Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sliding Backwards on Iraq?
Last week, President Obama's out-of-control military brass once again leaked a statement contrary to the president's position. This time the statement came from Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who officially requested to keep a combat brigade in the northern part of the country beyond the August 2010 deadline.
Floating this idea just two weeks before the Iraqi national elections is dangerous for Iraqi democracy, for U.S. soldiers on the ground, and for the future of U.S.-Iraqi relations.
Pentagon Scramble
Quickly responding to his soldiers marching out of step, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that there would have to be a "pretty significant" deterioration in the security situation in Iraq before he would consider delaying the planned withdrawal. But much of the damage was already done. Those supporting an extension immediately created an echo chamber in the media. Thomas Ricks, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, published an op-ed in The New York Times and another in Foreign Policy urging Obama to delay the withdrawals of combat troops scheduled this year, and cancel final troop withdrawals scheduled for the end of 2011. Ricks, who reported the leak by Odierno, is publicly betting that in four years the United States will have nearly 30,000 troops still on the ground. That's no way to make policy in Iraq. Rick's Foreign Policy piece went as far as claiming that Odierno "got a polite nod from the president when the issue was raised during his recent meetings in Washington."
Obama has consistently said he would comply with the August 31 deadline to remove combat forces from Iraq. He repeated this dozens of times on the campaign trail, stated it clearly at Camp Lejeune last year, and also repeated this policy in his Cairo speech. Vice President Biden affirmed this policy numerous times, saying in February, "You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer." And just last week, the White House reaffirmed its intention to call an end to operation Iraqi Freedom by August 31.
Congress confirmed the president's policy by including clear language recognizing and supporting the deadlines for the withdrawal of combat forces in both the FY10 defense appropriations and defense authorization bills. Last month 28 members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Obama commending him on his plan to withdraw combat forces by August 31, regardless of the situation on the ground.
Outrage in Iraq
Flying in the face of these consistent messages of assurance by the White House and Congress, Odierno's statement has harmed the president's credibility in Iraq and caused the first major storm of criticism inside the country since Obama's election in 2008.
The Iraqi media has been overwhelmed with political statements, analysis, and press releases condemning the possible prolongation of the U.S. occupation. In one statement, MP Omar Al-Jubouri, a Sunni from the National Iraqi Coalition, rejected the attempts to change the withdrawal plans, telling the Nina News Agency that while he "acknowledges the troubled administrative and security situation," he still "holds the U.S. forces responsible" for the deterioration. In another statement, covered by Al-Sabaah newspaper, MP Jamal Jaafar, a Shiite from the United Iraqi Alliance, argued that prolonging the U.S. presence "will cause more tension" among Iraqis. Jaafar also stated that the United States must "get an approval from the Iraqi government" if it was planning to leave even "one single soldier in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline included in the bilateral security agreement."
MP Abdul-Karim As-Sameraie, chairman of the Parliamentary Defense Committee, criticized the attempt to change the withdrawal plans and asked again for a public referendum on the bilateral security agreement. Such a measure could result in the cancellation of the agreement, potentially leading to an earlier U.S. withdrawal or having troops operate in Iraq without international legal safeguards.
Consequences of Waffling
An Obama flip-flop on the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops would have serious consequences in the United States and Iraq. The U.S. global image will be tarnished, Obama's credibility will be called into question, and the administration will likely lose what little global political capital it gained in the last year.
But reneging on withdrawal would have the gravest consequences in Iraq. The Bush administration adopted a conditions-based withdrawal plan. The mantra was "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." But such plans for "condition-based" withdrawal create the very deteriorating conditions that lead to an extension of the military occupation.
Unfortunately, there is considerable support both inside and outside Iraq for the continuation of U.S. occupation. Some groups, such as the Iraqi ruling parties or the military industrial complex in the United States, believe occupation is in their self-interest. Others, such as al-Qaeda, hope to cripple the United States by keeping it engaged in a conflict that takes an enormous toll on human lives, money, and global reputation. And Iran and other regional players fear the reemergence of a strong, independent, and united Iraq.
