What change has President Obama's troop withdrawal produced? Beyond achieving the goals set out and put in motion by the Bush presidency, nothing.
In conjunction with the Iraqi government, President Bush already set up broad time frames for a slow and responsible withdrawal of forces. The President, under the leadership of the same man who was President Bush's Secretary of Defense already developed their clear, hold and build policy which has produced the relinquishing of entire Iraqi cities and regions to responsible and adequate Iraqi military forces.
What President Obama has done is continue the Bush policy to finish the job.
President Obama stated that he will withdraw our forces after Iraqi forces have been properly trained are readily equipped to do the job. He feels that such a goal can be accomplished in 18 months. That largely falls around some of the set time frames already established.
In his closing statements the President made it clear that we set out to create a sovereign Iraqi government and that upon our withdrawal, we willhave done so. Well thank you Mr. President, that is what you chastised your predecessor for. If that goal was not necessary, than why not do as you once stated...."withdraw our troops immediately"
Perhaps what is more interesting than what President Obama said is what he didn't say. The President never said that "all of our forces" would be withdrawn from Iraq. He simply said that all of our combat forces will be withdrawn.
What that means is that we will still have forces there. Some will exist in an advisory capacity, others will exist as combat ready, non-combatants.
What it means is that we will still maintain a presence in Iraq. Left behind will be 35,000 to 50,000 troops. many will be responsible for training and support roles and many will be available for so-called counter terrorism measures.
But President Obama did not make that point clear. Instead he finessed the language to seemingly suit his campaign promises but he may well have delivered his speech under a banner that read "Promisess Unfullfilled".
President Obama's withdrawal speech was a magic show and with a slight of hand he made it look like he is ending a war that, truth be told, was already ending.
It is a conclusion that he will try to take credit for but it is a conclusion which we would not be seeing had we not gone with the surge that Senator Obama opposed.
The surge provided enough troops to clear enemy territory, hold it against enemies, and build it up for the citizens. It was the source to the success of the clear, hold, build tactic that led to our ability to turn over the country to it's own forces. That policy which President Obama opposed gave us time to flush out the enemy, make citizens feel secure and train Iraqi's how to properly defend and police themselves.
President Obama had no part in that strategy, he opposed it.
Yet today, he tries to take claim for ending the war. A war that is coming to the very conclusion that was put in motion and being achieved by President Bush. Today, President Obama made quite a point of letting the Iraqi people know that we have given them an opportunity. One that he asked them not squander but he neglected to mention that it is one that he also tried to deny the Iraqi people.
The President's troop withdrawal speech was a welcomed one. It will be wonderful to see a majority of our forces return in victory. But will President Obama leave Iraq hanging if outside influences try to undo the victory accomplished? Will President Obama take credit for ending the war, the war he objected too.
Probably.
After all, he is trying to take credit for the terms and conditions of a withdrawal that was already in motion before he took the oath of office. But again, what is more interesting than what President Obama said is what he didn't say. That troop withdrawal deadline, is subject to conditions on the ground, a phrase commonly used by President George W. Bush and rejected by liberals. Liberals like President Obama rejected any thought about the conditions in Iraq. They just wanted us out.
Will they express the same disdain to President Obama if "conditions on the ground" change and combat forces have to stay any longer than he stated?
Probably not.
IRAQI AIR FORCE MOTTO:
I CAME I SAW IRAN
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
Anthony you are so right.
It's funny how people are seeing Obama as a hero for doing something BUSh already had in motion?
But please... To give bush any credit for doing something good???
Yeah RIght the stinking liberals would rather choke on their food.
Perhaps you weren't listening very closely. He said that "all" American forces would be withdrwan from Iraq by the end of 2011.
I noted that he did not mention that there will 35,00 to 50, 000 combat ready troops remaining behind.
Perhaps you were not reading closely.
And prhaps you can't understand the truth of reality because not "all" of our forces will be out by 2011 either.
This is Bush's war and yours if you voted for him. Especially the second time. I voted for Obama based on his sixteen month promise -- I have a right to be disappointed. You Bush people who loved his war do not. You get to have it that much longer. Posting to criticize Obama for policy you support is lame. But I don't expect a lot of intellectual consistency with this crowd.
"Posting to criticize Obama for policy you support is lame." Now that's an interesting statement. It's the clutching of this idea as if it is his own that's being criticized. You must be part of the "high tail it outta there no matter what" crowd, the group that was counting on and hoping for failure in Iraq and became disappointed in how well our troops did. The point is, in case it has been missed, Obama's "16 month promise" is right on schedule with what Bush set in place. He has promised to follow, not to change, not to lead.
But you aren't interested in truth, only the ad naseum stereotyping.
Return to the Mother Ship immediately!
That policy was an improvement on "drive around in HMMWVs and wait for IED's to blow off a few body parts," I will grant you that. But it took hold too late to intervene in a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing that was largely completed by the first months of 2007. 4 million displaced Iraqis are a painful testament to that.
Like you, I'm disappointed by the number of troops that are projected to remain after 8/2010, ADP. I'll add to that that no matter what the date, or the troop population, I am not at all confident that either Bush's or Obama's goal of a relatively stable Iraq will be achieved. The reason for that skepticism has nothing to do with the valiant service of our troops. It has to do with the nature of the political, religious, and tribal dynamics that have existed for centuries and will persist long after the US dominance in the country subsides.
