The White House is willing to keep up to 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq next year, a source with knowledge of the deliberations told Fox News.

But many Iraqis and President Obama's anti-war base oppose any extension of the military's presence even though Baghdad will get the final say.

Iraq, which can make a formal request for an extension, is not expected to decide until September at the earliest when the 46,000 U.S. forces left in the country had hoped to start heading home.


"Any request to keep troops in Iraq beyond the agreed upon withdrawal date of December 2011 would have to come from the government of Iraq and would be given serious consideration by this administration," another U.S. official told Fox News.

Baghdad officials will be weighing questions about the readiness of Iraqi security forces against fears of renewed militant attacks and unrest if U.S. soldiers stay beyond the December pullout deadline.

Keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq after the end of the year is the "high watermark," probably the maximum of what the U.S. would be willing to do," the source told Fox News.

The other official added that a troop drawdown does not represent "disengagement."

"Under the terms of the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, we are building a dynamic partnership with the Iraqi government and people that features cooperation in a range of sectors, including education, energy, trade, health, culture, information technology, law enforcement and judicial cooperation," the official said.

The White House has worked out options to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 active-duty troops to continue training Iraqi security forces during 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials in interviews with The Associated Press. The figures also were noted by foreign diplomats in Baghdad briefed on the issue.

All spoke on condition of anonymity to frankly discuss the sensitive matter during interviews over the past two weeks.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday said the Pentagon is still planning for all U.S. troops to withdraw by year's end, noting that time is running out for Iraq's government to ask them to stay.

"We have said for a long time now if the Iraqi government asks us to maintain some level of troops beyond that end of the year deadline, we would consider it," Carney told reporters in Washington.

He appeared to back off that possibility, however, adding: "That doesn't necessarily mean we would do it. We would just consider it. And I really don't have any more information on that possible outcome because, again, we haven't even gotten a request."

Any change in the U.S. military withdrawal timetable in Iraq -- after more than eight years and more than 4,450 U.S. military deaths -- could open up difficult political confrontations for Obama as pressure builds to close out the Iraq mission and stick to pledges to draw down troops in Afghanistan.

The Senate's top Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid, told the AP that the high cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq -- given a mounting U.S. debt crisis and Iraq's fledgling security gains -- is no longer necessary.

Reid, the Senate majority leader, estimated nearly $1 trillion has been spent in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in 2003, including $50 billion this year alone.

"As Iraq becomes increasingly capable, it is time for our own troops to return home by the end of the year and for these precious resources to be directed elsewhere," Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said in the statement. "There is no question that the United States must continue to provide support for the Iraqis as they progress, but now is the time for our military mission to come to a close."

Reid was responding to a request for comment after 15 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in June, mostly by Shiite militias, in the deadliest month for the American military here in two years. It was the first public statement by a top party leader to oppose Obama's policy in Iraq, and may signal splintering Democratic support over his war planning just as he ramps up his 2012 re-election campaign.

Iraq has flown under Washington's political radar for much of the past year, and Democrats who want Obama to end the war this year as promised vowed to exert more pressure on the White House.

"With a false declaration that combat operations are over in Iraq, what is now Operation New Dawn has ironically become a forgotten war," said Ashwin Madia, a former Marine who served in Iraq in 2005-06 and is now interim chairman of VoteVets.org. "That is about to change."

The group has raised millions of dollars for Democratic Party candidates.

Though violence has dramatically dropped from just a few years ago, when Iraq teetered on the brink of civil war, attacks still happen almost daily. On Tuesday, Iraqi police said at least 35 people were killed when two bombs exploded outside a city council headquarters just north of Baghdad.

Running for president in 2008, Obama promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq -- what he had described years earlier as "a dumb war, a rash war." Shortly after he took office, he pledged to stick to a Dec. 31, 2011, deadline negotiated between Washington and Baghdad for all U.S. forces to leave Iraq.

Recently, however, the door gradually has been opening to push the deadline. In May, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates signaled Obama was willing to keep troops in Iraq beyond December. Last week, Navy Vice Adm. William McRaven, nominated to command U.S. special operations forces, said a small commando force should remain.

Without a request from Iraq, fewer than 200 active-duty troops would stay at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad as military advisers, a role that is common for American diplomatic missions worldwide. More than 166,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq in October 2007, the peak of the Pentagon's surge.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refuses to publicly endorse a troops' extension. One of his critical political allies -- a Shiite movement headed by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- has threatened widespread violence if troops stay. Al-Sadr's militias once waged fierce attacks on U.S. forces.

Some of Iraq's Sunnis also oppose an extension. The Sunni Islamic Party in Iraq's northern Ninevah province, in a statement this week, called allowing the so-called "occupation forces" to remain "a great mistake against Iraq and its people."

President Jalal Talabani plans a meeting as early as this week of Iraq's political leaders to discuss the troop issue -- which al-Maliki says he does not want to make alone.

