Lawrence Korb summarizes the arguments for a responsible exit from Iraq at the end of the year, contrary to the wishes of the military establishment in the Obama Administration.
if US troops remain, violence against Americans may increase and Maliki’s government will likely collapse. Muqtada Al-Sadr, whose support was critical to Maliki’s success in forming a government even though he finished second in the elections, will likely withdraw his support from Maliki if he renegotiates the agreement, thus creating political chaos. In addition, he has promised to reconstitute his Mahdi Army militia, which could be joined by other Shi’ite extremist groups in attacking Americans.
…the Iraqi security forces do not need us. They already outnumber the remaining insurgents, and their counterterrorism units are first-rate. Although they are not yet ready to repel an invasion by a foreign government, there is little likelihood of that happening. Even Iran does not have to invade Iraq to have influence there. It was the Iranians who got Al-Sadr to support Maliki. And Maliki has repaid them by supporting their positions on Bahrain, Lebanon, and Hamas.
…just as the invasion of 2003 undermined the overall strategic interests of the United States, so too will keeping forces in Iraq beyond the agreed-upon date. It will enhance the Al Qaeda narrative about American intentions in the region and also make it impossible to get a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. Remember Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until after the invasion and occupation and will likely come back in large numbers if we stay. Moreover, the Taliban will never accept a negotiated settlement with the Karzai government in Afghanistan if they do not trust us to leave that country at a date certain. Giving priority to Iraq over Afghanistan in 2003 undermined our interests by creating a quagmire in that country. Having troops in Iraq would do that again.
I’ll give you two more reasons, buried inside this WaPo article noting that April was the deadliest month for US troops since 2009, with 11 military deaths. First, we have the uptick in mortar attacks against US bases. The point of an extended US military presence, according to those who want it, is to stop sectarian attacks among Iraqis. But many of the attacks target the occupiers:
Some U.S. service members say they have sensed a surge in mortar attacks on U.S. bases in the south amid the mounting political pressure in Baghdad for a decision on the deadline.
This week, warning sirens sounded on the U.S. base in the southern port city of Basra when mortar fire struck the airfield, not far from the building that is expected to be turned over to the State Department later this year for use as a consulate.
An announcement of an extension to the US presence will not only lead to the dissolution of the Maliki government, but intensify attacks directly on US personnel. Service members will die, and the purpose of that spilled blood is inscrutable. And the US would take the position of Hosni Mubarak with a mass popular movement arrayed against them, demanding that they exit.
The second reason to leave on schedule is that the uncertainty around leaving is being used as a political football by the minority Sunnis. This is the next-to-last paragraph of that WaPo article:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that Iraqi forces are capable of managing the country’s security and that it will not be necessary for U.S. troops to stay. But after the Sunni parliament speaker said this week that the legislature might debate reaching a decision of its own, Maliki said he would hold multiparty discussions on the issue when he returns from a trade mission next week.
The Sunnis know that Maliki would have all kinds of problems keeping the government together if he asks the Americans to stay. So they want to force his hand. It’s a two-pronged assault, with US officials and Sunni lawmakers pressuring Maliki from one side, and the Sadrists pressuring him from the other. There’s evidence that he’s already cracking under that pressure. This week, Iraqi security forces opened fire on peaceful protesters in Mosul, who rallied against any extension of the US presence.
I’m not even getting into how this broken promise would impact the dynamic of the 2012 Presidential race. Within Iraq itself, extending the military presence would cause complete chaos, and make Iraq far more unstable than whatever problems that presence would seek to solve.





17 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Despite all these well-reasoned arguments, why am I so sure we’ll maintain our presence in Iraq? Ah yes, some extremely important corporate campaign donor(s) will benefit immensely. I knew there must be a reason.
The one and only reason I voted for Obama over Hillary was Iraq. Fool me once….
If the troops leave Iraq they’ll just go to Afghanistan, or some other stop on the mideast war circuit.
They HAVE to stay there to defend the U.S. oil contracts.
How about the cost?
According to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service the Iraq war has cost about $806 billion. With a population of about 30 million that’s about $27 thousand per Iraqi (and counting, because of residual costs). I’d say that’s enough.
Oil Wars are a feature not a bug, to the neo-cons. Everything the War Establishment has wanted they have gotten. They want an indefinite military occupation in Irak. So there will be another False Flag Event used as another phony pretext for war against Irak. As an added bonus, there will be more “Patriot Acts” to support corporate/governmemnt oppression against the American people.
Book Salon up with Antonia Juhasz’s Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill hosted by Dr Kirk Murphy
There is a precedent for a false flag incident. The U.S supposedly had a strategy to pull out of Iraq in 2006, but then came Samarra.
The inter-sect conflict that started with the US invasion was greatly exacerbated by the destruction of the Shi’ite Askariya Mosque on February 22nd, 2006 in Samarra, a predominantly Sunni city. Iraq has not enjoyed inter-sect amity since.
Reacting to this attack, on 22 and 23 February 2006, throughout Iraq, assailants attacked at least 184 Sunni mosques with grenades, small arms, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), killing 12 Sunni imams and seven Sunni civilian worshippers, kidnapping 14 Sunni imams, and causing substantial damage to many of the mosques. Subsequently hundreds of Sunni mosques came under attack and a full-fledged civil war was initiated.
In February 2006 Samarra was under total US military control. The curfew in Samarra started at 8pm. On February 21st, at 8:30pm, according to a witness, joint forces of the Iraq National Guard and the American Army appeared, then left at 9, then reappeared at 11pm. At 6am on the morning of the 22nd the ING left the area, and at 6:30 the Americans left. The first explosion occurred at 6:40, the second at 6:45.am.
Construction Minister Jassem Mohammed Jaafar, who toured Sammara and inspected the damage incurred to the shrine, said the placing of explosives inside the dome was meticulous and must have taken at least 12 hours.”Holes were dug into the mausoleum’s four main pillars and packed with explosives,” he told the media, adding that work on each pillar must have taken at least four hours. The normal security detail of 35 men had been reduced to five, the five guards were taken hostage during the twelve hours, and nobody noticed anything.
SEC. GATES: “Well, what I’m saying to you is, though, you had one strategy under way until attack on the Samarra mosque. After that and the development of the sectarian violence that was being stoked by extremists — this wasn’t spontaneous — there was a shift in strategy, and instead of sending troops home, the troops that were supposed to be sent home were kept — or the troop level was kept.”
Both of those outcomes bring joy to our NeoCon masters.
He fooled everybody who became a sucker for his con man operation and voted for him. Looks like he only had to fool US once to grantee himself 2 terms as President. Fool “Liberals” will vote for him in 2012 like lemmings. But for this progressive, never again.
Sometimes one False Flag attack is not enough. There was not enough violence from the First False Flag attack. The Golden Mosque was attacked again, by “Iraqi security forces” or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061300356_pf.html
US Military Biometrics failed to catch the perps. But there is always the Al Qaeda in Yemen affiliate to attack. In fact Al Qaeda has more affiliates than Burger King. Except, there is no Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia franchise.
“Although they are not yet ready to repel an invasion by a foreign government, there is little likelihood of that happening”
excepting of course intermittent israeli jet bombings, which fall on the heads of Arabs like the seasonal monsoons.
To repeat ad nauseum: The Pentagon-CIA will not take NO for an answer. As long as the Iraqi government says NO not necessary, they will ignore any answer except YES.
Gotta stay — it’s the (US-arranged) Kuwait threat.
news report, April 13, 2011
Baghdad
We left Kuwait with over two hundred tanks but Iraq has only 63.
C’mon, there’s plenty of money for Iraq. The real problem is Medicare. Ask the serious folks at NPR: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/30/135844222/medicares-math-problem-taxes-benefits-trouble
Let us all stop pretending and start calling Iraq a colony.
Former National Security Advisor to President Obama General James Jones stated on PBS if we ever were to leave these countries where we currently have military personnel and bases that we would never be able to get back in them again. In other words, we are not going anywhere.