Campaign promises on ending the war in Iraq now muted by reality

[witchcurlgirl]

Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality

WASHINGTON— On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama’s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011.

As American combat forces decline in numbers and more provinces are turned over to Iraqi control, these military planners say, Iraqi security forces will remain reliant on significant numbers of Americans for training, supplies, logistics, intelligence and transportation for a long time to come.

There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to “end the war” by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.

Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama’s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be “re-missioned,” their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.

In Iraq today, there are 15 brigades defined as combat forces in this debate, with one on its way home. But the overall number of troops on the ground is more than 50 brigade equivalents, for a total of 146,000 troops, including service and support personnel. Even now, after the departure of the five “surge” brigades that President Bush sent to Iraq in January 2006, the overall number of troops in Iraq remains higher than when Mr. Bush ordered the troop increase, owing to the number of support and service personnel remaining.

At his news conference in Chicago on Monday, Mr. Obama emphasized his willingness to listen to the advice from senior officers and that of his new national security team, which includes Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the first Pentagon chief in history to continue serving under a newly elected president; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and, as national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, the retired four-star Marine officer who served as NATO’s supreme commander.

Since the election, Mr. Obama has held unannounced consultations with both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen, described by Obama aides and Pentagon officials as having focused less on tactics and operations and more on broad, strategic views for American national security. On Wednesday, he made a telephone call to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, according to the Obama transition office.

To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come.

At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps’ letting out its collective breath; the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels.

“I believe that 16 months is the right time frame, but, as I’ve said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders,” Mr. Obama said at that news conference on Monday. “And my No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.”

An apparent evolution of Mr. Obama’s thinking can be heard in contrast to comments he made in July, when he called a news conference to lay out his Iraq policy in unambiguous terms.

“I intend to end this war,” he said then. “My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.”

And in a news conference that month in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the American troop increase had bolstered Iraqi security but declared that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect troops in Afghanistan.

Mr. Gates, speaking at the Pentagon on Tuesday, a day after he appeared with Mr. Obama to announce the new national security team, made clear that the direction of troop levels now had been decided, with the only decisions remaining on how fast and how low.

“And so the question is, How do we do this in a responsible way?” Mr. Gates said. “And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved, with so much sacrifice, on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis, at this point.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us...4military.html


During the election, acknowledging the fact that there would need to be troops in Iraq for a long time was something McCain was crucified for. His statement regarding '100 years' was misquoted all over the place. As it turns out, it was true.

Now, post election, the reality of US troops being in Iraq for a long time is clearly going to be the case. 'Re-missioned' or not. Gee, what a surprise

[Sweetie]

I love it that he suckered so many people.

Look, he still has it on his website, too:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Iraq

• Barack Obama will responsibly end the war in Iraq:
  
  Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.

[witchcurlgirl]

^^ I notice it doesn't say 'combat troops'. just troops.

Of course, the Times article says 'evolution of thinking' instead of ' lied'...but thats America for you. All we care about is what we call something. Not what it actually means.

[Sweetie]

^ I knew the second he made his acceptance speech....when he started in on the "it will take longer than 4 years" that he had been blowing smoke up a lot of asses.

[Just Kill Me]

Don't judge him! He's not in office yet!

[Sweetie]

Really? I did not know that.

His comments aren't adding up, whether he's in office or not. He promised on thing to get the votes, now that he has them, he saying something different. That's not right.

[witchcurlgirl]

His comments aren't adding up, whether he's in office or not. He promised on thing to get the votes, now that he has them, he saying something different.

Oh my god...you mean, like a typical politician?

[Sweetie]

^ Who would have ever guessed it would happen?

[kingcap72]

Leaving combat troops in Iraq to provide support until the Iraqi security forces are trained isn't the same as keeping the war going on.

It's a little hard when you have to clean up the clusterfuck that Dubya created at home and abroad. Of course that's not going to be done overnight. And I'm sure Obama's not going to keep all of his campaign promises, no politician ever does. But he's a damn sight better than the alternative of McCain/Palin.

[Grimmlok]

Aw, well at least he won't start any NEW wars of convenience like Rethugs. A systematic drawdown is pretty much what he said he'd do within a specific timeframe.

Besides, you have to gt the troops from SOMEWHERE to finish cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan.. you know, the place that was abandoned for something more financially rewarding (or so it was assumed)

[HWBL]

Jesus, the rightwing Repug fanclub is rearing its ugly head again!
It takes more than one fantastic man can give - especially before even
having been sworn into office - to clean up the mess a retard Repug and
his power crazed cronies made, almost destroying the entire planet,
certainly causing an unparallelled global imbalance. But then: it's always
easier to destroy than to build up.

[NicoleWasHere]

Obama blew smoke up my ass, and I enjoyed it.

That is all.

[Just Kill Me]

Yes, he must get troops somewhere; and our's are much cheaper than the ones we pay at Blackwater.

[celeb_2006]

Actually, it's not the first time promises in regards to the war in iraq were not fully realized. But, the fact is a new security pact was in fact signed by the Iraqi government. This pact says that U.S. troops will be out of Iraqi cities by summer of next year.

I certainly understand the necessity of leaving some troops there to handle other issues such as training and whatnot. But now there is finally a light at the end of the tunnel.