Fulfilling Campaign Pledges On Iraq After All Else Fails

Something I shoulda emphasized on Friday after the Iraq announcement. Um, Obama shouldn't get credit for sticking with his campaign pledge of ending the Iraq war after trying and failing to keep a residual force behind. (Leaving aside the fact that the war isn't ending.)

Thanks to Jeff Emanuel for crystallizing something that should have been blaringly obvious to me. The New York Times has a piece on Amb. Jim Jeffrey that adds flesh to the bone:

For the president, the announcement followed through on his campaign promise to end the war. 

But for the ambassador, it was something far different. Over the past year, the ambassador had labored intensely to reach a deal with the Iraqi government to keep a substantial number of troops here.

Mr. Jeffrey wanted the troops to stay because he believed the fledgling Iraqi military needed continual training from American troops. He knew that keeping troops in Iraq would push back on Iran’s influence in the region. And he believed the troops would help the State Department, which will have a massive presence here in years to come, get around a country where the security is still tenuous. 

The whole piece is worth reading, especially for the delicious, delicious irony of Ahmed Chalabi explaining that a continued U.S. presence is a red line for the Iraqi political culture. 

Another irony that's worth a brief comment. In 2007, the Bush administration undertook negotiations on a Status of Forces Agreement to maintain an enduring troop presence in Iraq. But the Iraqis in the room -- for the reasons Chalabi explained -- flipped the script and insisted that the SOFA become a mechanism for withdrawal, complete with the timetables that George W. Bush so hated. For reasons that are still opaque to me, Bush ultimately acquiesced. Years later, Obama sends the same diplomat Bush used, Brett McGurk, to undo the very timetable that he endorsed as a presidential candidate and used as political cover for withdrawal. McGurk can't do it -- for the reasons Chalabi explained! -- and so Obama is back saying he's fulfilling his promise. 

We entered Iraq in a cynical, fraudulent way. It's only fitting that's how we leave it. (Or, I should say, "leave" it.)

Comments

[Swopa]

I don't mind a little snark aimed at Obama about this... I did it myself on Friday: http://firedoglake.com/2011/10/21/late-night-fdl-non-mission-acknowledged/

But consider this from the NYT piece -- "President Obama had little interest in spending his waning political capital on keeping troops in Iraq" -- in combination with Chalabi's comment that it was the Americans in Iraq who wanted an ongoing presence.

Given Obama's oft-demonstrated reluctance to pick fights, I'm perfectly willing to believe that he genuinely wanted a full troop withdrawal the entire time, but gave a long leash to the established interests who wanted to negotiate an extension.

You've written below about the phony GOP complaints about the withdrawal announcement. Can you imagine the firestorm if, say, a year ago Obama had actually vetoed any attempt at negotiating a SOFA extension/loophole, against the wishes of the military and (arguably, at that point) the Iraqi government? I bet Obama could, and he was willing to let the process play out instead (especially if he had a hunch the result would be the same either way).

[Attackerman]

Very compelling point.

[Skye Winspur]

"he believed the troops would help the State Department, which will have a massive presence here in years to come, get around a country where the security is still tenuous."

So: Iraq is populated entirely by incompetent, America-hating persons, none of whom could possibly escort State Department officials. Got it.

[info4dedicatedservers]

It is great to have the opportunity to read a good quality article with useful information on topics that plenty are interested on.I concur with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates