In the December 1 edition of The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss argues that President-elect Barack Obama must resist pressure to stay in Iraq, and must make good on his campaign pledge to end the war he opposed as a state senator in Illinois.
Dreyfuss says that the recent financial crisis moved Iraq out of the forefront of voters' minds, making it more difficult "...for Obama to claim that he has a mandate to end the war." And despite the fact that only ten percent of exit poll respondents cited Iraq as their number one issue, Obama must claim a mandate to end the war, "...because," Dreyfuss says, "as president-elect and then as president, he is going to face enormous pressure to abandon his pledge to withdraw."
Who will the pressure come from? According to Dreyfuss, it will come from Obama advisers, hawkish Democrats, conservatives, neoconservatives, editorial pages of major newspapers, prominent think tanks, and the military. "Indeed," Dreyfuss writes, "a showdown with the military command could be the most dramatic event of Obama's first weeks in office."
For years the military establishment has been pushing for a conditions-based withdrawal, arguing that a firm timeline ignores the security situation on the ground and does not allow for flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. A conditions-based withdrawal is at odds with Obama's pledge to pull all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
Describing the potential confrontation, Dreyfuss says: "Early in his administration, Obama may sit down with Petraeus - a politically savvy general who, it is rumored, is thinking about running for office himself, and who is the darling of the neoconservative movement - and tell him he intends to pull one to two combat brigades out of Iraq every month, starting immediately."
Personally, I don't see this conversation happening at all. I can't imagine that a President Obama, now responsible for what happens in Iraq, will pull the plug without regard for the potential consequences. Tremendous progress has been made in Iraq since President Bush ordered additional troops to Baghdad and Anbar Province in 2007. President Obama will not want the progress achieved to date to fall apart on his watch. He will not be willing to bear the political price of a failed Iraqi state dominated by Iran, a massive humanitarian crisis, and a potentially wider Middle East war if the violence spills over into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria or Jordan. No, I expect there will indeed be a conversation with Petraeus, but that it will center on how to withdraw without jeopardizing the stability of the Iraqi government.
Still, let's imagine for a minute that Obama does order to Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs to begin an unconditional withdrawal from Iraq based on a strict timeline and without regard for changing security conditions. Dreyfuss says, "The Constitution gives Obama the power to order them to carry out the new policy, whether they like it or not. If they don't, well, he can tell them not be let the door rattle their medals on the way out."
There's no question that the commander-in-chief has the authority to order a withdrawal from Iraq, and there is no question that Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs would obey that order. But they would do so only after fulfilling their obligation to inform the commander-in-chief of the consequences of any potential actions he might be considering. And it is those consequences that will give the new president pause.
Despite his advocacy of an immediate and unconditional withdrawal, referred to in some circles as a retreat, Dreyfuss is worried that Obama will cave to the pressure to finish the job in Iraq. He points to facts that I have written about before, such as Obama's refusal to define the size of a potential residual force, his willingness to listen to commanders on the ground, and his vague characterizations of potential missions for our soldiers in Iraq. As I have said before, Obama carefully crafted his words to allow himself the flexibility to back off his campaign pledge to withdraw from Iraq immediately and completely.
I believe Obama never had any intention of pulling out of Iraq on a sixteen month timetable, unless that timetable agreed with security conditions on the ground. He's no fool and he certainly will not feel bound to honor a pledge that could cost him a second term. Dreyfuss says that "Bush has handed him a country still perched on the brink of civil war, and it could flare up again at any moment." What Dreyfuss ignores is that Iraq is considerably more stable and secure than it was when Obama advocated a complete withdrawal in 2006, and that the potential for a flare up is exactly why it makes no sense to pull out precipitously. The situation in Iraq has changed, and Obama's rhetoric has followed suit.
Dreyfuss concludes by saying, "If violence grows, Obama may pay a political price, but get out he must. Doing so will require boldness, decisive action and skillful regional and international diplomacy."
It will also require an incredible amount of stupidity.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
The true and lasting crime of Iraq is the intention of Bush to upset the balance of power by sidelining the Sunnis and promoting the Shi'ia forcing the US to maintain a permanent presense to prevent Iran from gaining regional ascendency, in effect trapping the US in Iraq until Islam no longer is Islam and all nations bow to market capitalism and AMerican style consumerism. It is Bush's "Holy Crusade" of the 21st Century. Problem is neither the American people signed on to this charade OR the Iraqi people OR the rest of the Arab/Persian/Islamic world OR anyone else on the planet. THis was Bush's attempt to seize the throne of power thru shadowing emerging Russia with military threat and placing US GI's on top of the world's oil spigot.
It's a new world and all of these imperial insanities are at end. Petraeus will apply his formidable talents to closing down the Iraq debacle and bringing troops home. Just because AMerica is pissed blind about the failure of conservative economic policy does not mean they have forgotten the lies and crimes of Bush, the trillions expended, thousands dead and maimed.
