U.S. Advisor's Memo On Iraq: Time To "Go Home"

The New York Times:

A senior American military adviser in Baghdad has concluded in an unusually blunt memo that the Iraqi forces suffer from deeply entrenched deficiencies but are now capable of protecting the Iraqi government, and that it is time "for the U.S. to declare victory and go home."

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[S1m0n]

Going home has never been an option, at least not if you mean everyone. The Iraqi army has been carefully designed and trained to operate with air support, but that air support has been just as carefully denied to Iraq. In other words, the new Iraqi army doesn't work without the USAF.

[XME]

While I completely agree that it's time to get out troops out of there, whether we left today or stayed for another 50 years, I'm not sure it would ever be accurate to delare that war a "victory".

[MuchMadness]

Why has this story been bumped to near the bottom of the Huffpo front page? This story is more important than the other stories. And "Uncle Sam's bounteous mammary glands" should be provocative enough to generate a few revenue enhancing hits.

[Luvial]

The main "difficulty" is the US paying Iraqis to kill other Iraqis to sustain the US occupation of their country. Soon it will all be over like most occupations. A total waste of a trillion US tax dollars and a million dead civilians.

[instagladiator]

'Declare victory and go home."

What victory would that be? Removing SH from power, turning over the profitable oil fields to US/UK companies, switch all sales of Iraq oil from the Euro BACK to the Dollar? Is that the victory?

[SamKnause]

Yeah, load them all up and get them out of there as fast as possible? Then start the same thing in Afghanistan.

[AliMB]

Part I

Colonel Reese is flat out wrong in terms of his "acceleration". It has been documented that since the end of the "Surge" each month an Iraqi battalion spends under the tutelage of a MiTT improves their operational capabilities. It can sometimes be a slow and arduous process, but a 'progressive trajectory' has been maintained (anyone who has spent considerable time in Iraq can attest to this). There is no reason to believe that this cannot continue past August 2010.

The proof is in the pudding. US forces have incrementally turned over A/Os to the ISF, and the June 30th 'city' transition has so far been successful (vi0lence is down). To surreptitiously declare a full troop withdrawal by August 2010 would make little sense ("diminished returns" notwithstanding). Furthermore, Reese exaggerates the friction between US and Iraqi forces post-June 30; quite similar to the exaggerations a couple of months ago of the SOI Sunnis returning en masse to the ins.urgenc­y.

Reese also makes various conjectures in his memo which exhibit fallacious logic. For example, one data point which Reese uses to claim there is a "general lack of progress" in "good governance" is that the "Vice President received a rather cool reception" on his recent trip to Iraq. Well, Biden received a "cool reception" because he carries little respect in Baghdad. Biden's infamous partition plan was widely discredited, and as VP-elect his crude threats on cutting-off reconstruction money made him widely unpopular.

[marignymitch]

You can relax. We're not leaving.

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

a 'progressive trajectory' has been maintained (anyone who has spent considerable time in Iraq can attest to this).

The Col in charge there makes you a liar. THe proof is in the Col's report. He knows. How many more US soldier casualties are needed to assuage the ego of war supporters who can not admit they are wrong?

[motown67]

1) Do you need 130,000 troops in Iraq to carry out training of Iraqi battalions? The main reason troop levels are at that amount is not for training but because Gen. Odierno says he needs to help secure the 2010 Iraqi elections. With all the new restrictions on Iraq forces will the U.S. even be able to do that? If not, there's no use to keep that many troops.
2) The examples of a stalemate in Iraqi politics is so numerous it's hard to list them all. Since 2005 when Iraq got its sovereignty there has been no movement on the constitution or oil law. The Iraqi constitution called for a referendum on Kirkuk that have never happened. There still have been no provincial elections in that province as a result. The divide between Arabs and Kurds has increased. In 2008 Iraq passed an Amnesty Law. Baghdad claims over 130,000 have gotten amnesty under the program. Only around 6,000 of those have actually been let out of prison. The rest were people on parole or on wanted list. It's basically a public relations move. In 2008 the government also passed a new deBaathification law. The law has never been implemented. I can name more examples if you want. Basically the Iraqi government is at a level of dysfunction that it can pay salaries and muddle through some laws, but not really make anything better or improve their capacity. musingsoniraq.blogspot.com

[AliMB]

Part II

Having US forces (even as a training residual) allows us tremendous influence over political events into 2011. As Reese correctly points out, there has been a lack of progress on Kirkuk, Sunni reconciliation, and SOI integration. However, these issues can not and will not be fully addressed until after the January 2010 parliamentary elections. Moreover, the elections results in Kurdistan have only recently been reported. Announcing an accelerated withdrawal at this point because of the 'lack of political progress' makes no sense.

Frankly, Reese's central conclusion runs in contrast to the views of the 'wise men' of Iraq e.g. General Petraeus, Secretary Gates, Col. Kilcullen, etc. The Washington Independent also quotes Douglas Ollivant, former chief of plans for MND-Baghdad and NSC Iraq Director, as saying that "a grain of truth to the picture he paints," but that Reese's account "is exaggerated, and does not account for Iraqi political reality."

An interesting side-note from the Michael Gordon piece: there has been much speculation on whether a US contingent will remain into 2012 (to me the case is fairly clear).

"The Iraqi prime minister noted in an appearance at the United States Institute of Peace, a Washington-based research organization, that the Status of Forces Agreement, would "end" the American military presence in his country in 2011. "Nevertheless, if Iraqi forces required further training and further support, we shall examine this at that time based on the needs of Iraq," he said."

