WASHINGTON — A new military plan for troop withdrawals from Iraq that was described in broad terms this week to President-elect Barack Obama falls short of the 16-month timetable Mr. Obama outlined during his election campaign, United States military officials said Wednesday.
The plan was proposed by the top American commanders responsible for Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno, and it represents their first recommendation on troop withdrawals under an Obama presidency. While Mr. Obama has said he will seek advice from his commanders, their resistance to a faster drawdown could present the new president with a tough political choice between overruling his generals or backing away from his goal.
The plan, completed last week, envisions withdrawing two more brigades, or some 7,000 to 8,000 troops, from Iraq in the first six months of 2009, the military officials said. But that would leave 12 combat brigades in Iraq by June 2009, and while declining to be more specific, the officials made clear that the withdrawal of all combat forces under the generals’ recommendations would not come until some time after May 2010, Mr. Obama’s target.
Transition officials said the plan was described in only general terms to Mr. Obama by Robert M. Gates, who is staying on as defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when Mr. Obama met for five and a half hours with his national security team on Monday in Chicago. They said all participants had sidestepped the details of how to reconcile Mr. Obama’s timetable for withdrawing combat forces with the more extended one recommended by the generals. A transition official said that in future meetings, “the military will get a chance to articulate their preferences.”
Will Barack Obama blow off his frontline generals in favor of his political campaign generals?
Will Barack Obama order a hasty withdrawal from Iraq rather than “be as careful getting out as we were reckless getting in”?
Will Barack Obama completely blowoff his base and the promise to the American people to pull out combat brigades in 16 months?
So many broken promises and failures and the man hasn’t even taken the oath yet. Incredible!
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
He wouldn’t even meet with Petraeus because he didn’t want to hear the facts. I hope he listens to the generals, but I won’t hold my breath.
I find great sadistic joy in the fact that now he basically HAS to listen to the truth & face the facts. More than that…he’s got to deal w them and present that reality to the American people he misled.
-U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Manual (written by General Petraeus w others including human rights groups (emphasis added)
I can honestly say that I never saw a candidate as arrogant as BHO…..and I am going to enjoy every moment of discomfort that he endures. The man is an embarrassment to this great nation. He wanted to play president….and is now finding out that it is not a “play” position but one that carries actual responsibilities (something that he has never had to carry before). This should be an interesting four years. I hope only 4…the American peoples fascination with idol worship scares me.
Yes.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I have a feeling that if combat troops are pulling out at a steady pace, the left will not see this as a broken promise – whether it takes 16 months or 20 months (completely fulfilling his promise for an orderly retreat that takes into account the situation on the ground)
warpub…The One’s supporters will never see it as a broken promise (ie, you are correct), and before they could view it as a broken promise they would have to go through the blame Bush phase. The irony is that in 2004 Dems promised to end the war. In 2006 Dems promised to end the war. In 2008 Dems promised eo end the war, and in 2010…Dems will still be fighting the war.
…. or exactly what Bush has been saying all along. This is not “that one’s” plan. Like a broken clock stuck on midnight, his plan to leave in 2006 … when it would have left Iraq in shambles… was Bush’s plan but without the shambles part. Eventually when the Iraqis became stronger, what Obama wanted to do prematurely at the Iraqis expense, was going to happen anyway. This is like calling tails on a coin flip every time. Eventually you’re going to be right.
This withdrawal today is able to be done because of that Surge and events on the ground that Obama adamantly opposed, and still does not give due credit.
These troops leaving, with honor, owe no thanks to the POTUS-elect.
And BTW, Ms. Warp’ed… the withdrawal plan is not Obama’s promise, but the final result of the Iraqi-US-coalition efforts, and laid out in a SOFA that had nothing to do with Obama.
“This withdrawal today is able to be done because of that Surge and events on the ground that Obama adamantly opposed, and still does not give due credit. ”
The Democratic Surge was a last ditch effort undertaken by a desperate president watching not only the chaos of the invasion he led – but the destruction of the Republican party at home. Why – exactly, did Bush – after YEARS of chaos, troop deaths and incredible violence decide upon the Surge? It was because the Democrats won the congress and he knew that with their oversite he had little time to correct himself. History will rmember the surge as the outgrowth of the Democrats winning the congress on the promise to end the war – and they did – by pushing the Idiot in Charge to finally do the right thing.
