SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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!
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
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!
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!