The Endless Non-Departure from Iraq

Already it's begun -- the endless non-departure from Iraq. The Obama plan, restated many times during the presidential campaign, involved a 16-month schedule for withdrawing not all U.S. forces, but only U.S. "combat troops." Now, his (and, of course, George W. Bush's) generals are showing visible evidence of dragging their combat boots in the sand on the subject. We were given fair warning. Over the last two years, numerous military figures have claimed that, as fast as they got into Iraq, it would be hell just getting all the U.S. stuff now embedded there out -- and that's without even taking into account the political situation in that country. Recently, according to military leaks to the media, "U.S. military planners" have come up with two alternate scenarios to Obama's 16-month plan. One is reportedly 19 months long, the other 23 months long, and -- here's a shock -- the two top generals in charge, Centcom commander David Petraeus and U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, favor the 23-month approach.

"Odierno and Petraeus have said that we really need 23 months to do this without jeopardizing the security gains that we've secured," was the way one typical anonymous official put it. President Obama has yet to show any sign of agreeing to this, but the pressure is evidently only beginning. Gareth Porter of Inter Press Service indicates that a "network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's [16-month plan]… If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the ‘collapse' they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops." Stab in the back, anyone?

Oh, and in the bargain, the generals are evidently also planning to re-label some of those withdrawable combat forces among the still staggering 144,000 troops in Iraq -- the American invasion force of 2003 was only about 130,000 strong -- as non-combat "support troops" or advisors. They would, Robert Burns of the Associated Press writes, be "redesigned and reconfigured as multipurpose units to provide training and advising for Iraqi security force" and so would "be considered noncombat outfits." What's in a name, after all?

In the end, according to the New York Times, the generals hope to leave one third of American troops, almost 50,000 of them, in Iraq for an undetermined period (and that number, of course, doesn't including private security contractors) after the combat troops are withdrawn.

Comments (44)

1. Insubordination, anyone?

   Who, exactly, is really in charge?

   And why do the disobedient disloyal generals insist on staying?

   Follow the money.

   Posted by sloper at 02/13/2009 @ 11:07am

2. Everyone knows and has known for a long time...we ain't leaving Iraq anythime soon.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 02/13/2009 @ 11:19am

3. A start to withdraw is better than nothing at all.

   And 'lest we forget, McCain was slowly drifting closer to Obama's position on withdrawal thare at the end...not the other way around.

   Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 11:35am

4. Mr Engelhardt,,

   Former President Bush has NO Generals who report to him; this is not yet a 3rd world country.

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 12:27pm

5. For Christ's sake you Obama haters, don't you think there is enough going on in this country for Obama to handle? He is trying to get to everything that needs attention, so obviously he can't do everything at once. And also do you not realize that the U.S. can't land on Iraq soil with a full fleet of planes that can get all Americans and all their stuff out in one felswoop. The man hasn't been in office for a month and you are exspecting miracles. I bet Ron Paul could'nt do much better. Jane-Ann

   Posted by Janeannb50 at 02/13/2009 @ 12:34pm

6. why are there combat troops still there?

   i thought everything was o.k. now.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2009 @ 12:51pm

7. why are there combat troops still there?

   i thought everything was o.k. now.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2009 @ 12:51pm

   Ever heard of Europe, Japan, or Korea?

   How about Clinton's plan to have troops in Bosnia/Kosovo for a year?

   Why do you even ask?

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:02pm

8. Hey, what withdrawal? Isn't that druggie talk? We just got comfy... built a big embassy, movie theatre, bowling alley. And we got a new guy to blame so that the guys who started it can draw the attention away from their lame selves.

   And let's not forget to curse Obama a lot... it's the best way to wash the specter of George and Dick from the minds of the still conscious. There are some people still conscious aren't there?

   And there are still a lot of people who haven't suffered enough over there. Hey, maybe we can send someone useful over there. Like Joaquin Phoenix. He'll get something done! He may be someone who the 'terrorists' would actually be afraid of, he's so certifiably koo-koo and a prime example of what a lot of people perspire to... I mean A-spire to, sorry. To be rich, ignorant, and crazy. And to be so removed from this plane that nothing bothers you, not even the nation committing seppuku. What a dip.

   And as far as the commenter who says that NO ONE reports to George Bush, well, it took a long time to get that career in the military going... their job is to blow up stuff, and dammit, they're going to stay there until it's good and blowed up! Mission accomplished, you apologists. The point is that there are still a lot of military who actually LIKED GW and what opportunities he opened up for them. And they still have jobs... in Iraq. A country more financially stable than ours. At least they have something to sell besides hamburgers and self-help books.

