We might be back in Iraq in 2012

Buried a few grafs down in the story about Iraq withdrawal was this piece of information, in the NYT story:

(N)egotiations will continue, and some of those troops might find themselves redeployed to Iraq in 2012 or beyond, an American official said on Friday. But the official, who spoke anonymously because the deliberations are meant to be confidential, said the talks will now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all United States troops leave. 

Of course, this will all be based on Obama re-election politics, whether it's better to appear the Peace Prize Prez or the Tough on Terra Prez.

Also left unmentioned, with the former Blackwater and other mercenaries there, guarding embassy personnel, etc., is if they will be treated as a "tripwire" or not.

Getcha popcorn ... follow your US wars!

Will Obama withdraw that many troops from Iraq this year? Probably not. Will he put some in Yemen? Maybe. Will he shoot even more Predators at Pakistan? Most certainly.

That and other stuff is all part of Tom Englehardt's Top 10 U.S. 2010 war predictions.

US colonel – TOTALLY leave Iraq by 2010

Col. Timothy Reese, advising Iraq’s Baghdad command, says keeping U.S. forces in Iraq beyond 2010 will only foster a sense of dependency and delayed development in Iraqi forces. Therefore, even though corruption and other problems remain high, it’s time for us to get out:

“As the old saying goes, ‘Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.’ ” Colonel Reese wrote. “Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi nose.”

Reese said Iraqi troops have become “cooler” to U.S. advisors, imposed new restrictions on troops and done other things that make our presence less and less worthwhile.

Gen. Ray Odierno, Iraq theater commander, stressed, when questioned, that Reese’s comments were NOT official U.S. policy. Speaking of that, official policy calls for us to still have 50K troops there a year from now.

Why Obama should release Abu Ghraib 2.0 pix – out of Iraq

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reportedly told Washington that Iraq would erupt in violence and he would ask US troops to leave a year early if the pics came out. Maliki reportedly said “Baghdad will burn.”

Best argument yet for releasing them. Get us out of there.

If Obama were a real liberal, he’d find a way to either dun KBR or force it to stay behind a couple of years, to boot.

Obama already weaseling on Iraq ‘withdrawal’

Per the New York Times, in a story getting little airplay with swine flu fears the U.S. and Iraq are supposed to start negotiating exceptions to the June 30 deadline for American troops to start withdrawing from Iraqi cities.

It’s pretty clear the U.S. Army’s brass hats want to stay in Mosul, Iraqi government be damned.

And, in the ultimate weaseling, Camp Victory is considered to not be a part of any city – but that weaseling is bipartisan between both countries’ armies.

Gear up the Badr Brigades?

Anyway, this is why the MSLBs are slipping, IMO. None of the bigs among "liberal" blogs has covered this in any real way.

Was Obama irresponsible on Iraq before election?

Perhaps so, if you follow Just.Another.Politician.™ to the logical conclusion of a statement he made during his surprise visit to Iraq today.

President Obama was asked if, now that he’s in office, he isn’t more like his predecessor, former President George Bush, than he’d care to admit. His response:

“I have a responsibility to make sure that as we bring troops out, that we do so in a careful enough way that we don’t see a complete collapse into violence,” Mr. Obama said. “So some people might say, wait, I thought you were opposed to the war, why don’t you just get them all out right away? Well, just because I was opposed at the outset, it doesn’t’ mean that I don’t have now responsibilities to make sure that we do things in a responsible fashion.”

In other words, the die-hard Obamiacs who are still drinking the Kool-Aid, your man admitted that he is, indeed, Just.Another.Politician.™

Real questions about Obama’s Iraq withdrawal

Jeremy Scahill asks the questions the mainstream media hasn’t, like:

· What will be done with the 163,000 “contractors,” err, mercenaries?
· Will all the U.S.bases be closed?
· Will the Pentagon find a way to rip off taxpayers for “withdrawal” costs? (To which I add my own sidebar, “Will KBR do the same”?)
· Will Obama classify even more combat troops as non-combatants? (A number of brigade combat teams will be relabeled as parts of a “transition force headquarters” in August 2010.)
· After the last three coalition partners – Australia, Britain and Romania – withdraw in July, what will the U.S. do differently? Will public perceptions change?

Scahill, the author of “Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army,” has plenty more questions where those came from.

