Will the US leave Iraqi cities before July 2009?

The qualifying word in the background info is ALL Iraqi cities. Must settle as no if there is one soldier in one city on July 1st.

@buckeyetom: Actually, the word ALL is not in the title, and I checked the prediction history: no changes have been made to this question according to the prediction history.

Several news clips indicate that the US is on track to evactuate Iraqi cities by the end of the month, and that it is going "easier than expected". The transition has already started. Against all expectations a few months ago, it seems likely the US military will be on target by the end of June...

Actually the word "all" does appear in the history, but it seems from the news clips, that the intention is to leave all Iraqi cities by the end of June. And it is in progress...

I like the odds of "no". Things are not quite so certain.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/05/ap_odierno_mosul_exit_050809/

One month old article. I still like the odds.

I copied this from bgrigore's article. It does make the NO option very attractive.

Odierno said perhaps 20 percent of the U.S. forces left in Mosul, Baghdad and other cities will remain past the June 30 deadline to leave, but they will play advisory and support roles and won’t be engaged in combat.

The role they play does not matter. It will just be the fact that they are still there in July.

common sense tells you they will be troops still in the cities. the problem will be what the MSM reports. their in love with obama, so if he says their out thats what will get reported.

US military will leave Iraqi cities within fortnight, says top general

Martin Chulov in Baghdad guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 June 2009 19.29 BST Article history

The US military has committed itself to leave Iraqi cities in a fortnight, in a move flagged by its top general and the country his troops still occupy as "a significant moment in history".

The 30 June withdrawal will be the clearest change in posture by US forces since they conquered Baghdad more than six years ago.

At a press conference in Baghdad yesterday, the commander of American forces, General Ray Odierno, declared: "The dark days of previous years are behind us. It's a fitting time that our combat forces return from cities and villages."

The move includes the volatile city of Mosul, which had been seen as a possible exception because of a sharp spike in violence earlier this year. Odierno said he was now optimistic about Mosul and would hand over full responsibility to Iraqi security forces.

Here is the above link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/us-military-withdrawal-iraq

In the same Guardian article are these words. It's why the NO option is still attractive.

He said 142 US outposts scattered throughout the country had already been handed over to Iraqi forces. American troops will remain in 320 others, although their duties will mostly be limited to combat support and technical advice. About 30,000 US troops have left Iraq since September. Another 130,000 remain.

This question clearly says IRAQI CITIES, not Iraqi outposts.

"U.S. troops are moving to bases on the edge of cities by June 30 in case the Iraqis call for help. But under the U.S.-Iraqi security pact reached last year, all U.S. troops will leave the country by the end of 2011 — including the roughly 50,000 who will be left behind after the combat troops withdraw next year."

The situation is not so clear - cities, or country it doesn't matter because some parts of the U.S. troops
will stay there till the end of 2001.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7NrBT5ZIBMx0F1S_Xsi-C9i1TuAD98TDLI83

sorry till the end of the 2011 :)

Here another confirmation about this confusion:
"They also believe the political message emanating from Baghdad about the US withdrawal has created a false impression among Iraqi citizens that American troops will no longer be seen on Mosul's streets when, in fact, they will.Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and General Ray Odierno, the top US officer in Iraq, have said the pullout will go ahead as planned, although some Americans will be allowed to stay on in training or military advisory roles."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hldIdiLKBLZUB3vDybHStDXg2TLA

re friend elly's links:

"U.S. troops are moving to bases on the edge of cities by June 30 in case the Iraqis call for help."

"...the pullout will go ahead as planned, although some Americans will be allowed to stay on in training or military advisory roles."

So it sounds like the troops are scheduled to be officially out of the cities by the end of June, newly positioned on bases on the edge of cities, in case the Iraqi police call for help. It sounds like how NOT to be in the cities and STILL be in the cities at the same time.

There are already 129K bets on this question, and it is not clear ON WHAT BASIS this question is going to be settled. It's very late to have any kind of clarification.

The settlement details say "as reported by a major mainstream news source", which presumably means whatever is officially decided by the press (as to whether or not the US has officially vacated the cities or not). So, what is the press going to say? I guess that is what we are betting on at this point....

Another leftover created long before my tenure started. But let's see...

The Fox News article (the only one of the three still available) refers to U.S. troops leaving the cities, repositioning themselves "...on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while positioned to help Iraqi forces as needed." Based on that article--which is part of the market's background--troops can be stationed in the outposts, so long as they're NOT in the cities.

Newer articles state that the U.S. has already closed or handed over more than 60 urban bases since the beginning of the year, with more than 50 others tentatively scheduled to be closed or returned to Iraqi control by the end of June (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09158/975678-82.stm)

This market, then, will settle based on mainstream media reports stating that U.S. troops have, indeed, entirely vacated all urban bases in Iraq on or before June 30 of this year. The options allow no room for a partial withdrawal, so if even one urban base remains--in the hotbed of Mosul, say--this will have to settle as 'No'.