Obama's current plan is based on two sets of time-based deadlines that avoid the pitfalls of a conditions-based withdrawal. Obama's plan to withdraw combat forces by August 31, 2010 and Bush's bilateral agreement for the withdrawal of all troops and contractors by December 31, 2011 both put the responsibility for military, economic, and political security squarely where it should be: on Iraqis.
Adding more years to the U.S. occupation, as Ricks suggested, or delaying the withdrawal of combat forces, as Odierno has suggested, will cost the United States hundreds of billions more dollars and result in the deaths of countless more U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Most importantly, it won't bring Iraq any closer to being a stable and prosperous country.
On the eve of Iraq's March 7 elections, the president needs to reaffirm the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement and issue a clear warning to military officers who seek to take the war into their own hands.
- Posted in
22 Comments so far
Show AllThe USA invading a nation to secure OIl is worse than an 8.8 earthquake.
There is no mention of the 50,000 USA troops renamed as Ballerinas of the New Dawn that are to remain in Iraq and how will 50,000 New Dawn Ballerinas remain in Iraq without any USA bases which are prohibited under the Bilateral withdrawal agreement?
Obomber has recently renamed Death, it is now called Happy Happy Sleep
Obama wants to pull all the troops out, but he can't. What if we left and the terrorists took back the oil fields we gave to our corporations? We need the 50,000 ballerinas so that, if the evil terrorists force us to, we can put the current Iraqi government to Happy Happy Sleep and save democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people.
It's the occupation, stupid!
-"Gates announced that there would have to be a "pretty significant" deterioration in the security situation in Iraq before he would consider delaying the planned withdrawal"
You want deterioration? That is an order I'm sure the US army can carry out.
Ah,...as if on queue:
-"Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who officially requested to keep a combat brigade in the northern part of the country beyond the August 2010 deadline. "
I'm shocked that Obama may miss another, so called deadline, to remove *combat* troops from Iraq!!!
Reminds me of the Democratic pledge that former government staffers won't lobby *the white house*... (congress, here they come!!!)
This so called withdrawal was always a joke and a way of getting a headline that would help enlisting naive young idealists to boost Obama's campaign. I never believed a word of it and I never trust the headlines.
"[Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates announced there would have to be a 'pretty significant' deterioration in the security situation in Iraq before he would consider delaying the planned withdrawal."
Reversing announced White House policy of the Obama administration and written commitments negotiated with the government of Iraq by the Bush administration is of course not Robert Gates' decision to make, regardless whether Mr. Gates deems some future deterioration of the security situation very significant, pretty significant, insignificant, or nonexistent. General Odierno and Thomas Ricks are leaking stuff to the mainstream press that undermines Obama's policies. Why is the former career CIA operative now heading up the Department of Defense openly adding fuel to the fire?
"On the eve of Iraq's March 7th elections, the president needs to reaffirm the US-Iraqi withdrawal agreement and issue a clear warning to military officers who seek to take the war into their own hands."
Well, that certainly sums the situation up very concisely.
The American people voted on withdrawal from occupied Iraq in the fall 2008 presidential election. In my opinion, the best way to make this warning absolutely clear would be to replace Robert Gates and Ray Odienero tomorrow with a civilian public official and a professional field commander who respect the concept of civilian control over the military, and who understand the importance of soldiers and spies staying the hell out of partisan politics.
Bill from Saginaw
Laughable and unfunny.
"Out of control military brass"
This may actually be a rare instance of the military trying to be honest because they know what is coming, whereas the authors would rather believe the lies out of the White House.
"Obama's credibility WILL (emphasis added) be called into question."
Obama's administration has been consistent (credible) in two ways;
1. He promised to increase the military domination of all of us.
2. He has consistently done the opposite of what he said he would do when it comes to reforms.
"The U.S. global image will be tarnished,..."
As if the greedy imperial monster gives a damn what anyone thinks!
All of the oil. All of the profits. All for the corporate class.
Class war is the real war. We are losing.
