Those two months made all the difference

Sat, 02/28/2009 - 11:55am

I agree with Dan Drezner that the most amazing thing about Obama's Iraqi plan may be that it appears to command such wide-spread support and has been received with a collective yawn from the assembled punditry class.  This is particularly amazing because if you ignore the spin, the plan he announced yesterday is virtually identical to the one he presented throughout the election campaign. The only real difference is the move from 16 months to 18 months in the timetable. Was all that sturm and drang over the last year and half really about two months?  As someone who was deeply involved in the Obama campaign's Iraq policy team, let's just say that this is not exactly how I remember the debate.

Besides those fateful two months, most everything else is the same: the fixed timeline, the focus on the shift to Iraqi responsibility, the residual force, the limited goals, the regional perspective which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The question of the pace of withdrawals looks like a change but really isn't, since that was never defined with great specificity.  The campaign plan always allowed for tactical adjustments on timing and pace within the broader strategic commitment to a timetable for withdrawal, and Obama always spoke of consulting with commanders on the ground.   "As careful getting out as we were careless getting in", went the mantra.  Personally,  I am still worried that going too slow in 2009 will loop us right back into a debate about the fragility of the situation come early 2010 (and hopefully the shortening calendar will encourage Iraqis will listen to U.S. pressure to actually hold those national elections in 2009).  I'll be watching that closely.  But you have to start somewhere, and Obama's speech gave a crystal clear signal of where he wants it to end. 

The process has really been amazing to watch.  Obama consulted widely, commissioned a whole range of strategic reviews, and listened carefully to the commanders on the ground.  And the result was that he built a wide internal and public consensus for essentially the same policy which not too terribly long ago was viewed in polite circles as irresponsible, naive, and reckless. The SOFA certainly helped in this regard, since it had already committed Bush and the U.S. military to the principle of withdrawal. But still, watching Republicans and the Washington Post editorial page falling over themselves to associate themselves with what is essentially the same Iraq withdrawal plan they used to savage is a sight to behold -- if it was just two months that made the difference, think of all the trouble we could have saved ourselves!    Anyway, that's good politics and good policy alike.  Maybe the guy should run for president or something... 

Marc Lynch | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register


Advertisement

 

Here is a better suggestion

by osmanliette on Sat, 02/28/2009 - 1:17pm

You Marc, you should run for president. None of this would have been possible without your advocacy and lobbying. You are the wind beneath the wings of this policy and you should take credit for making it happen. I am waiting for the New Yorker profile on "The Proffessor Who Ended the War" !!!

Lynch for President 2016 !!!

You gotta be kidding. "Only"

by bb on Sun, 03/01/2009 - 2:14am

You gotta be kidding. "Only" two months?

Nah, AA. It was (1) because Obama dropped his "one brigade a month" committment, (2) which meant the US will be at full strength if needed to protect the Arab-unique Iraqi representative democracy through the crucial national elections and the formation of the next government and (3) because the use of the verb "intends" means that Obama intends, prudently, to keep his options for 2011.

On the other hand, who knows, the Iraqis might vote at a referendum to throw out Sofa. But that will be their decision, not Obama's.

Stalled Withdrawal, or delayed SOFA compliance?

by Walking Wounded on Sun, 03/01/2009 - 11:19am

The difference may seem to be one of rhetoric and perception this month, sort of a glass half full conversation. But watch what people do, and judge what they say accordingly.

The mid-09 phase of the Withdrawal/SOFA requires us to pull out of Baghdad, and move our combat troops back from other flashpoints like Mosul and Basra. Iraqis won't wait for the elections to form an opinion on whether the withdrawal is on.

Who is responsible for removing the Baghdad barriers? Will the crews lifting out the 12 ft walls be shot at by the neighborhood militias they were protecting? Will displaced families feel safe or even be allowed to reoccupy their homes?

For years we've been saying 'no permanent presence', while building military bases. We just occupied the largest, most expensive embassy fortress ever. In 06-08, we moved thousands of new MRAPS armored vehicles into the country. Our vehicle depots and supply dumps are at a high water mark for the war.

What Team W did outweighs what Obama has promised, until we act on those promises. As of today, the occupation stands, and will stay thru their national 'change of government' election cycle. We are literally the elephant in the room.

The physical barrier to a rapid withdrawal in 2010 is not the troops themselves. They fit neatly on the sort of airliners this recession has made available. It's the planning and movement needed to pull our vehicles, ammunition stores and other gear out.

There are potentially contentious 'relief in place' issues of what IA units will hold the border crossings and transportation routes, in Anbar, Kurdistan, and on the Iranian border. There is also the withdrawal of 100,000+ contractors, including tens of thousands of heavily armed transportion and facility guards.

It may be that the hard work of planning, and physical withdrawal of gear will actually benefit from the presence of 12-14 combat brigades. Much of the 'mover' work will probably be done by contractors, and every contract to date has been plagued by corruption, violence and lack of security.

Moving day doesn't wait for the end of the year.

Marc, your latest post,

by J Thomas on Sun, 03/01/2009 - 7:39pm

Marc, your latest post, "Continuing the Iraq debate", has comments turned off.

If you don't intend comments that's fine, but if you didn't know they were off, now you know.

Speaking of the Domestic Audience

by Zathras on Sun, 03/01/2009 - 9:49pm

It looks to me as if some people see the most impressive aspect of the Obama program for Iraq as that the President has avoided attacks from advocates of the Bush program for Iraq, or at least of its pre-SOFA incarnation.

I hope there will turn out to be something about it more impressive than that. As it stands, Obama has committed to maintaining a force in Iraq that he will call "residual" rather than "combat," and has stated his intention to abide by the terms of the SOFA with respect to American withdrawal, at least unless the Iraqis come to us and ask us to stay -- which their government would only do if things looked ready to head south for it, probably as part of one of the two-faced two-step maneuvers so common in that area of the world. The SOFA's terms will be insisted on as binding in public and in Arabic by the same Iraqis demanding in private and in English that the American army stay and protect them from the Sadrists, or the Iranians, or whomever.

Fiscal realities in the United States require liquidation of the Iraq commitment at a faster pace than Obama has announced. While it's little to me how closely his program now resembles what his campaign came up with, I am hopeful that he and his administration will respond appropriately to the real crisis we are facing now.