Other articles:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/us-military-withdrawal-iraq
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7NrBT5ZIBMx0F1S_Xsi-C9i1TuAD98TDLI83
http://www.kurdishglobe.net/displayArticle.jsp?id=E508C1B6B3720A815E37FB671A1D8EE1

Many Thanks for the clarification!

here is a list of Iraqi cities.... There are so many...

Newspaper reports are one thing. The truth is something else...

Thanks Sglman! Everything is clear now.

Got to wonder how Iraq got along without car bombs in shopping areas before the US troops showed up. I am voting no, thinking the US will leave some "advisors" behind.

More from the glorious "brilliant and successful operation that has kept us all safer", the US "doing it's level best to bring law and order to the region."

Bomb strikes Shiite market in Baghdad, killing 61

A bomb hidden in a cart of vegetables ripped through a crowded market in Baghdad's Sadr City on Wednesday, killing at least 61 people, Iraqi officials said, just days after the U.S. military closed its main base in the Shiite district. It was the third deadliest attack this year and occurred less than a week before a deadline for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraqi cities under a new security pact.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD99188A82

God bless America, and protect her servicemen!

Cheney's doing

I don't get this question anymore nor some of the comments. In the question you meant any 2 or more cities?
If the US would leave 3 cities out of the dozens it's in right now - would that settle the question as "YES"?
If so, that is hardly relevant to the "background" and the question should be reported as argumentative and misleading.
According to the background (and actually some of the links posted) it should be either "All cities" for YES and NO otherwise.

That's correct; the U.S. must be out of all cities for this to settle as 'Yes'. If the US were to leave just three cities, that would NOT settle as 'Yes'; the question background specifically uses the word 'all'.


FWIW, I don't agree that the question is 'argumentative'...at least not more than any other question.:-)

here's a news article with commander of US forces saying 'they wont withdraw from all iraqi cities now'. who would of thought they wouldnt go through with their withdrawal!!!! after all

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99036§ionid=3510203

Well ginothehood, I think this will be the news article that settles this question, or at least a follow up article posted on July 1st. Good job tracking this down.

Well, that is an Iranian state-run press outlet (read: Ahmadinejad), so it might be a bit of a stretch to settle based on that link alone. Besides, other sources say the withdrawal will go as planned. This one, for instance: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/us-will-withrdaw-from-iraq-despite-increasing-attacks-20090627-d05j.html

US Troops ready to withdraw from Iraqi cities:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_troops_ready_to_withdraw_from_Iraqi_cities_999.html

Only a small number of US forces in training and advisory roles will remain in urban areas, with the bulk of American troops in Iraq, 131,000 according to Pentagon figures, quartered elsewhere.

http://www.tolerance.ca/Article.aspx?ID=49046&L=en

If that holds, Erik, this would settle as 'No'

Cafferty just reported on CNN that a small group will remain in urban cities in the role of trainers and advisors.

in this video dated today, at the 2 minute 35 second mark, it states that a few soldiers will remain for consulting so i'm guessing this should settle as "no" the US will not leave all Iraqi cities.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/06/29/ware.iraq.us.handover.cnn

"In reality, the Americans will probably keep a significant number of combat troops in Baghdad and attempt to keep them as low profile as possible."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iraq-Tim-Marshall-Believes-The-US-Troop-Departure-Deadline-Will-Bring-Testing-Times/Article/200906415323232?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15323232_Iraq%3A_Tim_Marshall_Believes_The_US_Troop_Departure_Deadline_Will_Bring_Testing_Times

BAGHDAD, June 30 (Reuters) -
The last U.S. combat troops left central Baghdad on Monday, withdrawing to two large bases near the capital's airport, and withdrawals from other cities were underway. Some troops tasked with training and advising Iraqi forces will stay behind.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLS340559._CH_.2420

The following is a headline article copied from democracy now. The troops will remain in Mosul indefinately.


US Forces to Encircle Iraqi Towns They Withdraw From
US forces are facing a deadline tomorrow to withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns. In most cases, they’ll be shifted to areas encircling the places they leave. American forces will also remain in the town of Mosul for an indefinite time. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the top commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, said Iraqi forces are ready to assume control.

General Ray Odierno: “In May, we had the lowest level of incidents we’ve ever had on record in Iraq. In the first three weeks of June, we did, as well. You’ve seen a slight uptick this past week with these high-profile attacks, but again, I would say these are just extremist elements that are attempting to bring attention to themselves. And I think this is the right time for us to turn responsibility over to the Iraqis.”

In comment 17, sqlman CLARIFIED how this question would be settled:

"This market, then, will settle based on mainstream media reports stating that U.S. troops have, indeed, entirely vacated all urban bases in Iraq on or before June 30 of this year. The options allow no room for a partial withdrawal, so if even one urban base remains--in the hotbed of Mosul, say--this will have to settle as 'No'."

This indicated that the question would be settled depending on whether all American city bases had been closed or not.

