Iraq has been in the news a lot lately. Talk of troop reductions and timetables fill the air. Obama has famously called for a withdrawal of all U.S. combad troops in 16 months. The Naval Posgraduate school has completed a report that the U.S. could cut troop numbers to 50,000 by 2009. Even the Bush administration is hinting at troop cuts.
The subject of timetables which was once verboten, is now being brought up by Iraqi officials.
The long term US/Iraqi force strength agreement negotiated between the Bussh administration and Iraq and never seen by the Senate, is also in deep trouble.
So where does that leave the candidates on Iraq? Where does that leave us? And what will the final shape of US troop strength in Iraq be?
Should the U.S. withdraw all combat troops in 16 months as Obama has promised? Will Kossacks give him more flexibility on that front?
I think Obama should work hard to round up U.N., NATO and Arab League troops to fill whatever vaacuum that is brought about by the U.S. drawdown, but I think US troops will be in Iraq for at least Obama's first term, but I think we should tell the Iraqis that we should be out of Iraq lock stock and barell in five years.
Obama set off a bit of a firestorm by saying he would refine his position to withdraw troops in 16 months. Obama Troop Withdrawal I am not going to argue whether it was a refinement of policy or not, let's just say he will hear the views of U.S commanders on the ground, but the final decision is his.
The difficulty comes because the commanders on the ground in Iraq don't support Obama's drawdown plans. Lt Gen Jeffrey Hammond said this in an article on abcnews.com
"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.
Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."
The full article can be seen here: Obama withdrawl Plan May Prove Difficult
The U.S. is definately planning for a drawdown of some kind, the size and shape of the drawdown differs depending on who is doing the drawing down. The Naval Postgraduate School has done an analysis to reduce U.S troops to 50,000 troops, by spring of 2009.
Expected to be completed in about a month, it will recommend that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now. The strategy is based on a major handoff to the increasingly successful Iraqi Army, with platoon-size U.S. detachments backing the Iraqis from small outposts, with air support. The large U.S. forward operating bases that house the bulk of U.S. troops would be mostly abandoned, and the role of Special Forces would increase.
The problem again with this plan is that the commanders on the ground, most prominently General Petraeus oppose the plan, he said this:
The biggest problem: Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, who oversaw the surge, is said to oppose the recommendations, according to a Defense contractor who is privy to the discussions. Asked about the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told NEWSWEEK that Gates "feels the most important military advice he gets is from his commanders on the ground." As the next head of Central Command, Petraeus will soon have responsibility for Afghanistan and Pakistan too, which could change his views on troop deployments and the new report. Spokesman Col. Steve Boylan says Petraeus "is focused on Iraq at this point and will continue to be."
The full Newsweek article can be seen here: Pentagon Drawdown Report
Even the Bush administration is considering a troop drawdawn starting in September, but eben the most optimistic Bush drawdown plan would still leave over 120,000 troops in Iraq.
Excerpt from the NYT article:
The most optimistic course of events would still leave 120,000 to 130,000 American troops in Iraq, down from the peak of 170,000 late last year after Mr. Bush ordered what became known as the "surge" of additional forces.
Even such a small reduction is in my opinion, a political stunt by the Bush admnistration. The whole Iraq war was a political stunt, in my opinion, Bush launched this war for political gain, and dared Democrats to vote against the war. Most prominent Democrats, at least those running for President, voted for the war, and those who did not were labeled 'unAmerican', by Bush.
The politicization of the Iraq war by the Bush administration will continue throughout the election year, all the while saying, we are listening to commanders on the ground and conditions on the ground.
Who knows what McCain will do in Iraq? I sincerely believe that McCain is still fighting the Vietnam war, and has learned exactly the wrong lessons from Vietnam, that more troops and a longer stay would have won the war in Vietnam. He is wrong about Vietnam, he is wrong about Iraq.
The troop withdrawal issue is supplemented by the issue of timetables. Bush/McCain are flatly against timetables, Obama's stated timetable is
16 months. The Iraqi government has come out in favor of a timetable, but there's a catch, they want us there for at least five years.
In Baghdad, Sami al-Askari, a member of parliament close to al-Maliki, said U.S. negotiators have talked about a five-year "horizon" for the withdrawal of troops.
While a Iraqi five year timetable is not exactly a vindication of Barack Obama's timetable, it is an outright repudiation of the Bush/McCain no timetable strategy.
Finally according to the Washington Post, talks between the Bush administation and the Iraqi government have broken down, on the issue of a long term strategy for U.S. troops in Iraq. This is good news, any status of forces agreement with Iraq has to be ratified by the Congress, which is something the Bush administration steadfastly refused to do.
The full Washington Post article is here:
Status of Forces Agreement Delayed
OK Kos diarists/readers, what do you think? Will you hold Obama to his 16 month deadline? What is a reasonable timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, 2 years, 5 years or longer than that. My idea on Iraq is this, drawdown to about 20,000 U.S troops, supplemented by UN, NATO and Arab League troops, and tell the Iraqi government that we will be gone from Iraq in four to five years. This will do a number of things, it will say that we are interested in Iraqi stability, but not interested in an occupation or Iraqi oil. It will also force Iraq to stand on its own feet and end Iraq's dependance on the U.S.