Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDrawdown Plan May Leave Combat Brigades in Iraq
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has given military commanders a free hand to determine the size and composition of a residual force in Iraq up to 50,000 troops, apparently including the option of leaving one or more combat brigades or bringing them from the United States, after the August 2010 deadline for the ostensible withdrawal of all combat brigades now in Iraq.
![[U.S. President Barack Obama (L) is followed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (C) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen as they step off Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington , February 27, 2009. (Reuters/Jim Young) ]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/obama_gates.jpg "obama_gates.jpg")
Although the ostensible purpose of the combat brigades remaining in Iraq would be to protect other U.S. troops in the country, they would also provide the kind of combat capability that U.S. commanders have wanted to maintain to deal with a broad range of contingencies.
The fact that the commanders have the option to nullify Obama's pledge to removal all combat brigades raises serious questions about whether he has given up control over his Iraq policy.
Obama declared, in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina that by Aug. 31, 2010, "[O]ur combat mission in Iraq will end". But he confirmed earlier indications from administration officials that the residual force would be from 35,000 to 50,000 troops - far higher than Democratic congressional leaders had previously been led to expect by Obama.
Obama did not refer to the possibility that combat brigades would remain in the country after Aug. 31, 2010, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted as much in a question and answer session with reporters after the speech.
Obama also stated, "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." But Gates, and the top commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, have both indicated on the record that they wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq even after that date, based on the assumption that the Iraqi government will renegotiate the Status of Forces agreement.
NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported just before Obama's speech that discussions had taken place in the Kirkuk area between some U.S. military commanders and Iraqis "to establish what could end up as a permanent air base, U.S. air base, in Kirkuk."
Obama's claim that the U.S. combat mission will end in August 2010 raises the question whether he will call a halt to combat patrols by U.S. personnel embedded with Iraqi units. The sweeping concession made to CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus and Iraq commander Gen. Odierno on the residual force suggests that he will not demand the end of such operations by U.S. troops.
The freedom granted to Odierno and Petraeus on the residual force overshadows his concession to the generals and Gates in accepting the recommendation for 19-month timetable for withdrawing combat brigades.
Obama had appeared to be leaning toward the 16-month withdrawal of combat brigades he had pledged during the campaign as recently as a Jan. 21 White House meeting with Gates and Petraeus.
Obama provided no further details on the residual force. According to the Washington Post report published Friday, two unnamed "senior officials" - one of whom was presumably Secretary Gates - told Congressional leaders Thursday that Obama would let commanders decide not only the exact schedule of withdrawal of combat brigades but the size of the residual force.
In a teleconference with reporters Friday afternoon, Gates appeared to confirm indirectly that he and field commanders have discussed either keeping combat brigades in Iraq but calling them "non-combat" forces or actually sending new combat brigades to Iraq from the United States during the drawdown of the brigades now in Iraq.
A reporter asked Gates, "You have said they're not going to be combat brigades, but are you going to take combat brigades that are in the United States and sort of rename them, redesignate them, or are you going to create new units for this specific mission?"
Gates first sidestepped the question entirely. "[W]ith respect to the 35,000 to 50,000," he said, "I think that that's a question probably better directed at General Odierno." But he then added, "[I]n terms of whether those are new units or whether they are re-missioned units that are already there, I think remains to be seen."
CBS News Pentagon correspondent David Martin, reflecting the leaks from Pentagon officials, reported Feb. 24 that the residual force would be organized in "training and assistance brigades" that would be capable of conducting combat operations and calling air strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft. In a comment to CBS News Political Hotsheet, Martin said the units would be "fully combat capable", suggesting that they would be drawn from combat brigades.
Some leading Senate and House Democrats were clearly taken by surprise by the size of the residual force to which Obama had agreed. On the Rachel Maddow Show Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Armed Services Committee, both indicated that the figure was higher than they had expected. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, said, "I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can."
Defeated Republican presidential candidate John McCain, on the other hand, sounded like a loyal supporter of Obama's decision, saying it is "reasonable" and that he is "cautiously optimistic that the plan that is laid out by the president can lead to success."
