Obama's Iraq: All Troops Out By 2011? Not So Fast

Originally posted at AlterNet

Some anti-war analysts find hope in President Barack Obama's address at Camp Lejuene in North Carolina on Friday, in which he appeared to spell out a clear date for withdrawal from Iraq.

"I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Obama said in a speech that quickly generated headlines announcing that an end to the occupation is on the horizon. As far as rhetoric goes, Obama's statement seems very clear. But in reality, it is far more complicated.

Obama's plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to "conditions on the ground," meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama "assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. ... The president assured him that there was a Plan B."

Despite Obama's declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC's Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that "military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years."

Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama's orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy.

Then there's the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.

Whether this job is performed by State Department Diplomatic Security or mercenaries from the company formerly known as Blackwater (or else a corporation more acceptable to the Obama administration), the U.S. will have a substantial paramilitary force regularly escorting U.S. VIPs around Iraq -- a proven recipe for civilian deaths and injuries. Obama's speech on Friday did not even address the question of military contractors -- a crucial omission given that their presence rivals that of U.S. troops by a ratio of over 1-to-1.

Finally, the Status of Forces Agreement, which supposedly lays out a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, contains a gaping loophole that leaves open the possibility of a continuation of the occupation and a sustained presence of U.S. forces well beyond 2011, "upon request by the government of Iraq." Article 27 of the SOFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq." Could this mean an election where the wrong candidate or party wins? What is the definition of a threat?

The Democrats' Response

Earlier in the week, when details of Obama's official Iraq plan began to emerge, expressions of surprise poured from the offices of the congressional Democratic leadership over his intention to keep a force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops in the country beyond 2010.

"When they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I anticipated," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was "particularly upset" according to the New York Times and did not understand "the justification." Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., exclaimed, "Fifty thousand is more than I would have thought."

The response from the Democratic power brokers was embarrassingly disingenuous. Obama said early on in his presidential campaign that he intended to keep behind a "residual force" of the scope he laid out. Those who have long protested this aspect of his plan were marginalized and ignored in both the corporate media and the Obama campaign.

The same Democratic leaders expressing their disappointment ignored the credible voices of dissent for years while supporting the occupation through votes and funding. That they would wait to express their dissent until long after it would actually have had an impact is one of the best examples of what has been so wrong with the Democrats' role from the beginning of President George W. Bush's declaration of war against the world and his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

If Pelosi, Reid, et al., really had a problem with a 50,000 troop residual force, they certainly had ample time to say so when Obama was running for president.

On Friday, however, these same Democrats welcomed the announcement that combat missions would be out by 2011. Reid praised Obama's plan, while cautioning that we "must keep in Iraq only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people." Following Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune, key Senate Republicans praised Obama's plan as well, while reminding everyone that it was an outgrowth of the Bush administration.

"It is encouraging to see the Obama administration embrace the plan of Gen. David Petraeus that began with the successful surge in 2007, and continues shifting combat responsibilities to our Iraqi allies," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Adopting the Bush Narrative

Beyond the headline-generating news, Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune delivered a number of lines -- wrapped in laudatory rhetoric -- that could have been delivered by Bush himself.

"I want to be very clear," Obama told the military audience. "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime -- and you got the job done." Perhaps it bears remembering that "removing Saddam" was justification two or three offered by the Bush administration after the WMD fraud was exposed.

"We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government," Obama went on, "and you got the job done." (The idea that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki regime is either sovereign or a government is hotly debated in Iraq.) "And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life -- that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."

As much as could be said about this, perhaps the best response was delivered on Friday by Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks, who knows the situation in Iraq about as well as any journalist.

"We won't know for 10 or 15 years whether we actually did something right, even in removing Saddam Hussein," he said on MSNBC. "We may very well end up with a strongman, stronger than Saddam, closer to Tehran and certainly will be anti-American. That's in some ways the best-case scenario if that country holds together."

Regardless of what happens down the line, the world knows the truth about the lies that both Democrats and Republicans promoted in support of Bush's war against Iraq. Rather than inspire hope among Iraqis, the U.S. occupation has devastated their country and opened Iraq's gates for unprecedented violence and instability in their country and the region.

Obama, the candidate, used to riff on these truths on the campaign trail. The contradiction between President Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune and his rhetoric before he was elected should serve as a warning to those who take his words at face value. But more important, combined with his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Obama's adoption of key lies from Bush's Iraq narrative should be seen as a dangerous indicator of things to come.

Comments

[lowgear]

Obama team announces new rules on lobbyists..NO WAIT. we'll create WAIVERS from Obama lobbyist rules. Obama's bans earmarks. NO WAIT. IT'S OK now. All troops out of iraq NO WAIT let's keep them in.

Notice a trend?

[LuckyLeif]

The central fact is with drawl will proceed according the Status of Forces Agreement worked out by Bush. Meanwhile, our military families remain angry with the new administration and the press when it comes to how this war was covered, or not, and how the lies and deception continue.

