Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDismay at Obama Plan to Leave 50,000 US Troops in Iraq after 2010
WASHINGTON - Democratic Congressional leaders have expressed dismay that President Barack Obama is planning to leave as many as 50,000 US troops in Iraq even after the long-awaited withdrawal of combat troops next year.
![[US troops conduct a foot patrol along the Tigris river south of Baghdad, Iraq. Photograph: David Furst/AFP/Getty images]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/iraq-2.jpg "iraq-2.jpg")
Obama, on a visit to a military base in North Carolina today, will announce plans to make good on his campaign pledge to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq. There are about 145,000 US troops in Iraq and Obama is expected to say that most of the combat troops will be withdrawn by August next year.
The president called Congressional leaders to the White House yesterday to inform them in advance of his plan.
But the Congress members, most of whom were opposed to the war, expressed regret afterwards that so many, between 35,000 and 50,000, are to be left behind.
According to one congressional official, lawmakers were told that General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, and General Ray Odierno, the top commander in Baghdad, believed the plan presented moderate risk but supported the 50,000 figure.
When Obama was on the campaign trail, his promise to withdraw US troops was widely understood to mean all US troops, even though his advisers said a large force would be left behind to help with training, as back-up support for the Iraqi government and to prevent a return of al-Qaida-linked forces.
Before meeting Obama, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said he would convey his concern, saying that "talk about 50,000 - that's a little higher number than I anticipated".
John McHugh, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said Obama promised him to reconsider the new strategy if violence rises. McHugh said he was worried the situation in Iraq remained fragile, especially as it approaches elections in December.
"Our commanders must have the flexibility they need in order to respond to these challenges, and President Obama assured me that there is a 'Plan B,'" he said in a statement.
Some Democrats are sceptical but because they say it would leave too many troops behind.
"I have been one for a long time that's called for significant cutbacks in Iraq, and I am happy to listen to the secretary of defence and the president," senate majority leader, Harry Reid, told reporters before the briefing. "But when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated."
In a separate development, the US military will allow news media to cover the return of the bodies of service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a reversal of George Bush's policy of bringing the flag-draped coffins back into the country in secret.
The Pentagon has long acknowledged the toll on public support for war that images of the coffins could take. The Vietnam war was heavily televised, and media images of casualties helped turn the country against the conflict.
In 1999, a top American general said that US military conflicts must pass the "Dover test" of public reaction to casualties, named after Dover air force base in Delaware, where casualties arrive.
In 2003, with the US public already deeply divided on the war on Iraq, the Bush administration began enforcing the ban worldwide, with military officials even prohibiting photographs of body bags at bases in Iraq.
Bush administration officials said the ban protected families' privacy. Critics said it was a heavy-handed way of keeping the public in the dark about the human toll. In Britain, photographers are permitted to cover the return of fallen soldiers.
The ban dates back to the 1991 Gulf war but was overlooked during the Clinton administration.
39 Comments so far
Show AllThe war has been a war crime sense the first invasion of Iraq; yet, no one has been arrested for war crimes. No trials are planned, indeed, only rumors of obtuse investigations of the war.
The NAZI minded administration of George W. Bush has been given freedom from its criminal behavior. The moral authority of the USA is defunct.
Mr. Obama continues to be a shill of the plutocracy and crime families who control this nation.
The inaction of this countries legal system makes me ill. This administration has camps already to accept the American citizen.
Remember, there are two ways to remove combat troops from a country.
1. Bring them home.
2. Reclassify them from combat troops to advisers, or "peace keepers" or some other name. Would you rather be blown up as a "combat troop," or as a technical adviser? Would you rather kick in a door and shoot the guy trying to defend his family as an adviser or a combat troop?
I say, choose door one above, and quit the double-talk. We've had enough of that for years.
Forgotten Wars, Forgotten Warriors
Korea, they say, was not a war.
It was a “Police Action.”
Which would you rather die as?
A “policeman,” or a soldier?
Or would you perhaps rather live?
At least Korea had a reason,
Flawed, of course, but a reason.
Most of the world pitched in to fight
On one side or the other.