In comment 31, sqlman appears to be changing his position. If a few Americans remain behind on non-American bases in advisory and/or training roles (not combative or patrol roles), while all soldier have been moved out of former American bases and are now re-positioned somewhere outside (or the outside edge of) cities, sqlman suggests that the US will NOT have been deemed as having vacated all bases.

Am I reading this correctly? It is exasperating that some hubdub questions continuously change interpretation as the question progresses. Mostly in the world and general categories. It's frequently more difficult to predict the interpretation of the question than it is to predict the outcome of the question...

This question suspends in 20 hours. As a community, we have 235K in H$ tied up in this question and no clear interpretation of how this question will settle:

(1) The US is in the process today of leaving ALL bases in Iraqi cities and repositioning elsewhere or just outside the borders of Iraqi cities. There is every reason to believe this will be accomplished today. If they leave every base, will this settle the question as yes? (If even one BASE is left open, it will obviously settle as no).

(2) The US is clearly leaving a few soldiers behind -- not in American bases but in Iraqi bases -- in an advisory and/or training capacity. But NOT in a combative or patrol capacity. If the previous American city bases are closed but a few soldiers are left behind in advisory/training capacity, will this settle the question as no?

Buckeyetom brought up this problem 16 weeks ago, and nothing was said then. The last two weeks, we have been frantically trying to interpret this question. We thought we had an interpretation in comment 17.

I have listed two likely scenarious above: BOTH of which are very likely to happen: ALL bases are likely to be vacated AND some soldiers left behind in Iraqi bases in training or advisory capacity. A probable YES and a probably NO answer.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

There are some chances that US will not leave cities before July. They may stay in Mosul
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200962985132437128.html
Also I've seen some comments that their bases will only be moved in the outskirts of the big cities which are actually inside the city borders but the US and Iraqi government commonly agreed they're not. Or maybe the bases are moved in smaller cities, just leaving major urban areas. The question clearly ask that US leaves all cities, not just big cities.
There is clearly the political pressure form both US and Iraq govts to declare the leaving of Iraqi cities before July 1st as per their previous agreement on that and to start celebrations while the situation in the field clearly suggest that this is premature.
At the moment the information is insufficient and contradictory on the matter. We should wait a few days until more information is available, that is a little cleared from political interference.

I agree with randburg that few soldiers left in advisory/training capacity would still mean that US army left urban cities. But how many are them from the 131.000 US soldiers left in Iraq and would they still participate in combats?

The question is clear.
All U.S. Army (see background) must be out of "all Iraqi cities before July 2009" for a 'Yes' settlement.

'Some' cities or troops don't count.
Air Force and Navy (Marines) don't count.
There is no mention of a qualifier for any remaining troops, so that don't count either.

By PATRICK QUINN, Associated Press Writer Patrick Quinn, Associated Press Writer - Tue Jun 30, 7:02 am ET

Some U.S. troops will remain in the cities to train and advise Iraqi forces. U.S. combat troops will return to the cities only if asked. The U.S. military will continue combat operations in rural areas and near the border, but only with the Iraqi government's permission.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

This has to settle as NO.

The question is clear.

Along with the clarification:

"This market, then, will settle based on mainstream media reports stating that U.S. troops have, indeed, entirely vacated all urban bases in Iraq on or before June 30 of this year. The options allow no room for a partial withdrawal, so if even one urban base remains--in the hotbed of Mosul, say--this will have to settle as 'No'. "

Thus, if all urban bases are cleared (regardless any soldiers around somewhere else) the question should settle "Yes".

Camp Victory Will Remain Open in Western Baghdad
However, both the United States and Iraq agreed that large American bases inside Baghdad and Mosul, like the sprawling facility in western Baghdad known as Camp Victory, would be exempted from the agreement, given their large size and their importance to the overall security mission in Iraq...’
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=7961815&page=1

Erik, IMO, this would mean the question settles "No".

Iraqi, Good Enough
June 30, 2009: According to the new security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, all American troops, except trainers and advisors, will be out of Iraqi urban areas by June 30th. The only exception is Camp Victory, a major American base in Baghdad, which is within the city limits.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090630.aspx

kru> Looks that way to me.

If it was originally agreed that one or more bases were exempt, shouldn't this question have been voided long ago -- as the answer was already known? Or should exempt bases be included in this question?

If Camp Victory was somehow "exempt", there was never any intention of vacating Camp Victory. Is this question actually going to rule against an "exempt" base?

What does the word "exempt" MEAN, anyway? My OXFORD says: Freed (from taxation, liability, risk, duty, control, failings, etc.); not subject to risk, etc.

If a base has been legally classified as EXEMPT, is it EXEMPT from this question? There are ONLY TWO options to this question: yes and no. If an exempt base is going to be criteria for answering this question, there must be an OTHER category, or void the question.

Camp Victory is a moot point. Referring back to many of the links throughout the comments it is apparent that troops will stay behind in urban areas to act as trainers and advisers. So voiding this is unnecessary.

So, we are BACK TO COMMENT 37:

WHICH I AM REPEATING AGAIN IN FULL. CAN WE HAVE AN ANSWER PLEASE?

