Kerry's statement about troops withdrawal

[Mass]

I guess this is a good statement, everything considered.

I am torn between the good aspect of this plan (146,000 troops withdrawn in 18 months, which is not something that should be poo-pooed), and the disappointing aspect (why do we need 18 months for that (rather than the 1 year that was in the Senate plan, do we really need that many troops there?), but am ready to recognize these are questions way above my paygrade and just hope this will be done and nothing will go in the way.

I would hope people recognize this is mostly logistics and that it is the more political aspects that will lead that, but, as far as I can see, this will not happen.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/02/obama_announces_4.html

But Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, praised Obama's plan.

“President Obama committed long ago to be as careful getting out of Iraq as the Bush Administration was careless going in, and this strategy keeps his promise. The President’s plan is responsible, thoughtful, empowers Iraqis to lead their own country, and protects America’s security interests in the region now and in the long term. This is the responsible drawdown of the great majority of American forces from Iraq with a realistic timetable and President Obama is correct to leave in place a sufficient residual force to complete the training of Iraqi security forces, protect our personnel, and conduct counter-terrorism missions. While many challenges remain in Iraq, including passing an oil law, resolving the status of Kirkuk, and continuing the process of national reconciliation, this timetable strikes an appropriate balance between protecting our interests and holding Iraqis responsible for their future. It represents exactly the flexibility to adapt to the recommendations of our military leaders on the ground that we should want in our Commander in Chief," Kerry said in a statement.

“As we signal our intent to withdraw, we must also send a message to Iraqi leaders that we expect continued progress on political and reconciliation efforts, and to Iraq’s neighbors that we plan to work cooperatively to stabilize Iraq. Our drawdown in Iraq must be incorporated into a comprehensive regional strategy that brings new leverage to bear in resolving crucial issues including the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Lebanon and Iran’s nuclear program.”

[YvonneCa]

1. This is what I would have expected...

...Kerry would say after Obama's speech this morning from Camp LeJeune, NC. I posted this earlier:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Today our country begins to heal from Iraq. Obama's speech will end a war, while honoring the soldiers who were sent there. Doing so will prevent what happened after Viet Nam...a country divided for decades afterward. This speech was about a way forward that will do the right thing for the Iraqi people, and bring unity to our country.

GREAT speech, Mr. President! As an American who is tired of the divisiveness of the last several years, I applaud you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think Senator Kerry would agree.

[Mass]

2. Seems that Kerry avoided the error that others made. He waited until Obama spoke to make a statement

Pelosi, Reid, and others spoke before Obama had made his statement and got stuck with the 50,000 troops number, that is clearly, from what Obama said, an upper limit. This said, the media are going to exploit this to show Obama in disagreement with the Dems, while the GOP agrees. Sometimes, you wished that they learn.

[TayTay]

3. I think it's going to be a long slog on withdrawal.

I am in the process of reading the Thomas Ricks book, The Gamble, and it is a real eye-opening. I really recommend this to people to read. (Most of the people put in charge after the 2006 elections were those who opposed the initial invasion or had big, big problems with how this went down in 2003.)

Iraq has always been something that has driven me crazy. On the one hand, we broke that country. We cannot morally walk away from that. On the other hand, we cannot win this war, the Iraqis have to develop what happens next in their country. I agree with a withdrawal, but I think this is going to be a very, very, very bumpy road.

The best parts of this book detail how "the surge" worked, at least tactically. (It never accomplished the political end of things. Iraq has not moved nearly enough politically.) I am back to being torn on what happens. I think we will withdraw to about 40,000 troops, but I wonder if those 40,000 troops will still be there 10 years from now. It is a complicated thing.

