Will Obama get ALL American troops out in sixteen months?

No, it wouldnt be keeping his word.
Many of those units are combat units, so to leave them in Iraq would mean leaving combat troops in place.
The only US units on that list that could remain for Obama to keep his word are



ALL of the other US units on that list are combat units.
So to leave any of them in Iraq would mean that he didnt keep his word.

Well, yes and no. Mostly no.

It's true that corps and divisions are administrative organizations. But then it has ever been thus, since the days of Napoleon. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that they're not in Iraq right now. Even if the HQ for each corps or division remains fixed at its base, the corps or division itself is free to be assigned for duty elsewhere. And support units are most assuredly assigned at the corps and divisional level.

Now you're just contradicting yourself, MM. Time to give it up.

It's time for Obama to face the facts and give it up.

Facts? Not for Obama...

___________________________

Planning to Ignore the Facts
By Rich Lowry

At some point, Democrats decided that facts didn't matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party's new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground.

It's gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but ?- despite some wobbles ?- Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position.

Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush's troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false. Obama said in early 2007 that nothing in the surge plan would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence," and the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." He referred to the surge derisively as "baby-sit(ting) a civil war."

Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed laying out his position, Obama credits the heroism of our troops and new tactics with bringing down the violence. Our troops have always been heroic; what made the difference was the surge strategy that Obama lacked the military judgment ?- or political courage ?- to support.

In his oped, Obama states that "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true," citing the strain on the military, the deterioration in Afghanistan and the fiscal drain. All of those are important, but pale compared with the achievement in Iraq ?- beating back al-Qaida and Iranian-backed militias, and restoring a semblance of order to a country on the verge of a collapse from which only our enemies could have benefited.

Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he's executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there will be a "residual force" of American troops to take on "remnants of al-Qaida." How can he be so sure there will only be "remnants"? If there are, it will be because the surge Obama opposed has pushed al-Qaeda to the brink. The more precipitously we withdraw our troops, the more likely al-Qaeda is to mount a comeback.

Obama treats as a vindication a recent statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling for a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces. But Maliki, playing to his domestic politic audience, can't be taken at face value. Neither Maliki nor anyone around him talks of an unconditional 16-month timeline for withdrawal as being remotely plausible. His defense minister says Iraqis will be ready to handle internal security on their own in 2012 and external security by 2020.

The Iraqis most enthusiastic about Obama's plan surely are al-Qaeda members, Sadrists, Iranian agents and sectarian killers of every stripe. The prospect of an American president suddenly letting up on them has to be the best cause for hope they've had in months. Obama's withdrawal would immediately embolden every malign actor in Iraq, and increase their sway in Iraqi politics.

In his oped, Obama sticks to the badly dated contention that Iraqis "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." In fact, roughly 15 of 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis ?- progress Obama threatens to reverse.

Obama loves to say that we have to withdraw from Iraq "responsibly." There's nothing responsible about his plan. According to U.S. commanders on the ground, it may not even be logistically possible. Does Obama even care? He says that when he's elected he'd give the military a new mission ?- to end the war. Conditions in Iraq, let alone winning, are marginalia.

There are two possible interpretations ?- either Obama is dangerously sincere, or he's a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace. Watch this space.

Obama is speaking right now about his bullshit plan for redeployment that will get more American troops killed.

Obama has no clue what is going on. Obama does not understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are large battles in a global war.

Obama is dangerous for America - Obama is unacceptable as president.

Obama is misleading the dumbmasses into weakening our country and leaving us open to attack.

I believe many of the people that will vote for Obama just do not like that the global war seems to rest mostly on the shoulders of the U.S.?

It is really difficult to reply to that thought when given.

Try again, except this time use my whole quote, and not just part of it.

Here is what I said...


Many of those units are combat units, so to leave them in Iraq would mean leaving combat troops in place.
The only US units on that list that could remain for Obama to keep his word are




ALL of the other US units on that list are combat units.
So to leave any of them in Iraq would mean that he didnt keep his word.

The 2 units I just listed are the only 2 units on hawkeye's list that are not combat units.
If he doesnt remove all of the other units on the list, then he has left combat units in Iraq.
He has said he is going to remove the combat brigades, but unless he actually removes EVERY combat unit, he hasnt kept his promise.

