If McCain and Petraeus like Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan, should we worry?
Spencer Ackerman, among others, has posted the details on President Obama’s announcement today of his planned timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
This morning’s New York Times, though, had an ominous background description of the plan, attributed to “administration officials”:
The plan would maintain relatively high troop levels through Iraq’s parliamentary elections, to be held in December, before beginning in earnest to meet the August 2010 target for removing combat forces, the officials said.
. . . The withdrawal would start slowly, with 2 of the 14 American combat brigades now in Iraq pulling out before the December elections, officials said. After the transition to a new government, the withdrawal would accelerate early next year.
“The commanders are concerned about maximizing their numbers on the ground for as long as possible, at least until we get to the other side of the elections,” another senior official said.
Marc Lynch (neé Abu Aardvark) explains the problem with this plan:
Iraq’s Parliamentary elections have not yet been scheduled and don’t even have an electoral law, and according to a number of senior Iraqi politicians probably will not be held until March 2010 (not December 2009). That would then give the U.S. about five months to withdraw the bulk of the dozen combat brigades which would reportedly remain. And then, keep in mind that U.S. officials generally agree (correctly) that the most dangerous period of elections is actually in their aftermath, when disgruntled losers might turn to violence or other destabilizing measures. So the following month will likely not seem a good time either. So that would leave four months to move, what — 9 brigades? Did someone say precipitous? Good luck with that.
I’ve never been too worked up over debates about the size of a “residual force” after the U.S. withdraws the bulk of its troops from Iraq — in my view, that’s the last 25-30% of a process that will take on a logic of its own once it has begun. The important thing has been to begin the process.
For that exact reason, I’m worried now. As Lynch notes, this slow-starting withdrawal plan originated among folks (in the military and elsewhere) who were perfectly comfortable with not withdrawing from Iraq at all.
President Obama may think that he’s worked a compromise that has gotten those skeptics/opponents to buy into accepting a withdrawal. But when I see that John McCain is “cautiously optimistic” about Obama’s plan, I fear that they think they’ve lured him into a trap. Which means that someone is in for an unpleasant surprise.
(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)
Tags: Iraq withdrawal, SOFA
February 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
You’ve totally hit the nail on the head Swopa. What is the ‘function’ of a reduced force? Effectively, it becomes a ‘tripwire’ in case events on the ground spiral out of control following the partial withdrawal.
In spite of all the hoopla about how ‘genius’ Petraeus turned around the situation in Iraq, the major flashpoints still exist, i.e. rivalries between the Shi’ite Arabs and the Kurds and Sunni Arabs.
If you want to actually get out of Iraq, leaving a tripwire is just asking to be invited back in.
Meanwhile, he escalates in Afghanistan. No mystery why he’s asking for an increase in the defense budget!
February 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Drooling paranoia leftover from the last eight years. Unless you have something factual, this just sounds simpleminded.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Thanks for dropping by, LD Jr., but I gather you’re not familiar with anything else I’ve written over the past few years. (Not that you’re required to be, of course.)
That aside, I’m curious what part of my post you think isn’t supported by facts. Do you disagree that some elements of the military would prefer not to withdraw from Iraq?
February 28th, 2009 at 7:29 am
You’re correct to say that I’m unfamiliar with your previous writings.
What I suggest is that the main point of the post, that Petraeus is hoping to dupe Obama, is not something that you should just thow out there without considerable backup.
If you’ve posted some factual basis elsewhere or can provide them I would gladly read them, gladly retract my comment if unwarrented.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
From Petraeus’ perspective, it’s probably not a matter of trying to “dupe Obama” — rather, he wants to persuade Obama to adopt his point of view. As McClatchy News reported last July, Petraeus was opposed to setting a firm withdrawal timeline, even after Iraqi prime minister Maliki endorsed Obama’s call for one.
The New York Times reported in December that Petraeus and Gen. Odierno were looking for ways to soften not only Obama’s timeline but the one required by the the SOFA agreement with Iraq.
The NYT quoted Odierno a month ago as reaffirming that view: “In an interview in Iraq on Wednesday, General Odierno suggested that it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly.”
The Obama plan, as outlined in my post, appears to give Odierno/Petraeus what they wanted in terms of a slow start to the withdrawal — but also insists on meeting a mid-2010 deadline for removing all combat troops. My inference is that Odierno/Petraeus still want what they want — and, encouraged by Obama’s de facto acceptance of their short-term plans, will seek as December approaches to convince him to back away from the August 2010 commitment.
As someone who supports a withdrawal, I consider that negotiating strategy a “trap” and perhaps even “hoping to dupe Obama.” (As I said, I’m sure the generals would describe it more positively.) However, I also believe that Obama still wants what he wants, which is a 2010 withdrawal. Which is why I think there’s a political fight still to come on this subject.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Thank you again for the reply.
Odierno, I can agree diserve a bit of suspicion.
Outside of a statement from July, during the last days of an administration he was serving, and also during a presidential campaign, you’re not really offering anything about Petraeus.
Again, your statement is serious and shouldn’t be sent nakedly into the world if you can clothe it.
Attackerman today reports that Gates says that he and his generals support Obama.
Again, thanks and unless you have more at present, I guess we shall see what unfolds.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:57 am
The essential problem that the US military planners face in leaving Iraq is that in order to leave a stable country, they have to leave a good bit of military hardware in the hands of its government. The US elite has been unwilling to do so because of the possibility that an unfriendly government being elected there. You can train all the Iraqi troops you want, but unless you are willing to give them tanks and jets you can forget about long term stability.