How many died before it finally burned out?
Vietnam was an accident, turned into a war.
A people who fought for their independence.
A millennium against the Chinese,
A century against the French.
Thousands died, were tortured, jailed.
Overrun by Japan, they fought for freedom.
At war’s end, they were given back to France,
So again they had to fight;
At Dien Bien Phu, they won.
The time of rejoicing was short.
Like Korea, the country was divided up.
The Western Nations made the decision.
South Vietnam to be “ours”
North Vietnam to be “theirs.”
No one asked the People of their desires.
Once more the Vietnamese had to fight
To expel the foreign occupiers,
Remove their puppet governments,
Reaffirm their independence.
Does hubris come with power, or vice versa?
Advisors were sent in
To help build the ARVN army.
Then to fight with the ARVN;
Finally to die with the ARVN.
Would you rather be No. 1, or No. 58,178?
Rulers were changed as the war went on.
The key is, the war went on.
The Phoenix burned on its pyre
Hatching new warriors for the cause.
For every village that dies, avengers arise.
A new Pearl Harbor was needed,
To fully unleash the dogs of war.
Tonkin Gulf was the catalyst,
A Black Op by the USA.
B-52's can destroy property, but not ideas.
We carpet bombed the north,
Poisoned the land with Orange and Purple.
Our troops were collateral damage,
Not to be recognized for years.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
As the years rolled on,
We found it impossible to tell
Friend from foe, in a country that
Simply wanted us out!
Strange that all peoples resist occupation.
Finally, the last helicopters left Embassy Row.
Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City.
And we had learned a hard lesson,
Now engraved upon a wall.
Only vets learn the real lesson of war.
Thirty years later,
Another “Pearl Harbor,”
Another pair of wars,
The foundation poured for yet another Wall.
They who dodged ‘Nam start a new war.
Read the above poem again
Make the place names Afghan, Iraqi.
Substitute DU for Agent Orange.
Government denial is still there.
We don’t count their dead, or show ours.
Now, in the Pentagon, the plans are made
At Bush/Cheney’s desperate urging.
We, or Israel (with our backing)
Are next to nuke Iran!
And thus unleash the final holocaust.
Russia, China, and others, no doubt,
Will retaliate with nukes of their own.
In time, not long, there will be few left
To count our dead, or remember.
The Nuclear Dragon will have eaten us all.
How long will it be before We the People
Break the wheel of death?
How many more thousands, or millions, to die
To be maimed, poisoned?
What happened to our Constitution?
Once upon a time we defended!
We fought for freedom, democracy,
Not oil and Empire...once upon a time.
We don’t need Roman Legions.
Let us remember our dead, not create more.
Stephen M. Osborn
19 December 2006
Get used to this people. Until you realize we have a thinly disguised ONE-PARTY SYSTEM, this is the best you're EVER gonna get.
Sorry for the second post.
Isn't this illegal under the "Status of Forces Agreement" that was recently negotiated with the Iraq Government?
I thought the SOFA required that ALL US military leave the country by Dec 31 2011, "subject to possible further negotiations".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
It seems to me that O'Bomber has pre-empted these "further negotiations", something that the Iraqi Parliament will not accept graciously.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
NYTimes today: " Mr. Obama promised that all of them will leave as well by December 2011 in accordance with a security agreement with Iraq negotiated by President George W. Bush before he left office last month.
At the same time, Mr. Obama vowed to continue the American commitment to building a new Iraqi society and to resettling millions of displaced Iraqis still away from home — elsewhere in their own nation or in neighboring countries. And he promised to escalate diplomatic involvement in the broader region, including new lines of communication with Iran and Syria."
Thanks madcow. This is a CRITICAL piece of information (deliberately?) omitted from this article. Viewed in this context, then the US IS pulling out.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
To think I almost voted for this guy. Unless there is some serious about face soon, I think that Obama's rhetoric about change was just that. There can be no real change unless we change the way we think about "war." More troops in Afghanistan? Oh wow, that's really the peace every activist who voted for you was looking for. Everyone is getting suckered. Unenroll in the democratic party and get serious about a third party like the greens. That is the only way to really CHANGE anything.