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/democracy-in-iraq-what-happened-to-fiasco/

[Fein]

The optimistic view would be, that Obama must consolidate his power base before the can breach the right wing bastion of the Pentagon and it's precious Iraq war. There's likely going to be a few Bush loyalists in the Pentagon who'll quitely 'opt for retirement' in the near future.

40-50,000 troops are a lot easier to withdraw than 150. Another 'loophole' is, that the Iraqi government has a say in the matter. Pentagon-Iraq warmongering depends on full control of the Iraqi government.

Given that there is not likely one person in Iraq who has not lost a close relative due to the occupation,
that government's hardly likely to remain subservient to American whims.

[UltraClassic]

All Obama is doing is demonstrating that he has a little more common sense than some of the Obomaniacs who supported him.

[TheMadHedgeFundTrader]

X CV b r I met with Thomas Ricks, author of the best selling The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008, who says that we are only half way through the war, and our unfortunate involvement there could run as long as another 16 years. The surge has failed, our casualties are rising, and US credibility with Iraqis is zero. Bush blew a cozy set up that worked for a decade where Saddam was contained at minimal cost. Talking is more valuable than fighting, and it is cheaper to hire someone than to kill them. General Petraeus figured this out, so we now have 100,000 enemy fighters on the payroll costing $30 million a month. It was easy to walk away from Vietnam and leave a few million locals in re-education camps. Iraq won’t be so easy, because it sits atop, or adjacent to the world’s largest oil supply. Eventually, Iraq will evolve into another Lebanon where you have multiple competing armed groups. The big winner in all of this is Iran, which has seen its prestige grow in the Middle East at our expense. Iraq will continue to be a huge financial drain on the US for decades, no matter what Obama says. All very sobering thoughts, with big implications for the markets.

[KofTX]

To Mr. Scahill and other left-wing critics,

There is a Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq stating ALL U.S. troops are to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. PERIOD. This agreement was reached largely because the Iraqis were aware of the tremendous political pressure former President Bush was under due to then candidate Obama's success in pushing for a 16-month timeline. Iraqi officials even said that "Obama's timeline" was more in line with their goals. President Obama has NEVER expressed any desire to amend that agreement nor has he expressed to build permanent bases and keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, which was the Bush approach. If you watched Meet the Press yesterday, then you would have heard the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explain that this years' sustained troop levels through the elections as well as the 35-50k troops left after combat missions cease were prescribed to mitigate the SHORTNESS of the President's timeline. So before you go rushing romantically into your well-accustomed fits of disappointment and self-pity, let the FACTS of the situation speak for themselves.

[JDWPS]

Well said and I agree with you completely, KofTX.

[harriscrl3]

What Obama means is that if the troops are to remain there after 2011 someone better present him with da mn good evidence as to why that should be the case. Not hunches but FACTS. If your argument was true the reality is that the troops would NOT be starting to withdraw at all. Iraq isnt safe yet Obama is going ahead with the withdrawal. Seems to me that you have to present the burden of proof as to why he would stop unless there is pressing concerns that is backed up by sound evidence.

There is a difference between Politician lying and saying what you want them to say Vs reality of the situation changing. I think some of us think that we know what the future holds even though throughout the election and even the transition people were saying Obama wouldnt do this or he would do this and once again he is proving folks wrong.

Carol

[exhale09]

Thank you. Can we have more voices of reason here please?

[twintwine]

To be easily indignant and disappointed that Barack Obama isn't doing everything on your exact time table is nostalgia for Bush and his ethos. We could change ourselves and stop acting like bitter, prententious royalty who expect the world to obey our every wish, or else.

We don't accept our part in the last eight years. We refuse to know our own toxic behavior.

And this faux indignation is the new disingenuous anonymous online Republican talking point.

[RnR]

To unquestioningly accept every optimistically interpreted word out of Barack Obama's mouth is nostalgia for Bush and his ethos. Face it - meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Ask Geithner.

[KofTX]

You sound like a sore loser who relishes in pessimism. The argument is based on FACTS, not optimism. And please, go get the updated version of today's Republican talking points. The whole "same as the new boss" line is tired.

[scarecrow11]

Well noted, Mr. Scahill.

The monstrous "embassy" speaks for itself, as does the immensity of Balad Air Base. (Will Iraq have an air force by 2011?)

Iraq is and always was about the oil exploration blocks, and Afghanistan is and always was about natural gas.

Were Obama any threat to these ongoing "neocon" projects, the corporate media would have ensured (as it did with Kucinich and Paul) that he never got near the Oval Office.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/meet-the-new-boss/

[Kalamama]

Obama campaigned on the promise of removing combat troops safely and responsibly based on ground conditions and advisement from the generals. He has always said that he would leave a residual force there. That has not changed, nor did he lie. RW media would love it to be different and are already putting a spin on his speech.
Keep in mind, he opposed this mess from the beginning and he is trying to end it carefully.
Would you prefer that he just pulled out like the first Bush?? That in itself is what I beleive Bush #2 to be so fast and ready to go in. Trying to finish what Bush #1 started and bailed out on.
People-It took us a long time to get here, give Obama a chance to do what he has consistently said he will do. I supported him from the beginning and I still support him.
Looking for someone to gripe about? Look at Bush #1 and mostly at Bush #2.

