[Some] Anti-War Groups Will Back Obama’s Troop Withdrawal Delay

[babylonsister]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/anti-war-groups-will-back-obamas-troop-withdrawal-delay/

Anti-War Groups Will Back Obama’s Troop Withdrawal Delay

snip//

MoveOn’s national campaign director, Nita Chaudery, tells me that the group won’t make an issue of the delay, which apparently is meant to appease military commanders, because they’re thrilled that he’s sticking by a time-line.

“The bottom line is that our members, and Americans everywhere, are so incredibly pleased to have a president who’s finally putting in place a concrete plan to end this war,” Chaudery says. “Do we wish they could come home sooner? Of course we do. At the same time, there’s a date certain for this war to be over.”

“The fact that the President is sticking with a time-line that is at least close to the one he announced during the campaign is a good thing,” adds Tom Andrews, a former Congressman who is national director of the Win Without War coalition. “He was under tremendous pressure to back off of a time-line.”

There’s still the prospect of some more friction from the left, however. Antiwar leaders want to see a clearer sense of how many residual forces will remain — today’s Times suggested the possibility of as many as 55,000 — and what precisely their mission will be. They also want Obama to reaffirm his commitment to the Iraqi Parlimanent’s Status of Forces Agreement, which would set the end of 2011 as the deadline for all troops to be out.

“It’s important that the administration makes clear that it fully supports these firm deadlines,” Andrews continued. “And we need to be much clearer about the role the residual forces are going to have. We hope to see clarification when he makes his announcements.”

Something to keep an eye on.

[Parche]

1. he is doing the right thing

you cant just pull everyone out at once
you have to do it gradually, but at least he is starting
to get out of this unjust and deceit of an invasion

:hi:

[Captain Hilts]

3. That's exactly right, Parche...

check these out...

http://www.pbase.com/torskphotoguy/image/93337814

[Bragi]

2. This is spin...

The antiwar movement is not going to accept leaving 50K troops in Iraq, or escalating the war in Afghanistan.

If Obama does what he says he intends to do, then I would predict that in 6 months time the antiwar movement will be in the streets once again protesting against his war policies.

Regrettably, I expect to be with them.

- B

[babylonsister]

4. Did you even read it?

This article is specifically talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq. At no time did Obama ever say he'd withdraw them all, in fact, quite the opposite.

From his campaign website:

"A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

And Afghanistan is a whole 'nother story not mentioned in this article.

[Bragi]

10. Yeah, I read it

I'm not distressed about the timeline, but I agree with the poster below that 55K troops is not a residual force, it is an army of occupation. There will still be attacks on U.S. troops, and eventually a bunch of them will be killed, and then the right will demand more troops to protect the troops already there, and the whole thing will escalate.

As for Afghanistan, what happens there is highly relevant to any assessment of Obama's policies from an antiwar perspective. All the indicators now are that Obama plans to do more of the same things that Bush was doing, which is truly sad.

Seems that no matter how antiwar Americans become, and how they vote, there is simply no way for them to elect a government that will end the wars they want stopped.

I often wonder what ever happened to democratic accountability.

- B

[Mari333]

5. me also. warmongering is warmongering.

appeasement to those generals and officers from the Bush era is sickening. just sickening.

[TBF]

6. Agreed. It's transparent and sickening. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

7. then we shoulda voted for the two anti-war

candidates back in the primary... kucinich and gravel.

we didnt tho.

the other candidates always said thered be some sort of residual force left, they all just varied on the size

[alfredo]

8. Remember the SOFA we signed says we have to have our troops off the

streets in June. So an extra three months on base should not be much of a danger for our troops.

[T Wolf]

9. Leaving 55,000 troops is not a monitoring force - that is an occupation army. Face it - WE will be

there forever.