Does America Really, Really Mean the SOFA Agreement?
I wrote earlier (at Newshoggers) that there was still an Iraq debate to be had - namely whether the US' word, as set down in the SOFA agreement with Iraq, is worth the paper it's printed on. There's a considerable body of opinion in military and neo-whatever circles that says it isn't.
Bob Fertik emails to note that, five minutes before Obama announced his withdrawal timetable, NBC was quoting commanders as saying it wasn't binding on them. Just before Obama's said "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski told David Gregory that military commanders are making plans as if the SOFA and the orders of the Commander in Chief were irrelevant.
Miklaszewski: Secretary Gates, as early as 18 months to 2 years ago, was saying "look, everyone understands that we're going to have to start withdrawing from Iraq." But at the same time, Gates adds this caveat that he believes significant numbers of troops will remain in Iraq for years to come.
And in fact military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all US forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated.
And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years, David.
Gregory: 15 to 20 years, I think that takes a moment to really sink in. With a mission that is primarily what over that kind of time horizon, Mik?
Miklaszewski: Again it would evolve from a day-to-day combat mission, to more of an oversight mission. We mustn't forget the US is providing nearly 100% of all combat air support over Iraq, and the Iraqi military is not going to be ready to assume that mission within the next 18 months to 2 years, it's going to be impossible.
And there are some discussions, I know Richard Engel mentioned the area of Kirkuk up in the north recently, there are some discussions among Iraqis and I know some military commanders to establish what could end up as a permanent air base, US air base, in Kirkuk.
Gregory: Striking.
Which just goes to show that we should be very leary of leaving withdrawal up to those who have a natural inclination not to withdraw. Generations of "surprise" babies will tell you how well that works out. Bob Gates may say that senior commanders are all behind Obama's plan, but there's a lot of reporting says they aren't.
These people are treading a dangerous course, as Marc Lynch explains. He writes that "Iraqis will be watching carefully to see whether the United States honors its commitments" in the months leading up to an Iraqi referendum on the SOFA agreement on July 31st and that if they don't see the right answer then the referendum will be a resounding "no" - at which point the US will have only 12 months to get everyone out of Iraq or occupy the country illegally again.
The argument for a significant, early withdrawal of U.S. combat forces remains overwhelming. Indeed, a failure to deliver on the promise of early U.S. withdrawals is the most likely thing to cause a rapid deterioration in conditions in Iraq....The new administration will get only one chance to demonstrate the credibility of its commitments, and indefinitely leaving troops at current levels will only postpone rather than solve the problems.
The US must make a substantial down payment on withdrawal now, or suffer later. Not just in Iraq, although the problems there would be bad enough, but on the world stage.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
is bordering on treason.
Eisenhower underestimated the danger.
The President..a CIVILIAN...is Commander In Chief.
Soldiers follow orders. Orders are not a "request".
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
bordering on treason, gentlemen and gentleladies of the military... The President is your commander in chief and you will follow orders. I think that's the military way, isn't it?
right on exclam
"The President is your commander in chief and you will follow orders." As a Vietnam veteran, I believe it is incumbent upon me to point out that there were many Vietnam veterans [as shown in the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!] who realized that their duty lay not with the president or the military but to the U.S. Constitution. Many of them spoke out against that war and some even when to prison for not obeying illegal orders. The fervent hope is that those in the military today will finally come to the same realization as those that preceded them in that hellhole in Vietnam.
American soldiers-resist the American empire.
Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, et al-resist the American empire.
It goes on and on.
We perish. But we're just replaceable parts in the juggernaut.
Obama has not trimmed a single fucking red cent fromn the bloated, ever-expanding military budget. He has fucking INCREASED the sumbitch.
And "we" are NOT leaving Iraq. I'd bet the rent there will still be 30-50K troops in Iraq in 2020.
bet yoo (not a fruedian slip).
Give his opinion, for those interested:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29433...
A perfect example of the mainstream media pouncing on those who are outside the "conventional wisdom".
The upper brass sees war as promotions and career advancement. Nobody's shooting at them. They're not coming home in flag-draped boxes. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Iraq invasion headquarters was in Florida.
Any generals who weren't on board with this thing have either quit, or been fired. What's left is a bunch of suckups who see the war as a career opportunity.
You mention all the generals who have quit or been fired. I think Obama should consider bringing back the Generals who were originally against the invasion or didn't march in lockstep with Boosh and let them get us out of Iraq.
To make room for them, he would of course, need to fire the suck-ups.
Starting with these bozos:
"NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski told David Gregory that military commanders are making plans as if the SOFA and the orders of the Commander in Chief were irrelevant."