[Roxie74]

What the hell is a "non-combat" force? Of 50,000?

[exhale09]

I am interested in knowing what this writer would have had President Obama say to those troops who for six+ years have put their lives on the line in Iraq?

"You have all been had. The last six years and over 4000+ of your fellow soldiers have died for nothing, suckers?"

Our Soldiers were doing the job they were told to do, what THEY TRAIN to do, and they were told it was for our Country's National Security, and becaused they are SOLDIERS they believed their Commanders and they did the job they were told to do. THAT is their JOB.

Saying anything other then what President Obama said, would have been an unnessasary cruelity.
We have to separate our feelings about this mistaken war from our feelings about the young people who went their and fought the war BELIEVING they were doing the right thing, BELIEVING what they were told. THEIR INTENTIONS and EFFORTS were honorable, even if the WAR itself was not.

As for President Obama's Plan for Iraq....I suggest we actually wait to see what he ACTUALLY does before we begin critisizing him for what has not yet happened. For all you know, he may actually have all the troops out by July 2010. Who knows? In his speech he said "BY the end of 2011" he didn't say "NOT BEFORE the end of 2011"

[MrsBoomer]

I supported Obama, maxed-out contributions to his campaign, and worked many hours on behalf of his local campaign office - driven by his promise to withdraw two brigades per month starting 1.20.09. Needless to say, I'm profoundly disappointed.

[vippy]

History shown us over and over that all elected presidents have lied and never kept their promises.
Meet the new boss - same as the old boss rings true. I said all along we should have voted for
Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul but they had no chance because of the media, which always will
do the selection for us. And I have to say, the USA is not broke if we can fight two wars still!

[scooperss]

At 50, I can't remember an election where there wasn't a candidate that didn't run on *CHANGE*.
Even bush did.

That's why I didn't vote for obama and why I'm not disappointed.
A candidate says what it takes to win then when elected, backtracks.
Nice way to say untruths are told to get the position.

[dwright]

I worked just as hard and am not disappointed at all. Remember, he was not lying at all, he was operating on the information that he was privileged to know at the time. I don't think he has be disingenuous at all. He is not Bush because he would not have gotten us in this mess in the first place. If he has to readjust given that he now knows more secret information that is okay with me. No I am not a blind follower of anyone, but I think we have to be open to modifications. If you don't think he is trying to bring about huge change in the way our government operates, then you are a one issue voter and are not looking at the WHOLE PICTURE. Don't you see the repeated attacks by the GOP and media. It is mind numbing to say the least. He is trying to make fundamental change that we haven't see in this country since the Civil War and Great Depression.

[MrsBoomer]

You're correct - I was a "one-issue voter" in '08. Having a son in the infantry who has done multiple deployments in Iraq will create that sort of tunnel vision. It was simplistic of me to hope for a quick and complete withdrawal, but having to wait yet another year for the first draw-downs is what's so disappointing.

And yes, Obama knows a whole lot more about the situation there today, than he did a year ago. I get that. I just have a hard time anticipating two more years of senseless deaths brought on by Bush's treasonous abuse of the military.

[Roxie74]

Sure he never lies, and two years from now, it will still be the Republicans fault, I'm sure.

[mmsaretasty]

Barack's election did not and should not have immediately heralded the immediate cessation of all Bush era policies. The damage done by GW and his cohorts has left the United States with deep tangled roots of blurred interests in many parts of the world. The obligation to remove these roots is a top priority of the Obama administration, but we have to do so responsibly and sensibly. We need to temper our desire to see change with a strong and determined commitment to patience and a dedication to enacting change in a responsible way. It is inherently dangerous to rush change at the cost of fermenting even greater danger to American citizens and interests.

Today’s unstable international environment demands engagement, and I for one would prefer American engagement and leadership to Russian or Chinese engagement.

People, understand that the world will not change over one night, month, or year. Responsibility demands patient realism.

[tedtun]

All may be true but this is no time to commit fratricide. I think I'll trust Obama to do the right thing. He seems to have excellent judgement and I doubt that he is interested in keeping he troop in Iraq much longer. The Job requires prudence. Fellow progs chill. He would never have initiated the fiasco.

[RoseMerry]

He never promised what I really want. Total and unconditional withdrawal of all of our troops, back home as soon as possible. End the occuption, stop the war crimes.

Hell, I do not understand why we have any troops beyond our border anymore. It is not isolationist to mind your own business. We need to protect ourselves, just but no more policing of the planet.

[scooperss]

You're right.