[YvonneCa]

4. I have to remember to get that book. I remember that you mentioned...

...it a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for the reminder. :)

My general feeling about Iraq is that we destabilized the region by going in there is 2003...so it will probably take a regional solution to regain stability. I say that with predious little real knowledge about such things. :7

But what is happening now seems to be more in line with Kerry's early thinking on the subject (I know a lot has happened since then.) I can't help but wonder if the deadline Obama set today doesn't give us time to get that regional solution...maybe even with other countries in support. And if so, the final number of US troops actually in Iraq might be smaller. ???

[Inuca]

5. I will try to read that

I saw Ricks a few times on TV recently and he is knowledgeable and often scary, or at the very least confusing in the facts and interpretations he presents. I do not mean it as a criticism of him, just that the situation he talks about is so confusing, a complex mesh of interrelated forces, with only a few points where influence to help untangle the mess can be exerted.

It is anything but a black and white situation. I have NO IDEA what is the right thing to do at this point, so I chose to trust O on this (though the 50,000 number leaves me with an unpleasant taste, and also I think it is going to be the LIKELY number, not a worst case scenario). I also think that most of those that express an opinion on all this do not know enough about what they are talking about, and they are just posturing, for one reason or another. ANd this includes not just people playing the "I am purer than thou" game on various blogs, but also, possibly, big wigs like Pelosi or Read. I don't know... there are very few politicians whose statements I trust to include only a minimal amount of "politic-speak" (JK being obviously one of them).

Finally, and going back to Rick's book, the quote from ambassador Crocker with which I understand he ends the book and that I heard mentioned several times, namely that the event that will end up defining the Iraq war has not yet happened, keeps popping up in my mind. Tay, is there a context for the quote in the book that makes it at least a bit less scary?

[TayTay]

6. The context is the unpredicability of Iraq for the forseeable future.

Ricks likes the fact that we are paying for security in Iraq. (I find that troubling.) We pay thousands of Sunni's to not fight us. That is a fact and it is one of the things that helped bring about security.

There are so many ways of talking about Iraq. We just came off a long, long political season in which we sort of drew up sides and were locked into talking about Iraq based on our sides point of view. That election season is finally over and that can afford a new way of looking at the situation. (We get locked into our sides during a campaign. I find that troubling as well.)

The right wing talks about the surge as if it was a wholly good thing that was entirely done by Bush and the Republicans. I have seen many a commentator on TV use "success" of the surge as a tool to bash Democrats. I don't think they see the surge for what it was or is. These commentators seem to make the point that the surge was a heroic last minute gamble on the part of Republicans to save the war and that Democrats who opposed it should apologize for opposing it.

This is hardly the case. Sen. Kerry, for example, stated in 2005 in his Georgetown speech and on talk show appearances, that he wanted a change in the strategy. He took a lot of heat from right wing critics for stating that Iraqis resented having their homes entered and foreign troops rifling through their stuff and "disrespecting" the women there. Well, that exact sentiment was the background to the surge. (John Kerry was 100% right in this.) However, in the popular press, "the surge" became only about adding 30,000 troops to Iraq. The much, much more significant thing about this time period was the change in strategy and the change in how troops would be deployed, what they would be doing and how they would interact with the Iraqi population. This was exactly what was wrong with the initial 4 years of the war.

The military changed the strategy. How many times did we hear Sen. Kerry call for just that? The central change in this time period was the top-down view that the goal was now to protect the civilian population. This meant not driving through neighborhoods in armored humvees and stopping at houses and pulling young males out and the resulting hatred and resentment that the Iraqis felt toward the occupiers. It meant dealing with the Iraqi population as human beings. Success was redefined not as the number of kills of insurgents, but as the number of Iraqi civilians protected. Isn't that what Sen. Kerry wanted? (It is insulting to have rw commentators like Scarborough insist that Democrats apologize for opposing the surge when their opposition and actions resulted in the political pressure in this country to affect that change. We really need a break from campaign season here.)

What I liked most about this book was not any kind of rah-rah support of the war. It is how the very change that so many people sought finally, and possibly too late, came to Iraq.