"Floating this idea just two weeks before the Iraqi national elections is dangerous for Iraqi democracy . . . "
Oh, come on, will you. For God's sake. There is no democracy in Iraq and there never will be.
"Obama has consistently said he would comply with the August 31 deadline to remove combat forces from Iraq. He repeated this dozens of times on the campaign trail . . . "
Everything the Obamanable Snowman said during the '08 campaign was a rotten lie, including this bullshit.
He never said "all." The forts/embassies would be manned in perpetuity.
And what of the contractors? How many of THEM will be left in Iraq? Anyone know?
As for not living up to the deadline -- that MIGHT finally ignite a real peace movement in the United States. And darken even further the reputation of the Presidency internally as well as of the country externally.
Gary
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
-- Francois Fenelon
"And what of the contractors? How many of THEM will be left in Iraq? Anyone know?"
How Many? Enough to replace any Iraqi government that gets uppity.
An August 31st, 2010 deadline for U. S. withdrawal from Iraq? Ha ha...big joke!
Hey people! Don't hold your breath!
We are not sliding backward. We are continuing the original plan of occupation and control.
Some Iraqis are questioning who is really behind the attacks - US? Since we are the only 'beneficiary' - our policy of staying can be accomplished.
Of course the intention was never to withdraw, and leaving 50,000 troops plus unnamed mercenaries was never a plan for withdrawal.
So what's this recent noise?
T'would appear the players take their places to stage familiar roles. 0bama will let himself be talked into leaving the soldiers, which he can readily do since he has already asked for the extra funds to house and pay them, albeit poorly, and to house and pay the political animals they caretake quite well.
If he can talk withdrawal and leave the troops, he can collect the corporate money to advertise himself as leastworst.
Meanwhile, the pubs can advertise as tough on Them, whoever They is this season.
They called it the long war from the beginning.
Perpetual war for perpetual profit.
What? Those troops? Well... they're not *Combat* Troops. See?
They're *Training* Troops. They're here to train the Iraqi troops. Of course they can't train them properly if they don't go on missions with them and you can't expect soldiers to not shoot back when someone shoots at them.
Those troops over there? They're *Security* Troops. Their job is to protect our diplomatic corp in Iraq. We've got this great big Embassy. I know, I know, it looks like a fortress, a city within a city, but it *is* an Embassy and it needs to be secured. That takes thousands and thousands of troops.
Oh those troops? They're not U.S. Military. They're private security forces hired by us to provide necessary services. Of course they're armed! This is a dangerous place. You don't really want them out in hostile territory providing these necessary services without the ability to defend themselves do you?
Don't think of us as engaging in combat in Iraq. Think of it like the Roman troops in Britain from the First Century to the Fifth Century. It's not about fighting the people there; it's about protecting our people. Got it? Good. :smile::
Good one..
According to Mr. Oxycontin and other propagan-duh pundits on talk-hate-radio... "Isht der patriotic duty of all der consumer citizens in faster poo food Amerika to $upport der glorious troops occupying Iraq-nam."
And the pious preacher pundits on Jeeezass-talk-radio repeated-lie proclaim... "Our glorious troops invaded Iraq-nam to convert (in the name of 'Our Lord') all der evil commie Muslim gay infidels."
The reality, of course, $uggests that Rome is burning! The UNITED $TATES OF PERPETUAL WAR PROFITEEERING is $uffering death by a thousand cuts in Iraq-nam... and in Afghanistan-nam... and in Yemen-nam... and in Western Pak-a-nuke-nam... and (tomorrow) in the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran-nam.
Our leaders are naked... and the cola corn syrup citizens of corp-rat fascist Amerika are in-$ane! Indeed! In lieu of inhaling to the Chief with a good herb, they pop pharmaceutical poisons... and then in-Heil to the Chief Rat in Sewertown (too often for the $ake of Jeeezass PROFITS).
Richard Ralph Roehl
Truman fired a general who defied him and went to the Yalu. Obama should fire any military who delays his promised departure from Iraq.
Obama isn't in charge.
Odierno should be immediately fired. He is not following orders.