Obama Moves Decisively to End the War in Iraq
Upon closer examination, the Obama Iraq announcement turns out to be more clear-cut and less in need of analysis than I’d initially thought:
What threw me off initially was that he’d slightly pushed back his already somewhat-murky promise to withdraw “combat forces” to a 19-month schedule rather than a 16-month schedule. That’s a little disappointing, but the precise calendar was always much less important than the question of what happens next. And here the news is extremely good. As Spencer Ackerman writes:
For the first time as president, Obama attempted to resolve ambiguities about a full withdrawal along the Dec. 2011 framework that the Iraqi government insisted upon in last year’s Status of Forces Agreement, committing himself to its mechanisms. Some on the left have wondered warily why Obama hadn’t made such a public commitment. Those worries will probably end with this line: “Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”
Larry Korb observes:
By strengthening our commitment to leave, and setting an earlier deadline for the end of combat operations, Obama has also taken an essential step in building trust with the Iraqi government and people. Even after the signing of the SOFA, some Iraqis publicly doubted whether the United States would leave the country. Obama’s announcement today is a definitive sign that he does not intend to keep forces in Iraq indefinitely, and will work toward fully turning over our responsibilities to the Iraqi government and security forces.
This is huge, and calls for some Rancid:
Now if only he could fix the banking system.
24 Responses to “Obama Moves Decisively to End the War in Iraq”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 27th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
did we win?
February 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Good, but isn’t the end of 2010 a 23 month withdrawal?
February 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Can we leave Afghanistan too?
February 27th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Can we leave Afghanistan too?
Don’t expect Matt to respond to that one, at least not until a major liberal pundit or Democratic politician makes it safe for him to do so by openly advocating withdrawal from Afghanistan. Matt’s foreign policy punditry is nothing if not impeccably timed.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Good, but isn’t the end of 2010 a 23 month withdrawal?
Where do you see end of 2010? He’s withdrawing 2/3 of the forces on the 19-month schedule, then re-classifying the ~50,000 remaining as “non-combat” forces, and pulling them out gradually through 12-2011; at least that’s how I read it.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Matt,
what calendar did you propose when you supported the war? remind us, right after you get the balls to comment on Afghanistan without finding out what everyone else says.
Can we drop Steve Sailer into Afghanistan? I’m sure they’d drop jihad once they are converted to dodgy IQ tests and hating black people.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
At least we can all agree on that being a pretty great album.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
did we win?
Um. We didn’t lose.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
“We didn’t lose”
Yeah, right. I call a trillion dollars – more likely three to five trillion before ALL the costs are in – and over 4,000 dead troops and a million dead Iraqis, and no guarantee the place will stay stable for the next two years let alone the next decade, plus a massive increase in hatred of the US worldwide, pretty much a lose – especially when the goals were meaningless to begin with.
Moron.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Multi-trillion dollars
4,000 US lives
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives
I’ll say again the Middle East would be a much easier place for the US to get along if the US would advocate – even if it didn’t achieve, but it’s way more achievable than a two-state solution – a South Africa style one-state solution in Palestine that protects Jewish individuals.
As always, I understand attacks on the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state cause some people emotionally tied to feel they or their people are under attack, and to perceive that attack as anti-Semitism on my part.
Though I respect your feelings, I harbor no animosity towards Jews, nor do I believe Jews inherently or disproportionately display any particular negative characteristic. By any rational standard, I am not anti-Semitic.
But maintaining Israel as a Jewish state is astoundingly expensive for the US. More than the invasion of Iraq, which would not be necessary for the US to have a foothold in Iraq but for Israel. More than the costs of containing Iran, which would gladly trade with the US and could be easily balanced in the region but for the US commitment to Israeli military dominance over its near neighbors. More than the costs of supporting pro-Israeli dictators in Israel’s neighbors Egypt and Jordan and trying to do so in Lebanon, and more than the direct transfers to Israel’s treasury.
All of these things would be unnecessary or far less expensive if the US advocated a one state solution. But those are not the only costs.
Opposing a South Africa-style one state solution that protects individual Jews while allowing Palestinians to outvote Jews distorts the US’ moral direction.
But Egypt used its wealth to build pyramids. The Romans built coliseums. If the US wants to use its wealth to impose a Jewish state on the Middle East, against the opposition of essentially every non-Jew in the Middle East, it has that right. All I’m doing is posting a reminder of how much that really costs.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Good, but isn’t the end of 2010 a 23 month withdrawal?
Obama stated that all combat forces would be out of Iraq by August 31, 2010, hence the 19 months.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090227/pl_nm/us_obama_iraq_12
February 27th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever seen you write a comment that didn’t include calling someone an idiot or a moron, HACK. It’s like Guiliani and 9/11.
Read some history, son, and find out something about losing a war.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I watched Pres. Obama deliver his speech at Camp Lejuene today. I want it known that I contributed to Obama’s campaign, put an “Obama/Biden” sign in my front yard, and all 4 members of our household voted for him.
When he made the statement to the gathered troops at the USMC base (and I’m a former Marine myself) that the reason for the Iraq war was to remove Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people a chance for democracy, I had to do a double-take. Isn’t that what the neo-conservatives said to justify the war?
The stated reasons for the war were that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction”; that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks; and that Saddam Hussein was tied to al Queada. Not a single word of those claims was true then and they aren’t true now. They have never been true.