It is also the very thought-provoking idea that we may be a victim of that success. We are paying for peace and are probably going to seek a variation of paying for peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is that sustainable?

[TayTay]

7. Part two and the downside of this

The US military has done just about everything that can possibly be done in Iraq. We have about 140,000 troops still there and they are helping to keep the peace and help with stability in that country. Yet this is very much a best case scenario and it is enormously expensive to maintain. So, how long can America sustain the cost of that vast deployment? At what cost to other operations around the world? At what cost to the very troops we send over there? (How many deployments should our people make? what is the long term cost of those deployments in terms of health care for our vets going forward? and so forth)

I have seen Ricks derided on other parts of DU. They seem to think that he is pro-war and pro staying in Iraq for it's own sake. I didn't come away with that viewpoint. Ricks said the surge worked tactically but it did not work politically. Iraqi factions have not settled their political differences. This, as we have heard Sen. Kerry say time and again, is the one thing that has to happen in Iraq. The Iraqis have to stabilize their own government, pass an equitable oil law, determine representation for Sunnis, Kurds and Shia citizens and so forth. This is NOT happening.

This is the reason for the quotes in the paper implying that Ricks is saying we have to stay in Iraq. I don't see this as some sort of RW statement by Ricks of absolute support of the war or an indefinite stay in Iraq for the US for it's own sake. I see this as him saying that the tactics and strategy deployed by the US military in Iraq have worked, but the political "surge" has failed. So what does that mean for the US troop presence? If we leave, Iraq will deteriorate as the political moves needed have not occurred. Ricks concludes that Iraq will need another 8 years to get their house in order and be able to sustain the "reasonable" stability they have.

The political surge has not happened. Iraqi politicians have not made the extraordinary effort to reconcile their country. The US is there to stabilize that land and prevent the situation from deteriorating back into a chaos that could affect a wider regional war. So yes, we had some success in Iraq. Has that success made it easier for us to leave or harder for us to leave?

Amb Crocker's statement that the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered have not yet occurred, are placed in this context.

President Obama seems to have split the difference on this. He is withdrawing troops to force the Iraqis to deal with their own problems. Yet he is not completely quitting the country because of the fear that such an act could reignite internal conflicts.

There are still no easy answers here.

[Mass]

10. Ricks' shows the complexity of the problem, but also the need to define a clear goal

He is very well versed on these issues, but his philosophy continues to be that it is our role to make things happen there and that we cannot leave if they do not happen. There are two issues here, strategy and tactics and tactics must follow strategy. So, the first question is to define the end goal. What is it? Getting the troops out of Iraq safely for them or assuring a stable governement in Iraq? Those two goals are not necessarily compatible and at some point a choice need to be made.

I think that it is because this has not been defined that people in the anti-war movement are worried, even if they should recognize that, for the first time, there is a plan to get the troops out of Iraq quickly. I guess that Ricks is right. If our priority is to assure a reasonable stability in Iraq, it will take a very long time. But there are two issues here: is it the US role to do that and do the US people want to? The questions asked by Ricks are well posed, but first we need to answer the question concerning the ultimate goal of this plan and this is what I do not see in Obama's answer. I am not surprised I do not see it, but it worries me, not because I do not trust the man, but because without a clearly stated decision, events can easily get in the way.

You're right, there are no easy answers, but there is probably also no middle of the way answers here. Either get the hell out of there quickly (as quickly as you can without endangering the troops), or define a political mission to help the Iraqis and be honest that it will take more than 3 years, but no, you cannot do both.

[TayTay]

15. THAT is the argument

Very well stated.

