Adviser: Time to “Declare Victory and Go Home” from Iraq
(dod photo)
This seems like good advice to me:
A senior American military adviser in Baghdad has concluded in an unusually blunt memo that the Iraqi forces suffer from deeply entrenched deficiencies but are now capable of protecting the Iraqi government, and that it is time “for the U.S. to declare victory and go home.”
Prepared by Col. Timothy R. Reese, an adviser to the Iraqi military’s Baghdad command, the memorandum asserts that the Iraqi forces have an array of problems, including corruption, poor management and the inability to resist political pressure from Shiite political parties.
Things have gone better than I expected over the past 12 months, which seems like an excellent chance to take advantage of the situation to cut our losses before any of the long-standing issues with the current Iraqi state create new problems.
24 Responses to “Adviser: Time to “Declare Victory and Go Home” from Iraq”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 30th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
What we should do is elect a president who would campaign on getting-out-of-Iraq-starting-the-day-of-inauguration.
Then we could fight the good war, sending F-22s with laser guns and McChrystal torture teams against Afghan shepherds.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“Victory” seems the wrong word.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I co-sign on post #1.
These wars are disgraceful.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Whether we leave now or after 100 years (as Mr. McCain seems to prefer), in time Iraq will evolve into another centralized dictatorship (call it the revenge of Saddam) or into splinter fiefdoms ruled by warlords like modern day Afghanistan. Therefore now seems about as good a time to leave.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Whether we leave now or after 100 years (as Mr. McCain seems to prefer), in time Iraq will evolve into another centralized dictatorship (call it the revenge of Saddam) or into splinter fiefdoms ruled by warlords like modern day Afghanistan.
I think the Iraqis will do okay. That motherfucker Sadr – hero to the so called antiwar left – is dead meat though. Unless he runs to Iran. I bet by September 2010 he’s dead.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Sadr – hero to the so called antiwar left
Poptarts, wrong on Iraq 6 years and counting.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
And frankly after we go no one is going to really care what the Iraqis do to themselves, and Iraq will drop out of the news and out of sight. People like Thomas Ricks, Michael O’Hanlon, and George Packer, who’ve made good livings off Iraq, will have to find new employment.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Poptarts, wrong on Iraq 6 years and counting.
I’ll wager you a Red Stripe beer that Sadr is dead by Sept. 2010.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Why is Sadr going to be dead in a year? His party is talking about an alliance with Maliki’s party (and the rest of the Shi’a parties). Who’s going to off him?
July 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
This is hilarious. Keeping the troops in Iraq a little longer is supposed to soothe tensions between Kurds and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites, and eliminate the possibility of authoritarianism. Right.
July 30th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Your missing the point MY. It’s the bases. As long as we maintain a nominal military involvement in the day to day stuff we get to keep the bases no questions asked. So until the next SOF comes up we will put our guys in harms way to keep the bases. At least one of those giant remote airbases will never be surrendered. Period.
I’ve said it over and over. They are a strategic asset that no military leadership would ever surrender, especially the Air Force. They ate shit for 12years with the Saudi deployment and we got out as fast as we could once we had Iraq. This was one of the chief goals of the Iraq invasion.
All our men would have died in vain if we don’t keep those giant airbases which have strategic significance for Pipelineistan, Russia, South Asia and China. Do I have to mention Iran? I didn’t think so.
If Obama can finesse keeping the bases while abandoning the field in Iraq then sure, we will mostly withdraw. If he would suggest surrendering them he wouldn’t finish his term.
July 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
“I’ll wager you a Red Stripe beer that Sadr is dead by Sept. 2010.”
I’ll wager you $20,000 that he’s still alive then. That should give you enough incentive to go over there and kill him yourself. But I’m betting you’ll fail. Now if Saddam Hussein were still running things, yes, Sadr would be dead by then. In fact, he’d already be dead.
July 30th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Exactly. Let’s get while the gettin’s good.
The promise and reality of our withdrawal have had the positive effect on Iraq’s stability that withdrawal advocates like me have been predicting. Anti-American forces are no longer anti-government forces.
It’s Miller Time.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Poptarts is a Chalabite. Whoever is in power in Iraq as a consequence of our actions is a “good guy.” Whoever opposes our invasion is a “bad guy.”
Good guys fight bad guys.
Seriously, that’s the thought process.
July 30th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
potarts,
I’ll wager that one of your close family members slits your throat by Sept. 2010.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:10 am
rapier “At least one of those giant remote airbases will never be surrendered. Period.”
It will be tough to leave those babies behind. Balad Air Base is the second busiest airfield in the world, second only to Heathrow Airport in London. And it is humongous. The base has internal bus lines and shopping malls. Our embassy in Baghdad is bigger than the Vatican. It is by far and away the biggest embassy the world has ever known. Al Assad Air Base, on the Euphrates just north of Ramaldi, which houses almost 20,000 troops, just got $40 million in FY 08 budget for upgrades, a sure sign that it was meant to be permanent.
The Bush administration clearly had no intention of ever letting them all go. Bush used several signing statements to negate Congressional attempts to ban permanent bases. The strategic import these bases is obvious, but there is also the troubling prospect of handing over all those facilities, which cost tens of billions, to a nation that is declaring victory over you and is intent on unceremoniously kicking your ass out.
It is dilemma for Obama. US military pride is on the line. That’s why it appears he is fully prepared to leave 50,000 air base defenders, in Iraq, forever.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:17 am
I bet by September 2010 he’s running the country.
