Half A Withdrawal Is Better Than None

By Cernig

Following on from Eric's earlier post, castigating the COIN-loving colonialist generals who want to be the Deciders on Iraq for trying to turn Iraqis into bit-players in their own story, comes the news that President Obama will announce a 19 month timeline for pulling all US combat troops out of Iraq sometime in the next few days.

The withdrawal plan — an announcement could come as early as this week — calls for leaving a large contingent of troops behind, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests.

Also staying beyond the 19 months would be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.

The complete withdrawal of American forces will take place by December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all troops.

... The 19-month strategy is a compromise between commanders and advisers who are worried that security gains could backslide in Iraq and those who think the bulk of U.S. combat work is long since done.

The White House considered at least two other options to withdraw combat forces — one that followed Obama's 16-month timeline and one that stretched withdrawal over 23 months, The Associated Press reported earlier this month.

Gareth Porter's sources say that the alternatives to Obama's original 16 month deadline were put forward by the military - and not requested by the president as was leaked by the Petraeus camp - in an attempt to sway Obama towards the possibility of pushing withdrawal even further out. But that seems to have had limited success. Spencer Ackerman is hearing that the 19-month plan is now set too, and writes:

this is extremely well played. Portraying a three-month delay in pulling combat forces out as a “compromise” with those who wanted a slower withdrawal is a great way to nullify bureaucratic opposition to withdrawal. The “23-months” option was mooted, considered, and rejected, and it’s very hard to see see how 90 extra days of combat could be substantively problematic to even hardcore antiwar forces Last year, withdrawing combat forces from Iraq on a fixed timetable was “reckless.” This year it’s the “compromise” policy of the U.S. government. Everyone gets something — thereby neutralizing rejectionism — and those who want to end the war get the lion’s share. Ironically, it’s wise counterinsurgency strategy.

Fair enough - and the 30,000 to 50,000 rebranded "non-combat troops" should be out by the end of 2011 too. But as Eric noted, "the vested interests of empire will resist efforts made by Obama to disentangle our involvement in Iraq".

Over the past several weeks, Odierno and Petraeus have been waging a rather unseemly media battle against the ostensible Commander in Chief over the future of US policy vis-a-vis Iraq.  In Ricks' book, and subsequently, he echoes the Odierno/Petraeus line that we need to maintain 30-40,000 troops in Iraq until at least 2015, and that we can't risk pulling out sooner.  Sullivan, for his part, seems resigned to this timeline - and its extension indefinitely into the future - despite the "drain on our wallets."

So no, the battle to end Bush's misadventure in Iraq isn't over yet - and it isn't just pro-war ideologist conservatives who will be trying to perpetuate the occupation. There'll be more than a few neoliberal, COIN-loving inteventionists making common cause with the neocons too.