How do you feel about Obama’s plan to end the war in Iraq?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
29 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
It has the added benefit of being complete just before the 2010 midterms, so it’s all good.
My main worry is about conditions in Iraq over the next year or two. What happens if the sectarian conflict resumes? I’m not sure what Obama will do then. I’m sure we would prefer leaving even then but we as a country will always be blamed for breaking Iraq and leaving it worse than it was under Saddam. That bothers me.
“What happens if the sectarian conflict resumes?”
That’s my biggest worry…anything that will delay or hinder us getting out. Plus, it seems like major withdrawls are back loaded…can we get everyone out by deadline?
The ‘extra’ 3 months? That doesn’t bother me. The 35-50k there until 2011? Troublesome, but….
Didn’t seem to make much of a splash in the LW blogosphere, but the press sure was making the most of Obama not living up to his 16 month deadline and the 35-50 k troops that are apparently bothering congressional dems.
Good. Looked like it was finalized as a consensus plan with commanders on the ground, JCS, Gates, State, and the Iraqis.
Ask why Obama has to get a consensus from Bob (GHW Bush’s CIA Director) Gates. In fact, ask yourself why Gates is still there.
that Iraq will go to %^&* when we leave, yet. Having taken some advice from the military, and getting their grudging agreement, he is somewhat immunized.
T
It depends on one critical assumption: The government that signed the Status of Forces Agreement with the US will be the government that lasts until after we leave. And that that government, regardless of who the actors in it are, are going to want the US to continue training Iraqi armed forces.
That is contingent on at least two elections going well, and as mentioned above, the incentive of wanting the US out damping down any potential large-scale sectarian violence.
How it affects the 2010 election depends less on what happens in Iraq than in Afghanistan during that period.
I’m pretty much willing to let him do whatever he wants. I think he’s a master politician and I don’t want to second-guess him at this point. I listened to his speech to the Marines on Friday and he seems to be getting the military on his side – which has major political benefits (pace Bill Clinton).
I am definitely willing to sacrifice principle in the short term (i.e. two years or so) so that Obama can get his domestic agenda through. After that’s secured, then other issues can be dealt with.
P.S. I am certain that one top goal for Obama during his term of office is to get Bin Laden. That may take a year or so (which would then mean he gets credit; a quick nab/kill now would not be seen as something he worked at). If he does that, he’ll have so much political capital, it’ll be scary.
You’re assuming Bin Laden is alive and to be gotten.
As for the “out of Iraq” deadlines, I am willing to be patient although not happy about how long it will likely take. If it takes longer to get out so that the whole mess isn’t dumped on Obama’s back, then we must do it, even if we’d prefer a different timetable.
.
For starters, Ayman al-Zawahiri would be a good catch. Pakistan’s tribal regions (also Afghan Kunar province) are believed to be a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders. Obama is expected to increase troops in these border areas.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I think he’s in his parents’ basement. Is that possible?
I don’t like it. 50,000 troops in Iraq is 50,000 too many.
But, I have to accept it. It’s better than 140,000.
And three years minus two months is three years minus two months too long. Now would be much better.
My opinion. And give Karzai a ticket to anywhere he wants and get out of there too.
What war?
Jeremy Scahill has it right.
A few questions:
Thank you Hurria!
Virtually all talk about the immorality of occupying another country is now gone from our discourse. The actual circumstances of an occupation have not changed just because a democrat is now President.
As an occupying power, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING that happens in Iraq, both morally and legally. The Iraqi government is just a sham created by Bush/Chaney to avoid that fact. As soon as Obama accepts the circumstances of that stance, it becomes HIS policy.
A few short months ago many Americans could avoid responsibility because they never voted for those policies. Now, very few Americans can do any such thing. WE voted for Obama.
This war is evil. It was started with lies, and stinks of deception. As long as any remnant of Bush/Chaney policy remains, America moral stance in the world erodes.
How many children will die in the next two years?
nalbar
One of the more disturbing aspects of all this is the way Obama has begun to parrot the Bush line – we went to Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein…we stayed in Iraq to establish a sovereign government…we have given the Iraqi people a chance for a better life…blahblahblahblahblahblahblah, etc.
There is absolutely no reason relating to Iraq or Iraqis that the U.S. needs to continue “combat operations” for the next 19 months. There is even less reason the U.S. needs to continue the occupation for the next three years.
