Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Out of Iraq in 16 Months: Yes We Can - Yes We Must
Those who supported the Bush invasion and military occupation of Iraq are back at it, warning that President Obama could "imperil" Iraq if he keeps his campaign promise to remove US combat forces within 16 months.
Outgoing Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker told reporters last week that "the greatest error the United States could make in Iraq would be a hurried withdrawal."
Former Iraq coalition spokesman Dan Senor warned a Fox News audience that Obama's promise to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office should be "flexible". Or, as President Bush liked to say, it should be based on "conditions on the ground", not an "arbitrary time-frame set by Washington politicians".
As Yogi Berra would put it: "It's déjà vu all over again!"
Candidate Obama was right to be clear and specific that he will remove all US combat forces from Iraq in 16 months from taking office. President Obama will be just as right when he follows through that commitment as Commander-In-Chief.
The presence of US military forces in Iraq is deeply unpopular with the Iraqi people. One of the biggest barriers to gaining support for the current Status of Forces Agreement from Iraqi officials was the strong public sentiment against allowing US forces to remain after January 1. The election of Barak Obama played an important role in its' ultimate passage precisely because Iraqi officials trusted the president-elect and his commitment to withdraw unwanted US military forces.
I was recently asked by a reporter if it would not be risky for President Obama to stick to his firm time-table for withdrawal of US combat forces. In fact, it would be extremely risky if the president were to choose to back down and NOT to fulfill his commitment.
First of all, it would erode the trust of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders that the United States was committed to fundamentally change its deeply flawed policy and the debacle that policy generated in Iraq. This would bode poorly for the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement when it goes before the Iraqi public in a national referendum in July. The failure of the referendum would send all US troops packing immediately making the transition more abrupt than President Obama's 16 month withdrawal timeline.
The election of President Obama sent a powerfully positive message to the world about the United States at a time when US credibility and respect were at an all-time low. Reversing a fundamental foreign policy pledge within weeks of assuming office could send a dangerous message to the region and the world that the more things change in US leadership, the more they remain the same. It is critical to the US and the success of President Obama's foreign policy for trust and credibility to be restored.
The new Commander-In-Chief is absolutely right to consult with his military commanders on Iraq - just as he pledged he would do as a candidate. But as important as their perspective is, the military frame is only one of many for US Iraq policy. President Obama must consider a wide range of considerations in making his decision, starting with the message that it will send to the citizens and leaders of Iraq, the region and world.
President Obama's pledge to withdraw troops in 16 months was perhaps his most widely known, and supported, pledge during the campaign season. It set him apart during a critical juncture in the presidential primaries. Wavering on this promise so early in his Administration could damage the credibility of his claim that his election represented fundamental change from the politics-as-usual in Washington. The American people would like to believe that it is possible for politicians to mean what they say and say what they mean - both before and after an election.
Despite the sky-is-falling warnings from supporters of the Bush war in Iraq, fulfilling this pledge is highly achievable militarily. A report by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb for the Center for American Progress released in August of last year made this abundantly clear, concluding that an orderly and safe military withdrawal from Iraq could reasonably be achieved in as little as 8 to 10 months. What is required is the political will.
A military withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months? Yes we can and, yes we must!
- Posted in
18 Comments so far
Show AllOf course we can be out in 16 months, should be sooner, especially if troops and equipment are transferred to Afganistan.
And if they are, it would hasten our withdrawal from both countries. Simply look at the logistics involved and the geography.
Out of Iraq in 3 weeks. We might have to leave some stuff behind, but we owe the Iraqi people reparations and an ability to defend themselves against Iran and Saudi Arabia anyway.
Out of every other country but the USA in 1 year. Our soldiers should be in America, protecting American soil. It's just that simple. Anything else is imperialism. But then - Obama styles himself Caesar just like his recent predecessors.
Hell yes, out of Iraq within 16 months. Maybe it would help to have a really big demonstration on the DC mall this springtime if there's any wavering on this time committment.
For a really terrifying take on what appears to be in the works in Afghanistan, the tribal regions, and northern Pakistan however, check out the latest New York Review of Books. If the Review's featured article is even half way correct, the long term blowback from Bush's policies are destined to hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban on a silver platter, and in all likelihood put radical Islamists into effective control of the northwest tribal areas, the Swat Valley, and perhaps all of nuclear-armed Pakistan itself. That entire region has really gone to hell in a hand basket as a direct result of Little George's invasion and occupation of Iraq, the destabilization efforts directed at Iran, and Israel's US-sanctioned bombing campaigns into Lebanon and Gaza.
Time to cut Uncle Sam's losses and call blowback by its own name.
Out of Iraq, and out of Afghanistan as well.
Time to take care of business back here at home, and swear off the neocons' pipe dreams of empire and full spectrum dominance once and for all.
Bill from Saginaw
Unless I misunderstand his post above, Thomas More thinks that in consequence of the US moving its troops out of Iraq --only to simultaneously increase its troops in Afghanistan -- the increased US troops in Afghanistan will consequently be moved out of Afghanistan all the more quickly.
Apologies if I misunderstood, Thomas.
If not, I don't follow your reasoning.
You did understand me correctly.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to increase our troop strength in Afganistan, if so logistically, its far easier and faster to transfer those troops from Iraq which accomplishes two goals. Troops out of Iraq and troops into Afganistan. Same for equipment which can be moved with those troops to Saudi Arabia then left there while the troops continue on.
If Turkey would allow us to transfer troops and equipment over her borders to our air base there it would speed our withdrawal even more.
Secondly, since I'm sure they are going to try the same tactics in Afganistan...a moderated version of the surge, the faster it works or fails, the faster we come home.
Remember the equipment has to be transported mostly by ship, so it has to go to Saudi Arabia and Oman anyway.
Thats my thinking....fire away!
It will be: Out of Bush's war in Iraq (maybe) and into Obama's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan (for certain).
When are we going to see this headline on a lib website like this?
OBAMA AUTHORIZES MASSACRE OF PAKISTAN CIVILIANS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012304189.html
But he's black! He says change a lot!
But we won't. See, we'll just replace them troops with contractors and decorate Afghanistan and Paki with our troops and keep shooting ourselves with more Vietnams and laizzez faire economics because we're LOSERS !
I'd like to point out to the delusionary, Tom Andrews, that there is a significant difference between Obama's "campaign promise to remove US combat forces within 16 months" - as he says in the early part of his article and "A military withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months" - as he states at the end. Not only that, but what about the mercenaries (private contractors) that are numerous throughout the Middle East and Central Asia?
But we shouldn't focus on these thoughts. The bottom line is that the American Empire's troops are not leaving the Middle East. Period.
Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace says U.S. Army Central is establishing a permanent platform for "full spectrum operations" in 27 countries around southwest Asia and the Middle East. "These commands now have a permanent responsibility to this theater. They'll have a permanent presence here. The personnel will change; the commands will remain." And are you unaware of the multi-billion $ embassy?
We now have a new emperor. But Emperor Obama has no plans to withdraw the Empire's troops from the Middle East. His handlers simply would not allow that to happen.
Can we?
Yes!
Yes we can!
GOOO-OOO-OOOBMA!
16 months seems like an awful long time to me. Does it include closure of the bases?
Recall that in 2003 Bush Adm. claimed the whole Iraq operation would last only about 4 months or so.
---USAn---
There you go again....believing George Bush....(lol)
Some excellenet comments on actually getting our troops out. Two actual problems that I have seen in the news. The US agriculture wants all vehicles to be cleaned before they can bring them back to the US. It could easily be done in Kuwait. Tanks are really not that good for Afghanistan so they could be shipped home. One of the weasel provisions in the SOFA is trainers will be left behind. Take them all out, if the sectarian strife re-occurs, all those trainers will become targets. One other story was that we would need 5000 troops for security at the new embassy. As much as they hate us, I would think that they would break relations with us. If Obama is smart he'll have some quick improvements with the Iranians and we can move our equipment by rail across Iran to afghanistan.
Something that is getting NO notice in the corporate press: Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, is pressing for his troops in Iraq to be reassigned to Afghanistan, "where the action is," because the level of violence has gone down in Iraq and the "Marines are getting bored."
Bored.
Whenever I hear some military ass quip the old, tired adage about how military people are the LAST who want war because they know how bad it really is I wanna throw up. Most military people look forward to combat; a chance to unleash all that firepower they've been trained on, and do it for REAL. With combat pay! And medals!
I know of what I speak. I was in Air Force Special Ops in '74 to '76, and nearly three-quarters of the Marines, Green Berets, Army Rangers, and Air Force personnel I came into contact with MISSED S.E. Asia for precisely those reasons: the extra pay, rapid promotion, excitement, and a chance to kill some enemy.
