President Obama Drops 2009 Pledge to Withdraw Combat Troops from Iraq

[Better Believe It]

Obama Drops 2009 Pledge to Withdraw Combat Troops from Iraq
By Gareth Porter
August 3, 2010
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.


WASHINGTON, Aug 3, 2010 (IPS) - Seventeen months after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by Sep. 1, 2010, he quietly abandoned that pledge Monday, admitting implicitly that such combat brigades would remain until the end of 2011.

Obama declared in a speech to disabled U.S. veterans in Atlanta that "America's combat mission in Iraq" would end by the end of August, to be replaced by a mission of "supporting and training Iraqi security forces".

That statement was in line with the pledge he had made on Feb. 27, 2009, when he said, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

In the sentence preceding that pledge, however, he had said, "I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months." Obama said nothing in his speech Monday about withdrawing "combat brigades" or "combat troops" from Iraq until the end of 2011.

Even the concept of "ending the U.S. combat mission" may be highly misleading, much like the concept of "withdrawing U.S. combat brigades" was in 2009.

Under the administration's definition of the concept, combat operations will continue after August 2010, but will be defined as the secondary role of U.S. forces in Iraq. The primary role will be to "advise and assist" Iraqi forces.

An official who spoke with IPS on condition that his statements would be attributed to a "senior administration official" acknowledged that the 50,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq beyond the deadline will have the same combat capabilities as the combat brigades that have been withdrawn.

The official also acknowledged that the troops will engage in some combat but suggested that the combat would be "mostly" for defensive purposes.

Only a few days after the Obama speech (February 27, 2009), Secretary of Defence Robert Gates was more forthright about the policy. In an appearance on Meet the Press Mar. 1, 2009, Gates said the "transition force" remaining after Aug. 31, 2010 would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterised differently".

"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."

But "advisory and assistance brigades" were configured with the same combat capabilities as the "combat brigade teams" which had been the basic U.S. military unit of combat organisation for six years, as IPS reported in March 20009.

Please read the full article for clarity at:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52366

[ProSense]

1. The article is a distortion of the facts.

From the President's speech:

Now, one of those chapters is nearing an end. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. (Applause.) 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 31st, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. (Applause.) And that is exactly what we are doing -- as promised and on schedule. (Applause.)

Facts

[Barack2theFuture]

3. The president's speech you quote is the distortion.

As usual, he uses the slipperiest possible language to avoid accountability and to not quite define any criterion by which he can be judged later. Unlike your cherry-picked quote, the OP refers to a specific promise of a specific action to be taken by a specific date.

Unless all the remaining three divisions of troops (roughly equivalent in size to the original invasion force) are completely unarmed, they are combat troops.

[Oregone]

2. Total distortion. They'll be "non-combat" troops with "non-guns"

[kenny blankenship]

4. 50,000 troops is the # Douglas McGregor and Rumsfeld wanted for the INVASION of Iraq

That was under an early Pentagon scenario that called for simply removing Saddam Hussein and the Republican Guard and inviting a New Saddam from the Iraqi Army to take his place.

Leaving 50,000 behind in permanent bases doesn't speak too highly for Iraq's sovereignty. It's sort of like we don't trust them to be our friends unless they know we are poised to remove/decap their govt on 2 hours notice. Permanent occupation is not peace.