Obama even took a step toward committing himself to reversing the whole withdrawal policy if violence in Iraq resumes anytime before the end of 2011. Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama had assured him that he would "revisit" the withdrawal plan "if the situation on the ground deteriorates and violence increases."
The decision on Iraq policy announced by Obama Friday ended a four-month period of maneuvering by Gates, Odierno and CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus aimed at getting Obama to change his Iraq policy.
Gates and the two generals had wanted to keep a large residual force, including combat brigades, in Iraq not only through 2011 but for at least another four years beyond that. They had presented a 23-month draw-down plan to Obama at the Jan. 21 White House meeting as an alternative to his 16-month drawdown plan.
Later, they settled on 19 months as an acceptable compromise. It is now clear, however, that the primary objective of the trio was to get Obama to approve complete control by the commanders over the residual force up to 50,000.
The Washington Post reported that the senior administration officials who briefed Congressional leaders Thursday said that Obama's "senior civilian and military advisers" - meaning Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen - had recommended both the 19-month drawdown plan and the size of the residual force.
The Post reported the "senior officials" as suggesting that the reason for both recommendations was to avoid "jeopardizing Iraq's still-fragile security". However, a source who was close to Obama during the campaign and maintains ties to his advisers said Obama's acceptance of the 19-month plan was to "defuse the conflict with the Pentagon".
Not mentioned in either Obama's speech or briefings by Gates is the question of whether U.S. pilots and planes will be part of the residual force after August 2010. The silence on that matter suggests that U.S. airpower will continue to participate in combat, despite the supposed end of the U.S. combat mission.
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
20 Comments so far
Show AllI would bet that all the money spent on dominating Iraq could have converted the USA to near oil independence.
So all that money has benefited who?
The House Negro talks out of both sides of his mouth. His credibility will last until the end of this year. Then he will start to morph into a G.W. Bush character.
Stay focused: the war was a criminal act; therefore, the occupation is an extended war crime. Mr. Obama is directing this continuation of the war crime, against his campaign promises and domestic and international law.
This indicates that Mr. Obama is a war criminal, too. The facts are what they are.
We have to realize that it is difficult to go cold turkey when it comes to killing.
Obama may have a lot of admirable qualities, but we must remember he is a politician who is capable of comprising, backtracking, or reversing nearly any position for expediency...
We must hold his feet to fire and force him or Congress to remove all troops, combat or non, along w/ a decleration to hold no permanant bases.
This was the plan all along. We did not spend trillions of dollars and build permanent bases and a huge embassy just to leave. We are big oils security force, and we will protect the oil. Not to mention that we want Irans oil too, and Iraq is a good place to be in order to get it. If the Iraq government makes any noise, we know how to do regime change and create a crisis that will allow us to justify staying. Same same, no change.
And if Iraq won't renogotiate the SOFA, I'm dead sure we will bomb another mosque to get the pot stirring again so Iraq will have to redo the SOFA!
Thank you minitrue for the history lesson - one that should be spread far and wide.
Read this. All around the world, peoples are rising, individually and as nations and tribes against the new equivalent of Georgian England's Empire. If you read this to them, they would answer, "That is why we fight and die!"
I must abridge this, 1,000 word limit, you know, but please read the original in its entirity at http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
-------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — ..., — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, .... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — ... The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
---
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
...
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
...
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
...
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
-------------------------------------------------------
Many nations begin as the above, and end as the Empire or regime they once fought against. Doing unto others as was once done to them.
It's another myth. We are still a British Colony, acting on behalf of the British Empire. At least according to this (have not quite made up my mind though, it's a bit much for even me to swallow)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm
"In the first article of the Treaty (of Paris in 1783) most of the kings claims to
America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture (under the Virginia Charter). Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts.......
If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to
America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? ...... Did
McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations........
When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than
two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."
All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. ......
A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.
Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to
his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend." ......
The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions.....
Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty of 1794.
In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England.
In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe.
In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade.
In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports.
Who won the Revolutionary War?
That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain.
Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government.
The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815."
Food for thought anyways. Ever notice how Americans since WW II have been knighted by the Queen? Bush Sr, Sir Bubbles Greenspan, etc. And our current President is technically a British citizen under British law since his father was a British citizen (father born in a British colony-Kenya).