Now the same person who said that he was against that war, and who ran on his opposition to that war, is now mouthing the same words as the proponents of the war. Even John McCain and John Boehner are now on-board the Obama flim-flam.
To say that I’m extremely irked would be a gross understatement. “Double-crossed” also ran through the mind.
The United States would greatly advance its interests if we removed all our troops from all the foreign bases they now occupy. It is hugely expensive to maintain this empire, and frankly, we don’t have the money. Period.
And the world has grown very tired of the idea of “hegemony” from any quarter. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“to End the War in Iraq”
And for the zillionth time, someone uses the phrase “War in Iraq” as a synonym for “having soldiers stationed in Iraq”.
We have soldiers stationed in Iraq therefore there’s a “War in Iraq”. Once those soldiers are removed from being stationed in Iraq, and shifted to being stationed somewhere else, this will “End the War in Iraq”.
Makes sense to me!
February 27th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
The subsequent occupation was never something our military could win or lose.
Right. Because it’s not a “war” at this point. Someone tell Matthew. It’s an occupation and reconstruction. Removing/reducing the footprint of that occupation, whatever else it may be (and I’m all in favor of doing so), is not “ending” any “war”.
What “war”? Which territory are we trying to gain, which battles are we trying to win in this “war” that’s supposedly still ongoing until Obama’s bold decision to “end” it? People who still think there’s a “war” to “end” yet can’t answer those questions puzzle me.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:42 am
“Read some history, son, and find out something about losing a war.”
Read some history, son, and find out about how the US has bought every war it won.
Or just watch “The Battle of the Bulge”, particularly the scene where the German general explains to his superior that the Americans have fuel enough to fly cake across the Atlantic to their troops.
The US lost the war in Iraq. It also lost the occupation until it bribed its opponents not to shoot at it.
The main point is that the overall cost of the war far exceeds ANY DIRECT benefit that the US CITIZEN got for the effort. The US CITIZEN was NEVER at threat from Iraq. The US CITIZEN never had any say in the conduct of the war in Iraq.
But it will be the US CITIZEN who has to pay for the thousands of Iraqi terrorists who will emerge from that shattered country to fly planes into US buildings.
That is called losing a war.
And if you don’t think there is still combat in Iraq:
Enemy fire caused copter crash that killed Fort Drum soldiers
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/enemy_fire_downed_copters_in_c.html
Shooting of four U.S. troops highlights trust issues between two forces
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=61003
February 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am
The US lost the war in Iraq.
To…Saddam Hussein?
It also lost the occupation until it bribed its opponents not to shoot at it.
Which would just be another way of saying it won the occupation (if occupations really were things that could be “won” or “lost”…).
The US CITIZEN never had any say in the conduct of the war in Iraq.
This is to be contrasted, I suppose, with most wars in human history, in which apparently we are to infer from your comments that you believe the conduct and maneuvers of the military is traditionally determined by daily or perhaps hourly plebiscites….
But it will be the US CITIZEN who has to pay for the thousands of Iraqi terrorists who will emerge from that shattered country to fly planes into US buildings.
That is called losing a war.
Not really. That’s never been what people called “losing a war” before recent history. Usually, what people have called “losing a war” is stuff like – getting invaded, having your armed forces decimated or dissipated, having your leaders captured or killed, and having new governance arranged for. You know, kinda like what happened to Husseinist Iraq.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:12 am
To…Saddam Hussein?
It’s kind of entertaining to see Obama-boosters peddling years-old Republican talking points.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:17 am
ROTFL. Yeah, America won its war in Iraq! Yeppers. We sat on our asses and let the Shiites purge Baghdad. Then we paid the Sunni’s ransom not to shoot at us. And eventually, we’ll leave with our tail between our legs, and Iraq will devolve to an Iranian satellite, because right now, Iranian pawns control our puppet government.
But we won.
Yeah.
Riiiiiiiiggggghhhht.
We won Vietnam too.
And in Lebanon, 83, we kicked ass.
And Somalia was gloriously successful.
Let’s face facts: The American military is good for kicking around pissant little countries like Panama, but not much else. That’s why, throughout the Cold War, all service uniforms had brown pants. ROTFL.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
HACK, backpedaling, writes
The US lost the war in Iraq. You know, one of those losses where your army drives the enemy army from the field, takes and holds all of its territory, captures its capital, overthrows its government, and controls its country. That kind of loss.
It also lost the occupation until it bribed its opponents not to shoot at it. “Lost” is a final disposition. You can’t have “lost…until.” Yes, we were losing the occupation, the guerilla insurgency, until we bribed the Sunni insurgents.
The main point is that the overall cost of the war far exceeds ANY DIRECT benefit that the US CITIZEN got for the effort. The US CITIZEN was NEVER at threat from Iraq. The US CITIZEN never had any say in the conduct of the war in Iraq. That’s a fine point. It’s also a very different point than “we lost the war in Iraq.”
February 28th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
The Bush administration wasn’t exactly known for its reputation for abiding by treaties, so this commitment is a welcome change.
OTOH the withdrawal schedule is backloaded, with nothing much happening until over a year from now. And I think the Pentagon is still secretly hoping that Maliki will invite us to keep some forces in Iraq indefinitely.