WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese



    Middle East
     Mar 4, 2010
Top US general miss-steps
By Raed Jarrar and Erik Leaver

Last week, United States President Barack Obama's out-of-control military brass once again leaked a statement contrary to the president's position. This time the statement came from army General Ray Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, who officially requested to keep a combat brigade in the northern part of the country beyond the August 2010 deadline.

Floating this idea just two weeks before the Iraqi national elections is dangerous for Iraqi democracy, for US soldiers on the ground and for the future of US-Iraqi relations.

Pentagon scramble
Quickly responding to his soldiers marching out of step, Defense

  

Secretary Robert Gates announced that there would have to be a "pretty significant" deterioration in the security situation in Iraq before he would consider delaying the planned withdrawal.

But much of the damage was already done. Those supporting an extension immediately created an echo chamber in the media. Thomas Ricks, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, published an op-ed in The New York Times and another in Foreign Policy urging Obama to delay the withdrawals of combat troops scheduled this year, and cancel final troop withdrawals scheduled for the end of 2011.

Ricks, who reported the leak by Odierno, is publicly betting that in four years the United States will have nearly 30,000 troops still on the ground. That's no way to make policy in Iraq. Rick's Foreign Policy piece went as far as claiming that Odierno "got a polite nod from the president when the issue was raised during his recent meetings in Washington".

Obama has consistently said he would comply with the August 31 deadline to remove combat forces from Iraq. He repeated this dozens of times on the campaign trail, stated it clearly at Camp Lejeune last year, and also repeated this policy in his Cairo speech. Vice President Biden affirmed this policy numerous times, saying in February, "You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer." And just last week, the White House reaffirmed its intention to call an end to operation Iraqi Freedom by August 31.

The US Congress confirmed the president's policy by including clear language recognizing and supporting the deadlines for the withdrawal of combat forces in both the FY10 defense appropriations and defense authorization bills. Last month 28 members of congress, including the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Obama commending him on his plan to withdraw combat forces by August 31, regardless of the situation on the ground.

Outrage in Iraq
Flying in the face of these consistent messages of assurance by the White House and congress, Odierno's statement has harmed the president's credibility in Iraq and caused the first major storm of criticism inside the country since Obama's election in 2008.

The Iraqi media have been overwhelmed with political statements, analysis, and press releases condemning the possible prolongation of the US occupation. In one statement, member of parliament (MP) Omar al-Jubouri, a Sunni from the National Iraqi Coalition, rejected the attempts to change the withdrawal plans, telling the Nina News Agency that while he "acknowledges the troubled administrative and security situation", he still "holds the US forces responsible" for the deterioration.

In another statement, covered by al-Sabaah newspaper, MP Jamal Jaafar, a Shi'ite from the United Iraqi Alliance, argued that prolonging the US presence "will cause more tension" among Iraqis. Jaafar also stated that the United States must "get an approval from the Iraqi government" if it was planning to leave even "one single soldier in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline included in the bilateral security agreement”.

MP Abdul-Karim As-Sameraie, chairman of the Parliamentary Defense Committee, criticized the attempt to change the withdrawal plans and asked again for a public referendum on the bilateral security agreement. Such a measure could result in the cancellation of the agreement, potentially leading to an earlier US withdrawal or having troops operate in Iraq without international legal safeguards.

Consequences of waffling
An Obama flip-flop on the timetable for withdrawing US troops would have serious consequences in the United States and Iraq. The US global image will be tarnished, Obama's credibility will be called into question, and the administration will likely lose what little global political capital it gained in the last year.

But reneging on withdrawal would have the gravest consequences in Iraq. The Bush administration adopted a conditions-based withdrawal plan. The mantra was "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." But such plans for "condition-based" withdrawal create the very deteriorating conditions that lead to an extension of the military occupation.

Unfortunately, there is considerable support both inside and outside Iraq for the continuation of US occupation. Some groups, such as the Iraqi ruling parties or the military industrial complex in the United States, believe occupation is in their self-interest. Others, such as al-Qaeda, hope to cripple the United States by keeping it engaged in a conflict that takes an enormous toll on human lives, money and global reputation. And Iran and other regional players fear the reemergence of a strong, independent and united Iraq.

Obama's current plan is based on two sets of time-based deadlines that avoid the pitfalls of a conditions-based withdrawal. Obama's plan to withdraw combat forces by August 31, 2010 and Bush's bilateral agreement for the withdrawal of all troops and contractors by December 31, 2011 both put the responsibility for military, economic and political security squarely where it should be: on Iraqis.

Adding more years to the US occupation, as Ricks suggested, or delaying the withdrawal of combat forces, as Odierno has suggested, will cost the United States hundreds of billions more dollars and result in the deaths of countless more US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Most importantly, it won't bring Iraq any closer to being a stable and prosperous country.

On the eve of Iraq's March 7 elections, the president needs to reaffirm the US-Iraqi withdrawal agreement and issue a clear warning to military officers who seek to take the war into their own hands.

Raed Jarrar is a senior fellow on the Middle East at Peace Action. Erik Leaver is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus)


Suspicions swell as Iraq elections near
(Mar 2, '10)


1. Iran's nuclear swap option revived

2. US's top brass target Israel

3. Happy birthday, Comrade Kim!

4. Greece calls in war debts

5. India, Pakistan need a little help

6. Jiang gives China something to think about

7. The diminished incentive to save

8. Afghan police still out of step

9. Yemen in for a fight

10. Home is best for China's migrant workers

(24 hours to 11:59pm ET, Mar 2, 2010)

 
 



All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110