He's doing exactly what he said he'd do in the campaign. So tell me again how "everyone is getting suckered".
Obama is just Bush in blackface.
The ordinary political process here in the United States is more immune to change than the Catholic Church.
Change in this place means change of cell phone and computer every two or three years. That's about as far as it will go.
I suppose change will only come to these shores through pain, massive pain, shcck-and-awe pain, such as complete ecomomic and financial collapse, droughts, floods, dried-up aquafers, forest fires, rise of sea level and ensuing massive innundations, food shortages, diseases, etc.
I could cry me a river ...
No amount of Orwellian doublespeak will change the fact that these 50,000 troops are just as much "combat" troops as the ones who are leaving. They are there to protect the corporate interests that drove the US into Iraq in the first place, they carry guns, and they are trained to kill. Combat troops. Professional murderers.
Chalk up one more on the list of over 700 US military bases in 60 countries. I am reminded of that scene at the end of Star Wars Episode II, where (future Emperor) Palpatine and the senators look down upon the new clone army they have just commissioned.
No doubt about that, indeed, Seventhson.
As a reminder, Al Qaeda was never IN Iraq before we invaded, killed about 1.3 million Iraqis (mostly civilians), drove another 4 or 5 million in exile, many of them never to return, essentially destroyed the country so we can eventually cash in on its oil deposits which of course are rightfully ours, as Cheney and Co. knew from the beginning, and now we must stay there "to prevent a return of al-Qaida-linked forces." The very al-Qaida forces that would have never been there had Bush and Cheney not invaded the country, illegally, criminally, insanely.
But now it's our sacred duty to stay there indefinitely, in whatever force numbers seem appropriate (the 50,000 number will be radically different by August 2010, depend on it, or the date will stretch a few years further into the future), so we can continue the charade forever that this war crime has ANY justification whatsoever, beyond saving Bush from war crimes trials and the punishment he richly deserves but will never face.
In fact, the whole goddamn thing has never been about much else. The entire world simply must remain in a state of permanent denial that this is an atrocity of unspeakable proportions and should be punished as such. But no, instead we get long-winded analyses from Thomas Ricks and others about how swell it's all going now, under Petreaus and Odierno, or how marvelous it is that now the public can see coffins of the fallen dead, while the iniquitous Bush wouldn't allow it.
See how much more open we are now, under this enlightened administration? We won't be prevented from seeing the coffins as they're shipped back, so now we're an open democracy again! But we'll continue staying there forfuckingever because not doing so would be IRRESPONSIBLE! Yet nary a word can be said about the criminal irresponsibility of ever launching this barbaric attack on a country that had done nothing. That's boring. Nobody can really figure out for sure whether we should have attacked Iraq and occupied it all these years, killing over a million people (yawn) and then ... what's on TV? Who won those Oscars? Isn't that American Idol kid cute! Should we buy a hybrid? I just want to do my part!
Off topic, my apologies. Ephraim, how have you been - well I hope. How are things in Montreal? I post over at CC, under a different screen name though. Take care and we'll see ya around the boards. :)
Different Ephraim up there in Montreal, RMG. I'm roaming around the frozen Midwest, much to my chagrin. But good post of yours at 7:58 this a.m. I agree wholeheartedly.
Also, as others have said here, Obama never pledged to take ALL the troops out of Iraq, but true to form kept his statements extremely vague. Reading between the campaign's rhetorical lines, it was obvious he never intended to really get us out of Iraq, and certainly never intended to fully admit to Iraq and the world what an absolute disaster and catastrophe the Bush doctrine has been, and that Iraq had to pay the heaviest possible price for the US's refusal to acknowledge or do anything about this for 6 hellish years, going on seven, then eight, then nine, then 10, 11, 12 ... ad infinitum. Moral of nightmare story: We aren't EVER leaving Iraq.