---------------------

In comment 17, sqlman CLARIFIED how this question would be settled:

"This market, then, will settle based on mainstream media reports stating that U.S. troops have, indeed, entirely vacated all urban bases in Iraq on or before June 30 of this year. The options allow no room for a partial withdrawal, so if even one urban base remains--in the hotbed of Mosul, say--this will have to settle as 'No'."

This indicated that the question would be settled depending on whether all American city bases had been closed or not.

In comment 31, sqlman appears to be changing his position. If a few Americans remain behind on non-American bases in advisory and/or training roles (not combative or patrol roles), while all soldier have been moved out of former American bases and are now re-positioned somewhere outside (or the outside edge of) cities, sqlman suggests that the US will NOT have been deemed as having vacated all bases.

Am I reading this correctly? It is exasperating that some hubdub questions continuously change interpretation as the question progresses. Mostly in the world and general categories. It's frequently more difficult to predict the interpretation of the question than it is to predict the outcome of the question...

This question suspends in 20 hours. As a community, we have 235K in H$ tied up in this question and no clear interpretation of how this question will settle:

(1) The US is in the process today of leaving ALL bases in Iraqi cities and repositioning elsewhere or just outside the borders of Iraqi cities. There is every reason to believe this will be accomplished today. If they leave every base, will this settle the question as yes? (If even one BASE is left open, it will obviously settle as no).

(2) The US is clearly leaving a few soldiers behind -- not in American bases but in Iraqi bases -- in an advisory and/or training capacity. But NOT in a combative or patrol capacity. If the previous American city bases are closed but a few soldiers are left behind in advisory/training capacity, will this settle the question as no?

Buckeyetom brought up this problem 16 weeks ago, and nothing was said then. The last two weeks, we have been frantically trying to interpret this question. We thought we had an interpretation in comment 17.

I have listed two likely scenarious above: BOTH of which are very likely to happen: ALL bases are likely to be vacated AND some soldiers left behind in Iraqi bases in training or advisory capacity. A probable YES and a probably NO answer.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

@randburg: there you go again with your "sqlman appears to be changing his position" comments. Now that's exasperating. :-) Seriously, though, I'm very sorry that often a clarification by my (or any other Category Editor) looks like a changing of position when it is, in fact, a defining of position...which is part of our job here as editors. I realize, of course, that when a clarification is handed down, it may disagree with how some players interpreted a market or settlement--just as it likely agrees completely with how other players interpreted it. That's the reason for clarifications in the first place.

Now, this market: the settlement is actually quite easy. If U.S. combat troops have truly withdrawn entirely from all the urban bases with the exception of those troops and/or bases that were exempt when the market was created, this will settle as 'Yes'. Otherwise, it's 'No'. That's not my spin or interpretation; that's the logical premise on which the market was originally created. My comment was intended to simply clarify based on what some were asking/saying: if there are American soldiers on the non-exempt urban bases at the end of tomorrow, that means the criteria for settling as 'Yes' have not been met. What's unclear about that?

In regards to your comment #46: no, it should most definitely NOT have been voided long ago. Expecially where war is concerned, there's often a world of difference between and agreement to do something and actually doing it. So far as the need for an 'Other' category, I disagree entirely. This is a simple yes-or-no question with a simple-yes-or-no answer. It's binary.

Anyway: I'm not sure whether you've availed yourself of it or not, but there's a dispute resolution protocol in place here at Hubdub; following it may ease some of the frustration you and other folks feel from time to time. In the meantime, I will also avail myself of it by bringing in all the available category editors and superusers this evening to discuss the matter; we will then attempt to arrive at a fair and equitable settlement.

Please stand by...

@sqlman: We all thank you for a wonderfully "clear clarification" that should solve all questions in everyone's mind. You explain very clearly and very fairly the criteria for settling this question and what we are looking for. Now, it's just a matter of seeing what actually happens in the next 24 hours.

This is also the first time that we have had a clarification that deals with all of the relevant matters: leftover non-combatant troups in non-American bases, the closing of all non-exempt American bases, and the understanding that one or more bases were officially labelled "exempt" from the beginning (which I didn't know myself) and that officially exempt base(s) will not apply to this question. Clarifying all of this solves the "exasperation" for all of us! (Hubdub amins included!) - :))

As you said:

"Now, this market: the settlement is actually quite easy. If U.S. combat troops have truly withdrawn entirely from all the urban bases with the exception of those troops and/or bases that were exempt when the market was created, this will settle as 'Yes'. Otherwise, it's 'No'. That's not my spin or interpretation; that's the logical premise on which the market was originally created. My comment was intended to simply clarify based on what some were asking/saying: if there are American soldiers on the non-exempt urban bases at the end of tomorrow, that means the criteria for settling as 'Yes' have not been met. What's unclear about that?"

@sqlman: I neglected to mention that I agree with you that there is no need to void this question, as long as EXEMPT soldier(s) or base(s) are not the basis for settling this question. Hopefully nothing will happen in Iraq in the next twenty-four hours that will necessitate an "other" category.

