The media’s premature celebration of US withdrawal from Iraq
A private mercenary in Iraq (Image from www.aolcdn.com)
It has been widely reported that Iraqis are celebrating the withdrawal of US forces from their country. But what the media has failed to emphasize is that 130,000 residual forces will still be operating inside of Iraq, and that President Obama intends to keep as many as 50,000 troops stationed in Iraq until 2011, though that date might change, and that there is no withdrawal timeline for thousands of private contractors.
The 2011 date is tentative as explained by the top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen:
“Conditions could change in that period of time. And, if we get to a point where this [Status of Forces Agreement] is agreed to, and have a relationship with the government of Iraq tied to it, that we will continue to have discussions with them over time, as conditions continue to evolve.”
Mullen called the 2011 withdrawal date “adequate for what we need now,” which sounds more like let’s play it by ear. NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported that “one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.”
Major US bases in both Mosul and Baghdad, including Camp Victory in Baghdad, a complex housing more than 20,000 troops, will also remain open. Additionally, American combat helicopters and drones will continue to fly over Iraq.
President Obama also has 250,000 “contractors” (some armed, some unarmed) in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama increased the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq by 23% in the second quarter of 2009. Overall, contractors now make up approximately half of the “total force in Centcom AOR [Area of Responsibility].”
There are no withdrawal dates for private contractors.
Open military bases, large residual forces, and private contractors all make this celebration of a US withdrawal seem premature at best, and farcical at worst.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Agreed. I think characterizing what are plan in Iraq is as a “withdrawal” misses the fact that we’re not actually “withdrawing.” I prefer “partial withdrawal.” (I’ll try to stop with the quotes.) But we’ve seen this before–we like big dates, like way back on June 30 2004 when we “handed over” Iraq to the Iraqis(officially ending the CPA.)
True. Maybe we should just call this Mission Accomplished II
In response to another comment. See in context »It sounds like a replay of the last years of the Vietnam War. “Vietnamization” after 1969 meant the South Vietnamese were supposed to do the fighting. The problem was that we created a South Vietnamese army in our own image, which didn’t work too well once we left. By 1975, when North Vietnam invaded, there was no enthusiasm for sending troops or air support.
I love the talk of U.S. troops in Iraq for 20 years. I’ll bet they’re gone in less than five. Either the Iraqi government will ask us to leave (how do we say no?), or more likely, America loses its appetite for an expensive commitment.
The Vietnamization of the Iraqi army is an interesting point.
I wouldn’t give the US gov’t too much credit, though. The Iraqis wanted US troops out from the first days of occupation and autonomous control of their natural resources (they got neither.) In the case of natural resources, the Iraqi government marked “National Sovereignty Day” by “open[ing] up some of its massive oil and gas fields to foreign firms,” according to the Wall Street Journal. So the desires of the Iraqi people don’t usually factor into US policy decisions in the region.
Sadly, this is probably the most accurate prediction. The wars are costing the US enormous amounts of money, and with our economy, infrastructure, and healthcare in shambles, the occupations can’t sustain themselves forever. Sooner or later, US taxpayers are bound to say “enough is enough.”
In response to another comment. See in context »