Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari still insists on a “clear timeline” for the withdrawal of US troops from his country, according to this report from AP’s Robert Reid.
Reid writes that Zebari also said that the Iraqi and US negotiators are “very close” to reaching a longterm security agreement, but stressed that Baghdad won’t consider an agreement that doesn’t specify the timeline.
He adds this:
- Last week, two senior Iraqi officials told The Associated Press that American negotiators had agreement to a formula which would remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 with all combat troops out of the country by October 2010.
The last American support troops would leave about three years later, the Iraqis said.
His sources on the US official side say there is no agreement on specific dates and that completion of the SOFA/MOU negotiations is not close, putting them at odds with Zebari’s assessment.
As I’ve written here before, I think the Bushites lost the “Battle of Baghdad”– that is, their campaign to lock in security agreements with Baghdad that would allow a longterm US troop presence in Iraq– some time ago.
It was of course Clausewitz who wrote the important truth that “War is an extension of politics by other means.” All wars start and end in politics. Back in late 2002, I remember my pro-invasion Iraqi-Kurdish friend Siyamend Othman talking about the need to win “the Battle of Washington”– that is, the battle to win Washington’s support for the invasion project. Well, he and his Iraqi allies (who of course included Zebari, Ahmed Chalabi, Barham Saleh, etc) won that one. But now, their US allies have lost the Battle of Baghdad.
It’s really hard to imagine Zebari pushing for any kind of withdrawal – unless he was given no choice by the make-believe PM and the rest of the Iraqi make-believe government. Of course, it all depends on what you really mean when you say withdrawal.
And I’ve been wondering something. If you are going to withdraw all combat troops by October, 2010, why do the “support troops” need to stay for another three years? What are they there to support with all the combat troops gone?
Something smells here, and I hope this thing never gets signed.
But now, their US allies have lost the Battle of Baghdad.
An agreement resulting in the withdrawal of US troops would obviously be a huge victory for all parties involved. It’s really bizarre that you cast a development like this in such unconstructive and childish terms.
Since when does the government of a sovereign state have to negotiate and sign an agreement to get another state to withdraw its troops? All a sovereign state should have to do is simply order them out.
Shirin
They are being duplicitous when they talk about combat troops.
The support troops are air force who fly ground support missions and the chaps who run the enormous air bases.
They are also the guys who maintain a prepositioned set of armour and other vehicles just like we did in Germany in planning for Reforger.
As long as you hold the air bases and keep the prepositioned stuff secure you can fly in a few hundred thousand men to reoccupy anytime you feel like it.
They just jump in their tanks and drive off to glory.
Since when does the government of a sovereign state have to negotiate and sign an agreement to get another state to withdraw its troops?
Hmmm … since always?
FYI Shirin the US has status of forces agreements in place for 90 countries worldwide. Are none of these “sovereign” governments?
Its really weird that a negotiated compromise is immediately portrayed as a humiliation for one side or the other (which side? we don’t know yet!) What a shame.
Frank, thanks for that information. It helps fill in some blanks.
Of course it has been obvious all along that all the talk about withdrawing combat troops is just typical politicians’ verbal sleight of hand. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton announced repeatedly that they would withdraw all combat troops while at the same time making public their plans to keep “residual forces” to fulfill certain specific “missions” that obviously included – you guessed it! – combat. I have been wondering whether they planned to use cooks and mechanics on these combat missions. Now I understand better. I particularly liked Hillary’s statement about the need to continue the U.S.’s “military as well as political mission” in Iraq.
So, no matter who is elected in November it will be business as usual for the empire.
A big part of the support requirement, besides air and pre-positioned support, is to provide logistics support for the New Iraqi Army. Corruption, mismanagement and lack of skills has meant that many Iraqi units are overly reliant on their US counterparts for logistical support. An army, no matter how well trained and motivated its combat units are, can’t survive without essential supply and maintenance.
President Bush has steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home, so this is a big loss for Bush. The whole thing is being dictated by Iran, of course, which is the big winner of Operation Iraqi Fiasco. Think of it: A secular state replaced, with a large loss of life and a huge expenditure of money, by a fundamentalist Islamic state closely allied with Iran — good job, Chimp! Now exit stage left.
The primary, if not the sole function of the New Iraqi Army™ is as a proxy occupation force. They would need a great deal less “support” if there were no occupation for them to act as a proxy force for.
It’s really hard to imagine Zebari pushing for any kind of withdrawal – unless he was given no choice by the make-believe PM and the rest of the Iraqi make-believe government.
I quite agree that it is improbable, and indeed that Maliki himself is pushing so hard is also hard to believe. I get the impression he would prefer a quiet life.
I think there are two sorts of hypothesis:
One is that Sistani handed out his orders to Maliki, having been horrified by the publication of the initial conditions for the SOFA.
The other is that there has been a visceral and widespread reaction among the political elite, and possibly also the public, which forces Maliki to do what he is doing.
If this second hypothesis is the case, I don’t understand why it has not been mentioned more often in the media, even the Arabic media.
What is certain is that it was the publication of the first SOFA conditions in June, making Iraq into a colonial vassal, which provoked the resistance.
The “Battle of Baghdad”, as you call it, is certainly a major turning point in the war. It is here that the US can lose (along with the oil law).
If there is an agreement for the expeditious withdrawal of “combat troops” (by which most plans appear to mean just the approximately 50,000 troops in infantry, armor, and artillery units that comprise the 15 combat brigades) it will be significant, because it will mean a dramatic reduction in both Iraqi and US casualties. And equally important it will probably mean an end to the possibility of maintaining Iraq as a client state, no small blessing for us and the Iraqis.
The major remaining issue, as Frank al Irlandi suggests, is what will be the role of those forces which remain after the “combat troops” are gone. Will the new mission emphasis be on combat support for Iraqi forces (tactical air strikes, tactical intelligence, and logistical support, and even US strike forces based “over the horizon”) or will it be a much smaller force focused on training the Iraqi army, logistics, and border security? (Or, of course, all of the above.)
If the new primary mission is combat support it would probably require the 70,000 to 100,000 troops envisioned by some plans and include at least some combat brigades (with most of them probably based in Kuwait or possibly Kurdistan). It would also probably mean many more years before all US forces are out of Iraq and quite possibly would eventually involve them in direct combat.
So, an agreement would be important but still leave plenty of reasons to keep up the pressure on Congress and the new administration to commit to a full withdrawal.
Bob, an odious agreement such as what you described that leads to nothing but a reconfiguration of the occupation is completely unacceptable, even if it leads to a temporary reduction in casualties – and it WOULD be only a temporary reduction. That is nothing more than business as usual for the empire, and the end result will be a permanent military presence in Iraq.
It’s all smoke and mirrors, and pressure on the Congress is useless as the last two years have shown. They will keep funding and funding and funding the empire.
I hope something will stop the Iraqis from signing any agreement.
Shirin
The primary, if not the sole function of the New Iraqi Army™ is as a proxy occupation force.
The role for the new Iraqi army is to fight the Iranians in a few years time.
The whole US effort at the moment is concentrated on finding cannon fodder to use in the brushfire wars.
Might one ask if you have been taking your cynicism pills lately?
It’s an election year for Maliki, well maybe not because the provincial elections may be delayed until next year, but anyway, the PM is playing up his nationalist credentials in the U.S. negotiations, and doing a pretty good job of it. The demand for a withdrawal is also meant to undercut Sadr who has been calling weekly demonstrations against the negotiations. Sadr recently said that he will disarm his militia if the U.S. agrees to a withdrawal, but it’ll be Maliki who can say he was the one who got the Americans to leave in the first plce.
“it’ll be Maliki who can say he was the one who got the Americans to leave in the first plce.”
Except they are not really leaving.
They might be able to fool the American people with this charade, but they will not fool the Iraqi people. At least not for very long.
Shirin – I hear your anger and cynicism, but perhaps because I am now 68 and somewhat cynical myself about the general indifference of the powerful to way things ought to be, I will take small advances in horrible situations whenever they present themselves.
I imagine we agree that for the sake of the Iraqis, the rest of the world, and certainly the US, we — the US — should abandon our attempts to make the world over in our own image (which is not the same as abandoning a moral component in our relations with the rest of the world).
But here we have two politicians — Bush and Maliki — who for their own probably cynical reasons want to do something that could help relieve the suffering of Iraqis and reduce US casualties. It’s certainly not what we both would prefer, but it is a significant, if small, step with the potential of undoing some of the damage the US has done (and the Iraqis have done to themselves). Much more needs to happen, of course, but the tentative agreement could begin the movement toward a real resolution.
I mention continuing to pressure Congress because feeble as it is, that’s really the only way a citizen can non-violently affect policy. (And having worked against the Vietnam war after I got out of the Army in 1967 for many years with very little to show for it, and having written many letters to my Congresscritters and local editors since with little to show, I do despair often about our power to change our militaristic culture and policies.)
