The Administration, hoping to counteract that graphic showing twice as many troops in Afghanistan by September 2012 as when President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, offered a different graph in a White House blog post by Ben Rhodes. This one blends troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and shows a consistent reduction in troop levels over time.
You see a slow reduction, with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq blended with the surge in Afghanistan, from January 2009 to today, from about 180,000 to 150,000 troops. Then, by the end of the year, there’s a sharp reduction. How can that be? Obama only announced a decrease of 10,000 troops by the end of the year.
The only way this works is if the Administration follows through on its commitment to remove all troops from Iraq by the end of the year, per the status of forces agreement.
The infographic lists as one of its “promises kept” ending the war in Iraq, but it does not actually get around to saying that the remaining 47,000 troops there will leave by the end of the year. It just says “President Obama removed 100,000 troops from Iraq and ended the combat mission on schedule.” Rhodes similarly doesn’t mention Iraq in his blog post.
In recent months, it has clearly not been the hope of the Administration to pull out the other 47,000 from Iraq, at least not all of them. Military and diplomatic leaders have played this annoying game, saying things like “if Iraq wants us to stay, they’d better tell us now so we can accommodate them” and the like. But the entire theory of consistent and sustained withdrawals rests on honoring the SOFA and pulling out of Iraq. Is that the plan now? It’s right there in a White House infographic.
I’ll be happy to hold them to this commitment. It happens to be the right thing to do. Keeping a military presence in Iraq beyond the SOFA would be catastrophic. The Sadrists would bolt from the ruling coalition, collapsing the government. They would return to the battlefield and specifically target US troops. And they would spark a mass popular uprising, becoming the Tahrir Square equivalent to the US military’s Hosni Mubarak. It would be a terrible situation.
So from this infographic, I can infer that the Administration has come to their senses and will fully leave Iraq.
Right?
UPDATE: Just today a top US general said “time is running out” for Iraq to ask US forces to stay. Except, under this infographic, the White House has dismissed any call to stay and will withdraw by the end of the year, right?




20 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Now we know what `bending the curve’ means.
You have to wonder what the graph would look like if they had included the
mercscontractors.Many of those troops probably aren’t going anywhere. They’re probably gonna be stashed in that monstrous US embassy they’ve built in Iraq.
Is “bending the curve” another way of saying: “bend over & take it”? Cuz the latter is what I think this is all about. Just saying…
Maliki better knuckle under soon and “ask” us to stay, or he may meet with an unfortunate accident.
If only White House blog entries were legally binding, like, you know, international treaties never ratified by the U.S. Senate. What a mess.
he changed the name, but not the game….
If they’re not engaged in “hostilities,” does that mean they’re not troops?
.
Wait…do you mean that in 2011, THREE YEARS after The Clown™ promised to get out of Iraq, he is doing it?
Considering that he said he would do it “immediately” when he ran in 2008?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vJvkRFKGgGw
What makes me laugh is that you people keep getting taken in by this lying doofus Obama, and yet you continue to defend him. No wonder he thinks he has a shot at four more years!
Yes, those 47,000 troops will still be in Iraq, but for the purposes of the Obama Chart they won’t actually ‘be’ in Iraq.
See?
“If they’re not engaged in “hostilities…”
Here’s one of Obama’s recent speeches, done THE OBAMA WAY:
“I promise that if elected I will end Bush’s wars, as soon as possible, because I always keep my word, as everyone knows.” (Laughter)
Hey, he should promise permanent occupations and bases too. Those will be more promises kept for the Obama team label. Woot.
Guess he didn’t make too many promises about not lying, mistruths, half-truths or anything especially about the
mercenariescontractors.Obama and his type should really emphasize listening to commanders on the ground, relabeling combat forces something less offensive, and taking direction from the installed governments of Iraq and Afghanistan with regard to our staying there forever in a “supportive” role. Oh and repeat “kinetic action” a lot too. That’s good stuff. Hafta catapult the propaganda.
Anson, my good fellow,
Why don’t you head west to the big Orange where all those “you people” hang out?
When the drawdown occurs, I hope Obomba is clear with the people who report the jobs numbers… while the Defense Department will be losing 50,000 people, the State Department will be hiring 50,000 people…
Have you spent any time here AT ALL? I don’t know what you’re talking about. You might want to spend, say, 5 minutes reading a few posts here.
Try again…
He/she is a sockpuppet of the monkey troll that was here last week
And I have a graph for Zero and his admin
Iraq and Afghanistan civilian casualties compared to US
Sources
Good call!
It’s all about the elasticity of two substances:
Time and Bullshit.
As we saw with Bush, and as we’re seeing with Obama, they can be stretched out indefinitely…
So think both of our republican leaders.
Also, the degree of compliance which Maliki will demonstrate as our sock–puppet, is not graven in stone; particularly when his political existence (not to mention his actual existence) may depend on his NOT being good at it.