I’m glad you appreciate our Surge policy. But remember, it happened with the DEMODCRATS in charge of the congress. The republicans would’ve been happy to allow the death and chaos to go on forever (100 years or more if I rmember what John McCain said…)
“These troops leaving, with honor, owe no thanks to the POTUS-elect.”
You’re right, Mrs. Harley – they owe it to the Democrats in congress – who held this miserable failure of a president to account…
Was it “the surge?”
Was it the “Sunni awakening?”
Was it Muqtada al-Sadr deciding to work on God’s time and lie low for a few years?
What the late Lt General Wm Odom always predicted was that it would be the Sunnis who would drive the foreign jihadists out of Iraq. He also predicted that the ultimate outcome in Iraq would be the same, whether the US withdrew all troops in 2005 or 2015.
The issue with Iraq has always been benefit/cost ratio.
Is there a “benefit” and what was the cost of the “benefit?”
If the ultimate cost of Iraq is $3 trillion, as projected (including long term veterans benefits), what might this money have purchased for national defense, instead, realizing, among other things, that the yearly budget for all US intelligence agencies is only $50 billion and that the true threat to the USA is not flying airliner bombs or truck bombs or satchel bombs or the odd Zodiac carrying explosives against ships, but, rather, things such as weapons grade anthrax, dirty radioactive weapons, and explosive nuclear devices?
Remember when Clinton wanted to give Yeltsin $20 billion to secure loose nukes from the Soviet stockpile and the GOP congress wouldn’t give it to them? Chump change, relative to Iraq.
And $3 trillion could have guaranteed the future solvency of both Medicare and Social Security.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, INRE your comment:
Why must it be either/or? The first two are the most instrumental in a more secure Iraq. However the Sunni awakening could not have been sustained without the military back up of the combo US/Iraq forces watching their back. How long do you think a bunch of tribal leaders and clerics “awakening” would have lasted when out manned and out armed?
On the flip side, the clear and hold strategy would not have enjoyed as much success without the Sunni awakening. They are two pieces to a successful operation.
As far as Sadr, he saw the writing on the wall. His legitimacy was always in question for his lack of seminary training. To accomplish his short cut to the top of the heap, he had to pad his education.
Now, care to tell us how you get to a $3 tril figure with Iraq?
The Awakening and Mookie didn’t just happen. We applied a combination of force and diplomacy to get them to comply. Mookie was asked by a senior cleric at our behest to cooperate. This was after we’d kicked his force’s butt. By showing the Sunnis they stood to gain by cooperating, they ended their resistance. It also didn’t hurt we were stomping them.
Diplomacy is worthless without the will to use force. Any tyrant that sees such a lack of conviction will only use talks to stall and/or gain advantage before the outbreak of fighting.
You’ve had it too easy now, Ms. Warp’ed. Time for you to put some facts behind your obnoxious cyber piehole, girl.
Why don’t you provide us some quotes of Dem Congressional leadership… like Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Obama, Kennedy, Biden and/or Clinton… that shows us all how you come to the conclusion that it was a “democratic surge”. This would include, of course, them demanding more troops be sent in 2006 and how they offered no public opposition. The clock’s ticking… you’d better get busy, because it will take more than forever to dig that up.
What you consider a Dem victory was them staging a political ploy for midterms for their anti-war base. Protest, fight, insult, refuse to cooperate with the Surge, but then cave in because it was the right thing to do. At least they could say they tried.
Then campaign on promises to end the war… and as Scott points out, they will still be there in 2010… just as they will be in the last of the withdrawal stages under the Bush plan.
Oh so admirable.
Take your meds…. and don’t forget to come back with some links that support your dementia.
Added: BTW, you may want to invest in a calendar as well. The midterm election was Nov 2006, and the Dem’s didn’t assume the majority Congressional throne until Jan 2007. By the 10th of that month, the first of the Surge troops had arrived in Iraq. It took almost six months to get all troops and equipment in place, and functioning as per operational plans.
In other words, the debate and decision to go ahead came before the Dems assumed power.