BS.
Obama with his 16 months rhetoric put the pressure on the Bush administration since January 07. That forced Bush and all other neocons to consider accelerating things. If Hillary and people only thinking like were running on the left, Bush and the neocons would have never set up a deadline in the first place. Bush was dead on clear around end of 06, that he would never set up a deadline for withdrawal. Check back, don't change history.
Then the deadline was 2011 with a residual force. Now, in 2011, we are out, 100%.
Iraq was not a success under Bush and will not be under Obama. The mission was flawed ever since we took Saddam down and American, with their own recession, have no patience to go back 4 years and start what we should have done. Obama knows that. This is simply collateral damage control. Really does not matter when we leave.
The man's EXACT words were these: "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."
What part of that do you have trouble understanding?
Cathi l. happens to be right and you need not try to contain your liberal stereotypes. They blatantly seep through your dialogue anyway.
But more to the point, what fact can you discount in this post. Can you dispute the fact that the war was coming to its intended conclusion with the intended results before president Obama laid claim to being the man responsible for that conclusion?
Can you dispute the fact that 35,000 to 50,ooo troops will remain in Iraq ready for combat if necessary?
Can you dispute the fact that President Obama neglected to mention this?
You can't. You may try but you can't.
I will say this though.
Who the hell are you tell me that George Bush was the President of only some or me?
Who the hell are you to say that the war fought by your fellow Americans was "Bush's war"?
Who the hell are you to suggest that the blood shed and lives lost in the war were in vain?
I did not support "your" liberal nominee, Barcak Obama, for President. But now that he is President Obama he is my President. Unlike liberals I do not turn my back on my nation and its principles because I did not get my way.
President Obama is my President and although I do not support his lurches towards socoailism, he is still my President of my country. If George Bush was not your President and if the cause of freedom was not your cause, please surrender your citizenship and show me your Iranian or Venezuelan citizenship papers.
You are apparently the very last person to talk about reality. Your denial of it is reaffirmed in your choice words of who Americans are and who their Presidents are. Your denial of reality refuses to acknowledge the facts surrounding the war in Iraq. You deny the 10 reasons for the resolutions calling for Saddam's removal and it denies the facts surrounding over ten years of his defying our cease fire agreement and as many years of defiance regarding weapons inspections. It disregards the thousand of empty chemical weapon cache's found and the hostile intentions which were recognized by everyone from Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy, Al Gore and John Kerry.
When you can accept facts and live in reality, then you might be able to address reality. Until then salute Hugo Chavez and pledge your allegiance to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
That One said "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,"
Then That One said "And after combat forces withdraw, 35,000 to 50,000 will stay behind for an additional year and half of support and counterterrorism duties."
That goes beyond the end of 2011.
I guess the easing of hostilities against our forces was also arranged to fit the Obama led timeline. you are right do not change history. When did hostilitites finally reach a sustained lull and and substantial reduction?. After the surge was finally implemented. Iraqi insurgents did not get defeated because of Obama's timeline. Get a sense of reality.
Secondly, all of the troops will not all be out after 2011 and if you think otherwise you are delusional.
And finally, you really need to get your facts staright and head of those comic books.
So yes, Obama did predict and acknowledge that the surge would have an effect, before the fact. And in September, 2008, Obama said that "the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq...has succeeded in reducing violence 'beyond our wildest dreams.'" But Iraq still has failed to achieve the political reconciliation and self-sufficiency that is required, he said, and he vowed to withdraw American troops and end the war." [2]
There was no early drawdown assessment coming from the McCain camp in 2008. Need we be reminded that Obama ran against McCain?
[1]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/obama-buys-into-surge-suc_b_125207.html
[2]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550764/
No.
I think those jeans of yours might be a little too tight Anthony.
You seem to be having a numbnuts problem.
Oh, Sam, please. This fantasy of the neo-liberal base has always been absurd.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html?ref=middleeast
Alan D is right ADP, Obama redefined the withdrawal during the campaign. If you recall, McCain got a lot of press on his comment that there could a US troop presence in Iraq for 100 years. 19 months pretty close to Obama's 16 month campaign figure and a far cry from 100 years.
That number, too, could depend on conditions in Iraq and on the need for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban have made significant gains, and where national elections also are scheduled.
By Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers – Fri Feb 27, 6:00 am ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090227/wl_mcclatchy/3177360_1
What's with bringing up McCain? He said they'd be in Iraq for 100 years if need be, it was an exaggeration and not literal.
Even so, Obama will leave the bulk of troops in place this year, contrary to hopes of Democratic leaders for a speedier pullout. And after combat forces withdraw, 35,000 to 50,000 will stay behind for an additional year and half of support and counterterrorism duties.
Obama's promise to pull home the last of the U.S. troops by the end of 2011 is in accord with a deal that Iraqis signed with former President George W. Bush.
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer – 39 mins ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_iraq
Definition of "Understand:" To accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty.
Now here's the part that I have trouble with. "To accept as a fact or truth what Obama might say." It's easy to make promises for 2 1/2 years down the road. Who will be here calling him on it then? He's been in office approximately one month and has already broken two campaign promises, stalled on others, but who's counting?