"It will also require an incredible amount of stupidity" to remain there, draining the treasury and wasting lives.
"Your understanding of Petraeus is faulty."
I didn't offer my understanding of Petraeus. The characterization is Dreyfuss'. I merely said Petraeus would follow the orders of the commander in chief.
"He agrees with Obama that the solution is regional, diplomatic and does not depend upon overwhelming American military presense AND the vast infrastructure constructed by Bush for a generational American occupation of Iraq."
As a guy who's served twice in Iraq and works in the operations section of the Pentagon, I am intimately familiar with what Petraeus favors. He has consistently argued that the solution is not solely military, but that the military element MUST take into consideration the conditions on the ground. He has never advocated a withdrawal on a rigid timeline.
"The progress you refer to is a policing issue, not a viable political framework for a Iraqi national identity."
The progress spans all metrics being tracked in Iraq. It is not limited to policing.
"The true and lasting crime of Iraq is the intention of Bush to upset the balance of power by sidelining the Sunnis and promoting the Shi'ia forcing the US to maintain a permanent presense...."
Upsetting the balance of power was a mistake, but I favor a permanent presence in the heart of a region critical to our national security interests. Personally I think we should negotiate for permanent bases in the Kurdish north to allay Turkish concerns over the PKK and to keep Iran in check.
"Problem is neither the American people signed on to this charade...."
Three quarters of the American public approved of the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein and the Congress, the elected representatives of the people, concurred.
Anyone else on the planet? What about the 27 nations that signed on to the initial effort? Are they no one?
"Petraeus will apply his formidable talents to closing down the Iraq debacle and bringing troops home."
Not at the expense of a failed state that would destroy everything he worked for.
In the end it doesn't change the fact that Obama will largely continue many Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with respect to Russia and Iran. The realities of global geopolitical relations will force him to undertake actions that will be unpopular with a large portion of his base.
Smart folks in Congress??? You mean the witless and cowardly sycophants in the 109th Republican majority who refused to exercise ANY oversight or check and balance on the Bush Admin?? Who did not use the Committe power to investigate the pre-war claims?? Those smart folks who cost the Repub the majority in 06?? Not smart folks Greg. Cowardly, un-American fools who licenced this Admin to torture, cook intel and politicize every facet of the executive branch. Those are NOT smart people. They are ideological fools.
Realities of geopolitical relations will force Obama to undo the imperial agenda of American military hegemony which is unsustainable physically as well as politically. The world is at Obama's door anxious to see how quickly America can rejoin the community of nations.
Greg, the days of neo-con are over. We wait thru purgatory until January 20, 2009. Then Dems have overwhelming majorities in both houses and the executive. All Bush pre-conceptions and ideologies will be relegated into the shitter ASAP, that includes permanent Middle East bases.
"Well, Greg, IMO you are wrong...."
Good! What a boring society this would be if we were all in agreement. You may not know this, Sam, but I do look forward to your comments. They are always well thought out and well argued. Those are qualities sorely lacking in many on Gather.
"Obama will not be "forced" to do anything."
We'll have to wait and see. American foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for the past 60 years because global realities dictate little real change from president to president. If Obama bucks the system, he'll be the first since the end of World War II.
"Smart folks in Congress??? You mean the witless and cowardly sycophants in the 109th Republican majority who refused to exercise ANY oversight or check and balance on the Bush Admin??"
Don't look now, but the Dems haven't done much better (other than naming a bunch of post offices). And where's the oversight of the $700 billion bailout? The news is full of stories about how Congress is failing in its oversight responsibilities.
"Who did not use the Committe power to investigate the pre-war claims??"
The real issue is with the individuals. I read one account that said nearly 3/4 of the members of the House and Senate did NOT bother to read the full classified versions of the pre-war intelligence. Republicans did not hold anywhere near that kind of majority, so there was plenty of blame to go around for both sides.
"All Bush pre-conceptions and ideologies will be relegated into the shitter ASAP, that includes permanent Middle East bases."
I think, honestly, that you are in for a few surprises. I'm not saying you're not right, but it would defy 60 years of history.
"President-elect Obama has often said that he plans to withdraw from Iraq responsibly."
He has also said he would have all combat troops out in 16 months. The two may or may not be conducive to one another. I agree that he has built in enough flexibility to adjust his "timeline" based on conditions on the ground. How do you think that will go over with all the folks expecting him to start bringing the troops home immediately?
"Iraq is a mess."
Not the mess it was 18 months ago, and for that President-elect Obama should be grateful.
"They want us out because, frankly, our military hasn't treated the average Iraqi citizen well."
Really? How do you know this? I've done two tours in Iraq and have NEVER seen an instance of mistreatment. Have there been isolated cases? Yes. There always are. But a small minority of soldiers who conduct themselves inappropriately do not represent the hundreds of thousand who have served in Iraq honorably, and cannot be used as a blanket characterization of "our military."