Mr. Obama said: "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."
Intentions are not commitments!
Don't be fooled again, Gates is already assuming that the Iraq Government, under pressure from us, will renegotiate SOFA such that combat troops can remain in Iraq even after January 1, 2012.
The boiling phase of the murderous, imperialist war in Iraq is over. Obama is doing his best to ride the timing of that fact, and please his capitalist masters while appeasing a somewhat inflamed public. He is s-l-o-w-l-y removing 2/3 of the current mercenaries and indentured soldiers, to be deployed elsewhere, but not even suggesting a prospect of ever actually getting out of Iraq or Afghanistan. This sociopath has actually increased the Pentagon budget; this atop years of unfathomable bloating! If any of the goodhearted within the CD crowd still believe in this Democrat, please take a cold shower. If he survives the far-right crazies, its a safe bet that this man will "lead" us into nuclear armeggedon.
All you Obama voters that thought he was going to end the war in Iraq, have been conned again!
Who did he con? He didn't con me. He is doing exactly what I expected him to do.
Dante
It seems to be hard for some people to accept that he said Combat troops out by 8-31-10 and all troops out by 2011.
It seems that its hard to understand there are no absolutes in the world. I am less than happy about our Presidents performance (or lack of it) so far, but this is exactly what he promised to do.
Yep. I agree.
GObama!
all troops are combat troops. the idea that obama is "withdrawing from iraq" is nonsense.
Sorry, not "all troops are combat troops."
The Iraqis want us out by 2011. That's what we agreed to. They do not want uall of us to leave immediately.
We owe it to the Iraqi people not to just abandon them.
Personally, I think "US out now" as a simple mantra neglects to consider the full range of possible disasters that could ensue. There is still the possibility that Iraq could descend into civil war, or become a regional war. People who have never actually seen a civil war, do not appreciate the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano.
I mean, we are always complaining, and rightly so, about the genocide in Darfur and the inattention to genocides in Rwanda and the Congo earlier. Can we really live with ourselves if we cast Iraqis into such a maelstrom deliberately? An Iraq civil war will likely become a regional war, drawing in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.
If 20% of the world's petroleum production were taken off-line by such sabotage, the poor of the world would be badly hurt, and the whole world would risk another Great Depression.
People on the left often don't like it when I bring this scenario up, because they dislike oil; they read it as a variant of the "war for oil" thesis and reject it. But working people, whom we on the left are supposed to be supporting, get to work on buses, and buses burn gasoline. If the bus ticket doubles or triples, people who make $10,000 a year feel it. Moreover, if there is a depression, the janitors and other workers will be the first to be fired. As for the poor of the global South, this scenario would mean they are stuck in dire poverty for an extra generation. Do you know how expensive everything would be for Jamaicans, who import much of what they use and therefore are sensitive to the price of shipping fuel?
It would be highly irresponsible to walk away from Iraq and let it fall into a genocidal civil war that left the Oil Gulf in flames.
Joehope,
You were never in the military, were you?
In basic training the first thing you learn are your general orders which (to paraphrase) "I will follow my orders to defend..." etc. etc. One is taught that their primary duty is as a combat soldier, no matter what military specialty one goes into.
BTW, Joe the war in Iraq is a war crime from the invasion. No amount of "good will" can change the occupation into a lawful endeavor.
Keep writing Joe. It continues to expose your ignorance and right wing bull shit.
joehope
"Sorry, not "all troops are combat troops."
You are partially correct Joe. All Marines are combat troop however, no matter what else they do, they are fully trained combat infantrymen and assault troops. You do not become a Marine unless you achieve these things.
So in one instance he was right.
"The fact that the commanders have the option to nullify Obama's pledge to removal all combat brigades raises serious questions about whether he has given up control over his Iraq policy."
Commanders follow orders from the Commander in Chief. President Obama has given them a freer hand, but he is the CIC and they will follow his orders regardless.
Saying that commanders have the option to nullify Obama's pledge is not the same as giving them the option to nullify his orders and given up control over his Iraq policy, which is what Gareth Porter is implying. Why?
Good question. Situations change, but the President has the final word.