Residual Forces Appears Yet Again

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 22:21


There is a lot of media coverage on residual forces in Iraq lately. My honest, and probably unhelpful, first reaction to this is "where the f@#k where all of you people back in 2007 when I spent six months telling you that both Clinton and Obama were proposing large residual force contingents?" We cut a television ad on it. We pushed enough that there was a debate question about it. Jay Leno ended up making a joke about it. We spent months cajoling all Democratic campaigns to put a number on their residual troop plans. We even presented to you, in detail, the exact plan that President Obama is now executing. Why is anyone surprised on this now? Where were people pushing on this issue back when it could have actually made a difference?

Anyway, at this point, no amount of pressure will stop President Obama from executing his residual force plan in Iraq. The real issue is whether or not he will try to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement, which explicitly prohibits residual forces after 2011. All the pressure now needs to be on making the administration not re-write, not re-negotiate, and not disregard the Status of Froces Agreement, as there are elements in the administration who would like to do just that.

In the end, if we can get all of the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, that will still be a minimum thirteen month improvement on where we stood in the No Residual Forces campaign back in 2007. At a debate on September 27th of that year, then-Senator Obama didn't even promise to get all troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term. No matter how this change happened, it would still be a welcome development.

Chris Bowers :: Residual Forces Appears Yet Again

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Residual Forces Appears Yet Again | 14 comments
staying (4.00 / 5)
We are still in Germany and Japan 64 years after WWII ended. We are still in Korea.

Why would anyone think that we are going to leave Iraq? Why did we build 17 bases including four super bases?

We went in to achieve certain objectives and these have not yet been (fully) met.
1. Get oil delivered under conditions favorable to the west
2. Establish a new base of operations to replace that lost in Saudi Arabia
3. Intimidate neighboring states
4. Prevent China from making resource deals with states in the region

How are we doing?
1. A work in progress
2. The bases are built and operational
3. Syria and Libya are behaving "better", others not so much
4. China has moved into other regions (notably Africa) while we were diverted

Policies not Politics

And how many Americans (0.00 / 0)
have been killed in Germany, Japan, and Korea in the last year?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
If we still have soldiers in these countries (4.00 / 2)
what chance is there that the US will pull ALL forces out of Iraq?  It ain't even slim.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Link (0.00 / 0)
The link attached to this text "as there are elements in the administration who would like to do just that" goes to one of your posts from November, but I can't find the information about who in the administration wants to renegotiate the SOFA.

This is hard to swallow (4.00 / 4)
Anyway, at this point, no amount of pressure will stop President Obama from executing his residual force plan in Iraq.

Practically, you may be right. But given that Congress is supposed to have preeminence in these sorts of decisions, it's frustrating.  Pelosi raised questions about this last night (
mentioned in the quick hits.)  It's all good to ask questions, but it would be nice if members of Congress would not act like spectators in matters of war and peace.

I think it's worth pressuring members of Congress on this, even if it can't change the outcome.  They should be on notice that they will be on the hook for their role, even if they pretend its out of their jurisdiction.

Once I get my new member of Congress, I plan on doing just that.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

I Wouldn't Be So Pessimistic (4.00 / 3)
Anyway, at this point, no amount of pressure will stop President Obama from executing his residual force plan in Iraq.

In one sense, probably true.  But in another sense "his residual force plan" could end up quite different from what it is now.  And no amount of pressure alone might do it, but in combination with other factors.... I think the story so far is that our pushing has done some good, and so we need to continue, even as we step up the focus on Afghanistan.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Odierno said in Nov. he wants around 35000 troops still in Iraq in 2015 -- (0.00 / 0)
... But Ricks's look forward gives this book its tremendous value, not the who-did-what-when chronicle of the surge. "It appears that today we may be only halfway through" the war, Ricks says, despite a new agreement with Iraq calling for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by December 2011, and a new administration that wants out sooner.

The top combat commander in Iraq gave Ricks what appears to be the only on-the-record estimate of what even President Barack Obama - who favors a near-total pullout in 16 months - acknowledges will probably be a "residual force" in Iraq.

"I would like to see a ... force probably around 30,000 or so, 35,000," Gen. Raymond Odierno said in November, when asked to speculate about how many troops would remain in Iraq by 2014 or 2015. (The U.S. has about 146,000 troops in Iraq today.) Those troops would train Iraqi forces and conduct combat operations against al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies, according to Ricks. ...

-- http://www.mercurynews.com/boo...

As long as there's oil there, we're staying.

We closed all our bases in Saudi Arabia -- and just moved them to Iraq -- the big ones are permanent ("Enduring" they call them, i think).

from 06 -- " Huge bases raise question: Is U.S. in Iraq to stay?" (0.00 / 0)
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/...

... But long-term access, as at other U.S. bases abroad, is different from "permanent," and the official U.S. position is carefully worded.

... U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about "permanent duty stations" by a Marine during an Iraq visit in December, allowed that it was "an interesting question." He said it would have to be raised by the incoming Baghdad government, if "they have an interest in our assisting them for some period over time."

In Washington, Iraq scholar Phebe Marr finds the language intriguing. "If they aren't planning for bases, they ought to say so," she said. "I would expect to hear 'No bases.' "

Right now what is heard is the pouring of concrete.

In 2005-06, Washington has authorized or proposed almost $1 billion for U.S. military construction in Iraq, as American forces consolidate at Balad, known as Anaconda, and a handful of other installations, big bases under the old regime.  ...


[ Parent ]
Looks like McCain was honest (4.00 / 1)
with that line about staying for 100 years.

There's no real incentive to leave.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

and what about the 190,000 contractors there? (4.00 / 1)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...

Aug 08 --  Report: U.S. using contractors in Iraq at unprecedented rate --

...  According to the report, between 2003 and 2007, the United States spent $6 billion to $10 billion on security contractors, about as much as it would cost to have U.S. military units performing the same mission.

U.S.-funded contracts employed an estimated 190,000 contractors in Iraq in 2007, about 40,000 to 50,000 more than the number of U.S. troops in the country.

The report says that during peacetime, the contractors would not be renewed; the duty would return to military units. ...


New mission??? (0.00 / 0)
"new mission of training, civilian protection and counterterrorism"

huh?  what have they been doing?  disappointed, he said over and over again END THE WAR IN IRAQ!

From the man himself... (0.00 / 0)
As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we've made and protect our troops. Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end...

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.

"Combat troops" out by Aug 31 2010.  All troops out by end of 2011.

John McCain <3 lobbyists

also of note (0.00 / 0)
In a part of his speech where he's talking to the Iraqi people, he said, "The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources."

John McCain <3 lobbyists
[ Parent ]
Breaking on Daily Kos (0.00 / 0)
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/...

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end...

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.


Residual Forces Appears Yet Again | 14 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox