Tweet
A month ago in this space, I expressed skepticism about President Obama’s announced plan for withdrawing from Iraq — not so much because he was backing down from the timeline he campaigned on, but rather because the generals assigned to implement the plan might think he was.
This report today from Jane Arraf of the Christian Science Monitor doesn’t make me feel any better:
In an exclusive interview, the top US ground commander in Iraq says that while Iraqi forces have made huge strides, Iraqi officials are likely to ask for US help in the key cities of Baquba and Mosul, meaning that American troops may stay there after the deadline for redeployment to major bases. Senior military commanders say US troops will also likely stay on in the southern city of Basra.
"In Mosul and Diyala [Province], as we do a combined or joint assessment of the situation on the ground, I have every expectation that both sides will say we need to stay with this a little bit longer until this improves," says Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, echoing sentiments of Iraqi officials concerned about ongoing fighting in those areas. . . .
"I think the Iraqis know that there are some things that have to occur before we leave," he says. "They know that there are some capabilities that they have to develop. I think they’ll be up to task when we do leave by 2011."
Despite the wrangling it took for the Iraqi government to impose a withdrawal deadline on the Bush misadministration, I’m not surprised that they might turn around and ask for extensions. I kept trying to tell people during last year’s negotiations that Prime Minister Maliki’s goal wasn’t necessarily to force the Americans out, but rather to ensure that if they stayed, it would be on the Iraqi government’s terms.
By that, I mean that instead of supporting a (mythical) nascent democracy as it gains momentum, U.S. troops would more likely be subcontractors used by a partisan/sectarian regime to suppress its opponents. As the Maliki government reneges on promises of political reconciliation, that fate becomes more likely. By the time it become obvious to everyone, though, the Obama administration may feel too inextricably bound to its commitments to abandon our supposed Iraqi allies.
Oh, well. At least we’re not getting ourselves mired in deeper in Afghanistan at the same… ooooops!
14 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Great post, Swopa!
Thanks!! :)
it is a great post swopa, thanx for the data
can someone make a list of things we are happy with obama?
I’m not happy with most of his doj decisions, not happy with his positions agreeing with some of the most depraved positions of bush, detention, etc
I am certainly not happy with his bathtub buddyness with the banks, and I’n not happy with the progress bringing our boys and girls home from bush/cheney/rumsfeld made up war
so if this were a republican, we would be ALL over him, his feet are not being held to the fire AT ALL
he needs to get back ont track beginning with abandoning his new found friend and friends in the banking industry
he needs to STOP cutting programs in order to make jobs, cutting programs COSTS jobs (does he not get this?)
and he needs to STOP giving the gop play with there “cutting taxes, privitizing government service” and the rest of their crap
Gee, I seem to remember some discussions along this line quite a while back. Seems the students of warfare had this pegged before the invasion. Pesky readers of history.
Officer with TB who refused to deploy is convicted
Ain’t war grand?
Figures. A chief warrant officer, who spent years as an enlisted man. Somebody to make an example of.
Disappointment once again.
At least once I would like to see a concise statement of what our achievable goals are in Afghanistan, and which require the use of the military; and please, let’s do better than David Brooks in his recent war correspondent piece from the “Khybur Pass, Afghanistan” (”… the idea that this nation has the capacity to use military and civilian power to promote democracy, nurture civil society and rebuild failed states.”) What kind of fuzzy thinking is this! If this is the best these leaders can articulate, we’ll never know when we reach the goal, let alone, decide how many troops are required to do what mission.
The problem is – no one knows how to define the mission!
Can’t we just write down a list, and if the leadership can’t get the idea, then just distribute it around American and we can all vote on it. Here, I’ll start with a short list, maybe somebody can change some of this, and others can add or remove stuff, but the idea is to get a “to do” list, like goals for the weekend or stuff. We all know how to do that, don’t we? Here goes:
1. Stop terrorists from using Afghanistan to train and stage mega violence on America. (I would include Europe with America here, but if Europe doesn’t want to help out on this, let them worry about it themselves!)
