Report: Obama To Stand Up For Iraq Withdrawal
By Steve Hynd Wednesday Nov 12, 2008 7:00pmTPM's Josh Marshall asks "Why Gates?" Tuesday.
Gareth Porter at IPS has been talking to (anonymous, as ever) Obama transition team folks who tell him that the chances of Robert Gates staying on as SecDef "are now about 10 percent".
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that two unnamed Obama advisers had said Obama was "leaning toward" asking Gates stay on, although the report added that other candidates were also in the running. The Journal said Gates was strongly opposed to any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and it speculated that a Gates appointment "could mean that Mr. Obama was effectively shelving his campaign promise to remove most troops from Iraq by mid-2010."
Some Obama advisers have been manoeuvering for a Gates nomination for months. Former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig publicly raised the idea of a Gates reprise in June and again in early October. Danzig told reporters Oct. 1, however, that he had not discussed the possibility with Obama.
Obama advisers who support his Iraq withdrawal plan, however, have opposed a Gates appointment. Having a defence secretary who is not fully supportive of the 16-month timetable would make it very difficult, if not impossible for Obama to enforce it on the military.
A source close to the Obama transition team told IPS Tuesday that the chances that Gates would be nominated by Obama "are now about 10 percent".
The source said that Obama is going to stick with his 16-month withdrawal timeline, despite the pressures now being brought to bear on him. "There is no doubt about it," said the source, who refused to elaborate because of the sensitivity of the matter.
As Gareth points out, mainstream opposition to a set timetable has been widespread, with a constant narrative saying that Mullen, Petraeus and Odierno all oppose a fixed timetable and that Obama would wiggle on a fixed timetable to stave of an inevitable conflict with the Pentagon.
But that Pentagon opposition seems to ignoring, or setting aside as beneath their notice, Iraqi statements that there must be a complete U.S. withdrawal by the end of 2011 and the revised "status of forces agreement" which seems to have removed any "wiggle room" without trampling all over iraqi sovereignty in a way that would announce High Noon for insurgents there. Obama, however, is reported to be ready to stand by his campaign promises and the wishes of the Iraqi people.
Obama's website makes no such pledge to "adjust" the timetable. Instead it says the "removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government." It defends the rate of withdrawal of one or two brigades per month and offers to leave a "residual force" in Iraq to "train and support the Iraqi forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."
When Obama met with Petraeus in Baghdad in July, Petraeus presented a detailed case for a "conditions-based" withdrawal rather than Obama's timetable and ended with a plea for "maximum flexibility" on a withdrawal schedule, according to Joe Klein's account in Time Oct. 22.
But Obama refused to back down, according to Klein's account. He told Petraeus, "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favourable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential commander in chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama defended his policy of a fixed date for withdrawal in light of the situation in Afghanistan, the costs of continued U.S. occupation and the stress on U.S. military forces.
Let's hope that Porter's sources are correct, and that the Big Media narrative saying Obama is about to turn away from his promise is just an attempt to "create reality" by the military and neo-whatever establishment.
Crossposted from Newshoggers, video added.
Login or Register to post comments.
The odds of Gates staying on, are about the same odds as George W. Bush winning a Nobel Peace Prize.
Kissinger got one!
All republicans must go from high positions! Although Gates may be one of six republican's left who aren't completely insane, Sec Def is too high a post to leave to repukes.
If they want to keep any around for the appearance of bi-partisanship bullshit, fine. Just put them in charge of something unimportant, so they can't cause major problems whent they fuck it up.
If they want to keep any around for the appearance of bi-partisanship bullshit, fine. Just put them in charge of something unimportant, so they can't cause major problems whent they fuck it up.
Putting a Republican in a token position for the "appearance of bi-partisanship bullshit" is nothing more than a transparent and meaningless move that should be ridiculed and avoided.
Cabinet level positions are management positions, but it is up to Obama what the Secretary of Defense does. If Gates is competent (and he seems to be -- unlike virtually every other Bush apppointee) and is agreeable to managing Obama's phased withdrawal from Iraq (as well as Obama's other Defense policies), then there is no reason to not keep him in the position -- unless there is a Democrat who is clearly more knowledgeable and competent than Gates (Sam Nunn? Hold on while I throw up.). If Obama thinks he needs or wants a Republican in his administration then making it a token gesture would raise questions about Obama's sincerity.
It's important to keep in mind that while we don't want Republicans running the show, Democrats are far too corrupt and inept to be left as the only viable political party. I think it would be a disaster to have a one party system -- worst case would be a one party system with the GOP being the only party, but a one party system with only Democrats would be horrible. Ideally, we'd have the Republicans as the minority party; always a threat to take power, but never quite successful. That might keep the Democrats more responsible and responsive.
If the GOP is going to exist, then we want it to have rational and responsible members -- unlike Bush, Cheney, or the vast majority of the current Republican Party. By employing sane Republicans -- Gates? -- maybe Obama can nudge the Party back toward sanity.
It' not our job to fix their fucked-up party of pychopaths.
Frankly, I don't want any bipartisanship! In case you haven't noticed, republican = corporate fascist. That's what we voted against! Why start rewarding them?
I don't want ANY repukes running the military. Now is the timwe to show the people that the "repukes are great on military matters" mantra - is total bullshit.
Gates may be a good man, but so are many, many democrats.
Elections have conequences - GET A CLUE!
It says so plainly in the Gareth Porter article. The article also provides direct evidence of Petreaus' plan to use people like McIntyre at CNN and Feaver (a former freakin Hadley aide) to argue that Obama should cave and will cave. These guys need to be physically restrained.
Believe it or not, the Iraqis do have some say in what happens
This guys name pops up.
and his wisdom and experience would be an asset to Obama.