So, to recap: before, Obama was lying because there were lots of non-combat troops in Iraq that he didn't account for; and now Obama is lying because there aren't a lot of non-combat troops in Iraq that he is (for some unknown reason) going to leave in Iraq. Really, MM, don't you ever get tired of yourself sometimes?

joe wrote: Really, MM, don't you ever get tired of yourself sometimes?


Wondered the same thing myself, quite often.

Uh, I think MM probably knows what he is talking about, considering the years he was in the military. I don't know about joefromchicago, but certainly Obama has no experience, zero, nothing, with the military, and I think that fact becomes more obvious by the day.

okie, You guys are always ready to say Obama doesn't have experience. Do you know the history of Franklin D. Roosevelt?

I am not particularly impressed with FDR, ci, so your angle is not going to work on me. Yes, when push came to shove, FDR did what he had to do, but he made some pretty big mistakes in my opinion. I am not a fan of FDR, although my parents were, more or less.

I understand what you may argue, that the CIC does not need military experience to excel, however, if Obama spouts off stuff that is totally impractical, then constantly changes his position, without consulting people that have better knowledge of a situation, then I think inexperience can be very bad. We might as well elect any old Tom, Dick, or Harry for president if experience means nothing. But I think it goes beyond experience, it has to do with judgement, but experience helps judgement on these matters.

Perhaps, the solution to the concerns here would be that all Presidents wear a military uniform, rather than civilian attire. This would imply that with each addtional week as President, every new President would be adding an additional week of military experience. Instead of stars or bars on the lapels, possibly something like "CIC" for Commander In Chief?

Also, a selection of caps. Some with brims, some without. Even a CIC helmet would add to certain speeches that address certain foreign concerns.

I would personally like a walking stick, a la Bat Masterson.

In effect, any President, with a little Hollywood panache, could put to rest any concerns about his/her military experience (or lack of it).

okie, Okay, you're not impressed with FDR - the president without "experience." So what is it about FDR you're not impressed with?

We could dress the president in a military uniform and call us the United States of south america. The military has more influence in my life than I like now! They are supposed to protect our liberties and keep a low profile not become involved in politics.

I did not live during that period, ci, so my opinion is more distant than after Truman. I remember from Ike on to the present day, so I think I have a better handle on it. So the following is a general opinion that I am willing to change if anyone could show an otherwise convincing argument.

I give him credit for successfully fighting the war, beyond that his New Deal was not a great deal in my opinion, it may have some positive aspects, but Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, collect now, pay later, the money was spent, for us to pay later, and the 12% that every lower income working man pays now is a significant drag on those people, and if a private fund manager got the same returns on his money, he would be fired. The war had more to do with getting us out of the doldrums than virtually anything else, I think.

The other thing, you know this, he rounded up tens of thousands of people simply by the virtue of the fact they had a Japanese, etc. heritage, and placed them in concentration camps.

Also, I think he was asleep at the switch in 39 and 40, to what was going on in Europe. I don't know what all he knew, but I suspect it was more than he would have admitted later.

There is speculation he knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened, I don't think so, but I think he was asleep at the switch at least, and as commander in chief, he should have been more aware and should have had our armed forces in more of a state of readiness.

BBB
Most people don't realize and haven't considered the enormous cost of moving our troops out of Iraq. We can't leave any of our equipment and facilities in Iraq so they don't fall into the hands of insurgents. Some of it can be moved to Afghanistan, but not all. It will cost billions of dollars to bring it all home and to Afghanistan.

BBB

Re: BBB


What about the Iraqi Army? They can't use the equipment or facilities?

I expect we will end up leaving quite a bit of it there for them.

Cycloptichorn

How We Leave Matters
By Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.)
November 28, 2007

This essay is part of the ongoing American Security Project series, Iraq: Lessons Learned.

I hate this war and believe we should not have invaded Iraq. But this war, and the way we end it, will have profound implications for America's future use of force and our exercise of political will in the world. When we leave Iraq, we must do so in a way that protects American military power and manages other's perceptions of that power in order to avoid unintended - and potentially bloody - consequences in the future.

Instead of seeking to draw lessons from the Iraq experience that we may apply to future conflicts, my goal is to consider how we can apply what we already know to the current situation in Iraq in order to ensure that we draw this conflict to a close in a way that does not further endanger U.S. security.