   Posted by ficheye at 02/13/2009 @ 1:10pm

9. Obama can always fire both Patreaus and Ray Odierno. They are not the commander in chief. Lincoln had to do the same with General Meade.

   Incidentally, Patreaus is my best guess at the GOP presidential candidate for 2012. I have a hard time picturing the GOP going with Sarah Palin again and they need a fresh new look. Patreaus, who is a neocon himself, will fit the bill nicely for the Rethugs.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/13/2009 @ 1:16pm

10. Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:02pm

    So, LVLIB, if we pull out of Europe and Japan, you'd have no problem if we pull out of Iraq, right?

    What if we START with Iraq and then move to Germany and Japan?

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 2:15pm

11. Generals Patreaus and Ray Odierno have proven themselves and are there to give advice and to lead soldiers. Obama is not as crazy as you lefties. He sees the intelligence reports and is going to back his generals in the field. There will be a gradual drawdown of troop levels as the secruity solidifies. The recent Free Election in Iraq was very positive in its outcome and is the kind of thing that will accelerate troop withdraw. 16-24 months is about as good as you are going to get and even then a residual force of several thousand will remain for support, training and cooperation. Bush has handed Obama a victory and Obama does not want to blow it.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/13/2009 @ 2:50pm

12. On the one hand, we never should have gone to war there.

    On the other, if we just pulled out, things could truly degenerate into another bout (this time even worse) of full-blown civil war, and it turning into a haven for anti-American terrorists.

    On the other hand, we can't maintain the status quo forever.

    On the other hand, things are definitely better there as compated to a few years ago.

    On the other hand, there is little indication or hope that Iraq will ever become some sort of stable, functioning democracy.

    I think I've run out of hands....

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:19pm

13. The comparison to Germany and Japan is quite absurd.

    - Americans weren't DYING in large (or even small) numbers in Germany and Japan.

    - Germany and Japan WANTED us there.

    - Germany and Japan arguably had political cultures amenable to the creation of democracy (at very least, much more amenable to such than Iraq).

    - Germany and Japan did not and do not have (as does Iraq and the Arab/Muslim world) have legitimate and long-standing historical and political grievances against us, leading to never-ending insurgencies against us.

    - And lest we ever forget: Iraq (unlike Germany and Japan) was not at war with us; never attacked us (or even threatened us).

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:25pm

14. Posted by pyeatte at 02/13/2009 @ 2:50pm

    How is it "Bush handed Obama a victory in Iraq"....

    but the economy he handed Obama was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's?

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 3:27pm

15. Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:25pm

    Don't forget we also PAID for World War-II and asked for legitimate sacrifices from all Americans (including a draft), and not were just told to "go shopping".

    Neo-cons wanted their "World War-II" on the cheap. All the glory, none of the cost.

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 3:30pm

16. Mask, even more, I wonder, how can anyone describe Iraq as a "victory"?

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:30pm

17. Mask, imagine what Afghanistan might be like now if we had spent the half trillion THERE (rebuilding, in a new Marshall Plan) instead of wasting it on Iraq.

    I think the American people might have gone for it (after all, Afghanistan was a just war, unlike Iraq), and further, a whole - or at least, semi-whole Afghanistan might very well be the prize.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:36pm

18. Mask, even more, I wonder, how can anyone describe Iraq as a "victory"?

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:30pm

    No wonder liberals are clueless..with comments like that.

    Iraq is an obvious victory for everyone but those who hate our military and Bush.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 3:36pm

19. Posted by Janeannb50 at 02/13/2009 @ 12:34pm

    "And also do you not realize that the U.S. can't land on Iraq soil with a full fleet of planes that can get all Americans and all their stuff out in one felswoop. "

    Typical Obama voter? I think so!

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 3:49pm

20. frosty zoom,

    You ask "....why are there combat troops still there? i thought everything was o.k. now....."

    Frosty, that would be to make sure everything stays OK, rather than leave before we are sure that everything will be OK.

    And, in answer to Mask's question (Mask hasn't asked it yet - at least on this thread - but it will be coming shortly after my post) about when will we know everything is OK and how long will that be?

    And the answer, Mask, is I DO NOT KNOW.

    On things like this, sometimes you do not know and there is nothing you can do about it, life events including national policy events can not always go according to a defined timetable and script - and it is not wrong that this is the case.

    You stay the course as long as you need to.

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/13/2009 @ 4:16pm

21. Hooray for the Iraq war!

    Hooray for the imbeciles who still, to this very DAY, are in love with the concept!

    Good job all parties involved! It's been a grand time laughing at the lies and stupidity!