[Inuca]

21. A possible answer may be that

the end goal has been decided upon, but they are not willing/able to state it black on white. And I do not mean this as a criticism, not necessarily. Sincere strive for transparency and all that, but still not everything can be put on the public table in very delicate and complex international matters. The kind of of end goal I am thinking of is the attempt to help stabilize the WHOLE REGION, and an Iraq where all the snarling dogs start going for each other's jugular would not be helpful. Forget the past and how we got here. Not that it does not matter, but we are where we are, no matter what we, or much more importantly, various important politicians said and thought in the past. Think Pakistan, think Afghanistan (what is the end goal there?), etc., etc. There are so many threads that interrelate that whole very large area, that mindlessly pulling one of the threads may lead to the collapse of the whole damn thing. What I am trying to say is that in trying to get out "responsibly" maybe O and his camp are trying NOT to make the mirror image of the mistake Bush made in focusing on Iraq to the exclusion of almost everything else.

[Inuca]

20. Thanks Tay!

I know want to read this even more, I'll see if I can get it through my school, else I will add to Mr. Rick's sales.

[TayTay]

9. BTW, there are other points of view

AT Christmas I read Chris Hedges and Andrew Bacevich. They hold views much more consistent with the idea that we need a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Mr. Bacevich entitled his book "The Limits of Power" and made a very strong case that the US cannot be the policeman of the world or sustain a worldwide empire. The effort will bankrupt us, fiscally and morally. I most heartily recommend this book too.

Bacevich has a column in the Washington Post today that is very much worth reading:

ANDREW J. BACEVICH

Professor of history and international relations at Boston University; author of "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism"

A promise to end the war in Iraq formed the cornerstone of Barack Obama's run for the White House. Yet his announced "withdrawal" plan ends nothing. It serves chiefly to reorder the Pentagon's operational priorities. Meanwhile, the "Long War" -- conceived in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, and now in its eighth year with no end in sight -- continues.

For President Bush, Iraq was priority No. 1. He expected victory to yield a rich strategic and political payoff. He neither gained victory nor reaped any payoff. Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Long War's other fronts, languished as afterthoughts. Obama's plan to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq to a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops now transforms the Persian Gulf into a secondary theater. In effect, the president is orienting the Pentagon's attention back to Central Asia, the front where the war began in 2001. Yet in doing so, he implicitly recommits the United States to what has become an open-ended military endeavor.

More at the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702644.html">WashingtonPost.com site

[Mass]

13. Thanks. I missed that. Interesting. (both Brezninski and Bacevich

It shows how the problem is complex.

[beachmom]

8. Kerry/Feingold '06 is now reality. Watch excerpts of Obama's speech:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/02/the_beginning_of_the_end.php

Every piece of Kerry's plan is included: a timetable. First combat troops out. The residuals left for a new mission of training, counterterrorism, and protection of American assets. Engagement with Iran and Syria. A regional diplomatic effort.

K/F is reality now. And the fine print was always there, both in Kerry's plan in '06 as well as Obama's during the campaign. This plan is not a surprise. And I think it is sensible. Because all of the best laid plans need to be flexible. Iraq remains a very unpredictable place.

[TayTay]

11. Yes it is.

And the strategy change is also what the good Senator wanted.

So, how does this really end or does it?

[beachmom]

17. That all depends on the Iraqis. And the economy.

The global recession/depression may hurt our efforts in Iraq, if it causes new unrest. We'll have to continue to prop up the government (the #1 employer in the country), that's for sure. And that is money well spent IMO, if it means preserving stability. I like Obama's cold hearted pragmatism -- notice his goals don't include the government being a democracy. Just that it is stable and sovereign.

[Mass]

12. Not really, 6 months is not 18 months and too many troops remain behind.

which is why Feingold said he was encouraged but worried as well. (not that it mattered that this is implemented, more that 3 years is so far away that you have really to wonder what could come in the way). This said, I understand that they want a sizable force so that the troops that remain behind can be protected.

