SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Out of Iraq in 16 Months: Yes We Can - Yes We Must
Jan 28, 2009
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 deja 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!
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Tom Andrews
Tom Andrews, is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and a Robina Senior Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School. A former Member of Congress from the First Congressional District of Maine, he was a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Tom served as National Director of Win Without War, and President of United to End Genocide. He has worked with political organizers and human rights advocates in Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Croatia, Yemen and Ukraine, among others. He has a Washington DC-based consulting practice.
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 deja 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!
Tom Andrews
Tom Andrews, is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and a Robina Senior Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School. A former Member of Congress from the First Congressional District of Maine, he was a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Tom served as National Director of Win Without War, and President of United to End Genocide. He has worked with political organizers and human rights advocates in Cambodia, Indonesia, Algeria, Croatia, Yemen and Ukraine, among others. He has a Washington DC-based consulting practice.
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 deja 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!
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.