    Stay the course! Why do you hate freedom?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 02/13/2009 @ 4:37pm

22. Hooray for the Iraq war!

    Hooray for the imbeciles who still, to this very DAY, are in love with the concept!

    Good job all parties involved! It's been a grand time laughing at the lies and stupidity!

    Stay the course! Why do you hate freedom?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 02/13/2009 @ 4:37pm

23. And, in answer to Mask's question (Mask hasn't asked it yet - at least on this thread - but it will be coming shortly after my post) about when will we know everything is OK and how long will that be?

    And the answer, Mask, is I DO NOT KNOW. Posted by sjchermak at 02/13/2009 @ 4:16pm

    Errrr....

    Dick Cheney knows. Somewhere around six months, and $50,000,000,000...

    Are you calling Dick Cheney a liar?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 02/13/2009 @ 4:43pm

24. Mask, imagine what Afghanistan might be like now if we had spent the half trillion THERE (rebuilding, in a new Marshall Plan) instead of wasting it on Iraq.

    I think the American people might have gone for it (after all, Afghanistan was a just war, unlike Iraq), and further, a whole - or at least, semi-whole Afghanistan might very well be the prize.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:36pm

    The problem many of you Americans have is that you have a very parochial and limited view of the world beyond your own shores. That anyone should consider Afghanistan a suitable candidate for a new "Marshal Plan" is evidence of that deficiency.

    Here's Joe Klein on Max Boot's WP effort, which in effect says, Afghanistan can the next Iraq success story":

    "....First of all, it's perilous to compare Afghanistan to any other place--and particularly Iraq. As General David Petraeus has found in the course of his policy review, Afghanistan is vastly poorer than Iraq, with extremely low rates of literacy outside the major cities; it also lacks even Iraq's tenuous and recent history of central control. It is an agglomeration of valleys and tribes, with little to hold it together..."

    There was absolutely no strategic, or moral reason for that matter, for the West to have stayed in Afghanistan and to continue the war after al Qaeda was removed.

    If some Americans are unable to see any moral reasons for removing the Baathist regime, led by Saddam Hussein then add amoral to parochial to their "CV".

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/13/2009 @ 6:38pm

25. Posted by lrjones4 at 02/13/2009 @ 6:38pm

    Awesome! Even non-Americans can make uninteresting and overly broad statements about an entire country of people.

    Not everybody in America are ignorant hicks, nor do we all stay in our hidey holes for our entire lives. Plus there are several places in this country where the level of diversity surpasses that of anywhere in this world I've ever been.

    Not to mention, leaving the country and traveling abroad and doing all those fun things do NOT make you a smart, informed, or intelligent person.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 02/13/2009 @ 6:50pm

26. Now, his (and, of course, George W. Bush's) generals are showing visible evidence of dragging their combat boots in the sand on the subject.

    I did not know that the Hon. G.W.Bush as commander in chief had the power to "hire military employees" just like office staff! Should he have fired them all when he left?

    Or maybe that is Obamanations job since he did campaign on getting out troops out of Iraq in 16 months, although he has now gone to "reconfiguration" of his promise now in reversion #FOUR since he first stated it in his campaign! Hmmm...just another broken political promise adding to the list I guess!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/13/2009 @ 8:27pm

27. Posted by lrjones4 at 02/13/2009 @ 6:38pm

    "There was absolutely no strategic, or moral reason for that matter, for the West to have stayed in Afghanistan and to continue the war after al Qaeda was removed."

    I disagree, LR. As we know, nature abhors a vacuum. If we left Afghanistan after removing the Taliban, the Islamists would probably be back in business within the year, if not actually as an 'invited guest' of the government, then certainly as an uninvited one in the hinterlands.

    For strategic reasons, we cannot allow Afghanistan to revert to the status quo pre-9/11. At least not until Pakistan and its northern tribal areas are dealt with. And that could take decades.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 9:23pm

28. Ummmm...

    Who's the

    COMMANDER IN CHIEF again ????

    The generals do what ever-the-hell the C-in-C says.

    Get 'em OUT!!!!!!!

    Posted by bleedingheart at 02/13/2009 @ 10:21pm

29. I think I have finally found one truely heinous crime I can attribute to former Pres. Hon. G.W. Bush.

    He made it possible for Obamanation and the Undemocrats to gain authoritarian power and take over the U.S.A. with their 4th Reich dictatorship! Now I really dislike him for that!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/13/2009 @ 11:24pm

30. Posted by lrjones4 at 02/13/2009 @ 6:38pm

    I disagree, LR. As we know, nature abhors a vacuum.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 9:23pm

    I want to weigh in here......I agree with LR on Afghanistan.....remove the Taliban, do what we can with AQ and gotten out....the country is far too backward.