[beachmom]

14. Well, the K/F was not going to be implemented at that moment

because Dems were out of power. The idea was a timetable, not whether it was one year or 18 months, and Kerry never specifically said how many residual forces. 50K is on the upper end, but I think 35K was not out of the realm of his thinking at the time. I guess I don't agree that the exact dates have to be the same to make the plan the same. IMO, the strategy Obama outlined yesterday is the same exact strategy that Kerry talked about on the Senate floor in the summer of '06. I also think Kerry was included in the discussion that led to Obama's decision, if we are to believe what the BoHe said about the Big Four in foreign policy.

Edit: the original K/F amendment was 1 year. (out by July 1, 2007 WITH residual forces, so we are talking a 6 month difference, which I don't think is a big difference).

[Mass]

16. Here is the first sensible article I read on the topic.

And, to repeat what I said in another thread, this is good news because, for the first time, we have a president who has a plan to leave Iraq and to end this war, which does not mean we cannot get worried about what could get in the way, but I would gladly agree with Nancy Pelosi for once:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/02/28/consensus_emerges_in_congress_for_obama_iraq_plan/

Obama's announcement is "good news, because it signals that the war is coming to an end," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

[beachmom]

18. Yes, I agree that we should all be concerned until we are actually out.

[karynnj]

22. We know that Kerry met with Obama on Iraq the day before

this was announced, because he explained to the panel of the SFRC that he would have to leave in 15 minutes to go to the White House on Iraq. (This could have just been getting an advance heads up on the details - and it didn't say who else would be there.)

I think the difference in time might be because of several things:
- That they are not still in open civil war makes it less crucial to have a very narrow dead line to get there act together.
- The then imminent election of Obama - with his (JK's first) plan of a time line likely was a major factor to moving Iraq on the agreement that the US would leave in 2011.
- The timing of the Iraqi elections seem to be one reason given for pushing it out. The idea that this could be a volatile time - because it will determine which factions have power - seems obvious.

But, as you say this plan has every single element that Kerry had in his plan. It is also true that if you look back over Kerry's 2004, 2005 and 2006 plans they all had the same basic outline - with the one major difference that in 2006, Kerry spoke of the need for a deadline, though even in 2005 he spoke of a timeline. Looking at those plans, Kerry himself adapted the timelines to current circumstances - just as Obama has done.

In 2006, I think the reason that Warner debated Kerry and gave some praise to a plan he didn't support because the timing was wrong was because he saw it as a very serious, well crafted exit plan. Something no other Democrat or the Bush administration really had. It was not Reid who really led the party to uniting behind a plan with this outline - it was Kerry.

I agree that the outline of the plan is more significant than whether the number of months is 16, 18 or 12. (Kerry originally in April 2006 had 2 deadlines - 6 months if the Iraqis made no moves in the right direction and 12 if they did. In the Senate debate in 2006 - he told Warner if things were going well - they would let them have additional time if needed - prefacing the answer with "we're not stupid". Here, Obama is President - depending on circumstances, he can change those numbers unilaterally and immediately if circumstances warrant.

The media has tried to play up the Reid, Schumer and Peolsi comments that were pretty mild as dissension. But, the fact is that no one questioned the basic plan. That is the real gift Kerry gave Obama - he took all the hits when he made the case for this plan and he was the person who sold the plan to most of the country. He may never get the credit for that - but he really did it.

[YvonneCa]

19. Yep. As the saying goes...

...'There's more than one way to skin a cat' (what an awful saying :7 ). I know some don't like to compare Iraq to Viet Nam...and Iraq is unique in most aspects...but one lesson is about what was required to actually end it.

It took YEARS...longer than anyone ever thought it would take. There was 'face-saving' required. People had to compromise. Scars were left that divided us as a country for decades going forward...some remain. And that says nothing of the need to rebuild VietNam and help it's people.

I think Obama's plan is based on the principles of Kerry/Feingold. I also think those principles have a goal of ending the war sooner than otherwise while lessening the divisive aftermath. His speech in NC was, IMO, a step toward healing the rift here at home...a VERY important goal, based on lessons from Viet Nam.







EDITED to finish my post...sorry, I had to take a phone call.:)