Short answer: no. Obama is going to try to retain the empire and hang the cost.
The announced proposal is to withdraw the bulk of the troops and leave 50,000 to run the bases and protect the embassy. Here is what Obama said, via Kevin Drum:
Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.
As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.
After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.
Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Obama and his generals are imperialists, but whether that will be good business is another question. He does not acknowledge that much of the violence has been generated by the Americans, or that they will retain control of Iraqi air space, nor that there is likely to be conflict with the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Keeping the bases and the grandiose embassy is equivalent of a robber keeping the proceeds of his robbery. It will be interesting to see how Iraqi public opinion will regard the American graceless “exit” from their country, so they can go and kill Muslims in Afghanistan.
Where is international law when we need it?
As Obama “draws down” in defeat in Iraq, while attempting to maintain political control, he is setting out to liberate Afghanistan, no doubt in the manner of Abraham Lincoln, by increasing the imperialist, murdering (as in drone and helicopter attacks on civilians), military forces there. We will see how that race to the bottom goes.
ELSEWHERE:
A question arises, gives the continuing tenure of the Secretary Gates and the commitment of military leaders, as who is running the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gareth Porter has been on the case for some time now.
Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, blows the cover and takes a candid look at the situation in Afghanistan, as reported by Reuters:
We are not going to win this war just by staying,” Harper said. “My own judgment is, quite frankly, that we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency.”
“We have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency and improving its own governance,” he told CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS.”
That is fine as far as a prognosis, but the statement does not the address of the question as to whether military troops should have been committed in the first instance and inevitability in these cases of mission creep. If only Rudd could be as frank.
The withdrawal of US forces provides logistical challenges, especially it seems since Basra is closed off as a seaport. Then there is the problem of pollution, which one supposes will be left behind.
Marc Lynch, via The War in Context, suggests the timetable is far from definite, which begs the question as whether the current “multi-national” force is the best option for the purpose of guaranteeing the political stability of Iraq, if indeed military forces were ever appropriate to that purpose.
The costs of maintaining military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, given restricted access, is likely to rise, which means they will have to take cover against the budget blowouts in all the countries involved, not least the United States.
As Chris Hedges observes at Truthdig, “It is Obama’s war, now”. It is remarkable how a president of eight years, with all sorts of pretensions, could fade so quickly from mind and memory.
Juan Cole argues that Obama is leaving Iraq, and avoiding the traps that Mesopotamia might hold. Still, subject to a review, he appears to be upping the ante in Afghanistan, which seems more difficult to guarantee the supply lines and to withdraw the military forces – including equipment – with safety, especially without the cooperation of surrounding countries.
I suppose that criticism of Obama, for the moment, has be held in check, given that he has not had much time and is confronted with a number of issues. No president has been placed in such a situation. He may for the moment be the captive of his advisers, not least this military advisers who he has inherited from the previous Administration.