Return to P.S. FAQs
Also see US Troops Home 2003-2006
In 2007, Steve Chapman expresses his concern
that we are "holding
ourselves hostage in Iraq." (2/4/07). He examines his perceived weak arguments
of those who think we should stay, like Robert Kagan. They
argue that "no matter how bad things are...things would be far worse with
us out." The flaw in Kagan's reasoning is that "lamenting the dangers
of failure is not the same as finding a formula for success...
-- Why should anyone believe" Bush this time on his "path to victory?" Forecasts
for neoconservatives ["greeted as liberators" "reconstruction
pays for itself" "Saddam has WMD"] "generally have been
as reliable as your daily horoscopes."
-- What about an emboldened al Qaeda? "They're already emboldened. Lost
credibility? Our credibility" has already "crumbled."
-- What about the fear of a regional war? "Iran has no reason to interfere
directly because its Shiite allies are already in the driver's seat."
--Other fears are that the terrorists will merely follow us back to our shores. "History
suggest the opposite" as when Israeli pulled out of Lebanon after 18 years
and Hezbollah attacks killed few Israelis. "You are much more likely to
get stung by bees if you poke their hive than if you keep your distance."
Chapman concludes, "Although our early departure many have many unwelcome effects, it also will have the huge benefit of saving billions of dollars and dozens of Americans lives every month. To persist in futility because of unreasonable fears is to be hostage to a delusion."
For Iraqi reaction, see "Iraq Politics '06".
|
Could more US troops be added? "Military favoring buildup" blared the large Chicago Tribune front page on December 13. This idea, not new, was bandied about ever more publicly in mid-December 2006. It seems to be especially supported by NSA leader Stephen Hadley, by some military leaders, who feel 15 months to partial withdraw is too quick, and certainly by Senator McCain. The numbers predicted were up to 50,000 more troops, but only planned to be temporarily as a "surge." McCain said in the Colorado Springs Gazette, (1/6/07), "It has to be significant and sustained. Otherwise, don't do it." Does "sustained" mean 6 weeks or 6 months? 10 brigades would total about 35,000 troops. Current combat brigades are 15, or 50,000 out of 140,000 troops. Thus, we could double the number of troops in Baghdad. |
McCain wants an increase to last "until we can get the situation under control, or until it becomes clear that we can't." The Arizona Senator realizes that about 15% of Americans agree with his proposal and he is "doubling down" his "bet" on the war. He is concerned that Islamic militants "will follow us home" if we fail. A "surge" might involve different deployement this time, since violence only increased during the last Baghdad surge begun over the summer. McCain and Lieberman both wanted about 30,000 troops to be added. Some military experts originally recommended about 80,000 additional troops would be needed.
Pelosi and other Democrats want to begin a pullout in 4-6 months. Will that request be 2-4 months starting in February? See much more on McCain in "US Politics '07-08" FAQ
Middle East expert Kenneth Pollack suggests that if we do add troops, we add more than before and be sure they don't return to their bases each night. Sen. majority leader Harry Reid is OK with a surge as long it is for 2-3 months, and we withdraw in a year. However, the Pentagon talks of a surge lasting 8-10 months.
Co-leader of the ISG, Lee Hamilton, estimated that 50,000-100,000 troops would be needed "on a sustained basis" to reestablish order.
Another options is to focus on al-Qaeda, as recommended by some military leaders.
Critics of adding troops include Prime Minister Maliki. Others point to more US casualties, a delay in Iraqis being prepared to take over, a strain on US forces, and insurgents waiting for troops numbers to be reduced. "We stand down as they stand up" has become, according to Maureen Dowd, "We stand up more and maybe someday they will, too." When the US added troops to Baghdad in the summer of 2006, most of the promised Iraqi troops never showed up.
The mission for adding troops was unclear in December, reported the Tribune, but "they are expected to decide before calling up new units."
Dan Fromkin, who writes an online article for the Washington Post, feels that sending more troops "may be the worst of all worlds. It's the last gasp of a strategy that's been tried before and failed, at great human cost." The "surge" is an act of "a desparate president hoping for one last way to slavage his war and prove that he was right..."
| What do US Generals want? This can be difficult to determine, as they often don't speak out in public, or speak vaguely when they do. Gen. Casey (right) wants to hand off power to Iraqis as soon as possible, and has not spoken in favor of "the surge." Casey had told the Times, according to a George Will column (The Colorado Springs Gazette, 1/6/07) "The longer we...continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the governemnt of Iraq has to take the hard decsions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias...and...they can contine to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems." |  |
Abizaid told Congress in November that our Army was unable to increase the number of troops. In late December he argued that foreing troops are a toxin rejected by Iraqis and more troops just put off the delay when Iraqis maintain their own security. Abizaid is set to retire in the spring of 2007. Seen as credible by some, he was the first general to label the guerilla war, and speak of the risk of Civil War.
Abizaid and Casey, it was announced, would be leaving Iraq and the Central Command. One to replace Abizaid is General Petraeus, who had done a few tours in Iraq and worked on counterinsurgency. The five brigades to be added would double the number of combat troops in Baghdad. Others would be sent to Anbar.
Said McCain to Casey in testimony, "I question seriously the judgment that was employed in your execution of your responsibilities in Iraq. And we have paid a very very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of what is now agreed to by literally everyone as a failed policy." In an article on "finger-pointing", McCain is the whip and Casey the "whipping boy." (2/11/07, NYTimes).
Spokesman Caldwell, in Iraq, predicted that Iraqis would take responsibility for security in all 18 provinces in less than a year. Generals are generally being quiet in December, perhaps waiting for President Bush to make up his mind. To what extent does he do as they wish? The cost of adding troops is about $1 billion/9000 troops.