This has never quite sunk in with the majority of the American public. Unless we're forced out by enough firepower, however that might eventuate over time, we are there for the duration. Obama fully accepts this. Like 99% of both houses of Congress, he drank the Cheney kool-aid in 2004, that the whole botched, fucked, mangled, lying, murderous, thieving enterprise is nothing short of inevitable, fated by God on High, because George Asshole Bush and Dickface Cheney willed it so. What the Bush Crime Family wills, no mere mortal can contradict or deny, very likely on pain of death.
That's how Paul Wellstone's plane went down, killing his whole family. They knew Wellstone was serious about opposing Bush, unlike any of the rest of them. Bye bye Paul. I'm convinced Obama wouldn't be in office today if the Bush syndicate ever had reason to think he was going to be a problem for them, such as allowing real investigations and prosecutions to go forward. No, they were confident he'd insist instead on Moving Forward into the Never Neverland of mandatory American amnesia, especially where war crimes are concerned. How else can capitalism still be defended? Admit to the crimes Bush is guilty of, and do anything at all about them, and you threaten the very fabric of capitalist rationalization for EVERYTHING it does. Obama's as much a protector of that rationalising code as any of them. He wouldn't be president long if he weren't.
An excellent reminder, Ephraim.
I'm still waiting for "Change" I can believe in. Looks like it'll be 4 more years - or 4 more lifetimes.
Obama campaigned on taking all the troops out of Iraq, not leaving 50,000 of them behind. Now we see what politicians do to get elected. And people thought he meant what he said. Conned again!
Where are the voices of those who voted for him and his promises? Aren't they supposed to object strongly when he does the opposite of what he said he would do? Or is their rage only directed toward the right?
This country will never learn until they start learning something about what is happening to America. It ain't nice.
"Obama campaigned on taking all the troops out of Iraq, not leaving 50,000 of them behind."
That's simply not true. He always said he'd leave a force behind to guard the embassy and ensure AQ doesn't re-emerge. I even remember some on this site saying he'd leave 100,000 behind and Blackwater too.
So what do you have to say now?
AQ will never leave Iraq as long as American targets remain. The only reason they entered Iraq in the first place is to shoot and blow up Americans. Hussein wanted nothing to do with AQ, and they weren't there until U.S. troops invaded.
d.k.shaw
AQ entered Iraq in an attempt to seize control of an important, oil rich country whose new government was fragile. Osama bin Laden even offered the US a 'long term truce' if we let them have Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also, remember we were SUPPOSED to have withdrawn along time ago under the Republican plan, but AQ wanted the US to leave 'under fire' for propaganda points. This is a common propaganda tactic used by terrorists; Hamas tried the same stunt ahead of the Israeli Gaza pullout and the pullout had to be delayed to make the point that Israel was leaving on its own damn time.
Agreed EKATON. Please don't think I support ANY residual force in the Middle East. They hate us because we meddle.
madcow, I didn't think that at all. I only meant to elaborate upon to what you already said. We are in solid agreement.
d.k.shaw
Nobody should be surprised that the imperialist-lite President Obama leaves 50,00 troops behind in Iraq. There will soon be pressures on the Iraq government to revise SOFA, which is allowed by the treaty, to lengthen the stay of substantial troops in Iraq after December 31, 2011 (the treaty provides for a one-year information of the Iraq government before negotiations can begin). The reason for all of this is simple. General Petraeus still fears that his Iraq strategy will ultimately fail and that therefore, by implication, he will be considered by history a badly failed commander. His fear dovetails nicely with Mr. Obama's repeated statement during the campaigns that he will remove only "combat troops", a ridiculous distinction since all of our troops are armed to the teeth.
I have repeatedly argued that most of the non-essential American civilians must leave Iraq before the troops are all out lest we get another "Fallujah" and Mr. Obama will feel obliged to send troops back in, damn SOFA. If and when that should happen Mr. Obama will have lots of blood on his hands for having failed to get these civilians out. He has the power to take them out.
We broke it, we own it? Or since we're already here, we may as well be realists and glom the oil?
"Glom the oil?" I thought we were there to bring democracy to the Iraqis. You mean steal the oil, don't you?
Successful capitalists don't steal. They glom.