[hark]

I will never understand why we have to train the Iraqis for six years and counting to do what they did perfectly well before we invaded them. There were no insurgents, no terrorists then. Now they are overrun with them. Has it not occurred to anyone that something is wrong with this picture?

[Sean 6399]

If you keep talking like that you might get labeled a kooky isolationist.

[beauwulff]

It's so they'll have a first rate force to put at the disposal of their ally Iran once they kick us out. Mission Accomplished.

[IndyMarine]

hahaha

[mamacat]

How many billions of dollars are we still spending in Iraq? Is it still over $100 billion per year?

How much will a public option for health care cost? Much less than $100 billion per year?

So, tell me again why we can't afford to have medical insurance for all of our citizens?

Oh, that's right. It's supposed to be patriotic to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on a war based on lies, but it is "socialist" to try to see that all Americans can get healthcare. Now I remember another reason why I can't vote for Republicans.

[IndyMarine]

The Democrats:
1. Voted for this war just the same as Republicans.
2. Are in power and have the ability to pull us out of Iraq, but they aren't doing it.
3. Are ramping up a terrifying and expensive war in the Mountains of Afghanistan for some reason.

[mamacat]

Most of the Dems in the House voted against the war in Iraq; that is a plain fact, easily verifiable with a google search. Having inherited the Republicans' war, they are trying to end it responsibly.

As far as the war in Afghanistan is concerned, if you have any suggestions, everyone is listening. That is another war the Dems inherited. Personally, I think it was a mistake to get involved in their internal affairs in the first place. We had a chance back in 2001 to go in, surround Tora Bora, eliminate Al Qaeda, and then get out. Bush vetoed that idea. As with most things from the Bush years, it is now a clusterf#*k.

[marignymitch]

The reason is to throw more money at the war industries.

[marignymitch]

I'm looking forward to the day soon when we completely evacuate, except for the 55 000 troops we'r'e leaving behind permanently.

[IndyMarine]

Inconvenient truth that McCain got trounced for being forthright about.

[franklinturner]

The Fox "News" crowd didn't protest the spending of trillions of taxpayer dollars on Bush and Cheney's unecessary war and nation building project in Iraq; Obama tries to spend money nation building in the United States and they protest.

[IndyMarine]

I think we should've scooted out of Iraq right after capping the baath party goons, Bush spending got us into a trillion dollars of trouble. However...­(Comma)...­(Pause for Effect)...­We are now running a four trillion dollar defecit and I don't see any of these so-called "green jobs" pulling us back from the brink. The current economic policy worries me more than any bomb planting freedom fighter ever managed to do.

[mcantwell]

Considering only 8% of the Stimulus has been spent through July, you certainly are doing alot of pre-judging.

[hark]

So our policy should be to continue the ways of Bush, more tax cuts for the rich and more deregulation? Just unleash some new bubbles to percolate us out of this financial crash caused by those policies?

[hark]

Kind of funny, isn't it? Creating jobs by producing useless weapons is okay, and nation building is okay if it's a foreign country, but God forbid we should spend a nickel on something useful for the people of America. Why that would be socialism.

[sonoffestus]

Becasue the industrial military complex wouldn't get their "fair" share.

[angeranddespair]

wow just six years and four months too late for all the murdered soldiers 4300+ all the dismembered limbs, disfigured body and faces and suicides of uncounted others all the divorces all the special days (births, wedding, b-days, graduations, etc etc) missed. All the citizens murdered from the country of Iraq that never did anything to deserve the USA invading and occupying their country.
And in the end the blood aint washing off all the hands of all the culpable for this atrocity.
Live with the carnage you cowards in the Bush administration Feith, Wolfowitz,, Condi, Rove, Cheny, Rumsfeld oh and GWB, etc, etc.
If hate Karma could be sent in an comment I hope you all live it

[IndyMarine]

Umm...You know some bad guys died as well yah?

[hark]

You mean like those 100,000 Iraqi civilians?

[mamacat]

There are dictatorships all over the world, and most of them are supported by the U.S. Somehow, Bush and Cheney et al decided to lie us into overthrowing this particular dictator, who we used to support, and the rest is history.

There is no such thing as a good war, only wars that have to be fought, and those that don't. Iraq was a war that didn't have to be fought, and which has made us weaker than we would be if we had not fought it.

By the way, as with most of our recent wars, there have been reports that many more returning vets have killed themselves, than were ever killed over there. War is, indeed, hell, even for the victors.

[IndyMarine]

I don't know about any "victory" or even what that means. But I am interpreting that you're placing all the blame on one side of the aisle, as are many on this forum, but I refuse to forget about all the (D) camps that were shown all the same charts and briefed by the same Colin Powells and all of this. They then voted the same, continuing to fund it up until today, despite their peaceful rhetoric.

[IndyMarine]

Funny that I've been recalled out of college through what you would call "Stop Loss" in order to ship to Iraq the day after tomorrow. Presidential Executive Emergency orders sometimes fly in the face of Presidential promises of withdrawal and peace.

[mcantwell]

Why is it "funny" that you are being recalled. The SOFA Agreement states a timeline through Dec. 31, 2011.

[IndyMarine]

Despite the fact that the Obama administration has raised the DoD budget, they saw fit to pulling myself and a few thousand others out of civilian life (after our four year contracts were fulfilled honorably) in order to send us back to a war that they would like to lead people to believe is being drawn down slowly. They aren't detracting from Bush war policy even in a modest sense. I think the same course would've been playing out in Iraq even if Bugs Bunny were president. The difference: Public perception and the water carrying media who are engaging in slight of hand.

[JoeBlough]

I guess the advisor didn't get the memo that more profits are required before we can come home. Until Big Business can come up with the most expensive way to return home, it won't happen.