A President who keeps his word on military deployments

[bigtree]

There will still be 50,000 too many troops left in Iraq after the promised drawdown, but the announcement today that President Obama intends to keep his word and end 'combat operations' in Iraq is welcome news.

It's probably a reflection of the utter dishonesty practiced by the last administration that his announcement seems significant. Still, the promise kept should allow the President credibility and some trust from critics who are anxious to see ALL troops out by the end of 2011 as he's pledged.

here's part of the statement he'll make today:

“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing — as promised and on schedule.”

This promise kept should also allow the President some trust that he'll, at least, keep to his promise to transition part of his escalated force out of Afghanistan in 2011 (despite the recent posturing of his military minions to dismiss the President's Afghanistan promise to 'hand over control' to Afghan forces sometime next year). We'll see.

Kudos to President Obama.


Some figures offered by the WH today: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/obama-the-end-of-the-iraq-war-is-finally-in-sight.php

* At the end of May this year there were 88,000. By the end of the month Operation Iraqi Freedom will be over and there will be 50,000 troops in the country.

* At the end of the month, there will be 1.2 million pieces of military equipment in Iraq, down from the 3.4 million pieces in January 2009 when Obama took office, the White House said. The equipment is going to Afghanistan, to replenish U.S. military stocks and to Iraqis, the administration said.

* Bases in Iraq are being reduced from a high of 357 to 94 by the end of August.

* In January 2009, there were about 177,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan: 144,000 in Iraq and 33,000 in Afghanistan. In July 2010, there are about 169,000: 81,000 in Iraq and 87,000 in Afghanistan. In September 2010, there will be about 146,000: 50,000 in Iraq and 96,000 in Afghanistan. So even with the surge in Afghanistan, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will have been reduced from 177,000 to roughly 146,000. In addition to those on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are about 28,000 U.S. service-members deployed supporting Iraq and 17,000 supporting Afghanistan. They are deployed in other locations, such as Kuwait, Qatar, and afloat in the Persian Gulf.

* The drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq since January 2009 comprises roughly three times as many troops as the President ordered to Afghanistan last December.



President Barack Obama speaks about Iraq and Afghanistan, Monday, Aug. 2, 2010, at the Disabled American Veterans national convention in Atlanta
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

[sandnsea]

1. The entire quote

Because I think it's important to note that this has been an ongoing process.

"As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31, 2010 America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing-as promised, on schedule.

Already, we have closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of bases.

We’re moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we’ve seen in decades. By the end of this month, we’ll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office-more than 90,000."

http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=1802

[bigtree]

2. thanks, sandnsea

[zipplewrath]

3. SOFA

You realize an equally accurate headline would be"

"Obama sticks to Bush SOFA". He's basically following the schedule that Bush negotiated before he left.

Now, one can make the case that Bush probably would have tried to leverage the current political troubles into an excuse to stay longer. I don't know if that would be true though, because I can't think of an entity in Iraq right now that would want to appear to be "closer" to the US than anyone else. We are politically very unpopular there in many circles.

And I am concerned that we need to leave 50,000 troops there for "noncombat" reasons. Not to mention that apparently the State Department needs to build up a small army of their own out of private contractors.

[thereismore]

5. The fucking contractors. But they aren't able to carry military operations.

Just murder and rape helpless people. I hate them.

[zipplewrath]

10. Depending upon what you mean by "military"

They will look alot like an army. And they will have the ability to "retrieve casualties".

[bigtree]

6. thing is

I don't know of anyone here who believes Bush would have kept to his own plan, which, by the way, was conceived in the face of the presidential campaign and our party's advocacy for withdrawal.

Like I said, it's not my preference, but the President gets credit (from me) for following through on his promise.

[Oregone]

8. He didn't have to keep his plan

He was headed back to the fake ranch. Its not really debatable. :)

[Oregone]

7. Its not convenient to think of it that way

Sometimes I wonder if Bush just did SOFA in a drunken stupor to mind fuck his predecessor, knowing the MIC will never allow for a full withdrawal. He probably giggled before he signed off on it, thinking of the long-term political repercussions facing whoever takes his place. Yes....sometime I think he is capable of that amount of jackassery.

