EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
General Ray Odierno: We May Miss Iraq Deadline to Halt al-Qaeda Terror
BAGHDAD - the activities of al-Qaeda in two of Iraq's most troubled cities could keep US combat troops engaged beyond the June 30 deadline for their withdrawal, the top US commander in the country has warned.
General Ray Odierno(Lewis Whyld/PA)
US troop numbers in Mosul and Baqubah, in the north of the country, could rise rather than fall over the next year if necessary, General Ray Odierno told The Times in his first interview with a British newspaper since taking over from General David Petraeus in September.
He said that a joint assessment would be conducted with the Iraqi authorities in the coming weeks before a decision is made.
Combat troops are due to leave all Iraqi cities by the end of June. Any delay would be a potential setback for President Obama, who has pledged to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 as he switches his focus to Afghanistan.
The ultimate decision on keeping or withdrawing troops would be taken by Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, handing him a big dilemma, given the desire by most Iraqis for the US military to leave the country.
Tens of thousands of supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr, the antiAmerican Shia cleric, marched through Baghdad yesterday, the sixth anniversary of the fall of the capital, to demand the withdrawal of US forces.
General Odierno, 54, said that he was also concerned about the risk of renewed conflict between Arabs and Kurds in northern Iraq, where tensions are rising over the ownership of territory. He also cited the "very dangerous" threat posed by Iranian-funded militants, who appear to be styling themselves on Lebanon's Hezbollah.
General Odierno, a bald, imposing 6ft 5in, was speaking as he sat outside the back of the Saddam-era mansion that he calls home, next to a man-made lake on a military base in Baghdad. Touching on a range of issues, he said that he was not worried by a recent spate of deadly bombings against Shia targets blamed on al-Qaeda. He said they were designed to coincide with key dates such as the anniversary of Baghdad's fall and rejected the idea that they signalled a fresh round of sectarian war.
The general has long experience of Iraq: he arrived in April 2003, after the invasion, and led the US division that was ultimately responsible for capturing Saddam Hussein; he was No 2 to General Petraeus in 2007; and is now on his third tour in charge of the American withdrawal.
Under an agreement between Washington and Baghdad, all 140,000 US troops must be out by the end of 2011.
Despite the rise in the number of attacks, overall violence is still far below levels of two years ago when the surge of an extra 30,000 US forces - a strategy created and implemented by General Odierno and his boss, General Petraeus - was just getting started. That risk paid off, subduing a civil war that was killing thousands of Iraqi civilians and scores of American soldiers every month.
General Odierno said that his darkest days in Iraq were when he was in charge of day-to-day combat operations in 2007. During that 15-month tour he signed hundreds of letters of condolence to the parents of service-men and women from the US, Britain and other coalition countries. "I always felt [the surge] would [succeed] but those were the times when you were wondering whether this will work or not," he said.
The war touched him more than most commanders. "The toughest day was the day I got called that my son was injured over here," he said. Tony Odierno, then an army lieutenant, lost an arm in a rocket attack in 2004.
The US commander was confident that the overall timetable for the US pullout would be met. But he added that US combat troops might have to stay beyond June 30 in Mosul and Baqubah, where al-Qaeda retains an active presence. "The two areas I am concerned with are Mosul and then Baqubah and [other] parts of Diyala province," he said. "We will conduct assessments and provide our assessments when the time is right."
He added that over the next 12 months "we won't see a large reduction in any forces in Mosul or Diyala. In fact we might see reinforcements in those areas if we continue to have issues". Another flashpoint is the ethnically divided city of Kirkuk, on the border of Iraqi Kurdistan, where Arabs and Kurds are at loggerheads. Provincial elections were delayed there because of a disagreement over ownership of the city, a row that also covers towns and villages scattered along the border.
The general agreed that there was a risk of conflict in those areas. "We can't allow politics, we can't allow pride, we can't allow ego to cause violence to occur when you can solve a problem with dialogue."
He said that he was also keeping an eye on Iranian-backed Shia militants who are fewer in number compared with two years ago but restructuring into groups with a political and military wing, similar to Hezbollah.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
18 Comments so far
Show AllI've been saying for such a boringly long time that the only thing that matters in American strategic thought is the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Wherever al-Qaeda is found or invented or imagined, the military will be there to attempt to fulfill their mission of 'preventing future terrorism', which anyone with a working brain can figure out is impossible.
The military calls it the "Long War" but I think they mean "We Long for War".
The business of America is war business; no wars, no business. What is good for the war business is good for America. The latest proof: In these tough economic times, we never hear about cutting the Pentagons budget even though it could be cut 50% without jeopardizing our security, in fact it would probably help it. That is why there will always be a booga man to keep the sheeple afraid and ignorant; no bad guys, no business. Too bad O Bomb A is just another slick Willy.