Is the US "winning?" Just as we were hung up with the "Is it a Civil War?" question in 2006, so in late 2006 more and more were wondering whether we were still winning. Bush said before the Nov. 7 elections, "Absolutely, we are winning." However, new Secretary of Defense Gates said in December admitted to the Senate, "We are losing." During the next week, former Sec. of State Powell agreed, and by late December, President Bush even said, "We're not winning, we're not losing." Sen. Durbin replied that we should be honest that we are losing. He feels that Bush needs a plan to start withdrawing.
The importance of winning was emphasized by Gates: "Failure...would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come." The former CIA chief added, "All of us want to find a way to bring America's sons and daughters home again."
On December 23 we were told that the General approved a surge. Casey and Abizaid had new jobs. One piece labelled the General's disagreement as "The Surgin' General's Warning." Replacing Casey was General Petraeus who testified before the Senate at his confirmation. Petraeus literally "wrote the book" on counter-insurgency. He feels that voting against the President's plan could "give comfort" to insurgents. All five of the brigades will not arrive until May. Sen. Levin criticized him: "You wrote the book [on counter-insurgency] but the policy is not by the book." Petraeus admitted that was a city like Baghdad, 120,000 troops would be needed, but the 32,000 total Americans would be supplemented by Iraqis and by private security personnel.
Casey surprised many when he testified in the Senate on Feb. 1 that the five brigades being added were more than were necessary; two brigades would be enough, he felt. White House spokesman Tony Snow responded that Casey was talking about some of his earlier suggestion of troops needed. Senators from both parties criticized Casey's optimism and "rosy scenarios" during his leadership.
In mid-February, when Petraeus officially began his new job, he said the situation was "hard, not hopeless." As Casey left his command that day he emphaszied that the US had liberated Iraqis from their tyranny but may not be able to liberate them "from their prejudices."
As the nation and world awaited President Bush's major speech on January 10, 2007, he was set to announce a surge. Reaction was strong, in anticipation of the speech. New Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that this time the President would not get a "blank check."
The "surge" is seen by some as the "last best hope" to salvage Iraq. Will the Iraqi government send the troops they promised but failed to send over the summer, in "Operation Together Forward II"? What are the alternatives to more troops?
For more details on President Bush's speech and the political reaction to it, see more details at "US Politics Since Nov. '06" FAQ.
We learned pretty well what the Generals wanted and what President Bush desired, but what do the troops want? In late February, a group of mostly active duty forces organized an Appeal for Redress which read, "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for US troops to come home." Many of the 1600 have served in Iraq and they describe themselves as supporters of the military but critics of the war. "I'm not antiwar, I'm not antimilitary" The gutsy decision to show opposition outside the chain of command took much thought, they commented, as the military "frowns on dissent." "It shows just how much we are willing to risk." White House spokesman Tony Snow said having misgivings was "not unusual" but they were just a small minority. Soldiers quoted in a Times article (2/28/06), "There is a sense of betrayal...These soldiers stand up to fight, to protect their county, but we are now on the fifth reason as to why it is we are in Iraq."
When are 21,000 troops really 42,000 more troops? Bush did not mention that support troops would also be needed. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that 15,000-28,000 related support troops will also need to be added with the President's surge. One assumes the President knew this when he called for 21,000 new troops. Do non-combat troops not "count"? An outgoing General warmed the Army readiness will be negatively effected and that the 21,000 troops was "just the tip of the iceberg."
So, some of us were not surprised when a few weeks later, Bush asked for about 5000 more troops for Iraq. After weeks of hinting, thought the 42,000 never made a big story, Bush admitted in mid-March, while on his Latin America trip, announce those which were in addition to those requested from the surge. Maybe we should call this the "super surge." Costs would rise by at least $1 billion. Other troops would go to Afghanistan. Then, in March the additional number crept up to 30,000. The President said that the greater number was requested after Petraus arrived in Baghdad.
As of mid-March there were 142,000 troops: 60,000 are combat and the rest are support.
On Jan. 24, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted for a resolution condemning the escalation. A 12-9 vote was along party lines, with only Rep. Chuck Hagel voted in favor. On the front page of the New York Times, the vote was labeled "the most direct confrontation over the war" since it began. The non-binding resolution will move to the Senate.
We received mixed messages about how long these "surging" troops would stay. The new commander in Iraq predicted on January 7 that calming the "toughest" areas would take 2-3 years. Casey feels that if Iraqis "do their job" troops can start being reduced by late summer 2007. Yet a few days later, new Sec. of Defense Gates contradicted the commander and said directly what the President had hinted at, that a surge could help start bring US troops home "by the end of the year." This "light at the end of the tunnel" is something we've heard before. This fits the pattern, repeated many times since the war started, that the "good news" or "turning point" is inevitably 6-12 months away.
In mid-January, some soldiers publicly urged ending funding as the best way to bring the troops home.
One author predicted in January 2007 that "the best-case scenario" is that "we'll be in Iraq for 15 or 20 years."
 |
Protest and marches on January 27 were in Washington and other cities. DC crowd estimates were of 100,000-500,000, perhaps the largest in the US since the early 1970s. Among the speakers included, for the first time in 34 years, Jane Fonda, now 69. She said, "Silence is no longer an option." Added Jesse Jackson, "Peace is controversial...But so is war. The fruit of peace is so much sweeter." One woman speaker told the crowd, "My husband deployed last June to Iraq...I'm sick of attending the funerals of my friends...I am sick of the death. I don't know what else to say, other than: "It is time." Among the crowd were many veterans and 20 active-duty service members. From Chicago to DC, those who traveled by bus had a 13 hour all-night ride, a day of marches, and a second consecutive all-night bus ride. Smaller protests took place in at least three California cities. |
"More Than Antiwar" (Bob Herbert, 1/29/07) concludes that the public "is way out in front of the poltician...But the importance" of the march "does not lie primarily in whether it hastens a turnaround of US policy on the war. The fact that so many Americans were willing tot travel for every region of the country to march against the war was a reaffirmation of the public's commitment to our peaceful democratic process."
