Obama Announces Iraq Pullout Plan

[Pangloss]

What did you all think of the President's pullout schedule, announced today? It apparently calls for a pull out of major forces by mid-2010, which is a bit longer than the 16 months he promised (but in direct response to input from commanders on the ground, which he pledged to listen to).

 

I thought it was interesting that the plan seemed to get support from the right and criticism from the left. McCain was "cautiously optimistic", for example, but many House Democrats were critical of the plan not being fast enough and still leaving troops in the country after that time (supposedly all would not be removed until something like 2013).

 

I've seen several articles on this but they vary so much I think I'll just leave it without a link for the moment and see what people can add with their own links. In terms of my own opinion I think this is a strong step because it's measured, gradual, and reflects the realities of the situation.

 

What do you all think?

[ParanoiA]

Sounds to me like Obama's trying to balance the drive to get the troops out of there and the strategic reality that creates within the insurgency. I'm sure he'd like to get them out sooner, which is why I'm glad he's listening to the subject matter experts.

[bascule]

It gets my thumbs up, and the fact it's getting bipartisan approval is practically miraculous to me after this being one of the most polarizing issues of the decade.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not surprised at bipartisan support, actually. The Democrats are supporting the President, and the Republicans support it because at this point they'd like nothing better than to pretend Iraq never happened.

[waitforufo]

So you feel that the term "pullout" is appropriate for declaring a planned end of U.S. combat operations in 18 months that leaves 50,000 troops in place?

 

Aren’t you setting the bar kind of low?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51P0AY20090227?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

[iNow]

Ask Pangloss. He opened the thread with that title.

[bascule]

So you feel that the term "pullout" is appropriate for declaring a planned end of U.S. combat operations in 18 months that leaves 50,000 troops in place?

 

Aren’t you setting the bar kind of low?

 

This is certainly a stark constrast to McCain's "100 years":

 

[Obama] stressed he intended to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2011, in line with a deal signed with Iraq last year, and he underlined to the Iraqi people that the United States "pursues no claim on your territory or your resources."

 

Obama is going to reduce troop levels by nearly 66% over the next 18 months and have them all out in 3 years.

 

This is the sort of timetable many have been clammoring for for quite some time now.

[waitforufo]

Well, at least he didn't say they would be home for Christmas.

 

A lot can happen in 18 months. Let's hope those things are good.

[iNow]

Obama is going to reduce troop levels by nearly 66% over the next 18 months and have them all out in 3 years.

 

Not to parse words, but it is an important point. He intends to have them out in 3 years. I am confident that he is sincere with this, but obviously it will depend on the situation on the ground.

 

Part of what is prodding us to get out by the end of 2011 is the SOFA, the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement we have with them to withdraw by 31DEC2011. If circumstances change, we would likely put a new agreement in place (basically, disregard SOFA to handle whatever realities there are at that time).

 

Clearly, nobody wants that to happen, it is, however, an important caveat to keep in mind while commenting on this.

 

 

 

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke plainly and clearly about this subject the day before yesterday on Meet the Press:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29453052/

MR. GREGORY: There is an agreement between the United States and Iraq to pull all forces out by 2011. That's what the president alluded to.

 

SEC'Y GATES: Right.

 

MR. GREGORY: What are the prospects that in fact U.S. forces remain in Iraq beyond that date? Which is possible if you renegotiated that deal, if the Iraqis said please stay.

 

SEC'Y GATES: It's, it's really not a renegotiation, it would be a completely new negotiation. My guess is it would be at the instigation of the Iraqis, and, and we would just have to wait and see. At this point it's completely hypothetical. We have a signed agreement with the Iraqis that says, that says we have to be out of there...

 

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

 

SEC'Y GATES: ...by the end of 2011, and that's what we're all planning on.

 

MR. GREGORY: General Odierno, Odierno has said he expects and would want, in fact, U.S. forces there at some level, perhaps 35,000, at least until 2015.

 

SEC'Y GATES: Well, I, I also have said that I thought perhaps we would need to have troops there beyond that time. That was all--what certainly my remarks were before the SOFA was signed.

 

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

 

SEC'Y GATES: And before we made a commitment to be out of there by 2011. If we're there beyond that, it'll be because of a new agreement and negotiated with President Obama and, and based on what he thinks is in the best interests of our country.

 

Video of the interview is available at the link.

[ecoli]

Out of iraq and into Afghanistan, I beleive.

[iNow]

Potentially, Pakistan. Not a happy situation, that's for sure.

[waitforufo]

... but obviously it will depend on the situation on the ground.

 

So if the situation deteriorates, in the next 18 months (or by 31DEC2011) do you think Obama should stop the drawdown or begin to increase troop levels again?

[iNow]

So if the situation deteriorates, in the next 18 months (or by 31DEC2011) do you think Obama should stop the drawdown or begin to increase troop levels again?

 

I don't have enough information to comment. You're asking a hypothetical, and I could speculate either way. Let's wait and see, and I'll offer my views when/if it becomes reality. Obviously, my perspective on the best approach will depend greatly on the details and the identified need.

[Pangloss]

I think that may be what's really bugging the peaceniks who are objecting to Obama's plan -- the idea that we're just going to build in in Afghanistan now, and potentially face off against Pakistan or Iran. And Obama's using some of the same rhetoric that Bush used during his tenure that so annoyed them all the time, in talking about realities and so forth.

 

That's what the cynical side of me most loves about politics -- when you give a group of people exactly what they want, and they suddenly discover that, to quote Mr. Spock, having is not the same as wanting.

 

What's REALLY entertaining is to try to explain to die-hard conservatives that the far left is unhappy with Obama's Iraq plan. They think you're joking and simply refuse to believe it. It's really quite amusing.

[john5746]

So if the situation deteriorates, in the next 18 months (or by 31DEC2011) do you think Obama should stop the drawdown or begin to increase troop levels again?

 

In general, I think no, the situation going forward depends on Iraq. If anything, we may need to accelerate the removal if say a civil war breaks out. We went there supposedly for WMD and Saddam. We stayed to rebuild some power structure so they can be a country again. That doesn't mean we owe them a guaranteed safety net forever, especially since we are bankrupt.

[bascule]

Out of iraq and into Afghanistan, I beleive.

 

Yes, a country whose "democratically elected government" is a little more than a puppet government for the opium cartels who are now supplying the majority of the world's heroin.

 

Afghanistan could use some work.