"I will listen to the Generals on the ground".2 CinC's,2 parties;same war-extended to Afganistan and this is no different than Iraq and off we go into the future until?Tony
Hey, America!
Your days are numbered. You possess more than 60% of your geographic territory through illegal means.
With a very few exceptions you have never "won" any of the wars you have gone to great lengths to illegally start.
You continually elect criminals to high office, and place other criminals like General Odierno in charge (yes, if he engages in an illegal war of aggression as he does this moment, then he is a "criminal"---it really is that simple), and spend money that you must borrow from someone you called an "enemy" just 40 years ago.
Your economy is in a shambles. and you have brought the rest of the world along with your failure----because many of them are just as criminal as you are---because you allowed just a "few" to control all of your money/assets/wealth (which you stole from the tribal people trough "treaties")---and now---
This high ranking international class criminal "General"---has the attention through the "press"----in an attempt to promote his criminal endeavor.
You don't learn from your mistakes; you repeat them regularly; you lie to yourselves and the world, while you spread death and destruction on a scale never known before---with money that does not exist----
Your days are numbered-------
You will most likely be remembered for what you should be remembered----
a Horrible Negative Example for the future.
You will not be missed.
I initially scoffed at the claims that the surge was working, but casualties have indeed dropped for coalition troops and for Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence.
Recommended reading: Thomas A. Ricks' "The Gamble" which follows his earlier "Fiasco".
Quoting David Kilcullen, an Australian army reservist and top adviser to Gen. David H. Petraeus during the troop surge in Iraq, "Just because you invade a country stupidly doesn't mean you have to leave it stupidly."
Petraeus,what a name to inspire confidence!Deaths are down for americans and coalition troops;but the Iraqi's are killing each other and living in enclaves because heaven forbid that a Sunni should meet a Shia or be a neighbor which is the way they were before we went there and that may have been done stupidly but with malice afore thought.Sometimes you might excuse stupidity but not with the loss to the Iraqi's of blood and everything else and for what and why?GREED!!!Tony
Maybe Gen. Ray and Gen. Davy would like to leave their safe and luxurious compounds and have lunch with the troops in the messhalls at Mosul? They say that the food's OK; but, the security for the troops really sucks.
Crooked politicians + ballsless general officers + avaricious contractors + mindless oil companies = disaster. Bring our kids home, nothing in all of Iraq is worth one single American life.
It is prejudice to think Iraqis can't solve their own problems.
This piece is blatantly misleading. General Odierno is not the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. The correct statement is: "President Obama has ordered that the activities of al-Qaeda in two of Iraq's most troubled cities could keep US combat troops engaged beyond the June 30 deadline for their withdrawal. General Odierno is only his spokesperson."
If Odierno has spoken without Presidential approval he must be cashiered for insubordination.
Of course President Obama insists that North Korea and Iran are obliged to honor their commitments.
I forgot to mention that it is too late to change the June 30 deadline according to the provisions of SOFA. Any change needs a one year lead-time and ratification in a referendum by the people of Iraq. If our troops remain in the cities the whole Middle East will learn once again that we are totally untrustworthy liars.
Brace yourselves for false-flag operations involving "suicide bombers".
--Amir
When Bush lied to invade Iraq ,out of Greed for Oil,and revenge, so we became the Terrorist, and stirred up others. because it has been proven, Saddam was not a threat, only in the mind of Bush. We destroyed an Historic Country, killed millions, and hate them because, they dared to fight back. Our troops should feel hatred to the ones who lied, and put them in the position they are in. Apparently, Obama is picking up where Bush left off, and Israel is helping. How many more will die because, we are invading their territory, for the want of power, and oil.
No surprise there. Missing the deadline was the intent right from day one.
General Ray should be brought before the firing squad for murdering children and pregnant women! These military pigs that run rampant with machine guns make me want to throw up in their faces! The only terrorists are the Americans who invade the Holy Islam lands of the Muslims that occupy them. May every foreign invading soldier meet his maker in war against these good people!
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
A close reading of the chronology in Iraq since Obama took office shows that Nouri al Maliki and his Shiia dominated security forces by late January of this year started provoking various elements of the Sunni Awakening Councils with arrests of two leaders, attacks, non-payment of salary to the very few Sunnis allowed to even train to work for the Iraqi security forces, etc. The nature of these provocations seems deliberate to me. They give Obama cover both to increase Pentagon spending and to retain more combat brigades longer inside Iraq because of his recent order to rename several combat brigades as "advisors"--letting them keep their war-making capability while he pretends for the U.S. sheeple to pull out combat brigades. This only delays an inevitable civil war between the Sunni and Shiia left to their own devices: A war whose inevitability was sealed the day the U.S. deposed Saddam and ripped the lid off the regional balance between Sunni and Shiia that will take 50 years to sort itself out (longer with our continued interference).
