Tom Ricks: Obama's War In Iraq May Last Longer Than Bush's

News flash for the president-elect: All our troops are combat troops. It isn't like some American soldiers stroll around Iraq unarmed. Nor do the insurgents inquire about the troops' MOS (military occupational specialties) before detonating an IED. Indeed, I feel safer in Iraq accompanying an infantry unit on foot patrol than I do while riding in a convoy of transport soldiers, who are much more likely to get popped by a roadside bomb. So his promise to get "combat troops" out of Iraq in the next 16 months is a phrase that means much less than it appears to. At any rate, I bet Obama is wrong: I think we are going to have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq -- mentoring, advising and engaged in combat -- for many years to come.

The recent Status of Forces Agreement also means less than it seems. For example, U.S. forces are supposed to get out of major bases in the cities later this year. But there really aren't major big bases in the cities now-the last time I was in Iraq I was told there is really only one -- and U.S. military advisors will remain in urban outposts along with Iraqi forces. I suspect the SOFA really is most meaningful for the political help it will give Prime Minister Maliki in getting re-elected at the end of 2009 by taking the American presence off the table as a wedge issue for Iraqis.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[rasit]

It would seem to me that it is not upto the US to stay or not stay, if the Iraqis want us out....we have to get out, Right? After all Iraq has to take care of its security in the long run, so why not let them start now...

[Fein]

Anyone with a brain can see that U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afganistan are against our interests. And Obama has more intellegence than most of us.

I'm as cynical of the U.S. government as anyone but I just can't see Obama being this stupid, Mr. Ricks.

[nogimmicks]

Obama is not stupid, that is true. That is why he will do what he is told to do by his "advisers". That means the total war spending is likely to increase under Obama one way or another.

[Emlyn]

I get awfully tired of reading articles by people who have already made up their minds what the incoming President Elect is going to do. I wish you would just be quiet and let's see what Obama does. He's going to be President;' you are not, so shut up.

[Coinyer101]

i got news for you. if most all troops aren't out in 16 months ,give or take, i will join the protesters. and there WILL be protests. besides, i think he means troops patrolling amongst the people. maintaining a quick response force on a base ,with trainers, to back up iraqi's should be sufficient. if not, then, too bad for iraqi's. we're pulling out. why do you want to bring this up,now,anyway? just looking to stir the pot? i think your article sucks.

[ldrship77]

Tom Ricks is right on target. The fact is that our full commitment to Iraq ties US forces down and allows regional powers who wish us ill to maneuver with impunity. More troubles lie ahead as we shift forces to Afghanistan. Add to these issues the growing desire by radicals in Iran to keep the war fires burning and you have a very tough time ahead for the new Obama team.