama's methods would have toppled Hussein quickly, with much less cost to our military? Look at the lives that were wasted in Iraq, for no reason.

    YET, you all persist in wanting Mitt Romney to be president, for only one reason (his religion). You'd all be against Romney, if he wasn't LDS. Romney wants to INCREASE THE MILITARY (which will cost our country more than ever).

    (shaking head)

  • phillyfanatic LONG BEACH, CA
    Oct. 22, 2011 10:13 a.m.

    God bless our brave military. For 3 yrs., they have been up in the air over the non-direction of the Obama Admin. Though I think this will simply force Iraq into Iran's sway, the military needs a huge break. The Islamofascists will not stop because we come home. And then, we also have such loose borders,some might be needed there. We have many international enemies that Obama doesn't understand. One thing voters know, he withdrew all of these brave people because....he needs to reconnect with this Leftist BASE of pacifists. Thus ,it is for his re-election not his love for American's military. And one will not forget his horrid eco. domestic policies either. Still, for our military, a well deserved breath before we face countless other foes: Iran, China,N.Korea.

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    Oct. 22, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    @Ricardo Carvalho:
    "US standing around the world is much better than when he took office and we seem to be reaching our goals at a lower and lower cost."

    Can you please tell me what those "goals" are and document just how we are reaching them at a "lower and lower cost."?

    Thank you!

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Oct. 22, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    Good article However, you do not "take the reigns of your own future". The speaker did not misspell. The proofreader did.

  • Gregg Weber SEATTLE, WA
    Oct. 22, 2011 9:01 a.m.

    "But officer, he stopped too fast and I hit his rear bumper." "Because you hit him you were too close or inattentive. That is what the ticket is for. If you were at a safe distance and attentive there would have been no accident."
    We shall see if we got out of there too quickly, at the proper time, or too late only when the Islamofascist take over. That means the only way to tell is after the "accident".
    Is President Obama concerned for out Country and our Constitution? Or is it his re-election? Or is he secretly in favor of the Islamofascist?
    Those are three questions I want people to submit evidence for and against each. Just try.
    Unfortunately this isn't any kind of proper logical and hopefully civil debate that I would like to see.

  • Deborah Huntington, WV
    Oct. 22, 2011 8:09 a.m.

    To Duh:

    Thank you for your service.

  • Duh west jordan, ut
    Oct. 22, 2011 7:36 a.m.

    I for one am glad this one is over. I spent time a year there and I had friends who sacrificed everything. I still have friends over there. Every day of my life the last 9 years has been affected by this war. All I do is deal with the wounded warriors on a daily basis. Only after we get out of Afghanistan will I be able to start to close this chapter in my life.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Oct. 22, 2011 6:13 a.m.

    While I will not be voting for President Obama (unless there is a big surprise in the Republican primaries), I do think he has been very successful on the international front. US standing around the world is much better than when he took office and we seem to be reaching our goals at a lower and lower cost.

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    Oct. 22, 2011 5:29 a.m.

    "Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when theyll be permanently reunited with their families.

    Acting as the worlds policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harms way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

    Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs." Statement on Ron Paul website.

    Not only is it time to bring them home, but we should never have sent them in the first place. Its time for ALL of our servicemen to come home! The Invasion continues here on the home front.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 22, 2011 4:58 a.m.

    Some GOP senators would rather build up the Middle East than the USA.

  • Informed Voter South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 21, 2011 9:57 p.m.

    I am a Tea Party conservative, and I agree it is correct to bring home the troops from Iraq, especially since the Iraqis do not seem to value our sacrifices to help them. Our troops have given their all. Time for Iraq to stand on it's own.