[bigtree]

11. in many ways

. . . this withdrawal of Pres. Obama's is proceeding without regard to the internal Iraqi politics which Bush's SOFA sought to link it to. It's clear (to me) that we're leaving, no matter what shape the Iraqi regime is in. That looks to be a much different attitude than Bush ever adopted or conceived for his SOFA.

(Pres.)McCain would have certainly used Bush's SOFA provisions to argue to stay longer (100 years or so).

[zipplewrath]

13. Then he'd leave sooner

I suspect he's doing the slow role for the next 18 months so that he has plenty of time for them to change their mind.

[bigtree]

14. He's had plenty of tragic opportunities in Iraq to suggest a delay in his plan

. . . and it's much harder to build up again than it is to stand down. The actual physical momentum behind this draw down has already made any potential return to a build-up a logistical nightmare.This occupation is ending next year.

[zipplewrath]

18. I suspect it will end on paper

We are hanging onto a number of posts, but transfering them to the State Department, and their military contractors. Barring some major political changes inside Iraq, I don't see how anyone could negotiate a significant change in the SOFA. I'm only concerned because he is keeping so many troops there into next year.

[Oregone]

15. Regarding McCain, he may of had more flexibility

Remember, Obama greatly shifted the overstretched forces to Afghanistan. McCain may not have followed suit to such an extent, and therefore, had the forces to re-escalate Iraq. We have no idea that either scenario would have produced a different overall commitment of war time troops.

Either way, we should realize that having two relatively active theaters leave the potential for future escalation (and as long as we have advisors there or forces in Kuwait running military operations in Iraq, Iraq is pretty much open). I can only regard Iraq as a hopeful step forward when we end any entanglements and obligations that could enable any current or future administrations to re-engage with relative ease. Will that happen? Time will tell. Right now, Iraq is on the backburner and Afghanistan is in the deepfryer.

[zipplewrath]

12. He was relatively forced into it

It was politically popular in Iraq to push us out. And this was negotiated at a politically sensative time in Iraq. Bush tried to resist the 2011 deadline, but couldn't. I do suspect there was a thought or two that it could always be renegotiated/extended after the Iraqi elections. However, the elections were basically a draw so now there's really no one willing to step up and ask us to stay. They still have 18 months though. We could be out much sooner, but Obama doesn't want to leave.

[thereismore]

4. .

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Scurrilous]

9. K & R

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[Xicano]

16. Keeps his word with respect to "military deployments" but what about...

keeping his word about a "Public option"? "Fixing FISA"? "Renegotiating or backing out of NAFTA"? "Not hiring lobbyist to his administration"? etc, etc.

Seems to me he turned out to be just another corporate tool. How is that "Change"?


Peace,
Xicano

[bigtree]

17. meh

pay attention

[Xicano]

20. Sorry bigtree I was just thinking out loud.

:)

[bigtree]

22. no need to apologize

I understand how it is to actually care about the resolution of these issues we discuss and argue here. This just happens to be #1 on my hit parade. Best regards, Xicano.

[Xicano]

23. I agree.. :)

Best regards to you too bigtree.


Peace,
Xicano

[gratuitous]

19. Still four weeks to go until August 31

We'll see if circumstances on the ground are distinguishable between August 31 and September 1. Just because you call a dog's tail a leg, it still has only four legs. Just because you say the war in Iraq has been brought to a responsible end doesn't make it so.

I don't know why I'm so cynical. Must be a personal shortcoming, which I'm sure many helpful people will no doubt be willing to identify for me. Thanks in advance ever so much for your concern.

[bigtree]

21. I swallowed my doubts earlier in the year

. . . when the President sent VP Biden to Iraq to iron out a political snag and mitigate renewed violence from insurgents. It was a point where we've been accustomed to having the rug pulled out from under promises of withdrawal. Always with Bush, the resolution of internal Iraqi politics was used to justify lingering longer. Indeed, the SOFA provides for lingering. Since then, Iraq has proven to be much the same mess it was before the 'surge'. Despite that, the withdrawal has proceeded, unabated by events in Iraq. That gives me confidence that Pres. Obama really is serious about leaving on his announced timetable.