Kamiya tries to fluff Obama on Iraq and fails

Gary Kamiya says Obama is practically a genius for his “middle of the road “ Iraq (alleged) withdrawal plan.

At The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss hands him his hat, showing that “middle of the road” is the whole problem, in a nutshell.

Another Obama-Iraq withdrawal loophole

Hat tip to Juan Cole’s Salon column for this one.

Even if Obama does, in fact, withdraw all troops by the end of 2011…

“Troops” doesn’t include Air Force or Navy personnel, just Army and Marines.

Especially in the case of the Air Force, remember, we’ve got bases all around the world… and in a lot of spots in southern Asia.

So, per your bit of insight, Juan, disregarding your broad-mindedness, I’ll remain skeptical for now.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Will Obama get ALL troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011?

Yes No

Will Obama actually get us out of Iraq?

Short answer? Maybe. With more of the standing caveats.

You have to scroll almost all the way to the end of the NYT story to read the caveats, hedges, or whatever:

Representative John M. McHugh of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Obama had reassured him that he would revisit the plan if circumstances changed.(My emphasis.)

Remember, during the Democratic primaries, Obama’s withdrawal statements were always much more blanket-like in nature.

Then, in the general election, he started hedging his bets. He said his decisions were contingent on military advice, etc.

That said, NOTHING has changed in Iraq in the last 48-72 hours to change military advices.

What HAS happened is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have kicked Obama in the shins. If nothing else, this is cover for the midterm elections.

People who claim otherwise don't know how to read political tea leaves, or the fine print in newspaper stories, either.

Besides, even if he does remove all troops from Iraq, will he remove them from the Middle East?

I certainly hope I'm wrong. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Non-combat troops in Iraq WILL SEE COMBAT

OK, now that the facts are in that the word “non-combatant” doesn’t mean Jack:

Some of the U.S. forces likely to remain in Iraq after President Barack Obama fulfills his pledge to withdraw combat troops would still have a combat role fighting suspected terrorists, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Let me spell it out for you Kool-Aid drinking Obamiacs:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that a holdover, or "residual," force would number in the tens of thousands.

His spokesman said Wednesday that assuming there is such a force, it would have three primary functions: Training and helping Iraqi forces; protecting Americans and U.S. assets in Iraq and limited counterterrorism operations in which Iraqi forces would take the lead.

On the signature issue that got him the Democratic nomination (even with Hillary’s campaign management schwaffles, she still would have won, otherwise) …

“I think a limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. “By and large you’re talking about people who we would classify as enablers, support troops.”

He’s a fucking liar.

“We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war,” Obama said in his address to Congress on Tuesday.

Clear?

Non-combatants will conduct combat operations.

Enablers? That’s any Obamiacs who are going to try to claim down is up now that the cat is fully and officially out of the bag.

Is Obama backing off Iraq withdrawal timeline?

Tis true that during the general election campaign — though NOT true during Democratic primaries — that President Barack Obama always caveated (did I just utter a Haigism?) his Iraq withdrawal timetable by saying it depended on the analysis of the brass hats. (Likewise, Obama uttered his “combat troops only” caveat ONLY after the general election started; he never mentioned that, IIRC, during the primaries.)

Anyway, it sounds like The One might be warming up his caveating vocal chords. Are you really that surprised?

But, given that there just aren’t enough troops to up the numbers in Afghanistan beyond 55,000 AND keep Iraq totals at their current level — and that’s with the Army still worn-out, and Obama no closer to “easing its pain” — B.O. is going to have to either force Centcom head David Petraeus to get Iraq theater commander Ray Odierno and Afghanistan theater head David McKiernan to come to consensus, or else craft one.

At the same time, for Petraeus to move the ball too much further down the road, Obama the C-in-C is going to have to start making some policy decisions.

AP gets Obama-Iraq ‘withdrawal’ story wrong

If only “combat troops,” whatever the hell they are, are scheduled for removal from Iraq, then we’re not actually withdrawing now, are we?

In fairness to the AP, many Obamiacs missed this distinction six months ago. Or ignored it. Or tried to explain it away.

Ricks – Iraq will be tougher for Obama, even without Clintonesque weaseling

New York Times war correspondent Thomas Ricks has several pungent observations related to Iraq for President-elect Obama, focused on the fact that the Status of Forces Agreement probably doesn't mean that much, and that a lot of the easy withdrawing of "combat" troops has been done.

As to the word in scare quotes, and my "Clintonesque" comment in the header, well, I'll let Ricks speak for himself:

News flash for the president-elect: All our troops are combat troops. It isn't like some American soldiers stroll around Iraq unarmed. Nor do the insurgents inquire about the troops' MOS (military occupational specialties) before detonating an IED. Indeed, I feel safer in Iraq accompanying an infantry unit on foot patrol than I do while riding in a convoy of transport soldiers, who are much more likely to get popped by a roadside bomb. So his promise to get "combat troops" out of Iraq in the next 16 months is a phrase that means much less than it appears to.

Total agreement here on all of Ricks' main points. But, I knew that long ago; hat's another reason I had Green, not Democratic, on my presidential vote. Anyway, read the full post for why Ricks thinks a two-term Obama still might not be all the way out of Iraq.

‘Trainers’ – didn’t we hear that word in Nam?

Obama’s Clintonesque words on Iraq

Of course we did, and even if Obama isn’t old enough to remember that personally, he knows better. Ted Rall joins me in exposing Obama’s hypocrisy in “relabeling” troops who he intends to keep in Iraq long past the middle of 2009, and probably long past the end of 2011 if he can get away with it.

Rall also notes Obama NEVER voted against a supplemental funding bill.

It’s only an Obama ‘stretch’ this time – no end on Iraq

The New York Times finally gets up to speed about how Obama actually WON’T be ending the war in Iraq any time soon. No lie, just another bending of the spirit of what he said oh so long ago.

For we true progressives, left-liberals, etc., whether affiliated with a third party or not, this was evident, what, eight months ago or so, from the first time Obama started talking about “combat troops” and ONLY “combat troops” being removed from Iraq.

Now comes the other shoe many of us rhetorically asked about at that time – what is the definition of a “combat solider”?

B.O.’s definition? It’s as narrow as possible. As the Gray Lady makes clear, don’t expect a lot of soldiers to be withdrawn.

The long answers open up some complicated, sleight-of-hand responses to military and political problems facing President-elect Barack Obama.

To try to meet (December 2011 Status of Forces Agreement) deadlines without risking Iraq’s fragile and relative stability, military planners say they will reassign some combat troops to training and support of the Iraqis, even though the troops would still be armed and go on combat patrols with their Iraqi counterparts. So although their role would be redefined, the dangers would not.

Just.Another.Politician.™ sitting pretty in bed with a bunch of punked Obamiac Kool-Aid drinkers.

Meanwhile, it wouldn’t surprise me to see some MSLBs and knee-jerk commenters there to whine that the mainstream media is picking on them. Others will try to ignore this, I have no doubt. From what I’ve so far, that’s the case.

And, we finally, and tragically, put “paid” to the myth that politics had nothing to do with Obama’s 2002 speech in Chicago.

Was that speech all politics? Of course not. Was it even driven by politics as the single largest factor? I don’t think so.

But, was a political angle clear and present? You bet your ass it was.

We’ve agreed to something with Iraq

Unfortunately, our own BushCo government won’t tell us WHAT changes it has accepted in its status of forces agreement with Iraq.

It WILL tell us, though, that it’s through negotiating changes on the SOFA:

A US official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said “there may be requests for clarifications (from the Iraqis) but as far as we're concerned that process of negotiating has come to an end.”

Don’t worry, though; Arab-language Asharq Al-Awsat fills in what BushCo won’t tell us.

Among other things, BushCo reportedly dropped a clause authorizing Washington and Baghdad to seek an extension for retaining troops in the cities beyond 2009 and in the country beyond 2011.

Paul – Obama won’t have Iraq troops back in 16 months

Congressman Ron Paul made the prediction Rachel Maddow Show.

And, I’ll give you 50-50 odds he’s right.

Call it another early Intrade.

Get out of Iraq period

It’s clear that Shi’ites across Iraq’s political spectrum don’t want us there, perioid. Including non-combat troops, period.

And, yes, soon-to-be-president Obama, you need to sit up, pay attention and totally withdraw us as wanted.

Iraq wants VERY CLEAR timeline

And not just a timeline that’s vaguely “out there.”

That emphasized phrase comes from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zeba. It’s within ongoing status of forces/security agreement talks between Iraq and the U.S.

That said, as the story notes, Iraq isn’t “settled.” But, this is the real world, not Colin Powell’s hypothetical Pottery Barn.