Whether or not the American withdrawal is complete tomorrow, we are watching an amazing feat of accomplishment that even "most" of the withdrawal could have ever happened at this time...What will be Iraq's fate?

"What will be Iraq's fate?" I sense a potential for another Hubdub question here. Na', on second thought, let's just let the sleeping dog lie.

Although the number of daily attacks have been cut in half, security in Mosul is still precarious. Iraqi officials last week agreed to allow several dozen US soldiers to remain at each of five small bases within the city. After June 30, those combat outposts will be called "joint security stations" and the American soldiers will assist their Iraqi counterparts under the new stricter rules.

"The coalition is going to stay in some of the places where we need them - we will call for help," said General Ghazal.

At one of those places - Combat Outpost Mountain in East Mosul - the soldiers live just across a divide of sand-filled wire barriers from the Iraqi battalion their company is partnered with. Little is expected to change except the name, and constraints on how the Americans will operate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/orules

Sounds like we're still going to be there in five of our small bases in Mosul.

@buckeye: I think you have the potential for several new questions here. "Will the US re-establish or re-occupy a previously existing base in an Iraqi city before September for any reason whatsover?" "Will July casualty figures exceed June casualty figures?" (If you can word that to get past the death pool). "Will a new state of emergency or martial law be declared in Iraq before September for any reason whatsoever?" Please write us a few new questions, and you are welcome to use those above....Hopefully you can out-maneuver the clarification possibilities before the question is written...Many Thanks!

The only person who could really control Iraq is gone: Saddam Hussein. Even though he was a bloody tyrant, he had control. That doesn't justify his atrocities, but the balance of power appears to be "completely out of control" for the forseeable future...There is another question in this, I am sure.

@randburg
I totally agree with you regarding how Saddam ruled Iraq. Keeping the Kurds, Shites and Sunnis at bay was a challenge. He managed with an iron fist and was responsible for many deaths. Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe if the U.S., the U.N. and our coalition countries would have leveled severe sanctions against Saddam maybe we could have controlled him more. But we went in with our military might, destabilized the area and now we're paying the price to fill the vacuum we created. Some countries can only function under a dictator. Maybe another one will emerge. Hopefully a benevolent one.

:D

LOL SEVERE sanctions now? They already had all the crooks in France and Germany (along with Russia, etc) working out "oil for food" scams that were enabled by the presence of the sanctions that were already in place. They cry about Halliburton getting money for doing legal, ethical, and dangerous work over there... because they are jealous that their liberal friends are not able to scam their way to riches anymore!

Oxymoron of the day: Benevolent dictatorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator

Exempt bases, training forces, etc. should make no matter in this market.

The market asks, " Will the US leave Iraqi cities before July 2009?"

Well of course there will be army left in the cities, even if only in a look on to see if things are a ok !!!!!!!!

more to above.


Troops available to train and advise
Despite Tuesday's formal pullback, some U.S. troops will remain in the cities to train and advise Iraqi forces. U.S. troops will return to the cities only if asked. The U.S. military will continue combat operations in rural areas and near the border, but only with the Iraqi government's permission.

The U.S. has not said how many troops will be in the cities in advisory roles, but the vast majority of the more than 130,000 U.S. forces remaining in the country will be in large bases scattered outside cities.

There have been some worries that the 650,000-member Iraqi military is not ready to maintain stability and deal with a stubborn insurgency.

it must settle as NO.
the question is clear
Will the US leave Iraqi cities before July 2009

erik comment 30 - Only a small number of US forces in training and advisory roles will remain in urban areas, with the bulk of American troops in Iraq, 131,000 according to Pentagon figures, quartered elsewhere.

http://www.tolerance.ca/Article.aspx?ID=49046&L=en

sqlman comment 31 - If that holds, Erik, this would settle as 'No'

then much later the Exempt bases, training forces deal comes into play. i see those words no where in the question or details. it clearly says before July which has now come and gone. on June 29th ALL US forces was not out of all iraqi cites. seems clear it should settle as no.

DISCLAIMER: i have no money in this market. i saw a headache coming 2 weeks ago. comment 7. goodluck to all invovled.

DISCLAIMER...lol

In the sense of the question (not the nit-picking literally one), I guess, the question should settle "Yes" based on this:

"The withdrawal of American troops is completed now from all cities, after everything they sacrificed for the sake of security," Sadiq Al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said.

BUT if you read to the end of the article, it states:

"The Iraqi army and government have asked that (US Colonel) Volesky's troops remain in Mosul past the scheduled withdrawal date."

This, also seen in the sense of the question (not the nit-picking literally one), determines to settle the question "NO" - regardless any training units. This information was not definitive until now - brigores comment 3 weeks ago shows the doubts.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200962921918580517.html
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/05/ap_odierno_mosul_exit_050809/

If this is not something all can agree on, the question should be voided.

this should not be voided just because we ALL don't agree...that's the name of the game. the fact that ALL US troops were not out of ALL the cities by the end of June should show that this settles as "no". it's a simple question with a simple answer even though all the words above this show different arguments. that's my opinion and i'm sticking with it :)

sharon - ditto @ this should not be voided just because we ALL don't agree...that's the name of the game. if that was the way things work all questions would be voided.