[sandnsea]

25. They are already quite distinguishable

When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. At his Camp Lejeune speech on February 27, 2009, President Obama announced that the United States would end its combat mission on August 31, 2010, and retain a transitional force of up to 50,000 U.S. troops to train and advise Iraqi Security Forces; conduct partnered and targeted counter-terrorism operations; and protect ongoing U.S. civilian and military efforts.

- By January 2010, there were 112,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. By the end of May 2010, that number had been reduced to 88,000. General Odierno made the decision in May 2010 that positive developments in the security sector permitted the drawdown to go forward as planned. The final tranche of the drawdown to reach the President’s commitment to end combat operations began in earnest in June 2010. By the end of August 2010, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will be further reduced to 50,000. On August 31, Operation Iraqi Freedom will end. The transitional mission will be called Operation New Dawn. Consistent with our agreements with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

- There are currently 665,000 Iraqi Security Forces who have been leading the effort to secure Iraq since June 2009, when U.S. troops repositioned outside of Iraqi cities. Even as terrorists have sought to exploit the period of government formation that has followed Iraq’s successful election, security incidents remain near the lowest level since we’ve been keeping records. Since the beginning of this year, the U.S. and Iraqi military partnership has resulted in the death or arrest of more than 30 members of the top leadership of al-Qai’da in Iraq.

- The reduction in troops does not mean a reduction in the U.S. commitment to Iraq – it means a change in the nature of our commitment from one led by the military to one that is civilian-led. The transitional force that we will have in place can continue to support Iraqi Security Forces. And we will strengthen the U.S. and Iraqi partnership in fields such as education, the rule of law, trade and technology. To guide the expansion of our relationship, the United States and Iraq signed a Strategic Framework Agreement, which specifies areas for dialogue, exchanges, links, and the transfer of expertise.

Equipment

By the end of August 2010, U.S. Forces in Iraq will reduce the total number of equipment in Iraq from 3.4 million pieces in January 2009 to a total of 1.2 million pieces, which are required to support the remaining troops which will be organized six Advise and Assist Brigades plus enablers. Lieutenant General William Webster, who commands the Third Army and is overseeing the drawdown, said “This is the largest operation, that we’ve been able to determine, since the build-up for World War II.”

- The equipment is being moved to one of three places in priority order: to U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan, to replenish U.S. military stocks, and to Iraqi Security Forces to ensure they have the minimum essential capability to handle Iraq’s security. Most of the troops and equipment are being transported out of Iraq through Kuwait, although Jordan and Turkey are also permitting transit.

- The Army has dubbed the combined drawdown in Iraq and reinforcement in Afghanistan “Nickel II.” The name plays off the Third Army’s role in World War II, when General Patton ordered a dramatic turnabout to attack the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge. Patton called his operation “Nick
Bases

As part of the drawdown in Iraq, U.S. forces are also closing or transferring military bases in Iraq.


- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

The Big Picture: U.S. troops “Boots on the Ground” (BOG) in Iraq and Afghanistan

Several facts illustrate both the size and scope of the drawdown, and the shift in focus as we end the war in Iraq, and focus on al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

- In January 2009, there were about 177,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan: 144,000 in Iraq and 33,000 in Afghanistan. In July 2010, there are about 169,000: 81,000 in Iraq and 87,000 in Afghanistan. In September 2010, there will be about 146,000: 50,000 in Iraq and 96,000 in Afghanistan. So even with the surge in Afghanistan, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will have been reduced from 177,000 to roughly 146,000. In addition to those on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are about 28,000 U.S. service-members deployed supporting Iraq and 17,000 supporting Afghanistan. They are deployed in other locations, such as Kuwait, Qatar, and afloat in the Persian Gulf.

- The drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq since January 2009 comprises roughly three times as many troops as the President ordered to Afghanistan last December.

