Iraq Troop Withdrawal or Occupation-Lite?

by Phyllis Bennis

President Barack Obama said directly that he would be announcing "a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war." As far as it goes, that sounds good. This is an indication that President Obama is largely keeping to his campaign promises, and that's a hopeful sign, reflecting the power of the anti-war consensus in this country.

If this plan were actually a first step towards the unequivocal goal of a complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, it would be better than good, it would be fabulous. But that would mean this withdrawal would be the first step towards a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops, pulling out of all the 150,000+ U.S.-paid foreign mercenaries and contractors, closing all the U.S. military bases, and ending all U.S. efforts to control Iraqi oil.

So far that is not on Obama's agenda.

The troop withdrawal as planned would leave behind as many as 50,000 U.S. troops. That's an awful lot. Even Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks that may be too much. She told Rachel Maddow, "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, at the present...I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000."

Those troops won't include officially designated "combat" troops. But those tens of thousands of troops will still be occupying Iraq. Doing what? Very likely, just what combat troops do - they would walk and talk and bomb and shoot like combat troops, but they'd be called something else. The New York Times spelled it out last December: describing how military planners believe Obama's goal of pulling out combat troops "could be accomplished at least in part by re-labeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis." That would mean a retreat to the lies and deception that characterized this war during Bush years - something President Obama promised to leave behind. It would also mean military resistance in Iraq would continue, leading to more Iraqi and U.S. casualties.

Rest of Article Here

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

I don't believe that we should leave anyone of the military there after the now 18 months. We need to get out and let the Iraqi's take over for themselves. There is no place for us in that country. If Obama thought it was wrong from the beginning why would he leave anyone for even an extra day?

The troops left are still in harms way. This is not the promise Obama made to the voters. I supported him because he was not McCain and no one else had a chance to win. It is time to get out. Today is the time. 16 months is the time.

As I said long before the election, any hope that all troops will be withdrawn is as realistic to these anti war folks as a rosy world where war never has to be fought.

We need a contingent of forces to remain in Iraq as a deterent against any group that may want to interfere with the political process that will eventually allow the Iraqi people to take control of Iraq. Where else can this be seen as successful? Look at South Korea. We have had troops there since the Korean war cease fire. South Korea is a thriving democracy as a result of the deterrent. Lets take a look at Japan. Japan is the 2nd largest economy in the world. Mostly due to the protection afforded them by the US. Without our protection it was most certain China or Korea would have made some sort of backlash move against Japan after WWII. You could also make the argument that we protected Japan against itself. So, a lasting presence has shown to be successful. After spending billions of $$ in Iraq to get it where it is at, would it not make sense to want to secure that investment? That is the other argument to be made. Do you think pelosi really knows what she is talking about, or is she just being a politician? Will 15,000 or 20,000 troops be enough to support a growing Iraqi military with the training necessary to build their young military? Can the 15,000-20,000 troops do this while having significant enough numbers to protect themselves in the event the situation collapses?

Oh an also.. many people on the anti Iraq war side chastise the mistakes made by the bush admin that allowed the insurgency to begin in the first place. What was that mistake? Disbanding the Iraqi military right after the invasion which left a huge vacume for the insurgency to take place. How can you criticize that mistake when you are advocating the mass exit of US forces that would leave a similar vacume? Does not seem to make much logical sense to me.

I believe President Obama mislead voters , I hear it from many democrat voters , they thought he was going to send all the troops home.

__________________
Well, I don't exactly know What's going on in the world today Don't know what there is to say About the way the people are treating Each other, not like brothersLeaders take us far away from ecology With mythology and astrology (and -ology)
Has got some words to say About the way we live today , Leon Russell


.

Yes, he has clearly lied.

Here's another interview on Antiwar Radio on Obama’s civil liberties record so far:

"Glenn Greenwald, renowned Salon.com blogger, discusses the Obama administration’s impact on civil liberties, the failure of Obama’s government to reverse a single Bush-era legal position, how the Bagram prison in Afghanistan is replacing Guantanamo as the new extralegal detention facility, the spectacular claim that a global war on terror makes the whole world a battlefield and all its inhabitants potential enemy combatants, the history of the state secrets privilege from its original limited exemptions to the current claims of total immunity and why non-prosecuting truth and reconciliation committees should be reserved for third-world countries."

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

How many US troops are still stationed in, Oh, let's say...England, or Germany, or ROK, or Japan?

D*mn, those occupation troops sure did f___up their countries, now didn't they?

Nancy Polise is not listening to what she is saying. Twenty thousand is OK but 50,000 is not. How in the wide world of liberal thinking (if there is such a thing) he she come up with that?

As number two in line for the Presidency, you would think she would be for whatever the military is recommending or exercise her leadership role and argue for none.

I doubt she is capable of leading water down stream.

__________________
I came into this world screaming and fighting, covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way.

There's no reason for them to be there. That's the issue. Do you expect Germany or Japan to attack us if we leave?

We don't have the money to be the world's policeman. We should return to a Constitutional foreign policy - non-interventionism.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

"I supported him because he was not McCain and no one else had a chance to win."

I can understand the McCain thing, but what the "F" are you saying by "...and no one else had a chance to win." What is that? Elections by group mentality. Are you not able to think for yourself? You just want to vote for who think is going to win? How sophomoric of you.

__________________
I came into this world screaming and fighting, covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way.

A defensive stance always looses in the long run. If you want to bring war to your own soil, non interventionalism or, as I call it, Isolationism, is the best way to do it. The US and our neighbors have been living in peace because of our intervention. If we had this mentality during WW2 we could have seen German or Japanese forces in Canada or Mexico or both. So which language/culture do you prefer, Japanese or German?

First question: NO, but I don't trust Russia and china all that much.

Second question: Bobo just proposed spending $1.75 trillion more than we have. I opine we can find the money for our protection. It's the "will" that seems to be in scarce supply.

__________________
I came into this world screaming and fighting, covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way.