White House response to the march came from a spokesman: "The president believes that the right to free speech is one of the greatest freedom in our county. He understands that Americans want to see a conclusion to the war...and the new strategy is designed to do just that."
State legislators are passing antiwar resolutions, as the public becomes increasingly frustrated with slow progress in the US House and Senate. A mid-February report examines the passage of such resolutions in California, Iowa, and Vermont. At least 19 others states are drafting such resolutions. Part of the purpose is to embarrass Congress to pass their own. Said one critic in Kansas, where the attempt was killed in committee, "These resolutions are a colossal waste of time." Added another critic from California, "It lays bare the Democrats' true intentions...They want us to lose this war." Though there are some exceptions, the votes have generally gone along party lines and generated much local media.
At the march and rally, one retired Navy officer who fought in Vietnam said, "We never lost a battle in Vietnam but we lost the war, and the same is going to be true in Iraq if these protestors have their way."
Rallies across the country marked the fourth anniversary of the war and the start of the fifth year. In the lead up to these rallies, protestors occupied the local offices of Democrats, usch as Rahm Emaluel of Illinois and leader Pelosi. 10,000-20,000 marched in DC in temperatures near freezing. About 5,000 marched in Chicago on March 20, over 2 miles down Michigan Avenue.
Across the country on March 19, 37,000 people took part in about 1200 vigils, according to the grass roots organization MoveOn.org. Others joined rallies not associated with the group. Some marched on the Pentagon along the same route as 40 years ago during Vietnam protests. The DC crowds were smaller than the rallies over President pushes surge. Some called on Mr. Bush to be impeached. Said Cindy Sheehan, "We want the people in the White House out of our house and arrested for crimes against humanity." There were several hundred counterdemonstrators.
In August 2007, activists tried to pressure lawmakers, especially in the GOP. Said one reservist, "I though we were going there to find terrorists and find WMD. Then we're there to liberate the Iraqi people. Then to instill a new democracy. Then to set up elections." Josh Lansdale, from the Chicago area, became jaded is joined a statewide caravan of veterans of others, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. One Congressman targeted was Mark Kirk, whose district is north of Chicago. Protestors hold signs, "Support the Troops, End the War." (Chicago Tribune, 8/13/07).
Ted Koppel, formerly of ABC News, wondered about the logic of the US plan. If Iraq would be a disaster if we left too soon, then why would we threaten to leave if the Iraqi government doesn't perform? Koppel may think those threats are not serious.
Frank Rich feels that "the administration propaganda
flimflams that sold us the war are now being retrofitted to expand and extend
it." When the 2002 NIE took only weeks to produce, just before the Congressional
vote for war, why did the NIE request in August not be released until February?
Rich feels the
"mysterious" delay was for the President's surge speech. A Pentagon
inspector general reported that the existing troops don't have enough guns and
ammunition. Armor and trucks are in such short supply, that commanders tell the Post that
their best hope is that "five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of
the sky." Rich adds that history is repeating itself. On the four year anniversary
of Powell's "notorious" UN speech, the White House is "reviving
the same script to rev up the war's escalation, this time hyping Iran-Iraq connections
instead of Al Qaeda-Iraq connections...No one died in Watergate. This time around
our country can't wait tow more years of the White House to be stopped form playing
its games with American blood."
Also in the Times comes Thomas Friedman (see "Columnists Wavering") who is increasingly critical of administration policy in Iraq. The veteran Middle East reporter sees an alternative strategy, to set the date (timeline) to out by Dec. 1, raise the gas tax, and negotiate with Iran and Syria. Then, "we will not longer play host to a war where we're everyone's protector and target" yet we will not depend as much on Middle East oil. Fewer troops will better "focus" Iraqi politicians. Friedman concludes, "If setting a date to leave miraculously brings them to their sense, our aspirations for the Iraqis will have been achieved, and we'll be stronger. And if it doesn't, but we have set an exit date and a gas price, we'll be out of Iraq and more energy-secure--and we'll also be stronger." (2/7/07).
What do former diplomatic leader think? Brought before the Senate were Henry Kissenger, Brent Scowcroft, Brzezinski, and Albright, former Sec. of State and head of NSA. All feel diplomacy in the areas should be pursued. Some feel the worst case scenario would be staying and others feel it would be leaving. For Albright, either staying or leaving would be worst-case. She said, "hope is not a strategy." Is there a middle course?
We learned in Feb. 2007 from a declassified document, that the long term plan was to have only 5000 troops in Iraq by 2006. At nsarchive.org, organized by George Washington University, the plans were by September of 2003 to have only 30,000 troops remaining. The war began in March 2003.
After the House passed a non-binding resolution against adding troops, funding came up. Six months ago only a handful of Democrats were thinking of standing against funding. See much more on "US Politics '07" FAQ.
The Rural War story continued into 2007, with a Tribune story that 45% of US deaths come from soldiers of towns less than 25,000. Nearly 3/4 come from towns with income below that national average. One woman was taken aback with her 3 year old son answered the door he receive the news of the father's death. "I'm torn. Should we finish the job? And then I go the funerals of the local guys and I'm like, this is just stupid...I don't think we're going to finish it here. I don't think there's a finishing point. They're getting more efficient at killing us--that's a direct quote from the president." Replied another, whose brother died, "The last think these men need are people second-guessing what's going on. That's something for thhgiosyt books to decide whether it's right or wrong." See more on Troops and who is serving at "Troops/Recruit" FAQ.
What if the surge does not work? There is no "Plan B", we learned in March. Some would call it "Plan D" or "Plan E." About a week later a tentative plan was actually announced. Planners would slowly withdraw troops, using the model of El Salvador in the 1980s under Reagan. This would be close to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, on which Sec. of Defense Gates served.
