Obama's Plan for Iraq

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

Senator Obama published a sketch of a plan for Iraq in the New York Times today, and it's about the same as his plan has always been, clearly superior to Bush or McCain and yet horribly muddled, vague, and militaristic, until he gets to the highly encouraging last few lines. Obama begins by fudging Maliki's call to withdraw troops into his own longstanding call to withdraw "combat troops", but not to actually withdraw them, rather to move them elsewhere in the region. He joins in this op-ed, as usual, in hyping false threats from Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and Iran. He proposes increased war in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, as part of what he embraces as "the war on terrorism". And, yet, while he always says "redeploy" rather than "withdraw," the number of troops he proposes sending to Afghanistan is much smaller than the number he proposes taking out of Iraq. This would suggest that he wants to bring a lot of troops home and is just too scared and politically tone-deaf to say so. (Although he does not explain why the U.S. military would still be constrained to shift troops around the empire if he pursues his plan to drastically enlarge the largest military the globe has known. Nor, of course, does he explain why that's needed.)

Obama would end the "war," but what about the occupation? Obama also parrots rightwing rhetoric about "encouraging the Iraqis to step up," as if the vast majority of Iraqis haven't wanted the United States to leave for years now, as if the Iraqis share with the United States the mission of occupying their country with a foreign force and just haven't been willing to pick up their share of the work. Obama proposes to leave behind a "residual force" of Americans in Iraq following his withdrawal of "combat troops," to be completed two years from now. He does not say how large that force will be, explain what a "non-combat troop" would consist of, or explicitly indicate that the "residual force" will ever leave or come home. He also hedges even on his commitment to reach his unspecified goal two years from now. And, of course, he does not explain how the "war" will end as he withdraws the troops, any more than McCain explains how he will withdraw the troops after the violence ends. (A credible announcement of a withdrawal would certainly reduce the violence, but it would do so to the extent that the announcement was credible and the announced withdrawal was to be swift and complete. A 16-month partial withdrawal announcement might not create complete peace.)

But then come some encouraging lines: "I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.... I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea."

That conclusion to Obama's plan is encouraging, but will he put a date on it? When will he close the non-permanent bases, or - better - restore to Congress its Constitutional right to do so? And why, following his Fourth Amendment flip-flop should we believe his date if he ever does provide it? Sadly, if Congress continues to wriggle spineless on the floor during the coming months, our judgment of Obama's willingness to end aggressive wars will have to be based primarily on how loudly or quietly he cheers for the bombs falling on Iran, and whether he finally supports the impeachment of a dictatorial president or the elimination of the Congress.

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. Should have read your post first, David.

I posted in the Editorial Forum regarding Obama's statement.

Your post answers some of my questions.

Thanks :hi:

Ed article thread and my response there:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x371113

[PATRICK]

2. There can be no quick withdrawal

and in such a case anything you might say or do in the interim can be interpreted many ways or have widely different goals. is it continuing, more compassionate imperialism, more genuine democracy propping, region "stabilization" drawing in the Palestinian/Israeli issue again to the real center?

For years we have poured military equipment into iraq. Just getting it out even in the most decisive fashion will take a 'disappointing" long time. Our army is decimated and security personnel shifted to private guards who number almost as many as regular troops. Obama says he needs them for the interim and that implies their primary function of providing security to the occupation, to foreign businesses. he military realism conjoins with the military itself, perhaps exemplified by Clark who see the military role as a given in the area. Listening more and more to them even for the overriding reason of withdrawal will lead to re-engagement.

One should not criticize Obama specifically- yet- since these pressures and inescapables would afflict any new president. You might have a clear cut date and decision to end the entire occupation and still find your guy bogged down in realistic details and a sticky mess that has a mind of its own.

I'd say, in order to free the president from the trap and weakness of a single person facing an intractable situation or crisis and the dominance of military or special interests(oil) who make up the necessary actors in that crisis, you might better think of a change model than an ideological pose. Think of it as a global crisis, which is certainly valid. Compartmentalize the different groups and their goals and use leadership to keep it organized, focused and in control(especially the military/oil complex that must be nature keep the mess going for some time or even lead to a panic blowout). Diplomacy with the nations of the ME for the entire ME situation and the particular problems should be driven by the real world engagement with the oil crisis, Iraq, Palestine, etc. etc. the solution must be diplomatic and those goals real so that instead of going ballistic or discouraged over the slow pace of iffy slow occupation "withdrawal" progress happens impressively over the entire region stretching out in positive significance to the globe. If it parallels real progress for palestine, Israel's security, peaceful enrichment and ownership locally of the region's oil, the decline of terrorism and fanaticism, the result would even be better than the unheralded hangover of the end of the Cold War(with its reluctance to demilitarize the world and end artificial, profitable conflict).

Obama could best restore our image by extricating himself from a grueling, long, imperfect clean-up in Iraq by leading a sweeping regional resolution. Just getting out of Iraq, even if that decimated country were able to be restored to square one, will leave all the other incendiary problems still on high heat, which is also the product of the disastrous Bush/Cheney policy. only McCain will be incapacitated by age, inclination and control of the interests to be completely disastrous to deal with that situation(for which he already promises the evasion of doing ANYTHING about Iraq except tinker with it a la Nixon and LBJ.

So we need to have a little faith and offer encouragement for the type of regional engagement that will avoid presidential quagmire in one spot and the divine neglect(or more war!) certain to come from McCain. Just because the objective pressures exist and in theoretical hopes Obama politicks and moves among them as a candidate doesn't mean he has failed already!