The old saying..."As Maine goes, so goes the nation."
Cohen would be a great pick. Us Mainers are proud of him.
Yes, I always liked him too I think.
The last thing Obama needs to do is put a republican in charge of the military. I can just hear it now after 8 years of Bush; "see the dems need to have a repuke run the military, because everyone knows the GOPer's are better at defending us."
The people need to see an honest and COMPETENT democrat in charge. A real contrast to Chimpy's corporate, crony, imcompetemce.
Clinton wasn't a stupid man. Except for the bj thing. You'd think if he was going to risk it, he would have picked a better option. No disrespect to options out there.;)
But Cohen isn't what I'd call a repug. He too is pragmatic.
I think he'd be a decent selection, just because he's been there before. Cohen has proven he is willing to work for the benefit of the country. He did vote(I think he was the first Repub to vote) for the impeachment of Nixon.
That says alot .
We'll see. Just my speculation.
Would that make you center right? lol
That would depend on what coast I'm on.;)
And how high the tide is.
The Sea of Cortez.
East Cape region.:)
That's where my little house is.8)
If you read the Gareth Porter article you will see that the neo-cons argue 'Obama is a pragmatist,' as in he's going to 'wiggle' out of his campaign promise to withdraw from Iraq. And, why would he do this? Because the US military and the 'US political elite' want him too, and, thus you have the makings of a pragmatist. This of course ignores the fact that those who want Obama to be pragmatic lost the election, and yet they still think they get to determine US foreign policy, which is the primary reason for Islamic jihadis and the 'global economic crisis.' So, the next time you think pragmatism is a good thing, just remember it's cover for doing what the US establishment wants to be done, which is the status quo of the military running this country and the enrichment of a few, which is really all about oppressing the masses.
and down-to-earth residents. One drawback to your wonderful state, however, is the disgusting pestilence that descends on Kennebunkport each summer.
Easier said than done I want us 100% out of Iraq as quickly as possible but realize that it's easier said than done. I hope Obama moves away from Gates and creates a true progressive/liberal circle in Washington.
Sorry for the OT but this breaking news is important. Begich is now three votes ahead!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIFF00DjwV...
Obama has always been very clear that he will SET POLICY at President... not do what the troops in the field are trying to tell him what to do.
President Bush was a COWARD and a FOOL as regards his "escapade" in Iraq. Obam will DRASTICALLY change policy in Iraq... and I hope he will carry out policy with a new leadership group that will be on board 100%.
there's a new Sheriff in town.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw
That's about 9.9999 percent too much for my taste.
From the internets I heard there are bombs going off and people dying. MSM however, can't get enough of palin. WTF?
Time to apply the 'take it with a grain of salt' maxim as the last time I checked Rupert Murdock still owned the WSJ.
Another case of the NewsCorp 'fair and balanced' approach to twisting and spinning everything Obama.
Why not Wes Clark?
I should have thought of him.
He may end up being Sec State.
Either way, I'm good with that.
doesn't fit well. He has the problem that he may be too close to his subordinates, as he's served with them for years - and may well have been accustomed to taking orders from some of them.
Regards, C
I see your point. And it does give some reason for concern.
But there are other factors to consider.
1. Been there done that, So I think he'd be reluctant to send our forces in harms way.
2. He acquired a high enough rank/status to where he doesn't have to answer to anyone other than the Commander in Chief.
3. Rhodes Scholar. Very intelligent man.
I know all about the Pristina incident. That was a judgment call. And being the situation where the Russians were supplying the Serbs with weaponry and support. I think he was right to suggest taking control of the airport.
Just my 2 cents worth.
My objections were more general, about generals generally. (sorry :-)
The only thing at stake in Iraq is the U.S.'s reputation. Are we that stupid and arrogant?
Pull out now. Rebuild the ruin we created and stay out of their government. We do not own them and they sure don't want us there.
Admit it was a mistake and make amends already!
Aside from the Iraq stance of Gates he's still a bad choice for SecDef. He's one of those who just don't "get it". He doesn't understand why the US suffered the losses it did in Vietnam, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. And unless Obama puts in a SecDef who DOES understand that then all we're going to have in Afghanistan and Iraq is more of the same.
I could see keeping Gates for a short time, and it might make Obama's job easier. However, I agree the whole "Dems are weak on national defense" BS has to be killed for the good of the country and the world. Surely Obama can find someone great who isn't a Republican to take the slot at some point.
Digby wrote about the Pentagon's internal advisory board recently, and reforming the Pentagon's priorities and budget is a place where Obama definitely can gather plenty of respected opinions. I'd love to see Chuck Spinney among them.
Quote from article:
"Having a defence secretary who is not fully supportive of the 16-month timetable would make it very difficult, if not impossible for Obama to enforce it on the military."
So a President has no authority over his appointed staff? Can't he order his staff to do something? If not, isn't the position a big sham, in that he appoints people who can just do what they want?
I read an article yesterday that said Gates refused to let one of his people, a female, testify when she was called before a congressional panel to discuss the charges that the military and Tricare is, in certain cases, charging female veterans for the rape kits that are required to collect evidence if an she is raped. This alone should be enough justification to invalidate his selection to continue on.
Stand-up for Draw-down.
There's troops in Iraq now, there'll still be troops there in 8 years.
If Obama were only the Head of State, as the Queen of England is, he would be perfect for the job. He will undoubtedly succeed greatly in that ceremonious capacity; but Americans and the world have no idea how he will govern as the Chief Executive, Chief Legislator, Chief Diplomat, or especially as the Commander in Chief.
I do not doubt that Obama will bring change. But will he bring the “Change We Need” as he so vehemently promised? We’ll see… www.IsThisTheChangeWeNeed.com
Login or Register to post comments.