Withdrawal from Iraq? The Escape Clauses Begin

NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki: "Military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And 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."

The Washington Post: "[Obama] promised to 'proceed carefully' and 'consult closely' with military commanders and the Iraqi government, and he said 'there will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments'. Does that mean Mr. Obama is open to altering his plan if al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias rebound as U.S. troop levels decline?"

Randy Schoenemann, founder of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Washington Post: "[Obama's] plan features a longer timetable, commander flexibility, tactical adjustments and the presence of some 50,000 American troops for years....We should all hope President Obama continues to listen to Gens. David Petraeus and Ray Odierno, rebuffs his left-wing critics and stays the course with an Iraq policy John McCain might have formulated."

Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute: "Will the residual force tasked with counterterrorism, training and force protection have accomplished its mission by the end of 2011?"

Christian Brose, "Shadow Government" blog of Foreign Policy: "I just hope that if, God forbid, things take a turn for the worse in Iraq, Obama will find the same courage his predecessor did two years ago, and that he won't let inconvenient truths become the enemy of good strategy."

Mr Obama's War: Gareth Porter on the Afghanistan "Mini-Surge"

Gareth Porter, who is emerging as the best observer of the US military manoeuvres on Iraq and Afghanistan, looks behind President Obama's eventual decision to approve only part of the 30,000 extra troops request by US commanders for the Afghan War (Porter says 17,000 sent; we put the figure at just over 20,000). While the President has apparently drawn the line with the military, Porter warns, "Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month." And he has an analogy which is just short of terrifying:

Both Obama's decision to agree to just over half of his field commander's request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.

 



'What is the End Game?': Why Obama Rejected a Bigger Surge in Afghanistan
Gareth Porter

President Barack Obama decided to approve only 17,000 of the 30,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander, after McKiernan was unable to tell him how they would be used, according to a White House source.

But Obama is likely to be pressured by McKiernan and the Joint Chiefs to approve the remaining 13,000 troops requested after the completion of an Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review next month.

Obama's decision to approve just over half the full troop request for Afghanistan recalls a similar decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson to approve only part of the request for U.S. troop deployments in a parallel situation in the Vietnam War in April 1965 at a comparable stage of that war. Johnson reluctantly went along with the request for additional troops within weeks under pressure from both the field commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The request for 30,000 additional troops, which would bring the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan to more than 60,000, had been approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before Obama's inauguration. A front-page story in the Washington Post Jan. 13 reported that Obama was ready to "sign off" on the deployment request.

On Jan. 30 Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said between 20,000 and 30,000 more troops would "probably" be sent to Afghanistan and the figure would "tend toward the higher number of those two."

But on Feb. 9, Mullen indicated that the Pentagon would soon announce that three brigades, or about 16,000 troops, would be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming months.

What had changed in the nine days between those two statements, according to a White House source, was that Obama had called McKiernan directly and asked how he planned to use the 30,000 troops, but got no coherent answer to the question.

It was after that conversation that Obama withdrew his support for the full request.

The unsatisfactory response from McKiernan had been preceded by another military non-answer to an Obama question. At his meeting with Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon Jan. 28, Obama asked the Joint Chiefs, "What is the end game?" in Afghanistan, and was told, "Frankly, we don't have one," according to a Feb. 4 report by NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.

Obama had also learned by early February that earlier assurances from Petraeus of an accord with Kyrygistan on use of the base at Manas had been premature, and that the U.S. ability to supply troops in Afghanistan would be dependent on political accommodations with Russia and Iran.

The rationale from the military leadership for doubling the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, even without a strategy or a concept of how the war could end, had been to "buy time" for an effort to build up Afghan security forces, as indicated by Mullen's Jan. 30 remarks.

The 17,000 troops, on the other hand, presented the upper limit of what Obama had pledged to add in Afghanistan during the campaign, according to Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, who was an adviser to Obama.

Korb told IPS that Obama's decision not to wait until the key strategic questions were clarified before sending any more troops was based on the belief that he had to signal both Afghans and Pakistanis that the United States was not getting out of Afghanistan, according to Korb. "There are a lot of people in both countries hedging their bets," said Korb.