Cannot be solved even by our very best government planners. Has to be ingeniously brought into a wide regional, even global discussion. Has to happen this way as a model for more physical onrushing global disasters and economic threats which are coming so quickly as to tempt any president to just quietly dribble out of Iraq. Transform the problem into an opportunity and the conflict players into peace partners and keep the various partners from using their dominance games to destroy the goal. The president can be the key even as the inexpert, groping JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, putting all the component advisers into different rooms.

[davidswanson]

3. Obama COULD Avoid Tough Calls

By doing what our Constitution requires and announcing that Congress will have the power to declare, fund, and end wars. I'd applaud him even as he evaded the question, because we would then be much better represented and have a better shot at peace now and in the future.

[bertman]

4. ". . . if Congress continues to wriggle spineless on the floor. . ."

That is world-class humor, my man.

Thank you, David, for bringing this so speedily to our attention.

And thank you PATRICK, for a well-stated argument explaining some of the very real and very daunting challenges Obama will face when elected.

It just sounds so easy to say "withdraw immediately", but the reality demands otherwise.

One ongoing question lingers in my mind regarding the "redeployment" part of Obama's plan. That is: where are these troops redeploying to? I have a feeling it's to some location in the region, or near enough that we could put boots on the ground if the fortunes of EXXON and friends are ever threatened by the Iranians or Syrians--or even, Allah forbid, those selfish nationalists, the Iraqis.

The Bush Crime Family has perpetrated this horrible mess on the world with no easy remedy in sight.

As PATRICK points out, this may be more about Obama's skills of statesmanship than his willingness to precipitate a hasty and perhaps precipitous withdrawal. I'm inclined to respect and trust his considerable analytical skills and his attention to the myriad interests that are in play in this historic mess. In my opinion, Obama is far more capable of managing, and winning, this chess match than McCain.

[Truth2Tell]

6. reality demands otherwise ??

:crazy:

[bertman]

7. Yes, it does.

Please explain to me how you withdraw 160,000 soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors IMMEDIATELY. Since you apparently have given this little or no thought, let me try to enlighten you a tad.

We are not talking about putting 160,000 civilians with carry-on luggage on a flight home from Chicago to L.A. The magnitude of an orderly withdrawal of our forces and equipment WITHOUT ANY COMPLICATIONS SUCH AS DOING IT UNDER FIRE or SIMPLY PULLING OUT IN A POTENTIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT will require more than a year under the most optimistic and flawless scenario.

I, for one, would like to see our military take the time necessary to get our troops and their gear home safely and with as few casualties as possible. I don't want to see one more American die uselessly for this godforsaken misadventure.

So, my hope is that Obama will start the withdrawal as soon as he can get the generals to start implementing his orders. Maybe, just maybe, when Obama is elected, the top brass will start to put their best efforts into making this withdrawal a top priority (against Bush and Cheney's wishes, you may rest assured). Judging from the comments of many retired generals and admirals they want out of Iraq as badly as most of us Americans do.

By the way, you should get more sleep. Your eyes look a bit loopy.

[Truth2Tell]

9. How long did it take to get them in there?

I understand that it couldn't happen in 5 days. But two years? Please, give me a break. How about 90 days? I refuse to buy any hogwash claim that it couldn't be done in 3-6 months. Bulk out in 90, remainder in 180 days. And yes, we may leave a mess. But the Iranians will clean it up in no time. We've already given them strategic control of the southern oil fields anyway. Might as well GTFO. No Green Zone. No Bases. No Mercs. No special forces. Out and home. Anything less is Neo-con light, Empire bullshit.

(The only argument of any merit I've heard for leaving anyone would be to shore up the Kurds - but the real threat to them is from the north, not the south. And we could exercise plenty of leverage over Turkey if we chose to w/out troops on the ground.)

[bertman]

11. I never said two years. I don't know how long it would take even under ideal circumstances

(what would they be?).

My New Webster's defines immediate as: made or done at once; near or related to the present time.

We have 160,000 American service men and women, plus another 160,000 or so "contractors" of varying ilk, plus BILLIONS of dollars worth of equipment that Americans' tax dollars paid for. Let's try to get all or most of them and it back safe and intact.

Since I'm no expert I'll rely on the comments of those who claim to be. Most of them seem to say a minimum of 16 months. We've been there fucking everything up for over five years, so if it takes a while to get out, so be it. Maybe we could at least do the GET OUT PART RIGHT for a change.

[Truth2Tell]

12. Since when does the US military need 16 months

to safely move 160,000 or even 350,000 men, even with all their equipment? Something tells me that the 16 month figure has a lot to do with the need to shore things up for the "residual force" that Obama proposes to keep in Iraq. Dump that dogshit piece of the plan and my bet is everything and everybody could be EASILY out in 120 days.

[crikkett]

10. How quickly did Britain quit India?

I think they did it in less than a year.

[Time for change]

5. I agree that Obama's plan is encouraging

Sadly, it is not politically feasible IMO to be too specific about his plans, because they will be torn to shreds by our corporate media, no matter what they are. Better to leave some wiggle room, in part justified by the fact that events between now and when he takes the oath of office may necessitate a change in plans.

I also agree that his actions on behalf of our Fourth Amendment were very disappointing.

[mdmc]

8. it is still stay the course over cut and run

but much better then what we have.