"....For all the talk of withdrawal and timetables, however, nothing like that is likely to happen....American and Iraqi military and diplomatic officials insist that a residual U.S. force of considerable size is likely to remain for the medium to long term, as will the U.S. bases in Iraq that Democrats over the last two years have insisted must not be permanent...A good picture of the size and shape of America's future presence in Iraq can be found in a memo sent by retired General Barry McCaffrey earlier last month to the head of the social sciences department at West Point, Colonel Michael Meese....He has also been a reliable surrogate for the thinking of Odierno and General David Petraeus, who understandably have tried to steer clear of the politics of the Iraq war....In the report, obtained by The New Republic, McCaffrey writes, "We should assume that the Iraqi government will eventually ask us to stay beyond 2011 with a residual force of .. 20,000 to 40,000 troops..... McCaffrey's reasoning rests in part on his view of the Iraqi military, an institution he says has vastly improved yet still needs mentoring, equipment, and support from Americans on the ground. In his report, McCaffrey writes that Iraq's border-control service is "anemic" and that the army cannot currently conduct military operations without U.S. support and equipment. "The confidence of the Iraqi combat force is still dependant on US mentoring and backup," he writes. "Their officers are very explicit on this point--THE IRAQI SECURITY FORCES DO NOT WANT THE U.S. COMABT UNITS TO LEAVE--YET." The capital letters are McCaffrey's.........The SOFA clearly ends any legitimate claim that America's presence in Iraq is an occupation at all."
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
"Don't hold your breath on a US withdrawal from Iraq"
Eli Lake, in TNR, here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
6/30 DATE FOR THE CITIES MAYBE MANIPULABLE
12/31/2011 IS a GIVEN...FOR all FORCES
MATTER OF FACT IT WILL BE QUITE EARLIER
One cannot but be amazed at the wishful thinking still prevailing in certain quarters in the US. The withdrawal of troops is a given. Considerations about how much and when will be dictated by facts on the ground. Among such facts, the Iraqi people do not want the presence of US troops of any kind, of any size. Notwithstanding the comment of Ms Perino, the "shoe thrower", an Iraqi shiite, is representative of the Iraqi people. Mr. Malki, is not even if the ballot polls have said otherwise. And how can one accept ballot polls results when conducted under occupying forces? Nonetheless, even if President-elect Mr. Obama would feel the need of staying in some form in Iraq (a contradiction to the core of his electoral campaign pledge), the cost of staying is and will remain prohibitive. If oil prices drop to around $25 neither the Iraqis nor anyone else will be in a position to 'pay' for the occupation. Mr. Obama will have to deal with major recovery issues at home that will cost a bundle. Additional expenses in Iraq are not part of the course.
As to those who think that SOFA no longer makes US presence as an occupying force, 'shoe throwers' feel otherwise!!!
Pepe Escobar in the Asia Times said: SOFA, negotiated after an extremely turbulent eight months, rules that the US military must totally withdraw from Iraq by December 2011 (a real timeline, always fought by the Bush camp); there will be no military bases left behind; and the US military cannot use Iraq to attack Iran or anyone else.
For all practical purposes - and of course barring inexorable Pentagon pressure over president-elect Barack Obama - the neo-colonial Bush war/occupation will be over by the end of 2011.
Bush's White House was so exultant with this "success" that it did not even publish a copy of SOFA in English.
Post a Comment