Can Obama Get out of Iraq in 16 Months?
Bombings Shake Baghdad
The daily bombings in Baghdad that appear to signal a resurgence of the guerrilla movement continued on Thursday, with three bombings in the capital killing 5 persons and wounding dozens.
Time asks whether President Obama will stick to his 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. The article quotes. Gen.Ray Odierno and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari arguing for a more gradual withdrawal. The problem is that both have strong views on this matter growing out of political commitments. I'd be interested in what Iraqi analysts think.
British troops will be out of Iraq by summer, 2009, according to Sky News. It was also announced that small contingents from Romania and Bulgaria would leave by the end of December.
The US has returned an amended security agreement to the Iraqi government, having accepted some of its further demands, including Iraqi inspection of US mail. The US would go no further on Iraqi jurisdiction over off-duty US troops (Iraq wanted Iraqi authorities to decide whether a US soldier would be remanded to Iraqi custody once charged. Bush apparently made the concessions,including the one on mail inspections, because he is desperate to get a status of forces agreement concluded before he leaves office, as a way of cementing US and Iraqi relations. But McClatchy reveals that the Iraqis are calling the agreement a "withdrawal agreement."
Alissa J. Rubin of the NYT argues, "Now the Iraqis appear to be feeling less pressure from Iran, perhaps because the Iranians are less worried that an Obama government will try to force a regime change in their country."
LAT blog says that Al-Zaman is unconvinced that Iraq will be a high priority for President Obama, whereas Ahmad Chalabi's al-Mu'tamar is encouraged that the Iraqis now have an American administration todeal with that wants to withdraw from Iraq.
A controversy has broken out in Iraq in the wake of the passage of a law limiting polygamy in Iraqi Kurdistan. Some women activists want a similar limitation throughout Iraq, citing the increased incidence of men taking multiple wives in Iraq. Other women oppose the measure on the grounds that the Qur'an allows a man up to four wives. (In fact, the Qur'an conditions taking more than one wife on a man's ability to do justice to each spouse and expresses skepticism that the condition will be met. Some Iraqi commentators have wondered whether any such measure could pass parliament, given the dominance of the Shiite fundamentalist parties.
Andrew Bacevich sees the end of an arrogant evangelical foreign policy and the beginning of a more humble approach based on a Calvinist, Niebuhr-influenced realization of the sinful nature of human beings.
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Thursday:
' Baghdad
- Around 7:30 am two roadside bombs targeted Sahwa members in Sheikh Omar neighborhood (north Baghdad). Two people were killed (including one Sahwa member) and five others were injured (including three Sahwa members).
- Around 8 am an adhesive bomb detonated under a civilian car near Hamza intersection in Sadr city (east Baghdad). Three civilians were wounded.
- Around 10 am a roadside bomb targeted a bus for the Baghdad municipality employees near the Ghilani shrine and mosque in Bab Al-Sharji(downtown Baghdad). One person was killed and 5 others were wounded.
- Around 8 pm a bomb which was put in a rubbish bin in Shalal market in Shaab neighborhood (east Baghdad). Five people were injured.
Mosul
- A roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi army patrol in Nahrwan neighborhood in Mosul city. Two soldiers were wounded.
- Police found one dead body for a girl in Karama neighborhood in Mosul city.
Kirkuk
- Police found a dead body in Sayada village on the way from Kirkuk to Taza ( south Kirkuk).'
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/07/2008 12:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
10 Comments:
"Withdrawl Agreement." Very nice framing! That is likely what the UNSC fig leaf will ordain. The limited consessions are not even close to what is required for Iraqi Parliament passage; thus, in 54 days, it will be clear that the only remaining mission for US troops in Iraq to accomplish is Operation Bug-Out. Bugging-out is easy--you just pick up your weapons and ammo, and pack up all the critical supplies you have followed by the non-critical, leaving everything else behind, and march out, band playing and colors flying.
16 months to withdraw all troops is more than enough. 12 months is doable.
The obstacles being touted are:
1) It takes a long time to withdraw troops safely and responsibly.
2) The Iraqi forces are not ready
3) Aparently for evermore, Iraq cannot control its airspace, arm itself or provide logistics.
4) A residual force will be needed to train the Iraqis and to protect US civilians in Iraq.
But the reality is very different.
The safety of US troops is not served by gradual withdrawl but a rapid controlled one. The last batallions to leave in a gradual withdrawl will not be able to defend themselves, so a large final withdrawl must be done en masse.
The idea of Iraqi troops taking over bit by bit as the US slowly disengages is already dead. Both sides have agreed already that by June 2009 all US troops will be confined to few base, which means that the Iraqi forces will be controlling the entire country.
The Americans do not need to stay until Iraq is able to defend itself against a foriegn invasion. The US and the rest of the world would surely respond forcefully if Iran invades. And having seen the most powerful military in history sink in Iraq, who would want to? Having established that, the need to train the Iraqis also diminishes. Fighting insurgents does not require lengthy or complex training.