    As for the vacuum....whichever party (or parties) ends up controlling the country, should have the smarts to know NOT to mess with us again.....after we've proven what can happen!

    In fact, by going in and pulling out all in 6 months or a year, there can be fully intended side effect of warning other piss-ass unfriendlies.

    Our extended Iraq War (which I support because it's just flat out strategic with its ME location and vast oil) and the rancor it caused domestically, could even have had the opposite effect....like the belligerance of Iran who increasingly gambles that after Iraq, we won't have the appetite to deal with them militarily....that is, our `stick' isn't worth much.

    On Afghanistan, I'm neither advocating we pull out now or double down.......the time to withdraw was 2002 or 2003 before launching the Iraq War. Now, it's up to Magic...he wants to fight this "good war" and prove his CIC credentials!

    Posted by Happy at 02/14/2009 @ 12:11am

31. No sense in continuing in Afganistan now that obamanation is in charge! We have nowhere to put prisoners of war NOW that Gitmos closing! We would just have to kill them all or give them a severe tounge lashing about peace and let them go!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/14/2009 @ 02:14am

32. Strange, here we have a sketch about our withdrawal from Iraq and nowhere does it mentions, that the US and the Maliki govt agreed last year on a pull out by the end of 2011, and that Obama has accepted that schedule.

    Instead, Engelhardt darkly growls, that Obama's campaign promise, to leave Iraq within 16 months of becoming President, is being undermined by generals dragging their feet.

    One of them is General David Petraeus, whom Engelhardt and his friends called, General Betrayous, because his Surge, turned the Iraq debacle into a victory.

    Does Engelhardt also complain -

    1. That Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA, but now his Commerce departement refuses?

    2. Is Obama's promise not to hire lobbyists, being sabotaged since cabinet jobs and sub cabinet jobs are going to lobbyists, right and left?

    3. Obama vowed a new age of govt honesty, yet somehow insidious forces are putting tax cheats into key jobs.

    4. He promised to sit down with Ahmadinejad and Chavez, without preconditions. Now the State Dept speaks of preconditions as a matter of course.

    5. He said, torture is out under all circumstances. But Penetta, told Congress, if an emergency warranted it, the CIA would not shrink from extraordinary methods.

    6. Obama promised a new politics, where bipartisanship is in, and hidden back room deals are out. But most in Congress were not shown the details of the humongous stimulus package they were voting on. Even people on the Senate/House conference committee were denied crucial pages of the bill.

    Does Engelhardt fear, the Washington bureaucracy, like the Pentagon, is out to undermine and ignore the President's wishes?

    I fear, Engelheardt's situation is hopeless, but not serious.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/14/2009 @ 06:14am

33. Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 9:23pm

    I see where you are coming from Ponti and have some sympathy for your concern but the Taleban and al Qaeda are different kettles of fish.

    The Taleban represents a form of Islamism that does not have the same concentrated anti-Western focus as does al Qaeda. In fact it does seem that the "Taleban" consists of distinct groupings that have, under that umbrella, differing goals. It is essentially a Pashtun (and thus non-Arab) movement.

    Though we may think of the horrific treatment of women by the Taleban during its short rule in Afghanistan and other manifestations of its intolerant religious roots, such as the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan valley in the Hazarajat region of central Afghanistan, as moral issues one cannot help but notice that, unlike Iraq, these excesses are still more or less culturally acceptable across Afghanistan even today.

    These excesses have never met the same cultural resistance as did the capricious violence, including ethnic cleansing of and by the Saddam regime in Iraq. Where of course many Iraqis paid the ultimate price for that resistance. That is the feature, in my mind, that distinguishes the two conflicts.

    Thus the moral calculus is different and perhaps the Taleban, or elements of it are able to move away from those elements of extremism, that seem to be the calling card of Mullah Mohammed Omar, and find a position that is less abhorrent and even acceptable to the West.

    al Qaeda, which is essentially now a defeated foe, is not as important a player in Afghanistan/Pakistan as Obama and other proponents of ramping up the war there suggest. My view is that this war is essentially an Afghanistan/Pakistan long-term baby in which the US could provide military aid if needed.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/14/2009 @ 06:54am

34. Posted by TexasFlood at 02/13/2009 @ 6:50pm

    Good attempt TF but I really did get my inspiration from tunnel vision "hicks" like your good self.

