Attackerman has posted the details already on President Obama’s announcement today of his planned timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
This morning’s New York Times, though, had an ominous background description of the plan, attributed to "administration officials":
The plan would maintain relatively high troop levels through Iraq’s parliamentary elections, to be held in December, before beginning in earnest to meet the August 2010 target for removing combat forces, the officials said.
. . . The withdrawal would start slowly, with 2 of the 14 American combat brigades now in Iraq pulling out before the December elections, officials said. After the transition to a new government, the withdrawal would accelerate early next year.
“The commanders are concerned about maximizing their numbers on the ground for as long as possible, at least until we get to the other side of the elections,” another senior official said.
Marc Lynch (neé Abu Aardvark) explains the problem with this plan:
Iraq’s Parliamentary elections have not yet been scheduled and don’t even have an electoral law, and according to a number of senior Iraqi politicians probably will not be held until March 2010 (not December 2009). That would then give the U.S. about five months to withdraw the bulk of the dozen combat brigades which would reportedly remain. And then, keep in mind that U.S. officials generally agree (correctly) that the most dangerous period of elections is actually in their aftermath, when disgruntled losers might turn to violence or other destabilizing measures. So the following month will likely not seem a good time either. So that would leave four months to move, what — 9 brigades? Did someone say precipitous? Good luck with that.
I’ve never been too worked up over debates about the size of a "residual force" after the U.S. withdraws the bulk of its troops from Iraq — in my view, that’s the last 25-30% of a process that will take on a logic of its own once it has begun. The important thing has been to begin the process.
For that exact reason, I’m worried now. As Lynch notes, this slow-starting withdrawal plan originated among folks (in the military and elsewhere) who were perfectly comfortable with not withdrawing from Iraq at all.
President Obama may think that he’s worked a compromise that has gotten those skeptics/opponents to buy into accepting a withdrawal. But when I see that John McCain is "cautiously optimistic" about Obama’s plan, I fear that they think they’ve lured him into a trap. Which means that someone is in for an unpleasant surprise.



87 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
This whole thing smells like the half/price fish stand.
So what, you’d feel better if they were screaming. Patreus gave 3 options and he chose the middle right?
Those who think al-Maliki will stay in power after our withdrawal are the ones in for a surprise.
xin loi
Given enough time, Betraeus and McSame are confident that conditions will evolve in such a way that their plans will not be impacted adversely by anything as trivial as the intent of the President of the United States, or the wishes of the American people.
Clever naming convention, how DID you come up with that?
“combat forces” — what remains if only “combat forces” are withdrawn?
Covert ops?
I think Obama needs to come out and say something to the effect that Petraeus owns this, that he’s relying on him and the faith that so many others have put in him, so that it’s clear that Petraeus is on the hook. Or maybe Obama insists that Petraeus speaks regularly to the American people about the exit progress. It’s been too easy for the ownership of this mess to get shifted to a new president when the underlying cast of players hasn’t, and too easy for the same players to be shielded from the frustration of the public.
Yea, that Obama. What a naive sucker!
Of course, maybe he really is just out for his BigMoney brothers who got him the Presidency….(bzzzzzt! does not compute.)
Wait til the Reich Wing Noize Machine goes after Obama. Then he’s really gonna git it!
Not sure how this works either. Effective last month US forces were to withdraw from the cities. How effective would US forces be from more remote locations regardless of their numbers?
Well shit, as long as these heretofore heroic dems are “concerned” then it can’t be all bad.
o/t. sorry. bringin’ this forward from an earlier
actually happened.
As Steele concluded his remarks, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann — the event’s moderator — told Steele he was “da man.” “Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man,” she said.
Oh God.
“>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..70426.html
Just a hop skip and a jump by chopper!
I have been worried ever since Bushbot signed the SOFA and Odierno almost within 24 hours started talking about ways to ‘get around’ the provisions in it.
Ever since Obama was elected, Betrayus, Odierno and others, have been pushing back against the 16-month timeline – even though it was included in the SOFA.
The biggest problems I see are a)Obama is not a military man
b) He is going to get pushed by the military brass while they test the limits of what they can get away with under Obama’s ‘consult with them’ wiggle room
c) The economy is in such a shambles that Obama doesn’t really have the time he needs to devote to this.
The results so far are a) Obama gave McKiernan part of what he was asking for in Afghanistan in order to give himself more time to examine the mission, strategy, end-game, etc. He wanted 90 days to do this and needed it because of the economic mess – but the military has been piling on the pressure.
b) He realized that right now he is not ready to get into a pissing contest with the ‘generals’. So he asked for and got 3 different timetables and picked the middle one. Saves face for the generals, gets them off his back a little bit, gives him some breathing room; and
c) Actually gets the process started.
