EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Michael Schwartz

Michael Schwartz

Posted: March 15, 2010 02:47 PM

Will the U.S. Military Leave Iraq in 2011?

What's Your Reaction:

Will US troops leave Iraq in 2011?

I was asked recently by a friend what I thought would happen when the deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq (December 2011) arrived. Here is my response, for what it is worth:

Like so many others who have been following the recent developments in Iraq, I do not have a settled opinion on what will happen to the US military presence there between now and the end of 2011, when the Status of Forces Agreement calls for the withdrawal of all troops (not just "combat" troops). For me, the (so far) definitive statement on this question by Obama was his 2006 election campaign statement at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, where he firmly asserted the need to maintain a (approximately 50,000 strong) US "strike force" in or near Iraq to guarantee US interests in the Middle East, to allow Washington to move quickly against jihadists in the region, and to make clear to "our enemies" that the US will not be "driven from the region." (I am attaching that document, which I still think is the most explicit expression of his thinking on this issue.) In that statement he said that this force could be stationed in Iraq, perhaps in Kurdistan, or in a nearby country (despite the absence of nearby candidates).

Since taking office he has neither reiterated nor repudiated this policy, but his actions have made it very clear that he is unwilling to sacrifice the 50k strike force, even while he has also said he would abide by the SOFA and remove all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. In the meantime, Gates and various generals have released hedging statements or trial balloons (see the recent Tom Dispatch article by Engelhardt) saying that the 2011 deadline might be impractical and that various types of forces might stay longer, either to provide air power, to continue training the Iraq military, or to protect Iraq from invasion. Any or all of these could translate into the maintenance of the 50k strike force as well as the five (previously labeled as) "enduring bases."

Moreover, while there has been considerable coverage of the vast project undertaken by the U.S. military to remove the billions of equipment from Iraq, I have seen no reports of any dismantling of the five "enduring bases" and, as Engelhardt reports, continued effort to expand the already record-breaking Embassy to accommodate additional hundreds of administrators above the original 1000 projected US officials there.

Another sign that the Obama administration intends to maintain a significant military presence in Iraq after 2011 is the continued insistence that Iraqi "democracy" must be guaranteed. In "Washington speak," this means that the government of Iraq must be an ally of the United States, a condition that has been iterated and reiterated by all factions (GOP and Democrat) in Washington, since the original invasion. Given the increasing unwillingness of the Maliki administration to follow US dictates (for example, on oil contracts, on relations with Iran, and on relations with Anbar and other Sunni provinces), the removal of troops would allow Maliki even more leeway to pursue policies unacceptable to Washington. Thus, even if Maliki succeeds himself in the Premiership, the US may need troops to keep the pressure on him. If he does not succeed himself, then the likely alternate choices are far more explicit in their antagonism to integration of Iraq into the US sphere of interest. (Even Iyad Allawi -- the leader of the major contender for a parliamentary plurality -- who was once a US client premier, has voiced stronger and stronger opposition to tight relations with the US.). The Obama administration would then be left with the unacceptable prospect that withdrawal would result in Iraq adopting a posture not unlike Iran's with regard to US presence and influence in the Middle East.

All in all, there are myriad signs that withdrawal of U.S. troops might result in Iraq breaking free from U.S. influence and/or deprive the United States of the strong military presence in that part of the Middle East that both Bush and Obama advocated and have struggled to establish. Until I see some sign that the five bases are going to be dismantled, I will continue to believe that the US will find some reason -- with or without the consent of the Iraqi government -- to maintain a very large (on the order of 50k) military force there.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:51 AM on 03/16/2010
The U.S. began constructi­ng permanent (enduring) military bases in Iraq within weeks of the invasion. Bush had no intention of ever leaving and there is no reason to think that Obama intends to leave.
08:40 AM on 03/16/2010
I have never believed that the US will withdraw from Iraq. Bush and Obama are both more than capable to have lied about this.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
spytheweb
08:21 PM on 03/15/2010
I say no. There is too much money to be made. People think we are there for freedom but that's just the cover story. Profiteers will pay lobbyists to pay congressma­n to keep this muslim terrorist gold rush going.
05:26 PM on 03/15/2010
Iraq is majority Shiite. Iran is majority Shiite. For this reason, if for no other, Iranian influence in Iraq is destined to grow, leading, God forbid, to a war with Iran, which would dovetail nicely with Israeli ambition, its a pet peeve.

I pray you don't see this coming, and if you do, I pray it doesn't come to pass. It would be too painful for humanity to contemplat­e.
04:44 PM on 03/15/2010
"In that statement he said that this force could be stationed in Iraq, perhaps in Kurdistan, or in a nearby country (despite the absence of nearby candidates­)."

Really? Prince Sultan Air Base (south of Riyadh), the combined forces prepositio­ning site in Qatar, Camp Doha (Kuwait), and Incirlik Air Base (Turkey)..­.. the expansion and combined use of these facilities would more than accommodat­e the size force you're talking about, though I suspect it will be much smaller than 50k troops.

Will US forces remain in the region? Absolutely­. Will some small forces remain in Iraq? Probably, though in extremely small numbers and in safe enclaves away from areas of known violence. Is this a tragedy, that forces will remain there? Not in the slightest. In time this will become no different than a tour in South Korea or Germany, albeit one where the end to violence has come much more recently, and the "social" aspect of a tour of duty there will remain extremely limited for some time.

The war may have been a terrible idea, but the possibilit­y of troops remaining there isn't the awful nightmare, or broken promise by the President, that some make it out to be.

Just an opinion from a soldier with lots of time on the ground there....
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Budokan
Professional science fiction/fantasy writer
04:37 PM on 03/15/2010
2011? Very doubtful, I'm afraid.
photo
HeevenSteven
20 Minutes into the future.
03:32 PM on 03/15/2010
No, since it's really about all about oil and Iran.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
offred
A biocitizen is 3/5 of a corporate citizen
04:49 PM on 03/15/2010
And business opportunit­ies for war profiteers­.
photo
HeevenSteven
20 Minutes into the future.
05:34 PM on 03/15/2010
Ah, how could I omit that.. thanks!
Buckeye54
...the One your mom warned you about!
03:06 PM on 03/15/2010
I do hope, Michael, that you're wrong. We've given enough time, treasure and blood to the Iraqi people and it's time for them to stand on their own two feet.
If not now, when?