And, as Jeremy Scahill points out, and as I have tried repeatedly to point out for the last two years or so, there are gigantic loopholes in all the talk of “ending combat operations”, and “full withdrawal”. The longer the U.S. occupation of Iraq continues the more likely it is to turn into a permanent thing.
.
The Americans protested that construction crews lived in crowded quarters; ate sub-standard food; and had little medical care. When drinking water was scarce in the blistering heat, coolers were filled on the banks of the Tigris, a river rife with waterborne disease, sewage and sometimes floating bodies.
Others questioned why First Kuwaiti held the passports of workers. Was it to keep them from escaping? Some labourers had turned up “missing” with little investigation. Another American said labourers told him they were been misled in their job location. When recruited, they were unaware they were heading for war-torn Iraq.
After hearing similar allegations during much of 2006, Howard J. Krongard, the State Department’s inspector general, flew to Baghdad for what he describes as a “brief” review on Sept. 15. He now reports that the complaints had no substance.
“Nothing came to our attention,” he wrote in a nine-page memorandum posted recently on the State Department’s Web site. More importantly, after interviewing an unstated number of workers from the Philippines, India, Nepal and Pakistan, Krongard said no evidence was found of labour smuggling, trafficking or other abuses. Krongard makes no mention of an ongoing investigation by the US Justice Department of First Kuwaiti and others for such alleged practices and other matters.
TICKETED TO DUBAI, DIVERTED TO IRAQ
Dozens of migrant workers from Nepal and the Philippines have previously accused First Kuwaiti of pressuring them to work in Iraq under US military contracts against their wishes.
Late last year several Americans also claimed they boarded separate chartered jets in Kuwait loaded with work crews holding boarding passes to Dubai, but the planes then flew directly to Baghdad.
Another American reported to Slogger that he was told by workers from Ghana on the embassy site that they were led to believe they would have jobs in Dubai but were then taken to work in Iraq.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Agree. It may take longer than a month to pack up and move stuff, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
I think, quite simply, that the President of the United States does not control foreign policy, certainly not where our military goes and what it does and who it kills. Obama is smart enough to know that Afghanistan is a lost cause, that there won’t be a democratic government there, the culture is bound to the economics there, so don’t expect any permanent changes in that. Forget the crap about Osama, or the Taliban. It’s about getting the oil from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. In essence, the military ops in Afghanistan are just like the ops in Iraq: for oil. To control the oil, to make a profit from the black stuff bubbling up under brown peoples’ feet.
Now, this makes economic sense for the oil companies, to have the US pay for its profits, but it doesn’t make economic sense for the U.S. Obama knows that paying for oil on the open market is much cheaper for America than having to maintain military occupations of other countries. So why is he going along? Because he has to. That, my friends, is the measurable limit of Presidential power.
Once an empire, I guess, always an empire. The US should pull its troops out at once. We don’t need another sixteen or twenty or twenty-four months to get our affairs in order. And, we don’t need another imperial citadel there as someone posted up thread.
If our invasion of Iraq and subsequent war were Nuremberg type crimes, and I think they were and are, then, we should stop being criminals right now! We keep telling ourselves we are the leader of the democratic nations of the world. Then, why do we provide examples of unjustified aggression and denial of basic civil rights to a population that was absolutely no threat to us at all?
American hypocrisy is becoming just another face of evil. Time for us to admit the moral monsters we have become.
obama’s plan is fine with me. i think he draw down quicker, so the Iraqis can stand-up. (remember that bs line).
I think he Pres.Obama is missing something “contractors” all private security firms contracts will cease and desist operations on March 15, 2009.
There ain’t no money. There never was any money. There won’t be no money. He’ll be lucky to make it to 16 months, let alone 19.
Not much. He hasn’t ended the occupation. The war will go on.
If he keeps his word, the occupation will continue for the next three years. That buys plenty of time to set up something permanent.
And we can never overlook the imperial citadel sitting on the banks of the Tigris. That is no embassy, believe me.
I would suggest looking at Robert Gates. He’s in charge, not Obama.
Maybe so, but the final responsibility rests with Obama.
A lot people are saying that it is too long for us — that we could/should get out now. But what if the 19 months isn’t for us, but to makes sure that the Iraqis can be somewhat prepared?
Just thought I’d throw that out there.
Nothing the United States does in Iraq is about the Iraqis. It is always about what the United States wants.