More problems – you are right – 50,000 residual troops is too many to pull out in the last 4 months of the SOFA. But I think that Obama will be doing some major tweaking of both ‘war policies’ when he has a chance to catch his breath in the months to come.
After all, he has just in the last week, gotten the Stim passed and signed, presented his new budget, his new housing plan, got this agreement with the ‘generals’, and probably at least a dozen other things that we don’t know about because they weren’t sexy enough for the MSM.
So I am cautiously optimistic. He’s only been in office for what, 35 days?
I can’t help but think of the RVN Army when the NVA decided it was time to take control in 75. Fled like sheep before NVA tanks entered the Presidental Palace grounds. Without US air cover the Green Zone is really susceptible to mortar and rocket fire. 81mm and larger mortars could make life in the Green Zone verrry interesting.
Yea, and if the little fat guy had armor. . . sheeeeet!
that’s how i reacted to this. “cautiously optimistic.” Mccain too? oh shit.
As I said, my issue isn’t the end of the timeframe (16, 19, or 23 months) but the beginning.
Only 2 brigades are planned to leave before the December elections… which probably won’t actually occur in December. What happens if they’re postponed to March, or later?
I think Odierno et al. view this as kicking the can down the road, hoping they can come up with a way to persuade Obama by December that we can’t start the bulk of the withdrawal yet.
Ya but by the time our forces have hopped attackers could be gone or blown themselves up.
Yea, what a dumb shit he is. Why would an incoming President want to consult with the military when he could go talk to the gutless Dem “leadership” and they could show him how to do what they wouldn’t.
If I were al-Maliki I sure wouldn’t be puttin’ a lot of faith in the Army. Their armour might just be a focus of the little fat guy and others.
That’s happens when the force is right there from jump street/
What happens in terms variable rates of troop withdrawal is less important to me than where troop levels stand at the end of August 2010. I think that is the time point to keep our eye on. The massive withdrawal effort is a very dangerous endeavor and as such I would expect that a certain degree of planning, troop movement, and withdrawal occurs at a pace outside of public awareness.
Regarding McCain’s tacit approval of Obama’s plan, considering he is no longer campaigning for POTUS with support from the BushCo neocons being conditional on him upholding their policies, perhaps there is some honesty is his remarks. but who knows.
didn’t he just nod his head?
you know, leaving a “residual force” is another term for;
“if they don’t give us what we want we can always overthrow them again”
and “a small residual force of 50,000 troops” is the same as giving me ” a small fee of 10 million dollars”
Late lunch over. Back to the cesspool.
Namaste
Just get out now. I’m sick and tired of failures acting like generals. When will we be done in Afganistan ,you can bet petreus can’t figure out how to win or what it means to win before 18 months. Imagine telling Eisenhower he didn’t have to think about victory for a couple of years after being involved for over 5 years already.
How bout we get our collective ass out of all these loser wars bush wanted to make him look like a real man. Not, just another bush failure America has to suffer through. When the final word is written on our history, there will be an acknowledgment of the would be bush royal family acting as the corrosion the constitution couldn’t handle.
It’s all a matter of perspective. Some poor cluck is going to be “the last one to die for a mistake” and I doubt if it has happened. If you think you can just pack up the whole deal and di di mau I think you’re mistaken. But that’s just me.
happened yet. . . the last one
I really don’t think that’s in the cards. If we couldn’t impose Chalabi or Allawi on the Iraqis with 140,000 troops, we’re not going to do with 50,000.
good point.
Troops
Home
Now
We’re getting out of Iraq- the Iraqis have decided that- it’s a matter of a few months one way or the other. Time to worry about Afghanistan- that could turn into quicksand very quickly.
I agree. There are gonna be a lot of eyes watching this withdrawal. The hotter ones will take their chances and that’s dangerous. Perhaps target Iraki troops to test the Army’s reflexes. Recon by force.
I think the biggest problem is with the Kurds. The elections not so much
The military doesn’t decide when we pull out- they give advice and then execute the plan determined by the president. It was Bush who gave the impression that they were calling the shots- only to keep the heat off of him.
Obama’s plan during the campaign was 2 brigades a month for sixteen months.
Waiting until December — or March, as you point out — to withdraw the first brigade seems like a broken promise to the troops and their families.
Odierno will always postpone withdrawal. Time to get new Generals in charge. who’ll be invested in bringing troops home, not winning an unwinnable war.
In view of Iraq’s clearly stated position that “all” Americans will be leaving Iraq sooner than later as the SOFA between Americans and current Iraqi regime lays out there is a firm ‘out by’ point established.
