EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
About That Iraq Withdrawal
President Obama announced Friday that all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year, and this announcement is being seized upon exactly the way you would predict: by the Right to argue that Obama is a weak, appeasing Chamberlain and by Democrats to hail his greatness for keeping his promise and (yet again) Ending the War. It’s obviously a good thing that these troops are leaving Iraq, but let’s note three clear facts before either of these absurd narratives ossify:
First, the troop withdrawal is required by an agreement which George W. Bush negotiated and entered into with Iraq and which was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament prior to Obama’s inauguration. Let’s listen to the White House itself today: “’This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave. . . .’ an administration official said.” As I said, it’s a good thing that this agreement is being adhered to, and one can reasonably argue that Obama’s campaign advocacy for the war’s end influenced the making of that agreement, but the Year End 2011 withdrawal date was agreed to by the Bush administration and codified by them in a binding agreement.
Second, the Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline...
Read the full article at Salon here...
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...
29 Comments so far
Show AllI'll click on the salon link, but what're the odds in Vegas about the troops leaving Iraq to go straight into Iran?
Just askin...
while i feel elated for those lucky families who will see their friends, moms, dads, sons and daughters "home for christmas," but obama did admit that "some" troops must redeploy in the area in the face of the intensifying threat from iran.
Shouldn't your comment read: "But obama did admit that 'some' troops must redeploy in the area in the face of the 'intensifying threat' from iran"?
The so-called "intensifying threat" from Iran is just propaganda, of the same kind we saw in the lead up to our illegal war on Iraq.
thanks for the editing!
that works
Iran always comes in handy.
A force of only 41,000 soldiers and their civilian cooks etc. utterly unprepared for combat in Iran will be quickly overwhelmed by furiously patriotic Iranian forces and will be killed or made prisoners of war unless Mr. Obama decides to use WMD's to rescue them. If he does not then there will not be enough inmates at Guantanamo for a prisoner-swap. The answer to your "Just askin..." is "you are incredibly dumb or else this is a loaded question". To the best of my knowledge there are no serious preparations by the Obama administration to invade Iran. Such preparations cannot remain hidden. He will need several hundred thousand combat soldiers for that. Because of the demands of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and he needs "boots in reserve" should these be needed he does not have the hundreds of thousands. Obama's statement that "all is on the table" is vapid bluff and the Iranians know it. Moreover Obama cannot do this on the sly because Russian satellites will immediately detect the buildup of US forces at the border of Iraq/Iran. "Blizkrieg" in the age of satellites is no longer possible unless all nations with satellites conspire to remain silent which is very unlikely. Also "Twitter" and "e-mail" by Iraqis near he border may today give all US plans to invade Iran from Iraq territory away. That would also be a violation of the current SOFA-Iraq hence a war crime. When Bush#1 prepared for an invasion of Iraq the highways of Texas were choked with US military vehicles on their way to embarkation at Houston and Galveston and there was no other US war ongoing at the time. There is no such activity today. Now, bombing runs on Iran from carriers nearby cannot be excluded but it will be a signal of how impotent, thanks Heaven, the US Empire has become already.
The comment was me being snarky. Of course they're not going to invade with a few thousand troops, from what I've heard the only 'plans' they have is to launch a few bombs and then hope for the best.
Actually, given the stupid assassination plot from a week ago or so, I suppose they might just drop a nuke and claim that it was an assembly error by the incompetent Iranian nuclear scientists. That's a story the neo-cons would buy, but they'd damn O for not having bombed Iran openly...
As long as the 21-building US fortress embassy stands in Baghdad and is filled with spies, CIA operators, and other criminals of US imperialism, Iraq will be an occupied country, and thousand of US mercenaries will remain stationed there to protect the crime family residing in said embassy.
This simple fact by itself gives the lie to all of war criminal Obama's announcements regarding an alleged end of the war in Irak. It is perfectly clear that the US has no intention of stopping the occupation of that country: instead of being occupied primarily by US soldiers, it will be occupied by thousands of civilians and mercenaries.
In my view, Greenwald's excellent article should have stressed that a bit more.
OIKOS: Exactamente!
In a nutshell, Obama and the Demobots are already reframing Obama's failed efforts to get immunity for the troops and keep them in Iraq (dispite the Status of Forces agreement 12/31/11 deadline to get out) as Obama's success in getting the troops out of Iraq, for 2012 campaign purposes. Good article by Greenwald.
And all of the dimwits are praising Obama for keeping his promise. I went to DK and left a message stating Obama has been trying to keep the troops there, but because of BUSH's SOFU agreement, they had to leave.
I will of course be labeled an Obama hater.
"Obama hater." Wear it with pride. :-)))
Mr. Greenwald's article is incomplete and perhaps misleading. Why does he so often do that? Yes, SOFA-Iraq was ratified by the Parliament of Iraq but all 35 members of the Sadr-block voted against which presaged what is happening today. Secondly, anyone who has read SOFA-Iraq knows that the issue of negotiated immunity was falsely represented by the Obama administration. The current SOFA-Iraq does contain an article, albeit a weak one, which excepts immunity for heinous crimes by members of the US Armed Services and its civilian component "outside their bases and not on duty". That is the clause which Al Maliki insisted must be in any new SOFA-Iraq because Al Sadr demands it and Al Sadr is probably more powerful in Iraq today than Al Maliki thanks to his opposition to SOFA-Iraq in 2008. No more Abu Ghraibs! The Obama administration has caved in to the Pentagon on this issue which did not want this clause in any new agreement but not to Al Maliki who demanded the same he had gotten from President Bush#2 because Al Sadr demanded it. Isn't "what is good for a Bush is also good for an Obama"? Thirdly, anyone who has studied SOFA-Iraq knows that President Obama had the authority to withdraw all members of the Armed Forces and their civilian component from Iraq UNILATERALLY one second after he was inaugurated. It would not have taken much of his precious time. All he had to do was issue an order as the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces in Iraq to the Pentagon: "get all troops home before xxxx". President Obama did not do an "Eisenhower" because he is not an "Eisenhower"(= forger of iron). Mr. Greemwald seems to suggest that, alas, a this poor and reluctant Obama was forced by SOFA-Iraq to wait till the end of this year. That is misleading bullshit needlessly protecting President Obama for failing to act decisively as a leader in early 2009 before the upcoming 2010 Parliamentary elections in Iraq which would have greatly undermined Al Sadr's anti-American party if he had acted then. Fourthly Mr. Greenwald fails to point out that violation of SOFA-Iraq after the deadline would have meant that the US would be again legally in a state of war with Iraq. Al Sadr had already correctly pointed out that his militiamen and Iraqi soldiers would be protected by international law from prosecution for war crimes if they attempted "kicking US soldiers out of Iraq", if needed by killing them.
Good points; and it may be small potatoes by comparison, but I would like to know why he refered to Judith Miller as having been "scapegoated," when she was one of the most influential, if not THE most influential propagandist for going to war with Iraq.
Judith Miller is totally irrelevant to what is happening in the Middle East and in our nation today. I am sure that she will not show up at Occupy Wall Street. She may not even be recognized!
One of the commenters at Salon raised the same objection and Greenwald responded to it.
My paraphrase of what he said is that he didn't mean to imply that Miller was innocent. He was saying that she was used by others, who also were guilty, as a lightening rod so they wouldn't be affected. He agreed she was guilty as hell and so did a mea culpa that the use of scapegoat was an inappropriate way to express the idea in short hand.
how about the blackwater boys they stay i believe
They are "contractors."
If they are a "civilian component of the US Armed Forces they must also go" (read SOFA-Iraq). I believe that "civilian component" has been interpreted as all personnel (regardless of nationality) paid by the US DoD directly or indirectly. Regardless of nationality because DoD cannot hire foreigners to be either in the Armed Forces of in the "civilian component" and thereby escape the December 31, 2011 deadline. On both counts I wonder whether President Obama is dead set to violate SOFA-Iraq. With regards to the "protection of the US Embassy in Baghdad it has been an age-old custom that the size, nature, and authority of that staff is negotiated between the two sovereign nations. That will cause little, if any stir unless the Obama administration makes unreasonable demands.
"Foreigners" have been allowed to enlist in the Imperial forces for at least a decade, often in return for getting fast-tracked for citizenship.
immigrunts.
Any thoughts Crowsnest, on the relocation of Xe (Bllackwater) to Dubai and what impact that might have on current situations?
More lke assassins and killers under contract.
Yes, hired murderers remain , thousands.... and amerikan imperialism marches on.....right into the abyss !
Crowsnest informs us that:
"With regards to the "protection [sic] of the US Embassy in Baghdad it has been an age-old custom that the size, nature, and authority of that staff is negotiated between the two sovereign nations."
As if we needed a reminder that Iraq is a sovereign nation, and the US negotiated the size of its 21-building fortress embassy in Baghdad and the "nature" of its residents.
karlof1 Oct 22 2011 - 2:05pm is absolutely right.
This fact about the Evil Empire's military recruitment practices has been known for years now.
Just as a matter of curiosity, how many u.s. military bases are there in Iraq? From readings, the u.s. has built more than a few and those will have to be occupied for the poor old u.s. to maintain a presence in the middle east which was one of the key reasons for invading Iraq in the first place. Oh well, wikipedia has this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Iraq
The troops are being kicked out because Clinton failed to negotiate immunity for soldiers who rape and kill civilians. It is all just political theatre because the really important wars are hidden behind the Black Budget. The State Dept kills as many as the uniformed military does. (Can't prove or disprove that because the Black Budget keeps the important info away from the world.)
Greenwald's latest post should become a classic, and lasting testament of where the US is at the present moment: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/a_remaining_realm_of_american_excellence/