One of the reasons I read Helena’s blog is the example she sets for us: she looks squarely at the many horrors of the world as it is and continues to work at and think about ways we can create positive change.
Regarding the removal of ‘combat’ troops, it is worth remembering the situation in Vietnam following the withdrawal of ground troops, and (for that matter) Somalia today, where officially there are only ‘advisers.’ While US casualties dropped to relatively tiny numbers, the US escalated it’s air war against Vietnam, adding tens of thousands of casualties to the millions total. In Somalia today, the US conducts terror bombings from off shore.
Already in Iraq, where the number of US casualties has dropped, total US bombing tonnage and number of sorties has steadily escalated. There is no reason to assume that withdrawal of US ‘combat’ troops will make anything better for the Iraqi people. Well, maybe fewer people will get murdered driving to work…
The only principled position is for the complete withdrawal of all US forces (official and mercenary) out of Iraq. The Vietnam experience proves that this can be done with remarkable speed — though with a tiny bit of foresight it could be accomplished with more dignity. Unfortunately the two-headed US Party of War shows no inclination for turning away from empire. I live in hope of seeing the helicopters fleeing from the rooftops of the Emerald City Citadel.
Bob, the Palestinians have learned to their grief just exactly what happens when they accept small “advances” in horrible situations. Oslo showed that before accepting small “advances” it is a good idea to ask advances for whom and it what direction.
Iraqis would be foolish to accept anything short of a full withdrawal and a complete end to the occupation, and if Iraq were truly a sovereign state as the U.S. government keeps insisting, they should be able to simply order the U.S. out and that should be an end to it.
I am not merely being cynical Bob, I am being coldly realistic in light of the lessons that history should have taught us.
PS What Phillip said goes double for me.
Shirin
I had hoped to to suggest that you needed to add an extra component of cynicism to your analysis to get to the root of Great Power intentions.
I agree with your assessment that you are being coldly realistic regarding Palestine.
With regard to Iraq the knowledge that they have potentially the cheapest oil and gas in Europe’s Near Abroad gives us the key to the US world view.
Taken along with the analysis in this paper that there is a structural problem with the oil market so the oil companies cannot make an adequate rate of return to justify investment the situation is quite clear.
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/652/
Oh Dear
We are back to carrier task forces again.
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/08/11/special_report_kuwait_readying_for_war_in_gulf/7724/
Shirin and Phillip – This is an important discussion to continue, especially since it is one that always divides progressives. We may not be able to agree, but perhaps we will at least understand one another better.
Let me stipulate that we apparently don’t disagree on what would probably be best for Iraq and the US — a rapid and complete withdrawal of all US forces (and reparations and an apology for ruining their country would also be nice…).
Where it appears we disagree is how to get from here to there (which is what usually keeps peace people and progressives from creating effective alliances).
My experience is that it is necessary but not sufficient to have an accurate understanding of the change that is needed. At least as important — and much harder — is figuring out what creates the conditions for change and how to move in the right direction. The right goal is important, but an effective strategy is even more important.
That may sound self-evident, but consider: Phillip says that the “only principled position is for the complete withdrawal of all US forces,” and Shirin says “Iraqis would be foolish to accept anything short of a full withdrawal and a complete end to the occupation.”
But how will this happen? Probably not just because we believe it should or because it is the right or moral thing.
In fact, I am reasonably certain that there won’t be a “complete withdrawal” or a “complete end to the occupation” for several years. It’s tragic, it’s wrong, and I wholeheartedly wish it were not the most likely prospect. But, for me that assessment is being “coldly realistic in light of the lessons that history should have taught us.”
(My history lesson: I went to my first anti-Vietnam war rally in 1964 and the last one in 1971 [when I burned out and left DC for an Indian reservation in North Dakota], although US soldiers continued to fight until 1973 and the bombing went on — as Phillip pointed out — until 1975. We tell ourselves that our protests hastened the end of the war, but the hard fact is that the largest protests were over by 1970 and the war went on for another 5 years and a doubling of Vietnamese casualties. I believe we did make a difference — by making clear that the country was divided — but it probably wasn’t decisive in ending the war. However, I did learn two very important lessons during that time; 1) being angry doesn’t in itself change anything, although using one’s anger to motivate working for change certainly can; and 2) the best is almost always the enemy of the good when it comes to challenging powerful interests.)
So, if we can’t have the best result — a quick full withdrawal — for several years (or quite likely even longer, as Frank has rightly underscored how the odds are really against us making even modest headway), how do we create the conditions for some lesser good outcome in the near future? That seems to me the “coldly realistic” challenge we face.