How long will the surge last? The administration was careful to not be pinned down in its original proposal. However, in mid-March General Patraeus, also trying to be vague, guessed that the higher numbers may be needed past the summer, and even more troops may yet be needed. He feels all the surge troops will be in place by June. The light at the end of the tunnel got longer, once again, when a US commander in Iraq, General Odierno, recommended in March that the additonal troops stay through February 2008.
The Times lead editorial of March 10 sees the surge as "a significant and long-term escalation" to an "unwinnable war....The Army cannot sustain these levels for more than another few months. And as long as Iraq's leader refuse to make significant political changes, the civil war will continue to spin out of control." A few days later these thought were officially confirmed when the administration admitted that its political goals for Iraq were lagging behind the objectives. All objectives will not be met before the end of 2008.
Five days later David Brooks wrote in the Times of "The Long Exit." He feels Democrats are wrong and unrealistic to focus on pushing Iraqi politicians to gain "a dose of reality." We can't "incentivize" the Iraqis to act. "People like Carl Levin [Michigan Senator] are beginning to sound silly." In contrast, Brooks believes, there is "One serious position is heard on the left: that there's nothing more we can effectively do...If the place is headed for civil war...the only reasonable option is to get out now before more Americans die...The second serious option" is from the right: "We have to do everything we can to head off catastrophe, and it's too soon to give up hope. The surge is already producing some results." We should avoid timetables. Democratic leaders "want to...be against Bush without accepting responsibility for nay real policy." As a result, "nobody loves" the Democratic leaders.
Would "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" attack in the US? This fear has long been a prime reason from the administration to keep all our troops in Iraq. If we leave, "they will attack us on our streets." However, US intelligence officials see little threat to our homeland from this Iraqi group.
16 year old anti-war videocaster Ava Lowery wants the troops home. A native of Alabama, Ava was featured in the lead Tempo article in the April 4 Chicago Tribune.. Her site, peacetakescourage.com, gets 60,000 hits every day. Ava has received death threats for her views. The home-schooler has been featured in the New York Times, CNN, and Rolling Stone.
Starting in May of 2007, September seemed like a future turning point for judging how much progress was being made. In May, one would guess that Republicans would no longer support funding after this point. However, one has seen before many of the "light at the end of the tunnel" optimism.
Then came the trial balloon being floated that the surge could last until at least the end of 2007. Gates even suggested until spring of 2008.
If training of Iraqi troops allows US troops to leave, as was suggested for most of 2006, then we should be pleased that in April of 2007 there were nearly 330,000 Iraqi troops.
Just prior to Memorial Day 2007, the White House suggested that there were discussions about cutting the number of US troops in half in 2008. Was this talk, a trial balloon, or reality? Troops could be cut by 50% in 2008. This topic came up often in the summer of 2007. For example, the nominee for the Joint Chiefs, Mullen, felt that our "vital interests" necessitated our committment to be measured "in years not months." He admitted that there was not much political progress.
"I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty." This commentary came on the eve of Memorial Day, by activist Andrew Bacevich.
Might U.S. troops stay in Iraq for decades, as in South Korea? Sec. of Defense Gates and a top US General made that comparison in May, 2007. Gates and others in the administration and military were talking openly in June of 2006 of US troops remaining for years to come.
Also using history to draw lessons is a commentary co-written by a US Marine who saw action in Iraq. In the Detroit News of July 27, 2007, Todd Caccamo feels that peacekeepers leaving create wars "far worse, massacres, and even genocides." He cites the British leaving Palestine and India, Belgian peacekeepers leaving Rwanda in '94, and Dutuch and UN troops leaving an area of Bosnia just before Srebrenica massacre. What will happen to those pro-American Iraqis who have helped US troops? "When civil war erupts after US intervention, we have a moral responsibility to those to whom we have brought war."
How and how quickly might the US withdraw? A Shiite minister stated in May 2007 that he wants the eventual withdrawal to be "scheduled and gradual." A Shiite tribal sheik prefers the US pull back to bases but worries that a complete withdrawal "means erasing Iraq from the map. After six months of withdrawal, a Sunni sheik predicts an end to sectarian violence "which was provoked by the occupier." An close ally of Prime Minister Maliki fears regional chaos with neighbors interfering. Adds another Shiite, "The Americans failed, but they should stay."
 |
What does "withdraw" really mean? Would tens of thousands of US troops remain in the Green Zone and on at least four major US bases? Even Edwards, Obama, and Clinton were trying to lower expectations and trying to have it both ways. One the one hand, Clinton said, "Our presence is not stopping" the killing of "thousands of people every month...We are not going to baby-sit a civil war...If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president I will." Yet, she and other were suggesting in August that leaving may take years. Edwards wants troops nearby in case of a full scale civil war which spills across borders. Logistically, military experts estimate a withdraw could take a year. |
Obama feels that "preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to stay" because otherwise, we would have troops now in Congo and Sudan. He adds, "It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe." Dodd wants to begin redeploment immediately. Bill Richardson proclaims, in contrast, "I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out!"
Among regular Iraqis, a Baghdad poll found only 36% hoping that Americans leave now (February/March)
Among Americans, a Council on Foreign Relations leader feels that genocide is unlikely "because the conditions don't obtain. They don't have heavy weapons." Rep. Murtha (D-PA) sees the presence of US troops not decreasing violence in the past four years and is convinced that "it won't be any worse than it is now, and if it is worse they will settle it themselves. It is not a matter of what is going to happen. It is going to happen. They better plan for it...It is inevitable that we are going to get out." Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command, states that "We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a 5-7 year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq." Zinni wants militias to fill the gap in security. "The people who should say when the US should leave," believes Anthony Cordesman, military expert, "are the Iraqis, not experts and politicians in Washington.