Seriously... who the fuck do they think they are??
blood on my hands.
Or on my conscience.
Guess I'm not suitable to be the president.
Just as glad.
Truman fired MacArthur because of it and he could have prosecuted him. Obama may have to go and clean all of the Rummy flunkies out of the Pentagon
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
You can't fire them; they either have to be forcibly retired (reinlistment paperwork denied) or reassigned to commands with less responsibility.
"I believe he has outlined a responsible approach that retains maximum flexibility to reconsider troop levels and to respond to changes in the security environment should circumstances on the ground warrant."
This code for...
18 more months of transferring wealth from the middle class to the defense establishment.
18 more months of men, women and children dying.
18 more months or cost over runs and cost plus contracts
18 more months of Israel getting its way
18 more months of their vision for a new American century
if you were one of my fraternity brothers in 1963,
I would have said, let's celebrate this guy, and have another brew.
Today, I take you seriously.
There are still gonna be USer troops fighting and dying in Iraq in 2020.
Gay-ron-TEED.
.
What does it mean when the military decides to not follow the Commander in Chief?
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
The word is insubordination, failure to obey a direct order, mutiny,
treason, dereliction of duty, behavior unbecoming an officer.
Funny they didn't mind following the illegal orders that sent them to
war, but they will not follow orders to leave.
and I know what you mean! It's damned strange they happily followed Dumb and Dumber into the fray and illegal battle, but they say they won't follow orders to leave... we'll see.
they really are following the Commander in Chief?
Obama has been very precise in his use of language. He has said that the "combat mission will end"; he has said that "as many as 50,000 troops will remain".
It really couldn't be any clearer. He is not pulling all the troops out.
just replying to the false logic that the military isn't following his orders. They are following orders all right. Thank Gawd nothing is touching Teflon Man though. He's still a honeymooning.
I've heard some REALLY stupid shit on this site...but that comment is in a league by itself.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
We won't be leaving Iraq. The mission may change, the forces may be redeployed, combat troops may become 'advisors' or 'diplomatic support' or some other euphemism for combat troops.
But we won't be leaving Iraq. And it won't matter who we elect. It can be Obama or Jimmy Carter or Gandhi or the pope.
We won't be leaving Iraq. No way.
There's just too much oil and too much potential for an accord with Iran. We won't allow that. We won't.
More to the point, Israel won't allow it. And we are locked in to Israel's agenda. Period.
We won't be leaving Iraq.
:-}
We are not leaving Iraq until we are kicked out (exhibit A: Saudi Arabia). But it's got nothing to do with AIPAC and Israeli expansion or any particular presidency, for that matter.
Welcome to a half-century or more of the hairiest resource wars you have ever seen. And get used to our men and women fighting and dying in one ME country or another, b/c that is where we are getting what greases the wheels of our modern consumerist society (currently in free fall). We are not letting go of our society or the oil that feeds it until something or someone pries it out of our cold, dead hands :)
...Ever! The whole reason for the Iraq invasion (according to the PNAC folks who brought us 9/11) was to a) steal the oil (well, they said somthing about securing natural resources) and; b) ESTABLISHING PERMANENT FORWARD MILITARY BASES IN THE ME. Duh!
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
you'd need an awefully good excuse to leave that new multi-billion dollar embassy!!
... it just ain't gonna happen.
Gotta justify building that ritzy Embassy, ya know. Oh, and the Disney-style amusement park and the ginormous swimming pool.
It's really too bad the locals can't use the facilities. But, hey, they're just dirty Iraqi riffraff.
No big deal.
There's a new sheriff in town and these assclowns had better take note. It's time for Obama to either fire their asses - all of them - or give them a good tongue lashing in public.
These unpatriotic, treasonous egomaniacs all need to be replaced - and right now!
These unpatriotic, treasonous egomaniacs all need to be replaced - and right now!
If they weren't ego-maniacs, they wouldn't be officers.
** It's time for Obama to either fire their asses - all of them - or give them a good tongue lashing in public. **
Obama has no intention of withdrawing our troops from Iraq.
Not "combat troops."
Oh no. They'll be re-branded.
"Force protection" troops.
Remember those 14 'temporary' bases out there in the desert?
They're gonna have airplanes and armor on 'em.
And SOMEBODY's gonna hafta guard 'em, and the guys who fly 'em as they 'project USer influence in the region.'
There's ALWAYS gonna be another reason to keep troops there...
Anyone else getting attacks on C&L lately? Does someone out there not like the website John? I get repeated crashes and this message
Windows Data Execution Prevention detected an add-on trying to use system memory incorrectly. This can be caused by a malfunction or a malicious add-on.