McKiernan reminded reporters Wednesday that the 17,000 troops represent only about two-thirds of the number of troops he has requested. That complaint suggested that he had been given no assurance that the remainder of the troops would be approved after the policy review.

The Wall Street Journal quoted an administration official Wednesday as saying that the troop authorization addresses the "urgent near-term security needs on the ground," but "does not prejudge or limit the options of what the [Afghanistan] review may recommend when it's completed."

Obama may have become more wary of getting mired down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, despite his strong commitment to increasing troops to Afghanistan during the campaign.

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, on whom Obama has reportedly relied for advice on foreign policy, told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post Wednesday, "We have to decide more precisely what is the objective of our involvement. Because we are increasingly running the risk of getting bogged down both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan in pursuit of objectives which we are lacking the power to reach."

Brezinzski said the administration needed "very specific, narrow objectives".

Korb told IPS that the policy review will deal with political-diplomatic as well as military policy issues, including the option of seeking to incorporate at least elements of the insurgents into the government through negotiations. He recalled that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been advocating negotiations with the Taliban for two years.

Both Obama's decision to agree to just over half of his field commander's request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.

Johnson's decision, like Obama's, was made against a background of rapid deterioration in the security situation, worry that the war would soon be lost if more U.S. troops were not deployed, and an unresolved debate over how the troops would be employed in South Vietnam. Some of Johnson's advisers still favored a strategy of protecting the key population centers, whereas the field commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, was calling for a more aggressive strategy of seeking out enemy forces.

Another parallel between the two situations is high-level concern that too many U.S. troops would provoke anti-U.S. sentiment. That was the primary worry of some of Johnson's advisers about the effect of deploying three divisions in South Vietnam.

Similarly, Gates said Dec. 14 he would be "very concerned" about deploying more than the 30,000 troops requested by McKiernan, because, "At a certain point, we get such a big footprint, we begin to look like an occupier." Gates repeated that point in Congressional testimony Jan. 27, in which he again stressed the failure of the Soviet Union with 120,000 troops.

McKiernan, on the other hand, said Wednesday, "There's always an inclination to relate what we're doing with previous nations," he said, adding, "I think that's a very unhealthy comparison."

Johnson was worried about sliding into an open-ended commitment to a war that could not be won. But two months later he gave in, against his better judgment, to a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, for "urgent reinforcements". The escalation of the war continued for another two years.

Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month. And if the full 30,000 troop increase proves to be insufficient, he is likely to face further requests later on for "urgent reinforcements."

Obama-Military Deal - 19-Month "Withdrawal" from Iraq, but 50,000 US Troops to Stay

Update: Vice President Joe Biden has effectively confirmed to NBC television that President Obama will announce the Iraq timetable in Friday's speech in North Carolina.


This deal probably could have been predicted weeks earlier, even as the US military --- including US Central Command head General David Petraeus and US commander in Iraq General Raymond Odierno --- were trying to undercut President Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal of all US combat troops from Iraq.

The military, again leading the leak parade, are telling media that the timetable will be 19 months, compromising between Obama's wishes and the 23-month plan set out by his commanders. White House officials indicate that the announcement of the timetable will come this week, possibly in a speech by Obama in North Carolina on Friday.

Here's the stinger, though: 50,000 US troops will remain in Iraq after the "withdrawal", classified as "residual" forces for training and support of Iraqi security units, intelligence operations, and even possible airstrikes by unmanned aircraft. Which is exactly what we have predicted for months --- indeed, it is merely a fulfillment of the proposals set out in December 2006, before the US military "surge", by the Iraq Study Group.

The contest over the US presence will now return to discussions between Washington and Baghdad: under the hotly-disputed Status of Forces Agreement reached in December, "all U.S. forces leave by the end of 2011, although that deal could be renegotiated to allow a longer American presence if the Iraqis request such help".

That battle over the American occupation, however, is in the politically-distant future, barring a significant upsurge in violence against US forces. For now, Obama and the military can take their war --- and the conflict between their ideas on how to fight it --- to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (5 February)

Latest Post: The Latest on (Possible) US-Iran Talks

Current Obamameter: Gloomy ("What is the Exit Strategy? Frankly, We Don't Have One.")

9:05 p.m. The situation in Iraq is fluid as election returns come in, but it looks like the US has dodged one immediate problem from the outcome.

The final Anbar province results were satisfactory for Awakening Councils leader Ahmed Abu Risha, who had previously threatened action over the outcome (see 4 p.m.). The secular group al-Mutlaq, which had a narrow lead in the final count, is dissatisfied it did not have a greater margin, but it has agreed to work with the Awakening Councils, which worked with the US military in the "surge" of 2007/8.

That, however, leaves the potential problem in Baghdad, where Sunnis have won only a small number of seats.

9 p.m. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not sounding very optimistic about the prospects of changing the Kyrgyzstan decision on closure of the US airbase:

It is regrettable that this is under consideration by the government of Kyrgyzstan. We hope to have further discussions with them. We will proceed in a very effective manner no matter what the outcome of the Kyrgyzstan government's deliberations might be.

4 p.m.Early confirmed returns from the Iraqi provincial elections point to substantial success for the Daw'a Party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The corollary, which has not been noted in the mainstream media so far, is that Sunni political parties have been almost shut out in Baghdad. Marc Lynch has an excellent reading of this.

This Baghdad situation should be linked to the paradox that local Sunni groups, whom the US built up in their vaunted "Awakening Movement", have been the losers outside Baghdad. Some of those groups, who are alleging they were beaten by voter fraud, are now threatening confrontation with the al-Maliki Government.

Much, much on this in an analysis tomorrow.

3:30 p.m. US diplomatic sources, amidst the setbacks with supply routes in Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan, are playing up a likely deal with Uzbekistan, linked to existing deals with Russia and Kazakhstan, for transport to Afghanistan.

But you may want to read the small print: the transport is of "non-lethal, non-military supplies". Fine, if you're throwing C-rations at the Taliban bad guys, not so good if you need ammo.

1:30 p.m. And while we're considering Russian moves....If Russia is prepared to trade support for Iran for US concessions on missile defence and nuclear forces, it's ensuring that it has a very big bargaining chief. The head of the Russian state nuclear corporation has said that Russia will start up a nuclear reactor at Iran's Bushehr plant by the end of 2009.

1:20 p.m. An important parallel story to the Russian-backed Kyrgystan closure of the US airbase. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has announced a Collective Security Treaty Organization including Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The step is more evidence that while Russia is happy to deal with the Obama Administration on general security matters, especially over missile defense, it is now moving to re-establish its political and military position in Central Asia.

1:15 p.m. A suicide bomber has killed at least 12 people in an attack on a restaurant in Diyala province, 100 miles north of Baghdad. A roadside bomb in Baghdad targeted the Deputy Trade Minister, but he was unharmed.

10:30 a.m. The New York Times finally catches up with the story of the closure of the US airbase in Kyrgyzstan. Lots of useful information, but the most significant, somewhat hidden revelation is that --- less than a month after Genius/General David Petraeus had assured Washington that a deal had been wrapped up to extend the lease on the airbase --- the US will look for alternatives for the Afghan supply effort:

A senior State Department official said that negotiations with Kyrgyzstan over the base had been halted and that the alternatives under consideration included bases in Europe and the Persian Gulf, as well as a possible expansion of existing bases in Afghanistan.

Another alternative is to treat the Kyrgyz decision as horse-trading, with Moscow and Washington in a bidding war. The State Department official said, "“Once we evaluate what this is really worth to us, we’ll talk to them about money.” The US pays Kyrgyzstan more than $150 million in assistance and compensation each year, but "only a portion of that money went directly to the Kyrgyz government" (and here I'm not going to use the words bribe, backhander, kickback, etc.).

10 a.m. Jean Mackenzie at GlobalPost.com offers an incisive analysis on the looming political crisis in Afghanistan:

His term officially expires May 22, and the law states that elections should be held 30 to 60 days before the end of the president's tenure. Given the difficulties of voter registration, elections cannot take place before Aug. 20. But the parliament, which stands in bitter opposition to Karzai, has threatened to withhold recognition of his administration once his mandate is up.