It became more clear in the summer of 2007 that some US troops must leave in the spring of 2008, because their 15-month deployment, as part of the so-called surge, will be over.
Trial balloons continued to be floated and leaked to the press. Begun in the spring, they escalated in late August, for example, Joint Chiefs of Staff Pace plans to advise Bush to cut combat troops in half in 2008, so the US will then have fewer than 100,000 troops. A combat brigade is generally about 3500 soldiers. One "senior administration official said, "At this point the only question is when the drawdown begins and how fast it proceeds." In response to this LA Times story, Pace denied it. "The story is wrong" and no decision has been made. The Times article suggests that as Pace approaches retirement he may feel emboldened to push faster. General Casey had similar views, which were rejected when Petraeus took over. As the Times reported on their front page of August 25, "fault lines are beginning to emerge" between commanders (slow reductions) and Pentagon (faster reductions). Petraeus is expected to follow the latter, slower advise.
 |
The President brought up a possible withdrawal during his third visit to Iraq over Labor Day, 2007. Was he trying to pre-empt Congress? What conditions would the President demand before US troops starting leaving? How many would leave? |
After the Petraeus report to Congress the week of 9/11, 2007, the President gave a prime time speech in which he sold his new plans. Petraeus had suggested reverting to pre-surge troop levels (130,000) by about July 2008, with about 4000 troops out in January. If violence increased, reductions would be adjusted. A Tribune article suggests that "the broader question" is whether poltical reconciliation is possible among Iraqis. The General wants to wait until March to outline more details. A Times headline called it "selling limited Iraq pullout as middle way." Promised or planned reductions, back to the pre-surge 130,000 by July, would, as usual, be conditioned on progress.
The Washington Post editorial felt the President's plan was "the least bad option."
How many troops would be withdrawn and when? Under the President's plan, comabat brigades would ultimately be reduced from 20 to 10, though thousands of support troops would still be needed. Democrats strategized on withdrawal options. Sec. Gates "hoped" US forces could be under 100,000 by the end of 2008, a goal which has been described for months.
When will Iraqis be ready to take over security? The goal posts keep getting moved. We are told "another six months" or "another 12 months." Lt. Gen. Odierno told the press in October, for example, that before Iraqi security forces could provide for all of Baghdad they would need "most of next year." Stating the obvious, Odierno added that "there is still some sectariansim" in the military.
Marines sought a leading role in Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq. This request from October 2007 would leave the Iraq war in the hands on the Army.
Democrats for President were asked in a debate in late September if they would pledge to withdraw all combat forces by the end of the next term, 2013.
--Obama: "It's hard to project four years from now."
--Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."
--Edwards: "I cannot make that committement"
--Dodd: "Yes."
--Richardson: Troops will be out "within a year of taking office."
--Kucinich: Troops will be out by spring 2009.
--Gravel: Candidates should suspend their campaigns and go the DC to demand daily votes to end the war.
Some troops wrote pieces in the media in the fall of 2007. One group's commentary in the Post wrote, "I Don't Think This Place Is Worth Another Soldier's Life."
Also see "Troop Recuitment/Morale/War Crimes" FAQ.
After the surge/escalation, which began in January 2007, the first troops to be pullout was scheduled for December. In fact, General Petraus has pledged to bring home five brigades by July 2008.
In December there was no announced reduction in troops, but Sec. Gates "hoped" to have 10 brigades leave and be left with about 100,000 troops soon after the November presidential election.
Top commander Odierno was worried in December that improvements in security will sway policymakers to move too quickly to pull out troops next year. "The most important thing to me is we cannot lose what we have gained." Careful readers of this site may recall that when progress was bad we were told we couldn't pull out until things got better. Now that violence is reduced, we are told that we can't get out or things will get worse. Thus, under what conditions could the US ever withdrawal, using these arguments?
The Iraqi Defense Chief estimated in mid-January 2008 that Iraq would need US troops for years to come. He estimated the need for internal security at 4 years and the need for external security until 2018 to 2020. One year ago he was less pessimistic. President Bush did not disagree. Abdul Qadir's predications are longer that either the US or Iraqi governments have ever predicted. President Bush has never given a date. One might wonder how an Iraqi official could estimate his security needs 10 years into the future.
In a related story which might explain Bush's relative silence on the issue, we learned more in January about secret negotiations between the US, the Pentagon, and the Iraqi cabinet. The goals is to agree on a treaty which would mandate US troops stay in Iraq for perhaps decades. Yet, the administration is labeling any agreement a "status of forces" agreement. Gates claimed, "We have no interest in permanent bases." One wonders how long a base need to be held before it is determined to be "permanent." The purposes would be for internal and external security. Contractors would be free from persecution and could detain Iraqi prisoners. This is very unlike agreements with South Korea, Japan, or Germany. Of the US 15 bases, about 4-5 seem very permanent. The administration prefers not to use the term treaty, which of course has to be approved by the Senate, according to our Constitution. NPR's Morning Edition detailed this story on January 24. The front page Times story of Jan. 25 wondered if Iraq would be considered a "dependent state." The next President would likely be bound to any such agreement.
Reaction to the agreement/treaty came from Congress and the press. Said one member of the House, "Where have we ever had an agreement to defend a foreign country from external attack and internal attack that was not a treaty?...If a commitment of this magnitude does not rise to the level of treaty, then it is difficult to imagine what could." Added Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), "There's no exit strategy, because the administration doesn't have one. By entering this agreement , they avoid a debate and they validate their unspoken strategy." Responded an administration official, "This is not something that will tie the hands of the next president."