So no matter what WashingtonDC is saying today,said last month or will say next year Americans are on the way out of Iraq.
So to hear Americans still insisting on being/staying in Iraq for years to come seems to be not in alignment with what Iraq is evidently seeking.
Are Americans going to abide within the terms of the SOFA or is WashingtonDC intent on running around it? Or is some other outcome contemplated that would alter the current SOFA?
It is not difficult to surmise Americans are in Iraq in large part because this suited Israeli purposes or desired goals. Israel surely would prefer Americans stay on as a garrison force in Iraq for many years to come. This is the part WashingtonDC is not talking about.
This is not being forthright. Americans have blundered severely in having attacked Iraq in first place and staying on as benign agent of occupation.
The Israeli/American connection is far to shadowy given that history is tainted and has been at the middle of so much American statecraft around the Persian Gulf and across the Middle East.
Taking out the shadows regarding divergent Israeli and American statecraft in light of Israel’s bellicose militarism conduct and ongoing sabotage of peaceful outcomes would surely serve genuine American ME longterm goals better. It is time to separate Israel’s shortfalls from American ME policy.
Heard a CNN radio cut-in this morn, and the drama they created in their report about this pitted Dems saying that 50,000 is too many to leave, and Repubs saying that’s about right. This was shocking to me.
Two weeks ago, that same report would’ve been asking the question, likely through Repub congresstwerp soundbites, as, “Will Obama and his troop withdrawal plan makes us less safe?” Amazing shift. Talk about re-framing an issue!
The other thing is that even those 50,000 are supposed to be gone by the end of 2011. The Obama Presidency just keeps getting better and better.
Of COURSE we should worry. The “withdrawal” plan leaves a permanent (without using the “p” word) force of 50,000 in place. They are there, as desired by neocons, neoliberals, and the Pentagon forever.
Oddly, I don’t hear anything about what the Iraqis themselves want. It IS their country, 100%. We have NO say in the workings of their country. We have NO say in what foreign troops are allowed, or not allowed, inside the sovereign nation of Iraq. Why is it what WE want rather than what the Iraqis want?
OT with apologies. C-Span 2 is covering Senate today, but almost nothing has been a-foot, so pretty dull. Only regular order speeches (supposedly 10 minutes max, each) & quorum calls.
For those interested in reviewing coverage of the Whitehouse tirade this morn. As I file this, the re-run clock on C-2 is now and Dorgan re-run is up.
Presumably, if nothing goes awry, I figure Whitehouse’s speech should be re-run on C-Span 2 in less than 1/2 hr. from NOW.
I’ll watch, big-screen, to see if I can spot anyone else on the floor. Would appreciate company, since I don’t know all the Senators’ bald spots well enuf to know for sure who I’m watching.
Yea, he really waffled on that didn’t he:
On balance, I know this isn’t what everyone wants, but it is so much better than it could have been. A year ago it was better than even money that that field army in Iraq would be pulling out of the cities and massing on the border for refit, for the impending invasion of Iran.
I much prefer the present.
That may be the reason to punt from Obama’s perspective… namely, taking a few months to put new generals in place.
four corners is a better metaphor than punt
Obama has now had time to get a fairly complete picture of the situation in Iraq. He undoubtedly wants to get the hell out as quickly as possible while avoiding a blood bath on the way out the door…I’m willing to go with his judgement on the best way of accomplishing that.
Obama is dropping out of the Durban 2 summit on racism because of Israel. Israel is the American ME policy.
*********
” The United States will not attend a United Nations conference on racism that critics say will be a forum to criticize Israel, and will no longer participate in planning sessions for it, a senior UN source told Haaretz on Friday.
The decision to drop U.S. involvement comes one day before U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves on her first trip to the Middle East in her new capacity, including stops in Israel. ”
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067506.html
stop making sense
The Kurds would still like their own country, the Sunnis would still like to get control back- and the Sunnis would still like to keep that from happening with whatever force that takes. A civil war is still in the cards. I don’t know if we can prevent it- but it’s worth a shot.
Congress needs to cut ALL war funding and 80 percent of all remaing military expenditures yesterday.
I’m with Teddy
Troops
Home
Now
No excuses, no more wasted soldiers lives. wasted money for needless wars and occupations based on lies or the real truth.. control of others natural resources.
We can’t begin to heal until we stop hurting others and ourselves.
No significant withdrawal this year. Basically they’ve bought 10 months to come up with an excuse not to withdraw. I assume they are counting on an outbreak of violence after the elections so we can reneg. Hopefully we won’t be involved in engineering that outbreak. There is nothing here to be hopeful about, and every reason for skepticism.