AP news via Google:
"... But some 130,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and the military says a small number of them will stay in cities as trainers and advisers at the request of the Iraqi government."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD995LS100

USAToday:
"...About 131,000 U.S. servicemembers are in Iraq, and a small number will remain inside the cities for advisory and training roles. U.S. troops are now prohibited from conducting combat missions, such as raids, inside cities without permission of the Iraqi government."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-06-30-iraqnews_N.htm?csp=34

Overall - Not all US soldiers left the cities. The question should be settled as NO.

The answer should be NO, based on this:
"In Iraq’s second biggest city, Mosul, the new provincial governor, no fan of coalition forces, agreed last week that U.S. forces could keep five bases within the city where they work next to Iraqi forces. Instead of combat outposts, the bases will be known as joint security stations."
The question does not ask if all US army leaves Iraqi cities but it surely ask if US army leaves all Iraqi cities and it is clear they didn't leaved Mosul before July 2009.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/iraq/090630/iraq-marks-independence-parade?page=0,1

this should be voided not because we dont agree on how it should be settled but because it was never clarified what the exact interpretation of the question should be. Because of this lack of clarity many of us placed their bets with their own interpretation in their mind. This question should have been clarified weeks ago or voided.

I disagree. I think that the real answer is very clear, no matter the question's interpretation. Clearly there are troops in the cities. It is loudly reported on Any major news source. And i do blieve that all the people knew exactly what they are betting on. You can see that in the oh-so-many comments.
If this question is voided, i can point out atleast 20 other question which were settled but should be voided.

I'm a little surprised that the question's creator, hect0r, has not participated in discussions relating to the settlement of this question.

For all those waiting, we'll have a settlement for this tomorrow (07/03). Sorry it's taking so long; I've been acquiring input from the rest of the team.

I think we need to buy Jim a new calendar. :=)

I think my daughter still has some Girl Scout calendars...gotta buy some stale cookies, though.

Washington Post -
Sunday, July 5, 2009

"...several companies of American combat troops will remain in Baghdad over the coming year."

We should start a new market - "Will the question about the US leaving Iraqi cities be settled before August 2009" :-)

The "question in question" is a true hubdub disaster. Clarifications were not made promptly when it was first issued and the question developed into two totally opposite but realistic interpretations: (1) as long as a single soldier didn't leave the cities, the US had not pulled out, regardless of whether the soldier was in an advisory or combative position, AND (2) that as long as the US had withdrawn from all of its bases (which It did), it would not matter if a few soldiers were left behind with Iraqis in a non-combatant capacity. Two totally opposite interpretations of the same questions, both of which are correct. Neither of which are going to settle this question.

AT BEST, there will be an uproar if the question is voided. THERE WILL BE A MUCH LARGER UPROAR AND A LIKELY GENERAL STRIKE ON HUBDUB if the question is settled either as yes or no. It won't make any difference which way. The admin responsible -- who alllowed this question to develop this way --- should be hung by his thumbs and pelted with hubdub frisbees...As for the owners not having made a decision in a full week, this is inexcusable....

Thank you Erik and Nyharel for opening this general forum in a place where we can all discuss it -- NOT tucked away in an endless loop in the forum section, which few people read anyway...

@randburg
Both your 'options' for the question are answered NO. Simply follow the links posted in previous comments. That is why i said it should be settled as NO. And this is not the first, or last, time such a thing happen on hubdub (and if a hubdub-youngster as I noticed..) thus I believe the question must not be voided as other questions were not.
But it all comes to a point in which I dont care about this question anymore. I'v invested lots of Hd$ on it and I can't play anymore because I have no money left.
So either void it or settle as NO but for crying out loud do something...

I knew from the very beginning that this will be a contested market. I have 26k invested here but even if I would lose them I won't mind, or go on strike.
I would agree that US left all Iraqi cities, there was obviously a strong will from both US and Iraqi governments - I still have questions about the bases in Mosul, there it seemed that local leadership had not shared the central Iraqi government decision as to complete withdrawal, I still cannot find reliable information as to what happened there.
For those with little funds who were not prudent enough and throw all their money in such a contested market in case you lose your money I could offer you a new start capital (for example I will indicate you a market where I am about to invest and the option I will make so that you make an investment than I will make mine and you will cash in immediately your profit without any risk). This is not for the players with more than 10k capital and I will make sure it won't be abused. Is that legal? I was always a very prudent and now have close to 800k in cash so I have the funds to do this without being affected too much. Also this is a one time offer from me I would advice all players to be prudent and cautious with their predictions.
From the comments I read here there were clearly misunderstandings as to how this market will be settled so unfortunately the best solution is for it to be voided as soon as possible, no matter what information will arise, it would be still questionable.