9:30 a.m. Following President Obama's reassurances yesterday that he would not be pursuing economic protectionism, the US Senate weakened the "Buy American" clause in the economic stimulus package, stating that it would not override existing international treaties. On the other hand, the Senate rejected an amendment by John McCain to remove the clause altogether.

8:15 a.m. We've posted our latest reading of possible informal talks between US and Iranian officials this weekend.

Morning Update (6 a.m. GMT; 1 a.m. Washington): With US attention focused on domestic issues, notably the fate of the Obama economic stimulus package, the main developments in foreign policy are behind the scenes.

Afghanistan is still the site for major Administration battles. NBC News followed up on the story of the Joint Chiefs of Staff report, for an increase of up to 25,000 troops by summer and a shift of non-military activities to others, to be pressed on President Obama. Its killer line, however, came in an admission by a military official, "What is the end game? Frankly, we don't have one."

Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (1 February)

Latest Post: Obama, Drugs Policy, and AIDS Prevention

Current Obamameter: Good (Early Sunshine Obscured by Gathering Clouds, Improving by Super Bowl)

10:10 p.m. GMT: President Obama gave a high-profile few minutes to NBC before tonight's American football Super Bowl. Interviewer Matt Lauer decided to get a bit serious, after asking Obama for his Super Bowl prediction (the President diplomatically said the Pittsburgh Steelers in a close, hard-fought game), on issues like the economic stimulus package. On Iraq, Obama said there would be "substantial" troop reductions by the time of next year's game.



5:10 p.m. GMT: Optimism over yesterday's Iraqi elections is now being tempered a bit. The turnout is now estimated at 51 percent, lower than the 59 percent for the January 2005 national elections and 76 percent for the November 2005 Parliamentary elections. Voters were deterred or hindered by tight security and registration problems.

5 p.m. GMT: In the latest clash in the Swat Valley in Pakistan, at least 43 civilians were killed in "cross-fire" between insurgents and Government forces, according to a Pakistani military official.

The confidential admissions verifies the reports of local residents. Earlier, Government forces claim they have killed 16 insurgents.

4:30 p.m. GMT: The Karzai Government in Afghanistan has struck back at Western criticism of "corruption", claiming that 80 percent of Afghan aid is in the hands of international organisations. Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta said:

When we have received 20 percent of the foreign aid, then it is better to be asked about that. The problem is that we are asked about the whole of the 100 percent, while we are unaware of the 80 percent.

Spanta linked the issue of corruption to that of the Government's relationship with foreign donors: ""What we need is better coordination, what we need is promoting the government's efficiency, what we need is good governance ... and a campaign against corruption on part of the government and the international community."

1 p.m. GMT: Three civilians, including two children, have died in Afghanistan in two separate incidents involving international forces.

10:45 a.m. GMT: According to early unofficial estimates, about 60 percent of Iraqis voted in yesterday's elections. Electoral commission officials say that the State of Law Coalition, the list backed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, are leading the polls in Maliki's strongholds of Najaf, Diwaniyah, Wasit, and Babil.

9:05 a.m GMT: The Observer of London reports that Binyam Mohamed, a British resident held at Guantanamo Bay for seven years, is close to death after a hunger strike that began on 5 January.

9 a.m. GMT: A suicide bomber in Afghanistan attacked a convoy of foreign troops this morning, wounded two civilians and a French soldier.

8 a.m. GMT: It will be some time before we have returns from Iraq's elections. Meanwhile, Juan Cole has an excellent summary and analysis of the vote.

Morning Update (7 a.m. GMT; 2 a.m. Washington): The sunshine comes from Iraq, where elections in 14 of 18 provinces were conducted peacefully and the civilian death toll in January was the lowest monthly figure since 2003.

The mist is in Afghanistan, with Kabul and US authorities floating a plan to arm special Afghan security forces to go into the countryside. The possible complications are highlighted in an MSNBC story of villagers' anger at civilian deaths from "special operations". Three US raids in recent weeks have killed up to 50 bystanders.


And the high clouds are from a so-far little-noticed story of how the Obama Administration, despite the acclaim for its more moderate position to international social issues, could be damaging the fight against AIDS (more on this in a separate post).