Yep. I don’t believe for a second that the Kurdish President what[s-his-name wants to be remembered as the one who didn’t found the nation when he had the chance.
So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America’s intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country. And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations.
Is Obama taking advice from Dean Smith?
New post: BREAKING: The 9th Circuit Says State Secrets Can’t Halt al-Haramain Suit
someone got it
After, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, having exhausted all alternatives.
Man, this is our President saying this. Just wow.
And Dean Smith was an Obama backer as well. A little give-n-go!
OK, this is what I was wondering about and thanks for clearing it up. Everytime Obama announces a policy it is always considerably less than it seems so I was wondering where the catch was. If this follows Odierno’s approach, we will be in Iraq forever. The last elections were something like 2 years late and the coming elections look equally nebulous. This is a con and a bait and switch for us the rubes.
And as I pointed out in Spencer’s thread, even drawing things out as Obama stated only makes sense if there will be a political settlement between Iraq’s different parties. Given this, I revert to my original position: we should get our troops out now, period.
Well, whatever, it sure isn’t the same as
“troops there forever” and “control of others natural resources” now is it?
oh well, period. end of discussion. big whoop
Staying on the b-ball theme…some people think you win games by only attempting slam dunks, others play four corners. I’ll take Dean Smith’s winning percentage over anyone’s. What about you, ya rube?
One of the aspects that keeps getting missed in all this is that we currently have around 155,000 troops in Iraq. A combat brigade is made up of 3-4 thousand soldiers so when we are talking about 16 combat brigades we are talking about 48-64 thousand troops. That still leaves 90-100 thousand other troops. Very little has been said about how and when these would be removed. So if you think that backloading the withdrawal of most of the combat brigades is going to be a problem, add in all of these and you have an even bigger and messier last minute withdrawal.
This is what I hate about Obama. He can never be straightforward and lay out what his plans really are. I think he does this because as soon as you look at the math behind them they fall apart. There are ways of doing these things which are quite sensible but with Obama he sounds sensible but isn’t. This is more change we can’t believe in.
It was my understanding that a brigade or two that was scheduled to come home was not replaced and that the current level is 142,000.
Four oorners is a stall offense- a way of sitting on a lead. Do we have a lead?
Yes. We’re an occupying force that basically has the country in lock-down. Plus, there’s the political lead Obama has right now. He’s trying to protect both of these “leads” by playing four corners and running out the clock. Obama and Dems win, and tens of thousands of troops are home.
The last time I heard Ricks talk about this a couple of weeks ago. He used the 155,000 number. However much I may disagree with him on Iraq I figure he probably has a good idea about what the actual numbers are. The article above says there are currently 14 combat brigades so even if we go with these numbers. We are talking 42-56 thousand combat troops and still some 90-100 thousand other troops, plus 150-160 thousand foreign contractors, yet another piece of the puzzle which has not been factored in.
One of the reasons that my numbers are not as hard and fast as I would like them to be is because it really is rather hard to find a reliable and up to date resource on the web for how many troops and what kinds we have in Iraq. It would be a great transparency project for the Administration if they were really interested in transparency. But having listened to Obama’s pronouncements on the economy and knowing these to be mostly hot air makes me doubtful how much this Iraq plan of his can be trusted.
Googling I find, Ricks made his statement about 155,000 troops in Iraq on MTP on Feb. 8, 2009.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29083534/page/4/
What about the CIA, mercenaries, and contractors? Are they staying, too? The following is Kucinich speaking.
**********
” America must determine at some point to end the occupation, close the bases and bring the troops home,” he said. “We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history where war was waged under false pretense against an innocent people. Taking troops out of Iraq should not mean more troops available for deployment in other operations.
“In February of 2007 I presented H.R. 1234, legislation that would end the war in Iraq, and the process I outlined is still necessary. We should immediately bring home American service members and contractors, convene a regional conference to prepare an international peace-keeping force and accelerate Iraq-driven reconstruction.” “
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0227.html
If I might address this group in general:
Be a little f’ing happy for a bit.
Re:
This is what I hate about Obama. He can never be straightforward and lay out what his plans really are.
I don’t doubt that Obama is setting out to end the war in Iraq. However, I DO doubt that things will occur the way he says they will, with the caveat that plans happening differently than what he publicly says will be used for some advantage. The biggest potential advantage in play in Obama’s time line is maximizing the safety of our troops during a massive and complex withdrawal. For this reason, I suspect more troops will be brought home earlier than is being advertised. It’s a form of ‘deception’ that could offer real benefits in thwarting enemies’ anticipation and planning.