@bgrigore - Great idea... Please post the links here to markets you are about to invest in and which option so players with less than 10k can easily find them ;-)

bgrigore - i want to say your one fine member of HD. i sincerely mean that. i've never seen you cause any trouble, and your always respecful. now you offer to help people who lost money. standing ovation from me. i also knew it was gonna be a headache and didn't wager for that reason. as for your offer of help (which i truly think is the nicest thing i've ever seen on HD) i can't say if thats allowed or not. if it is i would hope that tisha would over see it so your not taken advantage of...ie people who didn't lose say they did just to make a quick buck.

i can only speak for myself. if there is a strike it won't have to do with money. its about being being fair, consistent, and handling things more openly. this question has brought alot of frustration to the tipping point. some members want an appeals board..i have mixed feelings on that. lets all hope for the best and look to bgrigore as an inspiration. i'm not afraid to say it..YOUR MORE OF A MAN THAN ME!

As for those who find it hard to find evidence I'll quote an old msg of mine with another link:
Reuters:
"The last U.S. combat troops left central Baghdad on Monday, withdrawing to two large bases near the capital's airport, and withdrawals from other cities were underway. Some troops tasked with training and advising Iraqi forces will stay behind."
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLU151930?FORM=ZZNR10

AP news via Google:
"... But some 130,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and the military says a small number of them will stay in cities as trainers and advisers at the request of the Iraqi government."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD995LS100

USAToday:
"...About 131,000 U.S. servicemembers are in Iraq, and a small number will remain inside the cities for advisory and training roles."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-06-30-iraqnews_N.htm?csp=34

Looks clear to me.. But just be done with it already.. settle as NO or void the question.. but just do something.. It has been 9 days already..

@giladbarkai, brigore
another possibility to get out of it is asking the admin to refund your wager. brigore's way would be very close to be considered "gaming", I fear.

@giladbarkai: You obviously have "NO" bets on this question, but you have clearly cited good reasons for BOTH "yes" and "no".

Your best reasoning is to VOID THE QUESTION, before it tears hubdub apart. I think we have ALL totally lost interest in this question and don't wish to see a repeat performance of this question again.

At this time, THE LEAST DAMAGE would come from A VOID AND AN APOLOGY for this mess. Everyone would be bitterly disappointed but "get over it". Deciding this question as either "yes" or "no" will do untold damage that is not needed at this time...

@kruijs

What is the difference between voiding a question and asking an admin to refund your money?

Probably that a question with TWO CORRECT VIEWPOINTS will be settled lopsided in favor of one-side (which will be rewarded with appropriate bonus), while the other side needs to beg to have their bet voided (with no reward). Maybe they will get it; maybe they won't:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

he could get his money back sooner :-)
I answered to his "I'm currently out of money" problem - not to solve the settlement of this question.

Erik opened this following market:
http://www.hubdub.com/m46661/Will_the_question_about_the_US_leaving_Iraqi_cities_be_settled_before_August_2009

:)

Sorry, I haven't been on Hubdub for a while.
When I made the question, I thought that either all troops would relocate to outside of the cities, or some disaster would compel them to stay, I didn't know that there would be some staying to train the police. But, I agree that not all troops left the cities, in giladbarkai's links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLU151930?FORM=ZZNR10
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD995LS100
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-06-30-iraqnews_N.htm?csp=34

It clearly states that some will stay behind, I think that that counts. There are still American soldiers in Iraqi cities, regardless of what they are doing.

Thank you, hect0r.

I for one am glad I kept my wager to $1k. For those of you who bet the farm on this one, I am truly sorry. Welcome to the hell of questions that aren't tightened up early on. I've been in your shoes.

I think this fuels the idea of some type of screening process or training process for question writers. While it may not have fixed this particular question, wouldn't it be generally beneficial to have a delay of 3 months or $10k in earnings before you could write questions? What about your first three to five question must be approved by admins and/or superusers with guidance on better question writing compulsary before you're turned loose?

My read on this particular question comes from when the question was written; in October 2008. With that point of view, the troops have withdrawn. That said, given the fact that there's still some troops in the cities in an advisory role, I get that perspective, too. How can you declare either side wrong when, from a big picture perspective, Bush's plan for withdrawal from the cities has been carried out AND on the other hand, hundreds of US troops are still in harms way in cities across Iraq?

Frogchop's thinking is exactly correct, on ALL counts.

Meanwhile the only honorable way out of this mess is to void this question OR double-settle this question BOTH DIRECTIONS, as everyone is correct.

It is of NO HELP WHATSOEVER that the author of this question only comments NOW on this question NINE MONTHS after he created it and NINE DAYS after it was due for settlement. Not to mention 89 comments AFTER the consternation began...

I'm in favor of double settling this question. Let me explain why. I looked at the net worth figures of many of the bettors here. Their dollar figures are somewhat low. If they lose on this question, no matter what the outcome is, their participation on Hubdub will be diminished or possibly eliminated. That is not what this site was created for. We need to increase our player pool in a positive manner. Remember that many players have had their funds tied up here for a longtime and hence they have not been able to explore other markets with those dollars.

