US Pressuring Iraq to Allow Troops to Stay Longer

[Nuclear Unicorn]

This is too much.

BAGHDAD — Under intense U.S. pressure, Iraqi leaders announced early Wednesday they had agreed to start negotiations on keeping some American soldiers in the country after the current Dec. 31 deadline for all U.S. troops to have left Iraq.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/03/119358/iraq-agrees-to-start-talks-on.html#ixzz1UBI2QzWV

[Enrique]

1. we're actually pressuring them to "ask" us to stay

get ready to hear, we stayed because they asked us to!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Kind of, almost, sounds like

"She was asking for it."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Gratuitous self-kick

But at the same time I have to ask: why, when the Iraq war has been such (proper) bone of contention for progressives, does this not garner more attention?

During budget talks all I read is "Cut defense!" yet prolonging the occupation of Iraq, and bullying the Iraqis to allow it, doesn't seem to merit so much as a passing comment.

Were we not promised an end to the occupation? Bush negotiated the agreement that would see US troops out of Iraq by December of this year. Not only has Obama not expedited the departure as promised he's pressuring the Iraqis to ask us to stay. From what I'm reading it's to "protect" Iraq from Iran. Great! So now Iran has US troops on its border tasked with being prepared for military confrontation with them. That'll help! Remind me why McCain was a danger.

Cannot we not find better uses for the money? Last I read the administration was threatening to not send out Social Security checks for lack of a debt ceiling deal. We're worried about not being able to borrow enough to feed our own when promises to stop spending money on things we said we'd stop doing. And let's not forget a big portion of the senate debt ceiling bill was based on ending the occupations.

What's going on and when did we stop caring?