No Residual Forces In Iraq After 2011

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 18:45

During the second half of 2007, one of my most common topics of discussion was the over the issue of a residual American military presence in Iraq, even post-withdrawal and even under a Democratic trifecta. Now, unless I am reading it wrong, or the news reports on the subject are wrong, the new security agreement between Iraq and the United States will result in no residual American military presence in the country after December 31, 2011:

Iraq's cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011. The cabinet's decision brings a final date for the departure of American troops a significant step closer after more than five and a half years of war.

The agreement also appears to be based on fixed date timetables, rather than the non-timetable "conditions on the ground" line pushed by conservatives. Perhaps even better, the deal was negotiated by the Bush administration, meaning that there won't be any "stabbed in the back" narrative from conservatives. Or, at least, it will mean that narrative will be even dumber than the one they spun post-Vietnam (and that's really saying something).

These three aspects of the deal mean an end to the war in Iraq is, finally, coming. While it will unfortunately take three years for the war to completely end, this is still good news. It should be said that the political victories on a fixed timetable and no residual forces only happened because they were demanded by Iraqis, rather than because of progressive American pressure. Back in the primaries, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were saying they would have residual troops in Iraq after 2012. So, maybe it wasn't directly our fault, but I'm just happy that it seems to have finally happened. It took Iraqis to finally end the war we started.

Update: More from McClatchy: Under Iraq troop pact, U.S. can't leave any forces behind.

Chris Bowers :: No Residual Forces In Iraq After 2011

Tags: Iraq, residual forces, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

No Residual Forces In Iraq After 2011 | 4 comments

If this happens (0.00 / 0)

it would be most excellent.

Almost every US military adventure since since WW2 (excluding Nam) has resulted in a permanent US military presence. It's gotta stop.

by: dwl33 @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 18:19:33 PM CST

what about Blackwater? (0.00 / 0)

Will we withdraw all our troops, only to replace them with private mercenaries?

After all, they're not technically "American military forces."

What does the new agreement say about them, if anything?

by: limpidglass @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 18:22:42 PM CST

Troops could be home sooner than 2011 (0.00 / 0)

Another aspect of the agreement is that U.S. troops must be withdrawn to their bases by June 30, 2009, and will only be allowed to engage in military operations if the Iraqis approve them. There is a clause saying troops can be withdrawn sooner than the end of 2011, if either government requests it. That means U.S. troops could come home sooner than that, and that gives us (and the Iraqis) an opening to push for that. Neither we, not they, can afford three more years of occupation, not with the economic crisis and state and local budget crises, and all the other things we need to fund.

Re Blackwater, any foreign forces that violate Iraqi law outside of approved military operations are subject to trial in Iraqi courts. That effectively means that private forces will be confined to U.S. bases, will not be in a position to shoot up Iraqis, and will have to also be withdrawn by the deadline.

In addition, the agreement states that U.S. troops are not allowed to attack any foreign country from Iraq (e.g., Iran), and it has teeth.

This did come from the Iraqis, largely for internal political reasons (Iraqis hate the occupation, in other words). There is also this factor: they gambled on a tough stance with the Bash administration, in the belief Obama would win. They also saw that antiwar Democrats had taken over Congress in 2006 but had not been able to stop the war. They knew they would have to step up if the war was to be ended. Thus, it was our success in turning Americans against the war and nominating an antiwar Democratic presidential candidate that gave Iraqis hope, but our failure to end the war meant that they would have to take over. The larger picture is that we worked together, not always conscious of the fact, to end the war.

by: johnraymond @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 20:13:03 PM CST