Airspace controllers are not exclusively Americans. Iraq can hire professionals from the rest of the world, including many Iraqis. Armaments are plentiful from other countries too.
Logistics have depended on the Americans because that's how they want to play it. Iraq has plenty of human and financial resources already, and again can hire people from other countries.
American civilians will have to leave with the troops. First of all, it will be hard for the US to find people foolish enough to want to stay, and secondly it will be stupid to spend enormous amounts of money and risk so many lives just to maintain a normal (non-imperial) presence. The embassy can locate in Jordan for the foreseeable future.
Americans who wish to remain in Iraq hoping to salvage some of America's shattered reputation, or who truely feel some responsibility (or guilt) for the Iraqi national disaster created by the US, share an assumption that continued American presence could have some benefit, with acceptable consequences. But the evidence is otherwise. The invasion created massive infrastructure destruction, social disorder, economic want, and governmental ineptitude. The American occupation ensured that little would be rebuilt, and that a nationalistic insurgency--and outside influences--would grow. Abu Ghraib and Fallujah showed just how far even Americans could descend into barbarity in the search for "peace" and "security". The surge enabled and aided national apartheid, which is now ensconced. The blowback from American actions, despite whatever good intent, has always outweighed the benefits. These results are the fruit of an over-ambitious, under-informed, and totally arrogant American presidential policy. There is nothing to indicate that America now has any better grasp of the complex situation in Iraq, or that more American flags are being waved and gay flowers thrown. The daily destruction continues despite more good intentions, and America is out of money. The recreational war vacation is over. Time to go home. --JamesL
Appreciate the Bacevich link; he's one of the few who seem to have well nuanced view of 'things'. And the comments on the op-ed were worth reading as well(though I have to admit my bias to the buddhist POV.)
SIXTEEN MONTHS?
Out of Iraq in ONE month.
Out of theatre ENTIRELY in two.
[Here's the plan]
...and that's STILL not fast enough for THIS buffalo.
Oh, yeah... don't forget to leave those US Treasury/CPA supplied pallets of cold cash as a war reparations DOWN PAYMENT.
But honestly, no matter WHAT Obama says, we'll STILL be intimately involved with troops on the ground no one will know about (SOGs, rearguard offensive actions a la Operation Gladio, and CIA ops) in the sure-to-be ongoing mayhem in Iraq until EVERY SINGLE DROP OF OIL has been sucked from their soil...
You just won't see any casualty counts in the newspapers anymore.
To Americans, that means the war is 'Over'.
I hate to disillusion everyone, but consider that Rahm Emanuel will be the new chief of staff. He is, as I understand, a former member of the Israeli Defense Force. As leader of the Democratic Leadership Coordinating Council, he ensured that anti-war candidates received no help at all in the 2006 election. Wonder why Reid and Pelosi haven't been tougher on this war? Ask Rahm! I'm pretty sure he knows.
So, the United States out of Iraq? Not until it is apparent to Likud and its American backers that no Iraqi citizen could ever harm Israel.
Expect one excuse or another to remain in Iraq, so that our forces can continue to destroy it and fragment society.
Here's a wager: the last American troops will laager in the west, protecting Israeli access to Kirkuk's oil. Any takers?
Withdrawal my Aunt Fatima! Maintaining a so-called "residual force" of tens of thousands of troops for an indefinite period is not withdrawal, it is reconfiguring the occupation.
it will take 7 months to pull out of Iraq:
1 month to replace incumbents in the Ambassador and Commanding General slots with people who will put US national interests ahead of GOP partisan interests;
4 months to empower authentic indigenous local leaders to take responsibility for security of their towns and neighborhoods; and
2 months for a retrograde of military units. Ash and trash can be moved to Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey in those first 5 months.
If and when the President gives the order, the Army will execute.
The problem is, that order will never come.
.
"[Rahm Emanuel] is, as I understand, a former member of the Israeli Defense Force."
No, he has never been in the Iraqi military (which cannot in any way realistically be equated with defense), but in 1991 he traveled to Israel and volunteered as a civilian to work for the Israeli military.
His father, a former Irgun terrorist made the following typically right wing Israeli racist statement in an interview with Ma'ariv regarding his son's appointment as Obama's COS: "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel... Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
No one who cares about the Middle East in general and Palestine, Iraq, or Iran in particular, or for that matter about Pakistan, as I do care very much, having an adopted family there whom I love and miss a great deal, has been at all enthusiastic about Obama's potential in those areas. His choice of advisers confirmed our worst fears very early on, as did his early mad rush to throw his Palestinian associations under the bus as he ran to grovel at AIPAC's feet.
By appointing a militant right wing Zionist hawk like Rahm Emanuel to such a powerful position, which includes the ability to decide who does and does not get to speak with the President, Obama has shown his contempt for Arabs and Muslims in general, and Palestinians in particular.
Now obama is in. let's get out now no later than 20 jan 2009.........!!!!!!!!!!!!GET OT NOW!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home