Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bacasper]

If Elected ...
Rivals Present Sharp Divide on Iraq Goals

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: October 5, 2008

WASHINGTON � One of the most pressing questions Senator Barack Obama or Senator John McCain would confront if elected president is how to build on the security gains in Iraq at a time when troop levels have begun to drop.

...

Mr. Obama, who noted that General Petraeus wanted �maximum flexibility� in setting withdrawal schedules, said he �pushed back� when he met with the commander in July by making the case for sending more forces to Afghanistan, which the Democratic candidate views as the main battleground against terrorists.

...

Withdrawing U.S. Troops

...

But American commanders have also warned that the situation remains fragile, and that there has been mixed or no political progress in other areas. For the candidate who is elected, the challenge will be to sustain the reduction in violence and encourage political headway now that the �surge� of combat brigades is over and the military is scheduled to withdraw yet another brigade by February.

On the surface, the two candidates� views on troop cuts appear to have converged: each candidate envisions reductions in American forces over his first term, as does the Iraqi government. But the similarities vanish upon closer inspection.

Mr. Obama�s position on troop cuts was forged in late 2006 as Iraq appeared to be approaching a full-scale civil war. Drawing on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report, he opposed Mr. Bush�s troop reinforcement plan and sponsored legislation in January 2007 that would have removed all American combat brigades by the end of March 2008, while allowing a small force to remain for training, counterterrorism and the protection of the American Embassy and its personnel.

At that time, American intelligence agencies warned in a national intelligence estimate that the removal of all American and allied forces within 18 months would �almost certainly� lead to a significant increase in sectarian fighting, suggesting that the speedy, if partial, withdrawal advocated by Mr. Obama would also risk a major increase in violence.

Since then, the gains made during the surge and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki�s assertion of sovereignty have transformed the issue from a question of whether to start reducing brigades to a question of how fast and under what circumstances.

Mr. Obama has said he would remove the remaining combat brigades at the rate of one or two a month over a 16-month period. In the interview he argued that it was important to set a new course that would put pressure on the Iraqis to overcome their differences, free up more American forces for Afghanistan and other potential trouble spots, and reduce expenditures so they could finance programs at home.

�If our benchmarks or conditions that we set are contingent on actions by the Iraqis and the Iraqis don�t take them, then we are not in control of our own circumstances and our deployments,� Mr. Obama said. �At some point we have got to break that link. We have got to be able to say to the Iraqis: we are going to make a set of decisions, and you�ve got to react to them.�

Despite talk that Mr. Obama�s plan parallels the timeline in a draft American-Iraqi agreement, there are important distinctions. The �time goal� in the draft accord calls for the withdrawal of American forces by the end of 2011, more than twice as long as Mr. Obama�s 16-month deadline. And in the view of American negotiators, a �time goal� is more flexible than an ironclad deadline.

In past years, the United States has generally increased its troop levels when the Iraqis have held major elections, and American officers are generally wary of making deep troop cuts before the provincial and parliamentary elections are held over the next year.

Seeking to preserve a measure of flexibility, Mr. Obama said that he would �reserve the right to pause a withdrawal� if it led to a major increase in sectarian violence. He also reiterated that he planned to keep a residual military force to pursue militants from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protect American installations and personnel, and, if Iraqi forces conducted themselves in a nonsectarian manner, train Iraqi troops.

Mr. Obama said that such a residual force would probably include Special Operations forces, teams of military advisers, combat planes, attack helicopters, medical helicopters and perhaps some smaller-scale combat units to protect the advisers.

He declined to estimate the size of the force, saying he would decide that after consulting commanders. But Richard J. Danzig, a secretary of the Navy in the Clinton administration who is regarded as a likely choice to serve as Mr. Obama�s secretary of defense, said in a June interview with National Public Radio that it could number from 30,000 to 55,000 troops.

�If we have some Special Forces in the region, they are going to be engaging in combat, taking out any potential terrorist camps,� Mr. Obama added. �If we have got trainers in the field who are training Iraqi security forces, then I want to make sure that they are protected, and part of that means when you are in a dangerous neighborhood that you have got some combat capability.�

more at link

[Ya-ta Boy]

The Sofa agreement sets the date for final withdrawal at Dec 31, 2011...a week before the next Iowa caucus. However, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been demonstrating in the street saying they want the troops out sooner. Iraqi politicians are hiding behind doors and curtains and under their desks trying to avoid signing the accord.

It's hard to tell if that is the majority opinion or not, but we should take a serious look at it.