That’s why I think it can be useful to support some incremental steps (however cynically contrived) that move events in the right direction. If you still disagree, I’m very interested in hearing your response!
the arrival of new U.S. warships will mark the largest build-up of Naval forces in the Gulf since the 1991 Gulf War.
The aircraft carriers USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan, along with the USS Iwo Jima, an Amphibious Assault Ship are sailing toward the Persian Gulf to reinforce the US strike forces in the region, along with a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.
This move follows the ominous Operation Brimstone, a massive military exercise involving more than a dozen warships from the US, England, and France in the Atlantic Ocean in preparation for a possible confrontation with Iran.
The USS Roosevelt, which participated in the just-concluded exercise, and the USS Ronald Reagan will join two US naval battle groups in the area: the USS Abraham Lincoln with its Carrier Strike Group Nine ; and the USS Peleliu, and Amphibious Assault Ship with its expeditionary strike group.
Naval forces now heading towards the Gulf include:
Carrier Strike Group Nine:
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered carrier with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group:
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer
Carrier Strike Group Two:
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered carrier with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22:
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer
USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer
USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
Carrier Strike Group Seven:
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered carrier with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7:
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship
Bob, thank you for your well thought out response. I really appreciate it, and I do understand your thinking and your point. And here is mine in a nutshell. I am not opposed in principle to incremental steps. However, everything hangs on the true intentions of the party with the greater power, in this case the invader/occupier.
Every time the Palestinians have negotiated what they thought were “incremental steps that moved events in the right direction” – Oslo being the prime example – what they got was something designed to allow Israel to sink its hooks deeper and deeper and deeper. I am sure you know as well as the rest of us do what the true results of the great breakthrough that was Oslo turned out to be, and that was no accident. On the exact same basis, and because I know very well what the true intentions of the United States government are, whatever agreement the Iraqi make-believe government signs with them will, in fact, be an agreement that is designed to allow the United States to sink its hooks deeper and deeper and deeper into Iraq. That will be the case no matter that it might look to the optimist, to the glass-half-fuller, to the hopeful. It will not be “incremental steps that move events in the right direction”, it will be a means to buy time and establish conditions such that the United States will be able to make permanent its presence and its domination. In fact, no matter how much it might look as if it will move events in the right direction, it will be designed and intended move them in exactly the wrong direction.
One of the treacherous aspects of this “incremental steps” approach is that it makes the occupation and takeover of the country more tolerable, at least until the people figure out what is really going on. Tragically, for the best ultimate result, the occupation of Iraq needs to remain intolerable to the people on both sides so that they do not forget about it, and keep opposing and resisting it because the only way the United States will ever leave Iraq will be very similar to the way they left Viet Nam. That is the stark, tragic reality of it.
Stratfor’s weekly U.S. Naval Update, which is usually published every Wednesday, has been released early this week in response to a number of inquiries from our readers.
After our Aug. 6 Update, the Kuwait Times published a story — since widely circulated — that the U.S. Navy was surging multiple carriers to the Gulf. The U.S. Navy has already denied this report.
As the Aug. 6 Update showed, the U.S. carrier fleet was in one of its most relaxed postures, with a single carrier — the Lincoln — in 5th Fleet, and a single carrier — the Reagan — in 7th Fleet near Japan. The rest of the “armada” was operating fairly close to the U.S. East or West Coast.
According to the U.S. Navy, on Aug. 12 the only carriers currently under way are the Lincoln and the Reagan.
The Lincoln began its current deployment on March 13, and the Reagan may replace it in the 5th Fleet (the Reagan began its deployment on May 19). It is not uncommon for these carriers to train together during a handover, but Washington has not chosen to maintain two carriers in the region since 2007.
However, the U.S. Navy adopted the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) in 2003 in order to maximize the readiness of its carrier fleet to ensure this very capability at all times. While the traditional six-month deployments continue, the FRP places greater emphasis on ensuring that employable carriers are in a state of surge readiness — that is, they can be deployed within 30 days. As such, it is not unusual to see carriers conduct qualifications at sea even when they are not about to be deployed.
In sum, a surge of three carriers to the 5th Fleet would indeed be a noteworthy event, but there is not yet credible reason for concern based on the information available about the disposition of the U.S. Fleet. However, should we see the Reagan transit the Strait of Malacca and another carrier transit the Strait of Gibraltar, we will certainly have more to say at that point.
We now have a little more evidence of nefarious doings in the gulf.
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/08/12/abkhazia_ossetia_and_iran_risks_of_spreading_conflicts/3505/
Refueling aircraft!!