The U.S. will not keep thousands of troops in Iraq without immunity. But it's far from certain parliament will approve it. Iraq is still seething from the 2007 shooting by guards from the security firm then called Blackwater Worldwide, which left 17 people dead but could not be prosecuted by Iraq courts because of an immunity deal at the time.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/06/white-house-willing-to-keep-10000-us-troops-in-iraq/#ixzz1RNdtoC5e

Another campaign promise down the tubes. Does Obama forget this is an election year?

did he promise to remove 'all troops'?

I dont recall that,,,can someone refresh my memory with some proof?

He promised to get us and ALL the troops out of Iraq, close Gitmo, try the terrorists in Civilian Court, Wont authorize the CIA to do capture or Kill missions, get us out of Afganistan etc. etc. etc. He lied on EVERY one of those promoises too.

hmmm,, not at all what I remember

from www.khq.com

'"My fellow Americans, this has been a difficult decade for our country," he said, according to prepared remarks. "Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding."

"Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way," Obama added. "We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end."

The 33,000 troops being withdrawn were part of the "surge" that Obama announced in his 2009 speech at West Point. That will leave approximately 68,000 U.S. troops still in Afghanistan, which is still significantly higher than the amount that was in the country when Obama took office'


Nothing as absolute as 'ALL TROOPS' mentioned anywhere


Executive order 13492 set to initiate the closing of Guantanamo bay,, OBamas efforts were defeated by congress, a defeat, and not a lie by a long stretch

I could go on about how he didnt 'promise' these other all or nothing propositions such as

'trying terrorists in civilian court, authorizing the CIA to do capture or kill, get us (completely) out of Afghanistan "

but people interpret things the way they see fit,,,,

I distinctly remember him saying CLOSE GITMO and completely out of Iraq.

Those were distinct points of his Election Platform.


Yep, change we could count on....

I only recall him speaking about the importance of closing guantanamo and withdrawing from iraq

I dont remember him making any 'promise' that he would get it accomplished single handedly,,,,

You asked for it!

http://youtu.be/8USRg3h4AdE

"Begin removal immediately"
http://youtu.be/dC3q8H0JIbE

Never happened...


"Out in 16 months"
http://youtu.be/b0NLyx83v3Q

How long has it been since he was put in office.

Oh but he has the tactical out, "tactical changes."

And everything he has said never happened!

As you were saying????



THANK YOU YOUTUBE! I U!

Did I just hear the sound of an airplane crashing into the ground and bursting into flames? Things got quiet suddenly!

You stupid right wingers need to understand that Democrat politicians aren't judged by their actions, they are only judged by their intentions, words and looks (assuming you are talking about the few good looking ones)

There is a list of hard core liberals I am surprised have not began shooting their mouths off about showing them proof. I presented it in Obama's own words.

What to promises mean to liberals? Does Liberal suddenly mean they have license to liberally interpret things as they want us to see them?

I don't hate Obama for being mulatto (he is NOT 100% black). I don't hate him for being a democrat. I hate him becasue he is a LIAR! Please see above where again I HAVE POSTED MY PROOF!

Again I will say this, Liberals are Mankind's answer to Functional Retardation!

and Republicans like to lie about WMDs and start an illegal war where over 100,000 people have died.just sayin

i still don't think they lied, they never searched Syria or Iran.....

but it wasn't in Iraq,i don't have a problem with stopping terrorist but the problem is or was the Israely spy scandal,plus along with supposively Iraq having UMDs and was behind 911,which both were disproved and discredited.

As i did mention though i'm not against the war on terrorism,i'm just against the war in Iraq.

There were WMD's found in Iraq, just not the massive stockpiles our intelligence agencies predicted. And not just our intelligence agencies, but the intelligence agencies for many countries. Nobody lied about WMD's other than Saddam, who was trying to keep Iran at bay by convincing the world he had huge stockpiles of WMDs.

And it wasn't just Bush, if you look, you'll find that Bill Clinton asked to go to war with Iraq in 1998 (because of their supposed massive stockpiles of WMDs) and it was overwhelmingly approved by Congress. Years before Bush took office, Democrat Politicians and talking heads were chattering about Saddam's WMDs. Congress gets the same intelligence briefings as the President and they also felt that Saddam had WMDs.

We can disagree and that's fine, but don't you think it's unreasonable to claim your ideological opponents were lying because believed faulty intelligence, but give your own party a pass even though they believed the faulty intelligence also?

I am against the war on terrorism. WAY too vague, too much ability to distort, twist and portray anyone as a terrorist if their agenda is counter to your own.

I want wars to be specific. To have objective goals that can be achieved. They must be passed via congress. We must know that the enemy has the ability to attack us, not just our future interests for new wealth.

I want our government to take on a non-interventionist attitude toward the rest of the world, this really is the only way to clear the tarnish from the image of America.

see when it comes to an illegal war i don't see republican or democrat,i see senseless murder,but it just happened to be started by a representative of the republican party.

Obama didn't even try to get it closed! He had a Democratic controlled Senate and Congress and we all know he can be pursuasive when he lets his BS fly. If he really wanted it closed it would be close right now. More change we can believe in!

Goodlooking Democrats? That's an Oxymoron!

Kind of like our war on drugs too?

Republican Chicks = Yummy!

Democratic Chicks = BARF ME OUT , GAG ME!

I do see a trend here!