[gratuitous]

26. How many contractors?

And how much equipment has been re-classified as no longer government equipment but has now been transformed and sanitized into being owned by private companies operating in Iraq? I'm also uncertain as to how it appears to the average Iraqi whether there are X number of foreigners occupying his country, but only 144,000 of that number versus 81,000 classified as official U.S. military personnel. If a group of people armed to the teeth are roaming around your neighborhood, I wonder if it makes a difference whether they're wearing official U.S. military insignia or the corporate logo of some private outfit.

Maybe my cynicism is incurable.

[sandnsea]

27. So why don't you have the answers to those questions

If you actually give a shit.

[gratuitous]

32. Because I don't think I'm supposed to know the truth

It's almost like actual information is . . . I dunno, kept under wraps and hidden away somehow from the people paying the bills. Damn my cynicism! Where do I get off? Thinking that my government and my military aren't sharing information with the taxpayers? Surely there is accurate information out there somewhere.

Oh hey! Here's the Secretary of Defense, sharing information with . . . uh, Agence France-Presse by way of Yahoo. Not exactly stateside media:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100802/wl_asia_afp/afghanistanunrestusmilitary_20100802083215

Well, I'm sure Secretary Gates' comments will be given terrific play in the United States. Surely.

[grantcart]

24. So easy to start wars never really end

The scars will be borne for decades.

Leaving is the most difficult part, how to do it in a way that will not bring more catastrophic disruption and more needless death.

The immorality of committing to this war and the incompetence of the initial occupation will be what is remembered. Fortunately our leaving has so far been remarkably less eventful than the first 4 years of this debacle.

Now the Iraqis have a unique chance to transcend from their divisions and build a national consensus that will allow them their own path to self government. It is a chance that has been paid for with a terrible price, both in combat and to a much greater extent civilian deaths.

[bigtree]

28. I tend to just see a reshuffled, bad deck of cards there

. . . in the hands of cheaters and thieves. Not exactly a wash, but definitely enough of a mess to give pause to the notion that our nation's military should ever engage in any similar, opportunistic nation-building. Our nation just hasn't proven (in these current exercises of force and 'diplomacy') that we do this sort of thing well.

Barbara Jordan said it best: 'Change. From what, to what?' That's the pertinent question for Americans looking to find something redeemable behind all of our tragic interference. I'm not impressed as some might be by what we've fostered or unleashed there. The current regime and government is cast as benign and those still in opposition are cast as 'insurgent' or 'enemy'. That distinction should deepen in the eyes of the central regime we leave behind. I'm at a loss to see the ultimate benefit in all of that. I can't just wash away all of the division we, ourselves, deliberately fostered there.

But, I'm extremely grateful that our aggravating role there is ending. I look to the future to measure whatever changes have occurred - more in line with how we objectively view issues in other countries - without the artificial arm of America's military enabling them (and justifying what we normally find unjustifiable outside of the need to defend our military posture in our politics here at home).

[ThomWV]

29. Iraq went down, Afghanistan went up - its a fucking shell game.

[bigtree]

30. the troop reduction does seem like a wash

However (according to the WH) the plan, if fully enacted, would reduce the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from 177,000 to roughly 146,000.

here's some of the figures they've released:

In January 2009, there were about 177,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan: 144,000 in Iraq and 33,000 in Afghanistan. In July 2010, there are about 169,000: 81,000 in Iraq and 87,000 in Afghanistan. In September 2010, there will be about 146,000: 50,000 in Iraq and 96,000 in Afghanistan. So even with the surge in Afghanistan, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will have been reduced from 177,000 to roughly 146,000. In addition to those on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are about 28,000 U.S. service-members deployed supporting Iraq and 17,000 supporting Afghanistan. They are deployed in other locations, such as Kuwait, Qatar, and afloat in the Persian Gulf.

* The drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq since January 2009 comprises roughly three times as many troops as the President ordered to Afghanistan last December.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/obama-the-end-of-the-iraq-war-is-finally-in-sight.php

(I'm not satisfied with the reductions, fwiw. I'm just tracking the reduction of troops deployed and grateful for that.)

[bertman]

31. GOOD JOB, Mr. President!!! Thank you. Rec. nt