Having more troops home than first advertised could be an end result that would be celebrated. You don’t want to set the bar too high and end up getting criticized for success in the right direction. I guess we’ll see.
.
Post above should read:
I don’t doubt that Obama is setting out to end the war in Iraq. However, I DO doubt that things will occur the way he says they will, with the caveat that plans happening differently than what he publicly says will be used for some advantage. The biggest potential advantage in play in Obama’s time line is maximizing the safety of our troops during a massive and complex withdrawal. For this reason, I suspect more troops will be brought home earlier than is being advertised. It’s a form of ‘deception’ that could offer real benefits in thwarting enemies’ anticipation and planning.
Having more troops home than first advertised could be an end result that would be celebrated. You don’t want to set the bar too high and end up getting criticized for success in the right direction. I guess we’ll see.
I’m happy with the words. I’ll wait for the actions that back them up.
Good.
I get the idea that people here can’t take yes for an answer.
Did you vote for Obama hoping he would do this? Did he say he would do if he won?
I know it’s kind of hard to believe when you’re used to being lied to.
It’s also a way for a weaker team to keep it close and have a shot at the end.
I said before the primaries that I would vote for whoever the Dem nominee was. The wars in Irak and Afghanistan were only components of a wider picture. I was on the streets before the invasion of Irak and I’m still there. Most would put me on the far left fringe and I consider most politicians, if not all, to be corporatists. I’ll applaud what I see as positive for the country and the world and criticize otherwise. I want to see fundamental change in our socio-economic system, a revolution, if you will. I will continue to work toward that goal.
Rat on.
I applaud both your spirit and your goal.
I usually doubt whether we will see that kind of change, but I rarely doubt that the desire or effort should cease.
I still think some days are way better than others though and fail to understand the reason for not taking what comfort or pleasure one can.
Wow,
did I fuck that middle up!
If I can;t be coherent, I can at least be pretentious.
It’s a marathon, not a sprint. Changing an entrenched bureaucracy will take decades, if not generations. I’ll do what I can while I can. Then come back and haunt the motherfuckers.
Great sentiment.
Dear Mr. Obama,
You seem to be dragging your feet in your assigned task to get all of our American troops and all the Blackwater killers and the Halliburton electracution-shower builders out of Iraq NOW.
Here are a few hints:
Just do or say:
Abandon ship, About-face, retreat, Aloha, Apologize for overstaying one’s welcome, and just leave, Auf weiderzahn, Au voir, Back out, Bail out, Beg off, Be Gone with the Wind, Blow it off, Blow the scene, Bow out, Break it off, Bring the troops home, Bug out, Butt out, Call a halt, Call it quits, Cancel plans, Cave in, Chalk it up to experience, Change the course, Chao, baby, Check out, Chicken out, Choke up, Clear out, Close up shop, Cop out, Creep away, Cut and run, Declare victory and come home, Depart, Desert the desert, Disentangle, Draw back, Drop out, Eat crow, Eat humble pie, Eat one’s words, End this fool’s errand, End this tomfoolery, Evacuate, Exit, stage right, Fail, Fall back, Flake out, Flee, Fly away, Fly the coop, Forsake, Get back, Get cold feet, Get out by sundown, Give up, Go away, Go fly a kite, Go jump in the lake, Good widdance to bad wubbish – (Elmer Fudd cartoon), Got to get away, Hasta la vista, baby, Head for the hills, Hit the road, Homeward bound, Hurry home, It’s all over but the shouting, It’s all over now, baby blue, Just say no, Just walk away,
Leave, Let’s call the whole thing off, Pack it in, Pick up your marbles and go home, Quit, Rehire Saddam, Relinquish control, Renounce imperialism, Retreat, Return home, Reverse the course, Sail away, Say good bye, Shut it down, So long, its been fun, Split, Stop, Stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: abandon ship!, Surrender, Take a powder, Terminate the visit, Throw in the towel, Turn tail, Turn the lights out, Wilt under pressure, Wimp out, Wind down, Withdraw with honor, Yankee, come home.
What are you trying to say that Paul Simon hasn’t said?
I’ll go out on a limb here. It’s a con, and the people who are being conned are Petraeus and McCain. You heard it here first.
What I hear is the sound of sawing.
Yes, of course, thank you, I’ll work on that.
I would however point out that the issues that led to those monikers are becoming more prominent over time instead of less so.
I’d also say that focus on the process as opposed the big picture at some point approaches enabling-behaviour.
You wouldn’t happen to have anything resembling a fact to support your earlier remark about what’s in McCain’ or Petraeus’ mind, would you?