Vietnam Comes To Baghdad and Kabul
With some fanfare, not much really, the American combat mission in Iraq is ending a little more than 7 years after the fateful "Mission Accomplished" speech by former President Bush. The speech was to make the point that the major offensive was over, which it was. We had conquered Iraq and disbanded the government of Saddam Hussein. The mission would now be cleanup, which is often messier than known armies meeting on the field of battle. While the intent of the speech was accurate, all attention was drawn to the President arriving via fighter jet in a flight suit and the large banner over his head. It gave the impression that the whole Iraq operation was drawing to a close. It wasn't.
President Obama, in not seeking to repeat Bush's seeming boastfulness, made his usual "I said I'm gonna do it. I did it." Of his comments on the withdrawal of combat troops, he declares only that the troops will be coming home ahead of schedule. For those with a longer memory (say to the 2008 Presidential campaign) that would be wrong. Candidate Obama had promised that the troops would return from Iraq within a year of his taking office.
In reality, he is bringing our troops home in accordance with the agreement negotiated with the Iraqi government by the Bush administration. The agreement, signed on Nov 20, 2008 which outlined the continued American presence was the product of the Bush team and in place prior to Obama assuming office. You can link to a copy of the agreement at:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11071 In the agreement was specific language that permitted the US to unilaterally pull out at any time, as well as for Iraq to give us the boot if they want to (Article 24). In this regard President Obama is acting within the framework of the accord. Where Obama is erring at this point is in his literal interpretation of the terms. Going back to the NY mosque argument, just because you are allowed to do something, it doesn't follow that you should do it. The wording of the Forces Agreement repeats time and again that the decisions on troop deployment should be made jointly by the Iraqi and US governments. These decisions are to be based on the ability of the Iraqi Security Forces to provide adequate protection to the civilian population, as well as other conditions on the ground. That's the rub right there. Conditions on the ground. When the agreement was signed there was a functioning coalition government that had the ability to enter into consultation with the United States. Since national elections on March 7, 2010, no functioning government has been formed as the 3 factions refuse to negotiate with each other. Iraq, in effect, has no national government. This places the US in the same position that it held after the assassination of President Diem in Vietnam in 1963. President Lyndon Johnson escalated the war until his 1968 decision to not seek re-election and commit the US to a non-military solution in which 75% of bombing raids were canceled. Richard Nixon, taking office on Jan 20 1969 called a purely military solution unworkable and sought peace talks, labeled "peace with honor", and set about becoming a "peacemaker". During this period, the South Vietnamese government was essentially non-functional, and non-collaborative. It was entirely dependent on the US. Both Nixon, and now Obama, have committed themselves to a military drawdown in a country with a political vacuum. The South Vietnamese surrendered to the North within hours of the much photographed liftoff of the last chopper out of Vietnam on April 29 1975. We can expect that those who disagree with our presence within Iraq are just waiting for a similarly opportune moment to step into the vacuum and instill "order" by replacing the messy democracy that we tried to impose. In chaos, most societies drift towards a strong leader who will get things done. Enter Saddam II. It doesn't have to be this way. We understand President Obama's desire to be over with what he considers Bush's war of choice. We also understand that he needs the troops stationed in Iraq to head to Afghanistan to fight what he has called a war of necessity. We are not sure of his commitment to win in Afghanistan, as there too is a stated date to start withdrawal of combat troops. Comparisons to Vietnam were made regularly at the onset and throughout the Iraq war. Until the change of strategy under General David Petraeus' "Surge", many of those comparisons were apt. To his credit, President Bush did listen to his generals and corrected what was a disastrous course in the war. Iraq now has a measure of security, but the political solution that went hand in hand with the Petraeus plan has not materialized. Instead, the 3 political / religious factions (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd) are gridlocked in a manner worthy of Washington DC. With no group able to muster a majority or form a coalition, nothing is getting done on a national level. Afghanistan has not been a front burner issue since the bait and switch performed by the Bush Administration in 2003. President Obama has declared his desire to "prevail" in Afghanistan, but so far has given his hand picked General Stanley McChrystal half of the troops that he requested, and his walking papers for publicly expressing frustration with the Administration's handling of the political side of the picture. Re-enter Petraeus with the same task, the same resources, and a perceived aura of better decorum. What was that about shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic? Common Sense Dictates We can accept the fact that President Obama wants out of Iraq, and could use some political capital for bringing the troops home. It is the