Is Credit Due President Obama in Iraq?

[bigtree]

Did Obama win the Iraq War?

Let's give credit where it's due

By Juan Cole

___ Obama's biggest practical foreign policy success has been in keeping to his withdrawal timetable in Iraq. Most observers have paid too little attention to this, among his most important decisions. When he became president, his top generals, including Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno, reportedly came to him and attempted to convince him to modify the withdrawal timeline adopted by the Iraqi parliament as part of the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated shortly before he took office. They did not want U.S. troops to cease patrolling independently in mid-June 2009. They did not want to get all combat troops out by summer 2010. They wanted to finesse the agreement. Reclassify combat troops under some other heading, they said.

Over Gen. Ray Odierno's objections, in June 30, 2009, U.S. troops ceased independently patrolling major Iraqi cities. Iraqis celebrated this change as "Sovereignty Day."

Most Americans do not realize that U.S. troops seldom patrol or engage in combat in Iraq anymore, accounting for why none were killed in hostile action in December. The total number of U.S. troops in Iraq has fallen from a maximum of 160,000 during the Bush administration's "surge" to about 110,000. After the early March parliamentary elections, another big withdrawal will begin, bringing then number down to 50,000 or so non-combat troops by Sept. 1.

Critics of Obama often charge him with failing to end the Iraq war. But there is no longer an Iraq war. There are U.S. bases in a country where indigenous forces are still fighting a set of low-intensity struggles, with little U.S. involvement. Obama is having his troops leave exactly as quickly as the Iraqi parliament asked him to. Most U.S. troops in Iraq seem mainly to be in the moving business now, shipping out 1.5 million pieces of equipment.

The last 4,000 Marines will hand over responsibility for al-Anbar Province, once among the more violent places on earth, to the U.S. Army on Saturday, and shortly thereafter the Marines will depart the country.

Contrary to the consensus at Washington think tanks, Obama is ahead of schedule in his Iraq withdrawal, to which he is committed, and which will probably unfold pretty much as he has outlined in his speeches . . .


full article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2010/01/20/winning_iraq_open2010/

[Wapsie B]

1. So there are no permanent bases over there full of U.S. troops?

[bigtree]

3. we'll see

At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

The SOFA agreement he's signed on to actually bars permanent bases.

[timeforpeace]

2. Trouble with Juan's thinking is, if any credit is due, Bush might end up with it. Don't go there.

[bigtree]

4. Bush never intended to end the occupation

. . . opting instead to saddle the next president with that task.

[AlinPA]

5. I think when Obama came to office, there were about 140K troops there, now

about 110K+. Slow, but hopefully sure as they say.

[Jokerman]

6. How do you "win" an illegal, unjust occupation?

The only way to "win" the Bush Crusades is to bring the criminals who started it to justice.

If you want to give Obama credit for cutting our losses then go ahead. To pretend that anyone other than the defense contractors has "won" is downright sickening.

[bigtree]

7. I don't see any of that in the article

I think he used 'win the war' facetiously in the title to highlight the fact that it is this president who is bringing Bush's 'war' to an end. Cole actually, completely frames the 'win' he coins in the title in terms of Obama's ending it and restoring some measure of comity toward the U.S. with those in the region who see it as the abomination it is.

[Winterblues]

8. Bush* signed the agreement you referred to not Obama and

I will bet you that there will be US Troops in Iraq when Obama is running for his second term..I will bet the bankers will get more Huge Bonuses and the American people will be stuck with a rudderless government that can pass zero legislation.. Change you can count on..

[bigtree]

11. 'signed on to'

adopted, agreed to uphold.

Troops? Possibly. Not an occupation, though, I think.

[Jokerman]

10. Doesn't sound facetious to me.

"What they saw as U.S. atrocities in Iraq motivated many of the terrorists active after 2003. Ending the U.S. military role there will bring a sea change."

So someone who had their family murdered is going to give up on being a terrorist just because the murderers eventually left the country.


"allows the U.S. to depart with dignity, and allows Iraqis to work out their own internal problems. It is in this sense that Obama won the Iraq war."

Sure, US troops commit mass murder but they get to "depart with dignity" while the surviving Iraqis get to clean up the mess.

I still say that calling this a win is disgusting.