To void this question would have a very sterile feel to it. It would carry all the excitement with it of kissing your sister. Lots of activity for a long time with no reward or thrill at the end.

To settle as YES maybe be wrong because their are the qualifying words in the background of "ALL Iraqi cities." But was it also stated ALL TROOPS? No it was not. Was that to be assumed? Was that to be understood? Maybe Yes...Maybe NO.

To settle as NO many of the assumptions and understandings of the YES argument can be juxtaposed here as well.

So lets keep Hibdub moving forward and double settle this in a positive manner and move on to other markets.

I was a driver for the NO outcome early on, but now this has gotten out of hand and some wisdom regarding the overall picture of things here needs to come into play. Double Settle.

I don't know... I would have to see your sister before I could gauge the expected level of excitement of kissing her.

OK FOF................It was a figure of speech. What do you think of my settlement proposal?

We have an awful lot of ill feeling connected to this question at the moment, AND essentially EVERYONE IS RIGHT on this question (regardless of which side you have taken on this question).

The US government signed a document with Iraq agreeing to close bases in all cities, and that greement was fulfilled on time. That's one vote for YES.

The US government, with the permission and agreement of the Iraqi government, left behind an undisclosed number of non-combatant soldiers in an advisory or training capacity. There are a few soldiers left behind, and that's one vote for NO.

The Supreme Court could argue this case and we could possibly have an answer in a few years, but why not show some GOOD WILL for a change?

Everyone is right on this one. To be honest, I have changed my opinion: Voiding the question would be to say that everyone was "wrong" and that just isn't the case. DOUBLE SETTLING the question as correct would (1) recognize both parties as correct (which is true), (2) give everyone the bonus they deserve, (3) remove amazing feelings of hostility that exist at this time, and (4) avoid a possible general strike on hubdub, (5) diffuse an explosive situation, (6) allow everyone to cool off and relegate this question to the hubdub lexicon (along with Spitzer, Satyaki, etc).

The idea of a double-settlement was mentioned before as an alternative to voiding a question. I agree with buckeyetom's settlement proposal and suggest that this is a FIRST CHOICE (not an alternative choice).

Sorry buckeyetom... I just couldn't resist that one :-D I'm not involved in this market so I'll move along now and let y'all figure this one out. Good luck and have a nice day :-)

One of the great Mae West oneliners:

On spotting Mae West sporting an enormous diamond ring, her friend exclaimed "GOODNESS"! -- To which Mae West replied, "goodness had nothing to do with it".

The settlement on this question reads: "We hope this outcome makes everyone happy, and we appreciate the your patience while we sorted this one out. That is, the patience of those who practiced it. ;-)"

To which I reply: "The patience of those who practiced it had NOTHING to do with the outcome of this question".

I think it's one of the top ten asinine settlements that I've witnessed.

@randburg said: "The patience of those who practiced it had NOTHING to do with the outcome of this question"

I never said it did; I was simply thanking those who'd displayed the much-appreciated patience.

@Erik: Thank you for saying that; anytime a conservative calls an action of mine asinine, I know I'm on the right track. :-)

Glad I can help you down the straight and narrow, sql.

lmao @ you two. Thanks for that!

@sqlman Since I have noticed from your commentary you inclined to settle this market as "Yes", yet you double settle it (Thanks!) I felt obliged to follow up information on this to strenghten the case for the settle as "No".
So here is the report of the transfer of three joint security stations within the city of Mosul, from US to Iraq forces, on July 26th, past the June 30th deadline.
http://www.blackanthem.com/News/Military_News_1/U-S-forces-transfer-3-joint-security-stations-in-Mosul20548.shtml
Out of 10 initial joint security stations in Mosul, 3 still remain in the city.

Thanks for the update. But please read the entire settlement statement for a full understanding of the logic behind the double settlement.

You've been around Hubdub ling enough to know three truths: 1) someone is going to make money on every question; 2) someone is going to lose money on every question; 3) there's absolutely no way on earth to make everyone happy with every settlement. All three truths came into being here. ;-)

More from the glorious "brilliant and successful operation that has kept us all safer", the US "doing it's level best to bring law and order to the region."

Iraq bomb attacks kill 47

Two truck bombs targeting a tiny sect in a village in northern Iraq and a spate of bloody bombings in Baghdad killed at least 47 people on Monday and wounded more than 250, officials said.

In the deadliest single attack, two booby-trapped lorries exploded before dawn in the village of Khaznah, east of the restive northern Iraqi city of Mosul, leaving 28 people dead and 155 wounded.

The massive blasts levelled 35 houses and gouged deep craters into the ground of the prosperous village of 3,000, home to members of the small Shabak community, a sect of Kurdish origin.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hAP8YlEWfFi_h4VFSwSywZZJVYZQ

God bless America, and protect her servicemen!