Before everyone goes ballistic on me, let me add that many of these were people who were either career military or had at least re-enlisted. In addition, those that were in support roles (especially those based in Thailand or Guam) were especially rabid. Draftees did their time, hated it, and got out. And there WERE some career people who dreaded the experience. But, for the most part, with our withdrawal from Vietnam accomplished, they too were "bored."
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
"Whenever I hear some military ass quip the old, tired adage about how military people are the LAST who want war because they know how bad it really is I wanna throw up."
Horse shit.
"Before everyone goes ballistic on me, let me add that many of these were people who were either career military or had at least re-enlisted. In addition, those that were in support roles (especially those based in Thailand or Guam) were especially rabid. Draftees did their time, hated it, and got out."
Glad you added that. That three quarters you came into contact with were either just mouthing off and had seen no action or contained some of the pathetic few that are exactly as you describe.
No one that has seen combat, even seen the results of it would be as you describe except the nuts. And yes there were some. But we got rid of them asap because they are dangerous to us.
Hey Thomas. Sorry, but not horse shit, and these were not non-combatants but, as I said, special forces (air commandos, rangers, green berets) and a lot of "non-military cheap-sunglasses-wearing agency-that-will-go-unnamed" types."
And I wasn't the one who said the Marines in Iraq ere getting bored and anxious to "get to Afghanistan and get into the shit." [I'm paraphrasing here and mixing in a little Full Metal Jacket dialog.]
And I disagree that only "nuts" would have seen combat and have not found the terror, the adrenaline-soaked exhiliration, etc. addicting.
I know people - nice people, sane people - who did multiple tours in Vietnam, and they didn't go back because they were worried about the VC invading San Diego or their buddies were still back there. They went because they missed the action. And yes, they agreed war is worse than hell; yes, it sucks to see a friend die. But they would point out that it was similar to the reasons I would ice climb or sky dive: just as I felt intensely alive at moments when I was closest to dying, so it was in combat. I could understand that.
And, once more, these were people who made a career (for the most part) in the military. I never did meet a draftee who served in combat who wanted more of it. Officers, on the other hand, seemed to relish it for all the self-centered (and to my mind, sickening) reasons: promotion, that coveted CIB, "leading men to face death eye-to-eye" bullshit.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
From posts above:
You seem focused on logistical pros and cons of various US exit options, but I can't believe that that is your real concern.
In any case, I was thinking more of: what should be the mid-term US strategic policy in the region, now? -- given that any further US miscalculation could collapse into full chaos a regional house of cards we principally built, and which now includes potential toppling of both Afghan and Pakistan governments by Taliban/like fundamentalists who'd thence be in possession of strategic nuclear weapons?
It's hard to understand how a US 'surge' in Afghanistan could alone succede at doing anything useful unless, of course, a long-term US committment and further hegemoony in the area is the actual US intention. Because even if a US surge in Afghan succeeded in re-scattering the lately resassertive Taliban/Al-Qaeda, the Moslem fundamentalists will merely re-group and gain more adherents across the border in NW Pakistan, only to re-surge back into Afghanistan after the US leaves. Knowing this, the US would not leave. And for much the same reason, neither will the US leave Afghan if any such surge there fails.
Due to the unallowable risk of a nuke-weaponed Pakistan becoming controlled by regional Moslem madmen, there are no immediately sound options in this particular mess --a mess which America's conservative madmen have created and now left for Obama.
Possibilities for a US way out of its own self-created dilemmas: [1]Obama and congress can begin to diffuse the radical Islamic jihad mentality by showing the mass Moslem world that we are capable of respecting --and working to help fairly resolve-- their legitimate issues regarding Israel's hegemony in Palestine; [2] The US must work to build neutral, international peace-keeping forces to help stabilize all such violent conflicts around the world, instead of exploiting them, as it typically does, for its own, narrow political and commercial advantages.
In the end, there are no good solutions to anything whatsoever, if we can't ourselves behave as decently as we expect others to.
There is a very simple way to resolve the Middle East crisis, qua the United States. Pull all troops back to our borders, stop supporting foreign dictators (Mubarak, House of Saud, others) with money and guns, stop bombing people, stop killing civilians.
That is what the Middle East wants from us. There will be no peace anywhere in the world until they get it. Why are you allowed to be safe from the fear of terrorism for as long as American planes kill civilians? What makes you so immune to "your own medicine?" The real reason you think there is some vast Moslem conspiracy against us is because you are ignorant of your country's history in the world.