There. Fixed.
As fostert said, if Saddam were still around, Sadr would be dead meat – and he knows it – considering that his far more impressive father got offed. But Saddam’s been dead for a while now, and no Sunni strongman could possibly run the place.
July 31st, 2009 at 1:19 am
How could the bases not be meant to be permanent. When they were being constructed they were taking 10% of the worlds cement, or some ridiculous number don’t hold me to that one. Thousands of acres with cement 10 inches thick or more. They are vast, mini nations.
I am not sure why people pretty much ignore this. As if it is some kind of afterthought. I suppose if the total troop numbers come down by half or three quarters and few are getting killed then it doesn’t make much difference.
It’s funny that every other thing we have done in Iraq was ill planned, ad hoc and FUBAR. The bases were however constructed without a hitch and the planning and management of those projects was top notch, or at least completed by relentless execution of a long term plan. Probably expense be damned.
It is somewhere between naive and insane to talk about our “leaving” Iraq. Of the thousand bases we have all over the world they are currently the most important by far in the eyes of the great global strategic thinkers. If Obama begins a process that makes their abandonment likely he won’t be president to carry it through.
July 31st, 2009 at 1:47 am
One can only hope, Matt. Truthfully, I think the US government will try to drag their feet on this (they’re always loathe to give up a strategically based military base, even when it causes political complications – look at Manas Air Base), but it looks like the Iraqi government is wisely holding their feet to the fire.
In any case, the sooner we’re out, the better. Then we can finally drive down Operations Costs for the military, and hopefully keep the personnel numbers stable.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:59 am
rapier,
No one questions that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld intended those bases to be permanent.
So were the bases we left in the Philippines in the 1990s.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:20 am
@rapier: Are you suggesting the military would assassinate the President if they disagreed with his political decisions?
July 31st, 2009 at 10:46 am
“voice of reason”
I’ll wager that one of your close family members slits your throat by Sept. 2010.
Typical antiwar scum who can only talk tough anonymously on the Internet. Fucking pussy typing shit from his ma’s basement.
Poptarts is a Chalabite. Whoever is in power in Iraq as a consequence of our actions is a “good guy.” Whoever opposes our invasion is a “bad guy.”
Good guys fight bad guys.
Seriously, that’s the thought process.
I’m not a Chalabite. Sadr talked shit about Maliki for years calling him an American stooge, etc., just as the the so-called anti-war people did. Not too long ago Maliki went into south after the Mahdi army and surprised the Americans and were suprised by the amount of involvement of Iranians in the South. Sadr ran to Iran.
Just this past week Maliki went after the MEK “terrorist” group which had been under American protection. The Americans want a political solution so hopefully Maliki will work out an accomadation, but I highly doubt it. You’re going to owe me some Red Stripe.
And Voice of Reason fuck you you pussy.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Believing the war-to-install Chalabi was a good idea makes one a Chalabite.
My take on Sadr is that he represents the nationalist, isolationist end of Iraqi Shiite politics, with Malaki more open to closer relations with Iran and the US. With the withdrawal of American forces, both physically and politically, the major source of conflict between the Sadrites and Dawa has eased.
This is exactly the kind of political rapprochement we should be hoping for, and the promise and reality of our withdrawal is necessary for it to happen.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
This is exactly the kind of political rapprochement we should be hoping for, and the promise and reality of our withdrawal is necessary for it to happen.
I hope you are right and there is a rapprochment. Sadr didn’t stay alive through the Saddam years b/c he was stupid. He has been lying low since it was apparent the Americans are leaving, which is the smart approach.
However Maliki did go after his militias in South not to long ago and he did run to Iran (although I admit he’s independent of Iran, as is Maliki who has to be diplomatic with a powerful neighbor – he just took out the MEK who spied on Iran for the US).
Sadr wasn’t just focused on the occupation. His militias cleansed Sunnis and assassinated one of Sistani’s people. I guess you call me a Sistaniite and believes he had the right approach. All Sadr did was stir up ethnic hatred and prolong the occupation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr
Relations with the most powerful cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have also been tense. Al-Sistani’s approach of non-violent confrontation and negotiation rather than guerilla resistance is often in conflict with the radical young al-Sadr. Al-Sistani is said by observers to draw support from established, property-owning Shi’ites,[citation needed] while Muqtada al-Sadr’s support is strongest among the uneducated urban poor, many of whom see him as their champion. The murder of Abdul Majid al-Khoei, the son of al-Sistani’s mentor Grand Ayatollah Abul-Qassim Khoei, believed to be by Muqtada’s forces, may be an additional source of tension.[citation needed]
Sadr’s followers attempted to seize control of the al-Sistani-controlled holy sites in Karbala in October 2003 but were repulsed, with dozens of people killed and injured. Armed clashes between al-Sadr’s al-Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization have broken out with significant bloodshed resulting. However, Sistani has thus far refused to publicly chastise Sadr for the spring uprising against the US led coalition,[citation needed] instead decreeing that both sides should avoid incitement to violence and condemning the coalition for its tactics. This led many Muqtada supporters to believe that al-Sistani’s refusal to call for armed attacks on the United States or zionist and imperialist powers is un-Islamic[citation needed], further polarizing the dichotomy that is the Iraqi shia population toward Muqtada al-Sadr.
——————————
I don’t think Malaki will be a dictator, but he has been aggressive lately and I believe he will go after Sadr.