    What one does notice is that you fellas (and the odd sheila like Lil) seem to get all your "information" from the same uniformed sources. Perhaps you should all get together and select the best scribe to make one group post and save us the boredom of wading through your messy attempts at a synthesis of your sources. The reality is that " eclectic researchers" have generally read your misinformed sources before they appear here as supposedly original works which are often hopelessly redacted. You could think of that as a lose-lose situation.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/14/2009 @ 07:14am

35. bleedingheart: The "C-in-C" himself said 16 months for troop withdraw, and he is relaxing that schedule, for good reason.

    FDR43: "there is little indication or hope that Iraq will ever become some sort of stable, functioning democracy."?? Well...it's not a guarentee but it looks a hell of a lot better than a couple of years ago. The Iraqi people got tired of all the killing and saw the radicals for what they are - murders, and have turned against them. Right now we are supplying psycological support in addition to physical security (that's why the surge worked). Time is the main thing the Iraqis require to form a functioning lasting democracy and this last election was a huge step. Now if you still insist on instant withdraw, I can only assume you wish for a return to radicalism and mass murder in that country. Just keep in mind your President does not agree with you.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/14/2009 @ 4:06pm

36. And the answer, Mask, is I DO NOT KNOW. -----Posted by sjchermak at 02/13/2009 @ 4:16pm

    Pretty much any SJCHERMAK post.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2009 @ 9:46pm

37. 6. Obama promised a new politics, where bipartisanship is in, and hidden back room deals are out. But most in Congress were not shown the details of the humongous stimulus package they were voting on. Even people on the Senate/House conference committee were denied crucial pages of the bill.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/14/2009 @ 06:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Didn't you hear? Obamanation promised ethics and transparency and that ANY bills would be posted for FIVE days on the internet etc. for all the people to read and discuss!!! You must have missed that!!!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 12:05am

38. Hugo that pull on your leg isn't the "tingle" the media gets just listening to Obamanation speak!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 12:08am

39. Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2009 @ 9:23pm

    Ponti noticed this in The Australian today. Hugh White is no friend of the Iraq war as you will note but he is even more skeptical of the strategic value and the possibility of an Afghanistan success than he has been of success in Iraq.

    The thought had also occurred to me, as it has to him that Obama locked himself Afghanistan as an electioneering ploy, to show he was no wimp, rather than examining the value of ramping up US involvement in what for the reasons mentioned is not where the West needs to use its military resources in trying to limit the spread of terrorism.

    "Be Sure of Strategy Before Committing to Afghan Surge":

    http://tinyurl.com/cg5gde

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/16/2009 @ 03:53am

40. As much as I loathe the Taliban and what they stand for, they were popular in large part because they restored law and order to the country after the warlords supported by the U.S. made the country an opium-growing house of horrors. The Taliban were also more than willing to do business with our ruling class. Moreover, they offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to us if, IF, our government provided evidence of his role in the 9/11 attacks (I wouldn't discount this offer, given that bin Laden had been chased from one country to another by us, and the Taliban's leaders are not idiots). But, rather than responding to 9/11 using a mix of crime-fighting techniques, diplomacy and espionage, the Bush Administration and their Democratic enablers decided that we ought to use that great, big, shiny military of ours. So now we'll see whether Obama and Co. are going to repeat the same mistakes and act as if we can bomb the Taliban and Afghanistan into peace, or will learn from Iraq, and try to buy off all or most of their enemies.

    The success of the surge lay in three large measures. One, the amount of money we spent to buy off Sunni insurgent groups. Two, the millions of Iraqis forced out of their homes, resulting in a segregation of the country amenable to many of the Shite and Sunni militias (we'll see how long this lasts). Three, the revulsion of most Iraqis, of all sectarian colors, towards the sectarian terrorism of Al Queda in Iraq and its co-thinkers. We've been spreading the cash around Afghanistan, which is already pretty segregated, and AQ isn't exactly well-loved there, especially given what they've brought down on the country. Maybe we should listen to the locals for once and get the hell out of both Iraq and Afghanistan (by truck and foot will do it).

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/16/2009 @ 04:19am

41. Posted by FDR43 at 02/13/2009 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    correct in all instances. I would add that germany had a democratic regime before Hitler.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 12:44pm

42. The Taleban represents a form of Islamism that does not have the same concentrated anti-Western focus as does al Qaeda.Posted by lrjones4 at 02/14/2009 @ 06:54am

    True, but we overthrew their regime! That instantly made us their enemy.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:38pm

43. The Taleban represents a form of Islamism that does not have the same concentrated anti-Western focus as does al Qaeda.Posted by lrjones4 at 02/14/2009 @ 06:54am

    complete nonsense.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 7:51pm

44. they are equally anti western, and with good reason.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/19/2009 @ 1:57pm