"Don't Tie the Next President's Hands" editorialized the Times on January 17, 2008. Congress should have input as the the deployment of US troops. The paper fears he will ensure the US's "continued involvement in an open-ended war." 2018, as estimated by the Iraqi defense chief above, "is far too long for most Americans, but not for Mr. Bush, who is quite comfortable leaving American troops fighting in Iraq for another decded...Mr Bush is rushing to complete a deal before he leaves office...That is just as reckless and irresponsible as most of his decisions regarding Iraq. American's interests demand that his successor has maxiumum flexibility to plot a course which we hope includes a quick and orderly withdrawal of troops." Congress should approve the deal, the Times concludes.
On NPR's Fresh Air, Terry Gross did a two day special (Jan. 16-17), entitled, "Iraq: When and how should we get out?" Gross asked some, "If not now , why not and when?" Those interviewed included Powell's former assistant Wilkerson, neocon William Kristol, an Iraqi women fighting for rights for women, and author of The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright. They discussed the surge, Iraqi politics, Powell 2003 UN speech, timeline for withdrawal, US military in the region, benchmarks, and more. On women, topics included conservative Islamism who want women covered and not in school. Some are killed for dressing "wrongly." Carl Conneta, director of a defense think tank, feels that "our presence there is a shield against realism."
John McCain was asked at a town hall meeting about keeping troops for 50 years. McCain suggested 100 years; "that would be fine with me" as long as Americans are not being killed.
See much more on "US Politics '07" FAQ.
"What We Need Next in Iraq" was commentary in the Washington Post of 2/13/08, co-authored by Rice and Gates.
When will the surge end? Originally, the surge would last a few months, then we thought troops would be home by Christmas, and by February 2008, the surge would be reduced in the spring or summer. Gates joined Petraeus who had already seemed ready to firmly recommend a pause in withdrawals. Thus, that probably means that troops will go from 165,000 to about 130,000 and stay at that level through the end of the Bush presidency, January 2009. Gates calls this "a brief period of consolidation and evaluation."
The response from the two leading Democrats was relatively predictable. From Clinton came: "This means that we will have as many troops in Iraq in the summer of 2008 as we had at the beginning of 2007." Added Obama: "We cannot wage war without end in Iraq while ignoring mounting costs to our troops and their families, our security, and our economy"
"What We Need Next in Iraq" was explained in a Post commentary from Rice and Gates of Feb. 13. They open, "Over the past year, we have seen that Iraqis are committed to affirming their own sovereignty The Iraqi army and police are taking the lead in provincial security over much of the count. Iraqis are building relationships with other nations in the Middle East. The Iraqi people want to meet their own needs and control their own destiny. And they desire a more normal relationship with the U.S. Our troops and diplomats have made untold sacrifices to help put Iraq on the path to self-sufficiency."
The idea of a halt in withdrawal was floated by the White House in late January. Troops levels will remain above 140,000 through the summer of 2008, it was then predicted by Pentagon officials in late February. There were about 130,000 were the surge began in January, 2007. Originally, the surge was to last a matter of months.
A pause in troop reductions, the strategy was termed by the Pentagon. Once troops are reduced to 140,000 a pause of perhaps 3-4 months would be in place (likely until November elections) to help judge the situation. Gen. Petraus seemed to get on board the pause soon after. The White House claimed that withdrawal will resume before Bush leaves office in Januayr 2009. Thus, the pause, beginning in July, would last 4-6 weeks.
McCain suggested that we might stay in Iraq "for 100" years, if they were not being shot at. He feels the model could be Germany and Japan after World War II. This McCain comment brought commentary from, among others, Helen Thomas, long-time White House correspondent.
Charles Krauthammer feels that Demoracts are rushing to criticize McCain without seeing the big picutre. Troops in Kuwait since 1990 has been helpful to the US. McCain does not hope to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, but might need to do so.
Also see US Politics 2007-2008 FAQ.
Gen. Casey wants to reduce combat tours from 15 to 12 months by the end of the summer, stating that "the cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance."
Bush accepted the Petreaus recommendations of April, 2008. It seemed that US troops would be about 140,000 when the President leaves office in January 2009.
What are "permanent" military bases? Are they the same as "enduring" bases? In April, Sen. Webb asked a Pentagon officials what the definition of "permanent" was. It turns out that the Pentagon has no such working definition.
A few changes in leadership at the Pentagon, one involving Petreaus, were supported in this Washington Post editorial of late April.
"The US may be winning the war," stated an early June Washington Post editorial. In May and June, editorials from the Times and Post were less frequently solely about Iraq.
In May, McCain spoke of"victory" in his first term as President. He predicted that most troops would be home by 2013. Iraq would be a functioning democracy. He had previously refused to set any date.
Throughout the summer, Bush and McCain, the Republican nominee, continued to speak out against any timetables. In August of 2008, Maliki demanded a timetable. The Iraqi Prime Minister wants a complete withdrawal (not just combat troops) by 2011. This came only a week after the US and Maliki had agreed to 2011 for combat troops if the country was stable.
"Tell me how this ends", asked Gen. Petraus, near the start of the war. NPR's The World broadcast an interesting series, "How Wars End" in the fall of 2008. Part 1 was on Iraq.
Maliki got his timetable in mid-November 2008, with the long-negotiated Iraq-US Security Agreement. It was approved by the Iraqi cabinet on November 16. It mandated all US combat troops out in three years (end of 2011; though US officials said the deadlines were not rigid) , forces staying out of cities and towns after June, to US attacks on neighboring countries from Iraq, some Iraqi permission for operations within Iraq, and US troops liable to Iraq law for crimes committed while off duty. These hard dates reflect US concessions, as Bush has long been opposed to any timetables. Most Shiites and Kurds supported the agreement. However, Sadr was strongly against the agreement, leading protests. Some US lawmakers spoke out against it. The Iraq Parliament needed to approve the agreement. The US or Iraq could cancel the agreement by giving one year notice.