"Change you can believe in", eh, Mr. and Mrs. America? Still think there's a difference between the Repubs and the Demos?
Repeat this about 10,000 times a day and you might feel better ... then again, you might not:
"Obama is better than McCain ... Obama is better than McCain ... Obama is better than McCain ..."
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Marian Cole
All U. S. Personnel need to be pulled out of Iraq, that includes those in that massive Embassy that are not absolutely essential, and only leave them if the Iraqi Government has asked for a Diplomatic presence in their Country.
All U. S. Airbases need to be given to the Iraqi people for their use.
All Prisons connected in any way to the U.S. need TO BE CLOSED and any connection with the nightmare that is Abu Garib needs to be cut.
If the U. S. is in Iraq under any pretense they are an occupying force. We have had no right, since the beginning, to be there at all.
AIPAC strikes again.
q
" ... and to prevent a return of al-Qaida-linked forces."
The only reason "al Qaida" entered Iraq was for the opportunity to kill Americans, and we all know this, and so does Obama. Politicians treat us like we're stupid and I'm getting rather sick of it. And there is never any mention of withdrawing the 120,000 or more mercenary "contractors". How long are the "contractors" going to stay, Obama? How long?
d.k.shaw
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
When a man means and does what he says, there is no reason for interpretation of nuances and strategy. Explain the nuances and spin to the families of the next dead American or Iraqi soldier. Of course, we are dealing with politicians....not men or women.
It was never the intention of withdrawing all U.S. forces. Call me crazy but one doesn't build what is by far and away the largest U.S. embassy on the planet in a country of only 27 million people as well as at least 3 extremely large permanent air bases if the intention is to completely withdraw. Who will use these airbases - an Iraqi air force? Not a chance.
For the answers just look at a globe, Iraq is a perfect geo-political location to back up endeavors in the Middle East. Combine this with the fact 66% of the world's conventional oil reserves are located in 5 countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and the UAE) and the non OPEC oil producing nations are in conventional oil production decline and you have your answer. The Democrat leadership still hasn't figured this out - amazing. Contrary to protestations the "oil" does matter.
I agree with what you wrote except for: "The Democrat leadership still hasn't figured this out - amazing." We should never forget that these people are professionals. Except for a few oddballs here and there, particularly Republicans, members of Congress are intelligent and sophisticated operatives. Rather than to stupidity, I generally attribute the preposterous statements and actions to dishonesty meant to conceal hidden purposes and interests.
Five thousand, fifty thousand, five hundred thousand what does it matter? When we use armed intervention we impose our will upon another nation, we install puppet govts as we have always done, govts that represent the wishes of their own people little if at all. Unitl this nation understand fully that force is never the answer we will never truly be free of those who wish to do us harm.
The reasons for Osama bin Laden's antipathy towards us began with his refusal to accept our troops in his country. The reasons that more and more adopt a violent approach to our efforts is precisely because we place armed men and women into their lives. Whether Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or anywhere on earth, invasion is guarranteed to produce opposition, and destabilisation will always follow.
I believe President Obama is smart enough to understand these simple thoughts, perhaps he even has them himself. Can he find the courage to stand against our military industrial insistence upon the continued attempts to impose our will rather than find common and peaceful grounds? Does he really believe the insertion of seventeen thousand soldiers into Afghanistan will produce a good outcome? Will tens of thousands more troops follow? Will we then march into Pakistan as well? I urge you to use a program like google earth to study the terrain in which we hope to find a military victory, or read Rudyard Kipling's descriptions of the British efforts and failures to do exactly what we seek now to do as well....
Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat that past, bringing grievous harm to our economy, our status in the world and too many, many innocent folks.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
"Can he find the courage to stand against our military industrial insistence upon the continued attempts to impose our will rather than find common and peaceful grounds?"
Good question. I believe that Obama just answered it.
q
Obama puzzles me, or rather my hopes for this nation keep me from completely turning him off. He gives such good speech....:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/28/Keeping-Promises/
But having put his priorities on paper and having stood behind them, the President recognizes that there are those who will fight against change every step of the way.
"I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:
"So am I."
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell