EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iraq Troop Withdrawal or Occupation-Lite?
President Barack Obama said directly that he would be announcing "a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war." As far as it goes, that sounds good. This is an indication that President Obama is largely keeping to his campaign promises, and that's a hopeful sign, reflecting the power of the anti-war consensus in this country.
If this plan were actually a first step towards the unequivocal goal of a complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, it would be better than good, it would be fabulous. But that would mean this withdrawal would be the first step towards a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops, pulling out of all the 150,000+ U.S.-paid foreign mercenaries and contractors, closing all the U.S. military bases, and ending all U.S. efforts to control Iraqi oil.
So far that is not on Obama's agenda.
The troop withdrawal as planned would leave behind as many as 50,000 U.S. troops. That's an awful lot. Even Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks that may be too much. She told Rachel Maddow, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, at the present...I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000."
Those troops won't include officially designated "combat" troops. But those tens of thousands of troops will still be occupying Iraq. Doing what? Very likely, just what combat troops do - they would walk and talk and bomb and shoot like combat troops, but they'd be called something else. The New York Times spelled it out last December: describing how military planners believe Obama's goal of pulling out combat troops "could be accomplished at least in part by re-labeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis." That would mean a retreat to the lies and deception that characterized this war during Bush years - something President Obama promised to leave behind. It would also mean military resistance in Iraq would continue, leading to more Iraqi and U.S. casualties.
Further, the U.S. agreement with Iraq calls for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011. President Obama's announcement later this week may even reflect something like this goal too. But. The agreement can be changed. Retired General Barry McCaffrey wrote an internal report for the Pentagon after a trip to Iraq last year, saying, "We should assume that the Iraqi government will eventually ask us to stay beyond 2011 with a residual force of trainers, counterterrorist capabilities, logistics, and air power." My estimate? Perhaps a force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops.
And what if the reduction in ground troops is answered with an escalation of U.S. air power? The U.S. appears to be planning to control the skies over Iraq for years to come. That means even more Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military. We need the withdraw all air and naval forces too - something the SOFA agreement mentions, but we have yet to hear anything from the Obama administration. The U.S. has been conducting continuous overflights and regular bombing of Iraq since January 1991 - isn't 18 years of air war enough?
The U.S.-Iraq agreement (which was ratified by the Iraqi parliament but never brought to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as mandated by the Constitution) also requires that a national referendum be held in Iraq during the summer of 2009 to approve or reject the timetable. It is certainly possible that - if the referendum is held at all - a vast majority of Iraqis would call for an even earlier timeline, saying that two-and-a-half more years of occupation is too long. And it seems a real long-shot to imagine that the U.S. - despite the Obama administration's commitment to diplomacy over force - would agree to abide by the popular will of the Iraqi people and pull out the troops immediately.
The military hasn't been transformed with the election of President Obama. He is the commander in chief, but he has made clear his intention to listen to his military advisers (they pushed for the 19-month rather than 16-month withdrawal timeline). The oil companies and powerful contractors whose CEOs and stockholders have made billion dollar killings on Iraq contracts have not been transformed. Obama is president and has promised transparency in the contracting process, but he hasn't promised to bring home all the mercenaries and contractors.
Mercenaries and Contractors
Ending the U.S. occupation means ending all U.S. funding for the giant contractors - Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater - that serve as out-sourced private unaccountable components of the U.S. military. The contractor companies - and the mercenaries they hire - were part of what led to Abu Ghraib. (Blackwater's recent name change to "Xe" should not allow its role in killing Iraqi civilians to be forgotten.) Even as some troops may be withdrawn, we will need to mobilize for congressional hearings, independent investigations, and more on the human rights violations and misuse of taxpayer funds by the war profiteers who run these companies. President Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo prison shows his awareness of severity of the crimes committed there. Ending the funding of the contractors who carried out so many of those crimes should be a logical next step.
U.S. Military Bases
We've heard how long it will likely take to evacuate each of the 50+ U.S. military bases in Iraq (6 weeks for the small ones, 18 months for the biggest) but we haven't heard any indication, let alone a promise, that they will actually be turned over to the Iraqis. The issue of bases places Iraq at the centerpiece of the broad global movement challenging the network of U.S. military bases all over the world. Opposition to the impact of those bases - environmental, social and women's rights, economic and more - is rising in countries as diverse as Korea, Italy, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan and more. In fact in some countries governments are joining with civil society to reject Washington's global crusade. Kyrgyzstan decided to close the U.S. air base there, indicating they prefer Russian bribes to U.S. warplanes. (That decision may present the Obama administration with the unsavory prospect of renewing the U.S. alliance with Uzbekistan, whose government is characterized by some of the most egregious human rights violations in the world.) Ecuador has recently passed a new constitution prohibiting the presence of foreign military bases on their soil, and is in the process of ending its hosting of the U.S. airbase at Manta.
As the Obama administration seeks new ways to cut military spending, closing the 50+ Iraqi bases, particularly the five mega-bases becomes an urgent necessity. And the giant embassy-on-steroids that the Bush administration built to house up to 5,000 U.S. diplomats and officials should be closed down as a relic of an illegal war launched to maintain control of the country, people and resources of Iraq.
Ending Occupation?
Certainly almost three more years of acknowledged occupation is way too long. That's almost half again as long as the U.S. occupation of Iraq has been going today. But even so, if this 19-month partial withdrawal really was a first step towards a complete end of the Iraq war and occupation, if this really meant that the troops in Iraq would be brought home instead of redeployed to another failing war in Afghanistan, if this really meant that President Obama's promise that "I will end the war" was about to be made real - then 19 months wouldn't be so bad.
Then, at last, we could begin making good on our real debt to the people of Iraq. Make good on the U.S. obligations for compensation (money to Iraqis themselves, not to overpaid U.S. contractors), for reparations (including for the years of society-destroying economic sanctions), for support for Iraqi-led international help in peacekeeping and in demilitarizing Iraq after so many years of occupation and war.
So far, though, we're not seeing any of that. So far, there are too many "buts." We know there is no military solution in Iraq - and continuing an "occupation lite" to muscle out competitors in oil contracts, or to maintain a power-expansion presence in the region, or to create the illusion of "peace with honor" - none of these things justify continuing an illegal U.S. occupation. Pulling out any troops from Iraq is a good thing. But so far, our job hasn't ended - to mobilize, to pressure, to continue to educate and advocate and agitate for a real end to the war. We have a lot of work to do.
- Posted in
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...
31 Comments so far
Show AllToday's news reports on congressional reactions at a White House meeting on their "briefing" of the President's "withdrawal" plans was largely along party lines: leading Democrats like Reid and Pelosi were critical, leading Republicans like McCain were supportive. "Reaching across the aisle" may be an admirable exercise in bi-partisanship, but jumping in bed with the folks across the "aisle" seems a bit much. Didn't we have an election last November, and who won that sucker?
I'm still unclear on who WON, but I know who LOST: We the People!
· Yr Obd't Servant
i remember the good old days when 50,000 men constituted an army - now it is a residual force
gotta love semantics
the us, as i have said for years on this site, will leave iraq when the oil is gone
that is when operation enduring freedom will have completed its angelic task of removing wmd's and bringing the light of freedom
obama, as i have also said, is a psyop
his recent musings about the "good war" in afghanistan betray his master's hand
there is no other option for the american corporations other than to have a war - and i mean a BIG one - bigger and wider than the enduring american/corporate war that has raged since 1945
the american military has identified the enemies: russia and china, most notably china
a de-industrialized america has no means to rebuild ts economy - the credit card is maxed - other than to take, through imperial means - war - some other country's wealth
hello iraq - that was the start
americans denying their imperialist reality display at least two characteristics:
1. a mind numbing ignorance of their country's foreign policy
2. profound illiteracy
let me leave you with two quotes from the cecil rhodes, the evil british imperialst of the not so distant past
“I was in the East End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread’, ‘bread’, and on my way home I pondered over the scene and became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism…My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem ,i.e., in order to save the 40 million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands for settling the surplus population, to provide new market for the goods produced in the factories and the mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.”
“ We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the slave(sic) labour that is available from the natives of the colonies. I contend that we are the first race in the world , and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race… If there be a God, I think that what he would like me to do is paint as much of the map of Africa British Red as possible.”
sound familiar?
cheers, b
Thanks for the quotes...
Bennis, as always, is spot on.
But why the ? in the title??????????
It is a rhetorical "?".
Excellent article. It all also goes for Afghanistan.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Rachel Maddow "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000 [troops to be left as a re-labeled residual US force]." Curiously, Pelosi then says that in her view, the proper residual troop level should be 15,000 or 20,000.
But what is the "justification" for 15,000 or 20,000? Or for Phyllis Bennis's "estimate" of "perhaps a force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops" for that matter? Are these numbers simply being pulled out of a hat?
What is the mission of this non-combat residual force in Iraq supposed to be, regardless of its size? By all means, let us have candid public discussion about what possible justification there could be.
Does the new Democratic leadership in Washington believe that the Iraqi people have suddenly lost their animosity towards the United States, or that for some mysterious reason Iraqis will no longer notice that there are thousands of American soldiers still stationed in their country while American aircraft dominate their airspace?
This week's recent pronouncements about how the United States is going to end the war in Iraq by perpetuating an American military presence in Iraq is simply surreal.
Nobody is going to fool anybody with this semantic shell game, over there or over here.
Bill from Saginaw
Good questions and points, Bill. To me, this reflects what I've noticed as a schizoid trait in various aspects of Obamaland. He tries to have many things both ways, as if he never heard the word "contradiction." Getting out of Iraq by a policy of phased staying is supposed to be applauded as some big positive development. How long his bullshit meter can keep registering in the upper range and not many notice, I would hesitate to estimate.
I think trying to have your cake and eat it too in this case is called bi-partisanship. Or BULL-partisanship.
Maddow discusses this very issue with Paul Rieckhoff (IAVA) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i79phImzqmU
go attend an anti-war protest if you can find one. They dried up when Obama got the DNC Nomination last year.
Obama stated that ALL troops would be out of Iraq after 2011:
"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end... Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."
Those are the words, at least.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/27/114027/598/147/702594
That is exactly what he said. No troops past 2011. All combat brigades out by 8-31-10. Seems quite clear. Thats the end of the discussion unless he waffles. Whats left to say?
You are absolutely correct Thomas but........... (The potentially enraged crowd is about to pick up the rocks again......)OK.... we will wait until 2011 and not get into all the nasty reasons why perhaps US forces could (and perhaps should) remain beyond 2011... Time will tell. How I wish this were simple...... You know Thomas..."Pack your bags boys and girls we are going home..."
Note: The last job I would want at this time would be that of the President of the United States. This guy just has too much on his plate........
Don't worry folks it may happen more quickly if we run out of money.
Sixty-four years in Germany & Japan, 58 years in Korea, 90 years in Philippines(and sneaking back), hundreds of military bases around the world: it ain't hard to figure.
If we were to lease bases in the U.S.to every country in the world and allow them to pollute and terrorise our population.If we would relinquish our soverenty in every state.Accept and aquiese to foreign ocupation by the millitaries of all the other nations.Maybe we could understand the term "American imperialism". peas in
There's an antiwar demonstration in NYC on April 4.
There is a way forward:
"I want to take a moment to speak directly to the people of Iraq.
...
Our nations have known difficult times together. But ours is a bond forged by shared bloodshed, and countless friendships among our people. We Americans have offered our most precious resource – our young men and women – to work with you to rebuild what was destroyed by despotism; to root out our common enemies; and to seek peace and prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and for yours."
- President Barack Obama
great words!
The BBC news commented that President Obama intends to withdraw the so-called combat troops from Iraq by August 2010. The commentator pointed out that intention is not commitment. Will we be fooled again?
Those of us who remember the Vietnam war will find the theme of some form of withdrawal at some time in the future familiar. It's the way the war was spun out for ten years, expanding as it went and lodging one excuse after another for not leaving.
This sounds like a poorly considered compromise to appease the military. Petreas wants to stay forever and his commanders on the ground have all ready converted military ops to civilian support and want to leave immediately.
A resurgence of resistance is the likely outcome of the failure of the US to keep its promise to withdraw completely.
Bush's war crimes will soon become Obama's war crimes if he doesn't divest himself of this illegal war. Perhaps that is the reason Ob is forestalling investigations. He doesn't want the illicit nature of the war highlighted.
Continuing the belligerent, militaristic polices of the Bush administration is very likely to undermine the validity of his presidency and prevent a full economic recovery.
Yikes, I believe we'll be fooled again!
Under Obama's plan, the occupation ends. Some troops remain to support and back up the Iraqi government. The authors problem? No Huey's giving thrown into the Gulf. Now HOW are you going to tell a story about a superpower learning some lesson if that superpower still has bases in the country? Looks like Phyllis Bennis values ideology over country.
Barack Obama told us during the campaign that, while he'd listen to the military, he'd be the one making the decisions as to when and how fast the Iraq War would be ended. Based on today's so-called withdrawal plan, however, it looks like what took place is that, while the military may have listened to him, they decided, not him. Why? Perhaps their arguments have won him over, or, is something going on here that's more ominous, such as threats of mutiny. Too far-fetched? Maybe, but the recent disclosure that our armed forces had a plan to overthrow FDR is not very reassuring in this regard. And if the military has intimidated President Obama into "occupation-lite", the question arises as to whether there's anything we can do about it? Yes we can.
If you were Obama, who would you rather run against in 2012--One of the Republican Clowns who were (or weren't) at the CPAC convention this week--or against General Petreus, who could be claiming Obama was responsible for "losing" Iraq--or at least "losing" the oil concessions to non-US companies (which could happen without a "residual" military presence). After all, having spent so much blood and treasure to establish a presence in the zone, Joe Six-pack may very well have come to believe that any oil to be found under those desert sands, by any measure of sacrifice, is rightfully HIS OIL, might he have not?
With the decrease of Iraqi vs. Iraqi violence, more Iraqis will be able to do their patriotic duty, which is to kill their invaders and occupiers--Americans. How long will our kids die for Bush's lies, Democrats' votes, and Obama's pussyfooting?
one old atheist
Why is going to take 19 months to exit Iraq? After Kuwait was liberated the locals ordered our military to beat it; within three months all military hardware,vehicles,MRE's,spare tires,and zit machines were GONE...loaded in containers and on ships back to CONUS.
Why does it take 50K troops to train their army..didn't they have one before the war? Protect American personnel (oil contractors?, embassy people?,FOX newsmen?). Protect assets..what the natural resources we covet? Fight terrorist..haven't we botched that up enough?
Peace
If anyone wonders why the last Admin invaded and occupied Iraq and why the foot dragging on getting out is going on , they should ask the question "Would there have been an invasion if there were no oil or other resources there ?" Where ever there is oil and other valuable resources there is chaos and conflict and we either start the mess or wind up in the middle of it . So we should always maintain our military muscle because if we do not someone will start conflict and chaos here .