News analysis in the Times that week calls the security agreement "the beginning of the end of the war." For example, Iraqis now control their own air space, though they may request temporary US support. Still unclear is "how many US forces are expected to remain." NPR mentioned that the agreement has not been translated into English, probably due to some of the vague wording which US officials don't want Iraqis to counter.
What do the generals want? Obama wants combat troops out by May 2010 (16 months) but also wants to seek the advise of his generals. Petraeus and Modern, in mid-December, proposed withdrawals for early 2009, but not as quickly as Obama's timetable. Assuming these generals stay on, the Times feels that the new President could face a "tough political choice between overruling his generals or backing away from his goal."
How many US troops will remain? Estimates range from 30,000 to 70,000 as "support missions" beyond 2010. Others put the top estimate at 55,000. Could some of the Iraqis train in Kuwait instead? Ray Odierno is the general in command.
 |
With Gates staying on at Defense, the Times reports that Obama's campaign promise to end the war is "now muted by reality." The electrified his liberal base with promises but tens of thousands of troops will remain, Obama clarified in December 2008, for training, "logistical support" and protect our civilians. In fairness to Obama, is always clarified that he would withdraw "combat troops." His number one priority, is "making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security." |
The Times editorial page (12/24/08) is concerned about "shifting troop targets" as they "slyly redefine their mission" in name only. They urge Obama to stick to his 16 month plan. In a report that day in the Times US troops plan to remain in cities after the summer deadline in a "support, enabling, and training role." Gen. Odierno said the agreement might be renegotiated.
Stories of "troops out" continued into the new year of 2009.
What is the definition of a combat soldier? They must be out of Iraqi cities by June 30, but others will stay behind as "trainers" and "advisers" in nearly combat roles. How will Obama placate his anti-war allies as he promised to "end the war"? After Obama's 16 month withdrawal goal of May 2010, thousands of US troops will remain. Commented one military expert, "The bullets don't have 'adviser' stenciled on some and 'combat unit' on another." As we entered 2009 and approached Obama's inauguration, the US had 146,000 troops, including service and support personell Sec. of Defense Gates guess at "server tens of thousands" of troops remaining after 2011.
Could the US win the war but lose the peace? This was the subject of a multi-part NPR special on The World. The 1/4/09 edition on "How Wars End" (see "part 2") compared US reconstruction after the Civil War to US reconstruction currently. For the US in the 1860s and 1870s, reconstruction was generally considered a failure. What lessons can we learn from our own history? Why is Iraq reconstruction not like that in Japan and Germany after World War II, which was the pre-war comparison made by some pro-war thinkers.
Obama sought "common ground" with Generals, including Gen. Ray Odierno, the top Iraq commander. Yet, the new President faces a tough choice, according to a Times piece of late January. "Is he willing to abandon a campaign promise or risk a rupture with the military? Or can he finesse the difference? Odierno prefers a slower withdrawal than Obama's 16 months. After Obama's first visit to the Pentagon, his spokesman summarized, "We're no longer involved in a debate about whether, but how and when." Odierno talks of "enduring stability" with national elections to follow the late-January provincial elections by a year. Our mission should slowly shift from "one that's focused on counterinsurgency to one that's more focused on stability operations." The General envisions troops size from 140,000 down to 1/3 of that, and "By 2011, we'll be zero." The articled did not make clear whether this meant combat troops or all US forces. Obama, the piece concluded, has not yet decided on his approach.
Obama detailed some of his plans. High troop levels would remain through Parliamentary elections of December, 2009. A "residual" force would have three goals: training, protection and counterterroism. Some Republicans think the new President is moving too quickly while some Democrats are discouraged by the slow withdrawal plans.
Iraqi experts Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack penned a detailed piece in the Times on "Iraq's Year of Living Dangerously." Pollack supported the war before it began and I heard him speak in Chicago on the subject. They give Obama advice and when and how to withdraw. The decision to withdraw must troops by August 2010 "is not necessarily a mistake," but it "cannot be carried out rigidly. If all continues to go well, it should be eminently feasible; if not, the administration will have to show the strategic wisdom to slow down as needed to deal with problems." Like Gen. Odierno, the two authors agree that the country continues to make "tremendous strides, thanks to American assistance and, increasingly, the effort of Iraqi politicians and security forces." However, O'Hanlon and Pollack warn that "young democracies are fragile entities" but that the country is no longer in an all-out civil war. "Kurdish difficulties" such as oil issues concern them. "Given Iraq's strategic significance, the mission ceased to be a 'war of choice' the moment American forces crossed the border in March 2003. Now we have no choice but to see Iraq through to stability." The oped concludes, "In the end, it is up to the Iraqis to make their nation peaceful and productive--we should not baby-sit Iraq through all of its problems as young democracy."
Pressure on Obama will come from the left, such as Code Pink and Moveon. Code Pink co-founder, Medea Benjamin, commented, "We voted for him because he's going to get us out of Iraq." Eli Pariser of Moveon assumed Obama would fulfill his pledge. One Rep. from the Out of Iraq caucus, thinks 16 months is too slow.
5/20/10 is the 16 months deadline that Obama has imposed. He calls it more of a goal than a deadline. Some groups are reminding us to keep this date in mind, 16 months after he was inaugurated.
Three goals for Iraq, Obama emphasized in late February, were to be "soverign, stable and self-reliant."
Obama addressed the Marines in announcing his planned pull out. At the end of February 2008, he pledged combat troops out in 18 months (not 16), though major withdrawals would not start until after December 2008 elections in Iraq. Also, up to 50,000 forces would remain for three purposes: training Iraqis, fighting terrorists, and protecting Americans. All US forces (combat and non-combat) would be out, as President Bush agreed to, by the end of 2011. Republicans credited the Bush's "dramatic success" of the surge for making a withdrawal possible. Bush's last national security spokesman added, "This is possible because of the success of the surge." In his speech, the Times describes the new President as "implicitly rebuking" the former President for starting the war, noting the painful lessons to be learned about when we enter a war. We should only go the war, Obama explained, "with clearly defined goals" after weighing "the costs of action" and building support at home and abroad.
Obama's logic and advice from ground commanders, is threefold: to have more time to cement security gains, strengthen political institutions, and make sure Iraq does not become unstable again.
Similarly, What is the goal of the troops which would stay? Obama has three goals for them: continue training Iraqis, fight terror cells, and guard US institutions.
Political reaction to the withdrawal plan came from Obama's former rival, McCain, who had called for an increase in troops long before Bush made that decision. McCain sees the plan as "reasonable" and is "cautiously optimistic." Some Democrats were not pleased because too many troops (up to 50,000) would be left in Iraq. Perhaps in response, the administration calls the remaining troops a "transition force" rather than "residual."
Others upset with Obama's slow withdraw is the American Friends Service Committee, who dedicate one their web pages to "Countdown to Withdraw."
Thomas Ricks' new book, The Gamble, was out in early 2009. He highlights the military (and political decisions) of 2006-2008. Maureen Dowd, of the Times worries that despite Obama's February announcement to bring back combat troops in about 18 months, he may not be able to exit "expeditiously." Ricks points out that this is the sixth plan he has covered that attempts to get US forces out. The author and correspondent predicted that "W's snakebit war may yet swallow up Mr. Obama, that America will be in Iraq for many years to come, and that in the end, we will be the losers."
A US withdraw from cities could be delayed, predicted Gen. Odierno 6 weeks before the June 30 deadline. Camp Victory contains areas both inside and outside of Baghdad boundaries and houses more than 20,000 soldiers. It will stay open after June 30. Odierno predicts that there will always be a low level insurgency "for the next 5, 10, 15 years. The issue is, what is the level... And can Iraqis handle it with their own forces and their own government?"
The only editorial from the Times on June 30 was the lengthy "The First Deadline." "After six bloody, ruinously costly years, there is an end in sight to the American occupation." Obama has pledged all combat troops out by August 2010 and all US troops out by the end of 2011. "For a badly overstretched American military it will certainly be time to go...The Iraq War--an unnecessary war--has diverted critically needed resources away from Afghanistan, the real front in the war on terrorism. Many Iraqis are eager to see the Americans gone." There are six major areas were progress is badly needed and not much time to do it. There is continued violence, little political compromise and perhaps not enough attention from the current administration. The paper detailed these six concerns:
1. Iraqi Readiness: The army is still corrupt and ineffective. The police and interior need even more work. The Army is still greatly dependent on the US, and has little navy or air force. The 2011 deadline will need to be extended on these two fronts.
2. Sunni Anger: The "bitter resentment" comes partly from former Baath party members. Awakening Councils, mostly Sunnis, have been badly treated.
3. Kurdish Ambition: Tensions are high in northern Iraq with Arabs. Boundaries and oil add to the conflict, especially in Mosul. Things are worse in Kirkuk, the "oil rich, multi-ethnic" city.
4. Refugees: 1/10 Iraqis have left their homes, about 4 million. 100,000 have "trickled back" and a still smaller number have been allowed to settle abroad. "They all need the chance to return safely. Iraq needs their talents."
5. Governing: "More than anything, Iraq needs competent, inclusive government" which provides basic services to its citizens. They lack skilled managers and suffer from "pervasive corruption." A January election provides hope. "There are growing concerns" that Maliki "may be accumulating too much power, undercutting rivals and building a cadre of military and intelligence offers loyal only to him."
6. Neighbors: Iran and Syria are constantly meddling. Tehran wants to control Iraqi's Shiite-dominated government. Sunni-led Saudi Arabia has not named an ambassador.
The lengthy editorial concludes, "The US cannot fix Iraq. That is up to the Iraqis. But in the time left, this country has a responsibility and a strong strategic interest to do its best to help Iraq emerge from this disaster as a functioning, sovereign and reasonably democratic state."
The US Today also debated the US city drawback on their Op-ed page of July 1. The paper stressed withdrawal unit by unit while stressing the "facts on the ground" over "rigid deadlines." 300 Iraqis had been killed by mostly suicide attacks in the past 10 days. The "opposing view" op-ed urges the US to "pull back, no matter what." Delaying will make Iraq weaker, "strengthen insurgents, and undermine our credibility...It is time for Iraqis to take charge."
The deadline for Iraqi cities was met a few days early. The 130,000 US troops which remain after the June 30 deadline will remain at that level through at least September. Agreements call for all US troops and advisers to be out by the end of 2011. Gen. Odierno, sounding much like vaguely optimistic generals during the Bush years, said that troop reductions "may quicken" if January elections go well. The deadline down to 50,000 is summer 2010. Current US forces are 124,000, down from 164,000 in 2008. In October troops levels were at 120,000.
However, one issue that could keep US troops into 2012 and 2013 is Iraq inability to "defend its skies," contend air experts in late July. Iraqis have asked the US for new F-16s, but General Odierno feels that will be too expensive or they can't be delivered in time.
Leaving Iraq is a feat that requires an army. So reported a front page Times story in October. This massive movement out will be "the largest movement of soldiers and materiel in more than four decades." Further complications include attacks by insurgents. The goal is to leave behind 50,000 troops as advisers until 2011. Substantial withdrawals will not occur until January 2010 Iraqi elections. The elections were delayed. Military leaders hope that by next spring the US will have 6 supersize bases and 13 smaller ones. Fewer bases means less travel and more safety.
The Marines left Anbar in January, where they had once been 25,000 of them. The Army took over.
By the end of 2009, US troop levels were reduced to 115,000, the lowest of the war.