It only happens on this site, none others. Weird.
Sorry. We now return to our regular program.
and frequently.
so, let me get this straight--obama has now said, POINT BLANK, that he is going to remove ALL US forces (not just combat forces) from iraq by 2011. good, i would have preferred it to already have happened, but i'm not in charge.
yet, i wonder.... those mega US bases we built alllll over iraq... what happens to those? they must, then, go to iraqi forces. yes?
meh, i am not going to hold my breath
that the US will go back to the more civil way of killing Iraqis---with bombs from planes like Clinton and Bush the first did.
NOT to withdraw.
I do not trust any 'pledge.' Nixon ran and won in '68 on the pledge to end the war.
It was still rolling along when he ran again in '72.
By the end, he'd killed another 30 thousand of my contemporaries.
I'll believe it when i sees it...
In 2002 there was a palace coup orchestrated by Rummy and Cheney. We saw it happen, but I fear we did not recognize what we were watching.
all rolled up together in a big, bad package. I must admit, it was a brilliant plan. It's still working like magic.
And, of course, the bad guys will get away with it.
would be making sure the oil flows towards the USA, while keeping Halliburton's stock price high.
you either kick or kiss their asses. There is no in between anymore. As for worries of a coup, most generals are just representatives for weapons peddlers. They could no more take over the government by force than they can win wars.
The next Admiral and General Selection Boards are coming up soon, if he deep selects a very Junior ADM or GEN, then if I remember right all the ones listed above that person in the Book of Bastards (also known as the Officer Register) have to retire, can't have anyone senior as a subordinate??? That is what happened in the 70's when Admiral Zumwalt was selected to become the CNO of the Navy and several more senior ADMs had to retire as a result or retired as a protest to his selection.
Actually if the Generals continue to undercut the CINC then he can "promote" them to positions in the Pentagon or some other "interesting" position (White House Staff???) as Staff Officers, where they have no real responsibility and no one to lead. They seem to retire very quickly after that. Then they can become TV commentators and pick apart his policy...(but they have to be a little circumspect, they are still under the UCMJ.
So the President can push the issue if he needs to pretty quickly and I don't believe from what I have seen or read that he puts up with a lot of crap and expects loyalty and shows loyalty appropriately.
I believe that the General's need to go back to what they do best, leading men and women and following the orders of their CINC.
America will do as it pleases. Move along.
far left loon >.<
This is strange.
What if this is a false report? Why would the military want to stay in Iraq? Two years is an awful long time and assumes a stable middle east (edit) to follow through with the pullout date. My theory is if we were serious about "containing" Iran that we would stay in Iraq. Militarily, this only makes sense.
Why would Obama and the military be on a different page about a STRATEGIC decision such as this?
Those American "super bases" in Iraq surely are at the middle of Pentagon thinking for staying on in Iraq no matter what SOFA is signed.
Iraq air space still is fully under USAF force projection and air space control. Iraq will not be given much sovereign control of Iraqi air space by Americans because that very likely is not what Israel wants. Iraqis will have to demand it back.Take it back. This is a very contention premised problem for Americans with Iraq. Israel has a hand in this which is not healthy given Israeli warmonger desires.
WashingtonDC strings are pulled from Tel Aviv more than WashingtonDC lets on.
Any American ongoing garrisoning in Iraq will run counter to Iraqi political currents and rights of sovereignity. Fusing Iraq politics with American militarism that is openly defiant of domestic American voter wishes and far too compliant to Israeli desires and whims is a stroll down the wrong road.
If WashingtonDC cannot/will not modify Israeli/American affairs any American ideas for staying on in Iraq will prove hard to ratchet down.
Americans have paid a huge price in treasure and troops now dead in Iraq. Israeli land grabs and failures to resolve Israeli/Palestinian conflict bring on tension for Americans with Iran. Already have in Iraq.
It is time for Americans to curb Israeli expansionism and zealotry.
Israel needs to face limits to what it can have and do on American funding generosity,American troop deployment and hiding behind American diplomacy. With American economic supremacy imploding this is the natural way forward.
Thinking otherwise is compounded stupidity.
Obama needs to clean that up and have Congress ratify it or make a genuine agreement. Boosh cannot make an international agreement with another government and exclude congress. When Obama gets around to fixing the military, he ought to start with Gates and Betrayus.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Historically, the US has adhered to commitments that serve its interests, and honored them only so long as they continue to serve its interests. Ask any Lakota or Cherokee (if you can find one) how much a treaty with Uncle Sam is worth.
[Deleted. Spam-Sitemonitor]
Comments are closed on this entry