position of TPP that doing it in the manner currently underway is the modern equivalent of former President Gerald Ford declaring victory in Vietnam and getting out as quickly as he could. Unfortunately, the troops will not be returning home, at least for long. Afghanistan is proving a far more difficult war than envisioned. A look at the history books would have made that a bit more obvious to the planners of this strategy. Or at least a glance at the pictures of the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, after nearly 10 years of doing what we are trying to do. To keep to his timetable, the President will need to commit more troops if he does intend to "prevail", however that is quantified. If he is going to declare "success" and leave on schedule, he would be responsible for wasting the lives of the young men and women who will be killed between now and then. Afghanistan also has a weak and ineffective national government. Pulling out on schedule repeats the mistake of Iraq and Vietnam. Power abhors a vacuum - it is how Saddam Hussein and the Taliban both wound up in charge of our respective war zones. If we leave, Darwin takes over. It will not be pretty for whoever is left behind. We are then faced with the choice of returning to fix what we broke, or sitting it out this time and letting the region devolve into anarchy (It's really not that far a fall). For a truly informed suggestion as to the proper role of the United States with regard to these wars we need to have a clear knowledge of the Administration's intent. If we are to stay and win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghans, we need to know the heart and mind of Obama. That these intentions are not clear or trusted is the problem. Love him or hate him, you knew where the last President, George Bush stood. There was no ambiguity. It is time for President Obama to show similar clarity, either by stating victory as the goal and doing what it takes to win, or declaring the wars done and bringing the troops home immediately. Without such clarity he dishonors the troops that he sends into harm's way, and risks the credibility of the United States to our allies and enemies. It is the opposite of what he campaigned on. Nuance is only nuance if it can be explained effectively, otherwise it's just confusion. Confusion is not a proper driver for policy. So says Common Sense . RLB
It outlines specifics with regard to the responsibilities of both the United States and Iraq.
Interestingly, it requires no actual withdrawal of troops from Iraq until December 31, 2011. It only requires that combat troops be withdrawn from civilian areas as Iraqi forces are able to maintain security on their own. This was to be done on a province by province basis, with American troops returning to agreed upon areas and bases until final withdrawal began.
Categories: Foreign Affairs, political leadership
Tags: foreign policy Iraq war war on terror
We should be OUT of Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama made that promise and he's not delivering on it. Still 50,000 troops in Iraq. That's a lot. And we're escalating in Afghanistan. Talk about the opposite of what was promised. Our troops are getting injured and killed STILL for Bush's two wars. We need to GET OUT!
Reply to this
I'm not sure about just pulling out. That will only leave a breeding ground for terrorism, and that will come back to haunt us. It would be nice to hear in clear terms exactly how Obama intends to win this in such a limited amount of time. If I knew that the Americans were out in a short period of time, I'd just grab a vacation and come back to take over when they were gone. That's common sense.
Reply to this
I don't think that Obama has any commitment to win in either country. It's all a major distraction to him as he tries to makeover American society into something more socialist. It's a crime to send our sons and daughters into battle, when you don't care about the mission. I say pull out now. We can hunt the terrorists individually with Special Ops. We don't need a bunch of kids out there to use as IED bait.
Reply to this
Totally with the madhatyr...
Reply to this
I think if it was that simple, there would be a resolution to the wars by now. Afghanistan is a revenge war, not that there's anything wrong with that. I just don't think that either Bush or Obama thought about it much before sending in the military. If an area has never been taken, that's pretty daunting. Iraq was a massive operation to take out one thug. I think that a better solution was not a full scale war, but one of the Special Ops teams mentioned before. Weren't both candidates talking about smarter government? This isn't it.
Reply to this
Look, the only person taking the withdrawal from Afghanistan next July seriously is Obama himself. Petraeus has been pedalling that expectation back himself, and Hillary will have work to do there for years. General Conway (theater commander of the Marines)says that the Marines will be there for "years". He says "maybe" some troops will come home next July but that the Afghan troops are "not capable" of doing what needs to be done to deal with the Taliban. I would give his opinion a lot of weight. He's retiring in September, so he has nothing to lose. Echoes of McChrystal.
Reply to this
I agree that to do this right, it will take the same kind of plan as rebuilding Japan or Germany or Korea. We'restill in all of those countries, and it's been 50 - 60 years. I'm not sure that Afghanistan or Iraq are all that important that weshould be investing time and treasure there. Nation building is way beyond the "kicking terrorist ass" that I thought we were signing up for. Now I hear we might be going into Somalia. Enough is enough.
Reply to this
This is a little over thetop alarmist. Petraeus today said that the momentum had turned against the Taliban, and we were making good progress. We are now at full strength and the surge is on track. Bush's Iraq surge lasted about a year and it worked. We've got almost a year left before anyone is looking at leaving. It really is a lot of time, especially if we can keep areas pacified by having sufficient troop levels tomaintain a presence. Obama didn'tplan this out. The military did. The military would not commit to something that was unwinnable. Military service is not a suicide pact.
Reply to this
No one is questioning the miltary. The questions are going to the buffoons giving the military missions that are unwise or foolhardy. Then they fail to give the generals what they need to do the impossible. The politicians lost Vietnam for us. They can certainly do it in Afghanistan. We'll have a good indication by how Iraq looks in 6 months.
Reply to this
You're on the money govissue. I can tell you for a fact that the US Army didn't lose Vietnam. The politicians did. There is a lot of similarites to both current wars. The rules of engagement tied our hands, the enemy didn't always wear a uniform and hid among the civilians. The military we were "supporting" was never going to come up to the level of effectiveness it needed to have. Then there's the big thing - we were on a mission to prop up a government that was corrupt and inneffective. The troops all did what they could with what they had, but once the peaceniks started rioting (think Chicago in 1968), the US Army became the ugly stepchild. Everyone wanted out and no one could figure out how to do it. The real choices in 1969 were to equip the troops and complete the mission, or to pull out. Instead Nixon yanked our chains for the rest of his Presidency, and a lot of young men continued to die. We were in Vietnam for 15 years with no clear mission, a limited supply chain, and a President who knew the right thing to do, but didn't want to do what was ncessary to win or to take a loss. It looks exactly like what's going on now.
Reply to this
It's a shame that the soldiers bore the burden of war, and then were treated so badly upon returning home. At least we've learned that lesson. I'm hoping that this war turns out better, but all war is tragic.
Reply to this
I would like to think that Obama has a plan and that Petraeus can carry it out. Unfortunately, I think Obama is married to the pullout date. If you want evidence, just look at Iraq. The news is worse and worse everyday, and he just doesn't care. He wants out. Ditto on Afghanistan.
Reply to this
Nation building is not the responsibility of the Armed Forces. Their job is to defend the USA. They do it by breaking things and killing people til the other side decides to give up and surrender. That is their whole job. If you want to waste time making a democracy out of an area that has been ruled by warlords for it's entire history, great - give the job to the State Dept. That's where it belongs.
Reply to this
Nation building is a screwy term. Nations arise out of the common needs of a group of people over a very long time. You can't impose a government on a people with different customs and have it take. It really hasn't worked in the Balkans, it failed miserably in Somalia, and where we have had success it wasn't by sending in 150,000 troops to rearrange the furniture. The great example of success in this is Japan. The reason we succeeded there is we nuked the place and held a gun to the head of the new government until they had enough practice and it became normal for them. By the way WWII ended 65 years ago and we still have troops there. Obama wants out by next year. I say bring our troops home now, and lets deal with the terrorists with Special Ops. Your average Afghani is not a threat to us unless they can throw a rock 12,000 miles.
Reply to this
100% correct Robert. Since WWIIj we've had nothing but "limited armed conflicts"; no declared war by congress. As a result there is little in the way of a true singular mission for our military to go after. Surely, going after the Taliban could be said to be a mission but not a unified mission that will result in lasting good for the people of Afghanistan. What do we do if/when we exterminate them? First, we won't/can't because we're not sanctioned to do the job wholeheartedly. Secondly, it is as you said - Karzai will regret...(the Taliban will make mincemeat of him in short order once we're out of there). The people of Afghanistan will no better of than they were before us, or the Russians. Same for Iraq. Voltaire was quite correct, "difficult to get people away from the things (ideas) they revere..."
Reply to this
DeJa Vu like when we pulled out of South Vietnam. The pacification program there didnt work nor did the turnover the military operations to South Vietnam military either.
The Taliban and al Queda(sp) will be waiting with open arms when we depart. Having been there in 2002,not sure what I think. Just hope that those who paid the ultimate sacrifice,that it wasn't in vain. GOD Bless our military.
Reply to this