2. Uh….
This is the short list; anything beyond this is up to others.
And I’m not convinced that it requires more of our Army to achieve this goal, but, once we have an agreed mission, I’m ready to listen.
Gee, maybe the need for some lingering troops in Mosul and Baquba has something to do with the “invitation” to Chevron to “help” develop oil industry in and around Basra – along with other foreign oil corporations. After all, isn’t our “strategic interests” in the region OrwellSpeak for their still sitting on our oil?
Please prove me wrong, PLEASE!
Troops
Home
Now
Hard to do when the Iraki govt is willing to give foreign oil companies 75% of the profit. It’s not that these countries are under developed, it’s that they’re over exploited.
New post:
Vatican Archbishop Issues Apology? Naaaaa. . .
This is depressing and not surprising. This was Obama’s signature issue, the one that gave him credibility as a Presidential candidate. Yet once he achieved the standing, he has been backtracking on his commitment to withdraw from Iraq. The 16 month, remove a combat brigade a month, plan was already a major compromise meant to counter critics who yammered about “precipitate withdrawal.” And then there was the question of a residual force the size of which Obama said very little about during the campaign. Well, that “residual” force has swollen to 50,000, and that is not the high, that is the size Adm. Mullen says is most likely. No one has yet explained to me how 50,000 is a residual anything.
Now only 12,000 will be out by the end of the year. The pull out from the cities which I questioned a while ago looks off track as well.
Meanwhile Maliki remains the hardline Shi’ite leader he always was while we pretend he isn’t. So of course there has been no political settlement. In this sense, I don’t think Maliki has reneged on anything. He is acting true to form. The one who has reneged is Obama, and it is his promise to us to get out of Iraq that he has reneged on.
Yes, I know that Obama has at various times used weasel language but he didn’t run on his weaselry but on his commitment to get us out.
looks like the anti-Obama crowd is out again
Everything rests on alMaliki. As long as he has the backing of the Iraqi parliament to enforce the SOFA then the US will have to keep to its terms. It has become fairly clear over the last several months that either the Generals(US) or the NAC Neocons or even the Military Industrial complex are attempting to subvert the SOFA with Iraq. We currently have 151 compounds where american troops are stationed in Iraq. Both the Generals and the neocons seem to want the US to remain in control of Iraq and its govt. I spent 28.5 years working for the FedGov and never in all those years did I ever see an actual conspiracy. Sure, lots of people claiming all sorts of convoluted conspiracies, but an actual conspiracy? Nope. With regards to the current crop all I have to say is this. Having seen the almost total collapse of the world financial system due to mental midgets(often called Masters of the Universe or MOTU) and also having seen the almost total incompetency of most of the largest multi national corporations CEOs and Boards of Directors, I believe that there are very few people who would even believe that any of these companies have anyone working for them who is smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time, much less be able to concieve of or run a conspiracy. So, while I do believe that there are several factions within the US who want us to stay in charge of Iraq forever so that they can continue to rake in billions of $$ and that there are several oil companies-Total, Royal Dutch Shell, Exon-Mobil and BP(only 1 of whom is an american corp)-who really want to get back into the position of running Iraq oil(it will never happen, the wogs have gotten smart)in fact they are in the process of being sidelined by China’s state run oil company. Other than the oil and the apparent desire of the generals to have a long war, why are we even talking about Iraq? So what if everything blows up again. It is no longer our responsibility. Let the Iraqis figure out what kind of govt they want, let them figure out how much religion they want. IT IS NOT UP TO THE US TO DECIDE. If necessary, Obama should fire those generals who attempt to subvert his instructions. After all, all the generals swore to support and defend the constitution, not to lie cheat and steal for their self aggrandizement. Some of the generals appear to be beliving in their own PR. They-or their toadies(T. Ricks)-are attempting to revise history. Odierno did not invent the surge. Patraeus was not the author of the current anti insurgency manual. No matter how much they want to believe that they are the final arbiters, they are not. Even tho the young mr bush abrogated his power over Iraq and Afghanistan, he is gone. And so is their assumed power