The responses to Maliki's provocations from various Al Quaeda-linked Sunni Awakening forces has been predictable: More bombings targeting Shiia. The U.S. pays the bribes to these Sunni tribal chieftains in the Awakening Councils and I'm sure the U.S. exerts some influence over the payment (or non-payment) of salaries to the Shiia dominated Iraqi security forces.
The "surge" was always a sham delaying tactic while the neo-cons and neo-libs waited to see if the bribes would calm the situation down and the Iraqi government would live up to promises to integrate the Sunni minority into the security forces and other aspects of government and the economy. That ain't going to happen. Too many old scores to settle between Shiia and Sunnis. Our "leaders'" eyes were and still are blinded by the vast Iraqi oil reserves. No doubt behind closed doors they feel that the U.S. has come too close to controlling all that oil to "give" it all away to who the hell knows would control it after a major civil war of unknown duration that would prevent access to the oil for who knows how long. Curse those Iraqis for having our oil under their sands. The price of doing bizness Amurkan style.
The grotesque nature of the Iraq/Afghanistan policy sham is revealed most starkly by the utter wantonness of U.S. politicians and corporate news media (and, frankly, the programmed moral blankness of the Amurkan sheeple) regarding any responsible rebuilding plan: The continued reliance on hated mercenary firms like Blackwater (renamed Xe) and Triple Canopy; the corruption-saturated contractor nightmares (KBR showers that still electrocute our own troops, shoddy buildings, failed construction of hospitals, etc., etc.).
What a tool Obama has turned out to be. I knew he was a DLC Dim but I thought that the Dems as a Party just might still be able to figure out that they were getting the best majority they'd had in over 35 years and that they might want to actually DO something with it. Instead they are pissing it all away. The Black Caucus is silent on the great issues of the day when they have a Negro in the effing White House and they still do not pull together to work with the Progressive Caucus. Rahm Emmanuel's enforcers have been more dubiously effective whipping left-of-DLC policy groups like MoveOn and Center for American Progress into remaining silent on Obama's pro-Bush, anti-Constitution, budget busting militarism. We need a progressive Third Party now more than ever.
The only reason why President Obama and the Pentagon want/must continue the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is fear of failing (FOF)meaning that these countries return to the states they were in before President Bush invaded them. Remember that President Nixon was saddled with "defeat in Vietnam" even though the war there started under Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson. If Iraq/Afghanistan go sour the sitting President at the time will be blamed. Mr. Obama is dead set to avoid the label of having "lost Iraq/Afghanistan".
With regards to Iraq the rules for withdrawal of US troops seems to be defined by article 24 of SOFA:
1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31 2011.
2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
I had completely overlooked the word "combat". According to the SOFA agreement Obama can keep non-combat soldiers in Iraq's cities after the deadline. Simple, you redefine what "combat" means.
Even #1 may not be as firm as it seems because article 27 appears to allow the continuation of US occupation in the case of "threats to the sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, air space, its democratic system, or its elected institutions" in which case the Iraq government can ask the US President to stay. History has shown that "threats to the sovereignty..." are easily fake-constructed. Such as "Iran threatens to take over Iraq".
Liberals, Progressives and assorted other sheeplets, prepare yourself for the continued occupation of Iraq cities etc. after June 30, 2009 and continued occupation of the country after December 31, 2011. Obama's political future demands it.
"Liberals, Progressives and assorted other sheeplets, prepare yourself for the continued occupation of Iraq cities etc. after June 30, 2009 and continued occupation of the country after December 31, 2011. Obama's political future demands it."
"Liberals, Progressives and assorted other sheeplets"?
You mean like the liberal bleeding-heart Jesus who bravely gave his life to be murdered by conservative plutocrats and their military for successfully helping the poor? Or like the liberal non-violent MLK who bravely gave his life to be murdered by conservatives for successfully helping black people? Or the liberal non-violent Gandhi who bravely put his life on the line and successfully helped his people free themselves from conservative rule?
Or do you mean sheeplets like the conservative chickenhawks in the Bush Administration who fucked up the world, greedy jingoist conservative businessmen, conservative talk radio drug addicts and conservative loudmouthed tv hosts still intent on fucking everything up? Or maybe you mean the right and left wing conservatives who think violence is the answer to everything.
"The ultimate decision on keeping or withdrawing troops would be taken by Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, handing him a big dilemma, given the desire by most Iraqis for the US military to leave the country."
Dilemma ?
What dilemma ?
Is General Ray Odierno going to threaten to assinate al-Maliki if he insists the American military leave by June 30th, as agreed ?
The Iraqi's can easily get Iranian (Shia) help to crush any al-Qaeda (Sunni) dead-enders. Now that the Americans have put the Iraqi Shia firmly in control of Iraq, that's what they prefer.
Well played, W.