Obama and Iraq

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Obama and Iraq

A week before taking office, Senator and soon to be No. 2, Vice President-elect Joe Biden held diplomatic talks in Iraq. He met with key leaders in Baghdad, but most notably he made the effort and took the Obama message to Kirkuk, the oil capital of the north and a main front for Arab-Kurdish turmoil.

The Associated Press’ Robert H. Reid reports the Obama-Biden message to Maliki was a hybrid of the 16-month pull-out campaign commitment with a twist of Bush-era spin:

However, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh quoted Biden as saying that President-elect Barack Obama is committed to withdrawing from Iraq in a manner than does not endanger the security gains of last year.

“He said that Obama is committed to withdraw but he wants the withdrawal to be a responsible one. Obama does not want to waste the security gains that have been achieved,” al-Dabbagh said.

<snip>

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2009/01/14/us-watchdog-cites-kbr-us-and-iraq-governments-for-poor-south-oil-reconstruction/

Biden says pullout won't be reckless
Kurds wrangle with Arabs over claims to Kirkuk

By ROBERT H. REID
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BAGHDAD -- Vice President-elect Joe Biden assured Iraq's prime minister Tuesday that the incoming administration won't withdraw U.S. troops in a way that threatens stability, an Iraqi spokesman said.

Biden later traveled to one of the major threats to that stability -- the northern city of Kirkuk. He urged rival Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen to make concessions to resolve peacefully their competing claims to the oil-rich city.

U.S. officials issued no statement about Biden's meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which happened on the second and final day of his visit to Iraq.

However, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh quoted Biden as saying that President-elect Barack Obama is committed to withdrawing from Iraq in a manner that does not endanger the security gains of last year.

<snip>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/395926_iraq14.html

"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota, a state no Democratic presidential candidate has carried since 1964. "And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold."

Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come

Jeremy Scahill reports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will not “rule out” using private military companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. Obama also has no plans to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009. Despite their antiwar rhetoric, both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton have adopted the congressional Democratic position that would leave open the option of keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for many years.

<snip>

And so, I started to look at this reality. Obama is saying he wants to keep the embassy. Obama is saying he wants to keep the Green Zone. Obama is saying he wants to keep the Baghdad airport. Who’s guarding US diplomats right now at this largest embassy in the history of the world? Well, it’s Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp; it’s these private security companies.


<snip>

Now, I’ve looked very carefully at both of their Iraq plans, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lifted much of their Iraq plans from two sources. One is the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, and then the other is the 2007 Iraq supplemental, which was portrayed as the Democrats’ withdrawal plan. And both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a three-pronged approach to what they see as a longer-term presence in Iraq. They say that US personnel are going to remain in the country to protect diplomats and other US officials in the country. And we’ve already talked a bit about that with Obama. Hillary Clinton appears to be taking the same approach on that. Number two is that they want to keep trainers in place that will train the Iraqi military. At present, there’s 10,000 to 20,000 US trainers, all of whom will require security, so that’s a substantial force. And then the third is that they’re saying that they want to keep a force in place to, quote, “strike at al-Qaeda,” in the words of Barack Obama’s Iraq plan.

When the Institute for Policy Studies did an analysis of what this would mean, they said it’s 20,000 to 60,000 troops, not including contractors. And right now we have a one-to-one ratio with contractors and troops in the country. 20,000 to 60,000 troops indefinitely in Iraq, this is something that over the course of ten years the Congressional Budget Office says could cost half-a-trillion dollars. This doesn’t include the fact that you have to have troops bringing supplies in and out of Iraq. It doesn’t include the troops that Obama and Clinton are going to keep in Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and elsewhere. I mean, this is actually a pretty sustained indefinite occupation that’s going to be on the table if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are in office and take power.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war_rhetoric

Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric of "change" and bringing an "end" to the Iraq war realized early on that his Iraq plan boiled down to a down-sizing and rebranding of the occupation. While he emphasized his pledge to withdraw U.S. "combat forces" from Iraq in 16 months (which may or may not happen), he has always said that he intends to keep "residual forces" in place for the foreseeable future.

It's an interesting choice of terms. "Residual" is defined as "the quantity left over at the end of a process." This means that the forces Obama plans to leave in Iraq will remain after he has completed his "withdrawal" plan. No matter how Obama chooses to label the forces he keeps in Iraq, the fact is, they will be occupation forces.

Announcing his national security team this week, Obama reasserted his position. "I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary -- likely to be necessary -- to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq." While some have protrayed this as Obama going back on his campaign pledge, it is not. What is new is that some people seem to just now be waking up to the fact that Obama never had a comprehensive plan to fully end the occupation. Most recently, the Times:

"On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to 'end the war' in Iraq," wrote reporter Thom Shanker on Thursday. "But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months."

<snip>

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19879



The discussion within the U.S. foreign policy establishment on the future of Iraq has come to a conclusion. The U.S. will, now officially, work to dissolve the Iraqi nation and state into three independend statelets under a powerless sham national government and, of course, total U.S. control.

The current version of the idea was first floated back in May by Senator Biden and Leslie Gelb, both Democrats, in a NYT oped.

The Baker Iraq Study Group, set up to look at new policy options in Iraq, leaked its coming results, i.e. the implementation of the Biden/Gelb plan, to Murdoch's London Times:

His group will not advise "partition", but is believed to favour a division of the country that will devolve power and security to the regions, leaving a skeletal national government in Baghdad in charge of foreign affairs, border protection and the distribution of oil revenue.

<snip>

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/10/iraqs_partition.html

[Orwellian_Ghost]

1. Obama and Iraq

A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama's campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors. (Hillary Clinton's staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.)

Obama's broader Iraq withdrawal plan provides for some US troops to remain in Iraq--how many his advisers won't say. But it's clear that Obama's "follow-on force" will include a robust security force to protect US personnel in Iraq, US trainers (who would also require security) for Iraqi forces and military units to "strike at Al Qaeda"--all very broad swaths of the occupation.

<snip>

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

[krispos42]

2. Kick

Hell, you put a lot of work into it...

[krispos42]

3. Kick

Hell, you put a lot of work into it...

[slipslidingaway]

4. kick n/t

[leftstreet]

5. I missed this before

Can it be re-posted so we can get it on the Greatest page?

Excellent work putting this together.