U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday announced all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year, making good one of his main campaign promises. But the decision also renewed speculation as to whether the Middle East country's central government and the fledgling security forces will be up to the task of keeping the country safe and together, and Obama's Republican opponents have already begun to paint the decision as a political one.

THE DECISION

The withdrawal decision is in line with a security agreement inked by former president George W. Bush and the Iraqi side, which commits U.S. drawdown to complete by Dec. 31, 2011. But it was widely "understood" that the two sides would enter into a new agreement that would allow some U.S. forces to stay beyond that date.

Kenneth Pollack, director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, argued that Iraqi leaders have become ambivalent, if not "downright hostile," to a residual U.S. military presence as time went by, because the proposed 3,000 troops wouldn't be adequate to perform the tasks the about 40,000 U.S. forces in Iraq are performing until now.

Furthermore, Pollack noted that U.S. military presence has grown increasingly burdensome to Iraqi leaders, as U.S. generals challenge Iraqis' interpretation of events, take actions unilaterally, and hinder their consolidation of power. All could explain their reluctance to grant U.S. soldiers immunity next year, a deal breaker that is said to have prompted Obama's decision.

Denis McDonough, Obama's deputy national security advisor, told reporters at the White House that the two sides did talk about the immunity issue, but the decision to withdrawal was not based on it. He said the decision is reflective of both sides' views of "the kind of relationship both nations want to have."

GOP CONDEMNATION

Obama's likely Republican opponents are quick to condemn the decision as a political one.

Mitt Romney, a front-runner of GOP presidential candidates, asked "the unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government." The former Massachusetts governor said the U.S. public should hear from military commanders on their recommendations for Iraq.

Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann, another GOP candidate, said Obama' s decision is "a political decision" and "not a military one," decrying the "ejection" of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Their argument has some merits, as the decision to complete withdrawal caters to the Democratic base, which is tired of the war, and needs to be fired up for next year's election.

"Today's announcement marks the end of a war that should never have happened," said Justin Ruben, executive director of Moveon. org, a liberal political action group which has raised millions of dollars for moderate or progressive political candidates.

IS OBAMA LEAVING A DOOR OPEN?

In his remarks, Obama said future relationship between the two countries will be "one normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect."

But he also appeared to be leaving open a door to further negotiations on military trainers by saying the two sides "will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces."

According to Pollack, the U.S. military presence in Iraq did provide stability and a shot at a pluralistic, prosperous future for Iraq, and without them, old strifes may resurface.

McDonough said that although the U.S. military is pulling out, there will be an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 U.S. security contractors in various form of security in Iraq. Some have already argued the contractors could play a bigger role if the U.S. military pulls out.