[bigtree]

12. I say you're making more of the word than the article did

And, I don't think Juan Cole (or I) need any lecture on the consequences of the occupation. But, have at it. The point of the article is that there has been progress toward ending the occupation. Credit should be given where credit is due. For this president's part, the Iraq occupation has been in retreat and combat troops mostly restricted to base.

[Jokerman]

19. I'm saying that no credit is due.

Just because a rooster crows at dawn doesn't mean that he deserves credit for the sunrise.

This is still Bush's war on Bush's time table.

[bigtree]

20. Bush never would have ended it as president

It's not a war. It's an occupation and it's being ended by this Democratic president. I don't think '100' years McCain would have ended it. Much more than a 'rooster crowing at dawn' going on here. I don't think it's credible to call this drawdown 'Bush's.

[jpak]

9. No - Obama is a warmonger and worse than Bush - don't give him credit for anything

except Scott Brown

:evilgrin:

[spanone]

13. they will give him nothing.

[bigtree]

14. well

. . . at least we can consider the fact of the ongoing drawdown of forces and that it took this Democratic president to actually begin that withdrawal. That doesn't insulate him from all criticism regarding Iraq, but it deserves significant consideration if he continues to his stated goal.

[spanone]

15. i give him all the credit...'they' will give him nothing

[DevonRex]

16. K&R. But don't expect DU to give him credit for any fucking thing.

Unless it's bad. Then he always gets the blame. Somewhere in China a child stubbed his toe and it's Obama's fault. Oh, and the Democratic Party is just like the Republican Party. I think that's a required caveat to any DU post these days.

I am pissed off. Can you tell?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. I'll give him credit for recognizing a lost war and cutting his losses.

Now, he should do the same in Afghanistan.

[bigtree]

18. I'm hoping he negotiates

. . . a short learning curve. I hope he will do more in the face of almost certain failure there than just triple-down on his double-down.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. The trouble is, who to negotiate with?

It appears that, right now, they are trying to negotiate with segments of the Taliban in an effort to undercut them and turn them against each other. A fool's errand. The insurgency isn't just the Taliban, nor is the Taliban the main problem. The problem is tribalism and corruption. 70% of the Afghan army and police are made up of the Northern Alliance. The Pashtuns are being relegated to a sort of second class citizen status.

Who he should be negotiating with are the regional powers, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, for a way out. Instead he's still trying to salvage some sort of face-saving "victory" for the sake of domestic politics. Along the same lines of the withdrawal from Iraq. Where the loss of a war can be covered by declaring a sort of "peace with honor".

[bigtree]

22. I think the Afghan policy is a hopeless mishmosh of dubious ambitions

But, I don't believe 'face-saving' is at the forefront of those. I see the president's determination to continue in Afghanistan as more naive about the effects and consequences than a mere political exercise.

China, Russia, Iran and others in the region are already taking advantage of whatever 'room' NATO is providing in terms of protection of transport and the like to pursue their own economic aims in Afghanistan. What's lacking is any commitment to provide for the security that NATO forces are providing the Karzai regime and whatever commerce that would sustain the nation into stability and eventual prosperity for the citizens. There are obvious obstacles to, for instance, China having any major security role in the region (India/Pakistan) but their close relationship with Pakistan could be influential.

What is not exaggerated by those who aim to convince Afghans to abandon their insurgencies and engage in peaceful pursuits is the extreme poverty which often drives them into the ranks of Taliban and other detractors who offer needed pay and other incentives. As I've watched, there are very real efforts to provide alternatives for Afghans, but these are beset with predictable obstacles and corruptions, at least initially. I don't think, though, that those efforts can be dismissed entirely at this point.

One of the most encouraging effort has been the mission of the Agriculture corps who are working to help farmers transition away from poppy production into other lucrative, sustainable crops. Tons of seeds and seedlings are being provided to Afghan farmers along with the expertise of folks from Indiana, for instance. There are problems with our military being the source of the aid and assistance, but until State is able to step up to the civilian component planned, the military will have to suffice.

None of this justifies or vindicates what I view as the counterproductive, offensive military component to the occupation. It's folly, I believe. But I don't think all of this was put together just to insulate Mr. Obama politically.

[bigtree]

23. .