"I'm sure that Barack Obama will age quickly the next eight years."
How about letting him get through four first?
I fully expect that President - elect Obama will serve two terms. Furthermore, there are unanswered cased of rape by the military that need to be addressed. There have been indiscriminate murders of citizens by the military. These are all a matter of public record. If the US can't police its own - what are they trying to do over there?
I don't expect that Obama will bring home the troops immediately - regardless of the wishes of many of his voters.
Greg - you clearly like Bush - it's important to understand that Bush is not well liked by the country. He failed the country - big time. Obama will have his work cut out for him and Iraq is one of the biggest messes he will have to clean up. You may think that it is better - but success is leaving with the full knowledge that the Iraqis are ready to govern and police themselves. They are not even close.
"I fully expect that President - elect Obama will serve two terms."
He may, but it's a bit premature to be speculating about that prospect.
"Furthermore, there are unanswered cased of rape by the military that need to be addressed. There have been indiscriminate murders of citizens by the military. These are all a matter of public record."
Yes, and they are all by a minority of the hundreds of thousands who have served in Iraq honorably. That is why your blanket characterization is misplaced.
"I don't expect that Obama will bring home the troops immediately - regardless of the wishes of many of his voters."
Neither do I. He's no fool and will not allow himself to bear the burden of losing a war, whether he agreed with starting it or not.
"Greg - you clearly like Bush - it's important to understand that Bush is not well liked by the country."
I understand that. I like Bush as a war president, but not as a domestic president. Having been in the military for quite sometime, I can tell you from personal experience that he is an excellent commander in chief.
"He failed the country - big time."
That is opinion, and not one that I agree with.
"Obama will have his work cut out for him and Iraq is one of the biggest messes he will have to clean up."
There's a lot less to clean up than there was 18 months ago.
"They are not even close."
How do you know this? From the news? My personal experience (24 months in Iraq working with Iraqi officials and security forces) says differently. Are they ready? Not yet. But they are getting there. And that is all the more reason not to abandon them now that they are headed in the right direction.
The generals are not saying what you are saying. I understand that you have personal experience and I take that into account, here. But, even General Patraeus is claiming that they are not ready. The civil war over there is boiling over. It has been an expensive nightmare that no one in their right mind believes we should have done. It will take years to leave Iraq. I'm afraid that Obama cannot deliver on that promise. We are still better off with Obama because he isn't a hawk as John McCain is. John McCain would have further entrenched the country into Iraq which would have meant a sluggish economy for many years to come. We went into serious public debt for the sake of this war. It's important that the country get something in return. I believe that Obama will manage the war better. I'm glad that Bush has been a good commander in chief. He hasn't been good for the veterans. Again, I have faith that Barack Obama will be good for the veterans. Nothing is perfect, Greg - but the situation isn't as rosy as you think it is.
Greg: What do you think it is about Bush that makes him an excellent commander -- in contrast to Clinton, say?
"The generals are not saying what you are saying. I understand that you have personal experience and I take that into account, here. But, even General Patraeus is claiming that they are not ready."
You're leaving part of what the generals are saying out of this discussion. Yes, they say they are not ready. But they also say that they are making tremendous progress and that it would be devastating to abandon them now. Iraq is a much, much better place now than it was in 2006.
"The civil war over there is boiling over."
No, it was in 2006, but it most certainly is not now. Are we watching the same war? Have you seen that U.S. and Iraqi casualties are at their lowest levels since the invasion and that those reduced levels of violence are being sustained? How is that a civil war boiling over? Your characterization of current conditions in Iraq is way off the mark.
"It has been an expensive nightmare that no one in their right mind believes we should have done."
But that point is irrelevant now, except for historians. Whether we should have ever gone in or not doesn't matter for the current situation. WE ARE THERE and have a responsibility to figure out the best way ahead.
"We are still better off with Obama because he isn't a hawk as John McCain is."
You did hear the President-elect say he would launch unilateral attacks on sovereign Pakistani soil without the permission of the Pakistani government, right?
"I believe that Obama will manage the war better."
He may. Fortunately for him, though, President Bush is leaving him a much better situation than the one Obama saw happening in 2006 and early 2007.
"He hasn't been good for the veterans."
That's a gross distortion of the facts.
"...but the situation isn't as rosy as you think it is."
And it isn't nearly as dire as you think it is.
"Greg: What do you think it is about Bush that makes him an excellent commander -- in contrast to Clinton, say?"
That implies that I think Clinton was a bad commander in chief, Jim. Not the case at all.
Dreyfus's military expertise aside, even if Obama gives such a moronic command as run away--all that DOD will do after presenting what the results will be is to do it. Belief in the cabal of generals waiting to overthrow is far more sci fi than the reality of what short sighted politicians do to the nation.