There are four critical points to consider. First, America's military is the strongest, most flexible, hardest hitting, and most compassionate the world has ever known. Second, until Operation Iraqi Freedom, the excellence of America's military was almost universally acknowledged and its capabilities feared. Third, this respect remains but our enemies have exposed some vulnerabilities to tactics for which we should have prepared. And fourth, this respect (and fear) must be preserved as we wind down our involvement in the war.

Our extraordinary military will be asked again to protect American security and enable the other elements of our national power. Accordingly, the manner in which we leave Iraq is as important now as how we invaded. We must emerge from Iraq with armed forces that continue to be seen around the world as "...your best friend and your worst enemy."

We must learn from our experiences, and our experience in Iraq is not new. We fought and mismanaged a similar war within the lifetimes of the people who decided to wage this one. It seems that we learned little along the way.

In the midst of the Cold War, we engaged in combat in Vietnam that showed - individual courage and determination aside - that the vaunted U.S. military and its political masters could be fought to a standstill under certain circumstances. I believe that many of us who served in the armed forces then feared, during the decade-long rebuilding of our military, that we would be tested again and found to be wanting.

Notwithstanding the above, it's safe to say that the United States military emerged from the Cold War with a reputation for unmatched competence, admirable restraint, and crushing capability. As if to demonstrate that the reputation was deserved, the United States succeeded both politically and militarily in the 1990s; preparing for the first Gulf War, then winning in the desert; later prodding Europe into belated action and then leading the way in the Balkans. Later still, the U.S. saved hundreds of thousands of lives in East Africa where we and our allies - despite later portrayals to the contrary - accomplished a daunting humanitarian mission in Somalia. In all that busy time, the men and women of our armed forces added in many ways to their aura of invincibility.

American and Coalition forces quickly seized the planned initial military objectives in the Iraq war. Shortly afterward, things changed in unexpected and unplanned ways. Since then, the war in Iraq has exposed our forces to surprising threats and a degree of instability that neither our defense investments in equipment nor training had prepared them to face.

As in Vietnam, enemies have shown that U.S. forces are vulnerable to low tech, irregular warfare. Insurgents and Iraqi terrorists have shown that there are at least temporary limits to America's military power. In a sense, we have ceded to them the ability to define for the world our military capabilities and limitations.

Candid answers to important questions might help us avoid this situation in the future, assuming we are prepared to win on the battlefield. Are we ready to manage the aftermath? Can we understand and shape the post event consequences? Will we learn and adapt to meet subsequent risks? Ultimately, will we emerge a stronger nation, militarily and politically? We must assess military engagements?-and disengagements?-in terms of their long-term impact on American power and influence, as well as immediate security objectives.

"Finishing what we've started in Iraq." What does that mean?

Our war in Iraq, and the way we end it, will have profound implications in setting the stage for future American political and military influence and operations. Discussions today of the "way forward" in Iraq fall mostly into two classes. In the first it is argued that U.S. and dwindling coalition forces must put in place conditions that permit the Iraqi army and police, under the central government, to assume responsibility for security. Only when this state is achieved can we leave Iraq. In the second case observers argue that the American investment in lives and treasure is as great as it should have ever been and that the military should begin to withdraw now. In both cases it is generally accepted that an orderly withdrawal from Iraq will require at least 12-14 months once it has begun.

The critical question then is this: how will America's image and leadership position fare because of our actions on Iraq in the coming months and years? Of course we hope to be able to choose, with the Iraqis, the resolution that's good for them. But nearly as important is that our actions position us beyond Iraq most favorably to pick our future fights, select our battlegrounds, and choose the timing and pace of combat in the battles to come.

I propose a new look at the possible gains and losses of these next couple of years as we make choices and take courses in the Iraq war. We should begin by following these two simple suggestions. First, avoid spending more precious time on simplistic allegations about culpability in the decision to invade Iraq. We have more important things to do. Second, change the tenor of the discussions about withdrawal. Focus on what's important: achieving an acceptable level of stability quickly; removing Iraq as a future battlefield for us insofar as possible; and emerging from this war with America's image as a restrained but impossibly overwhelming foe improved.

There is no magic in these ideas. The solution lies in America's leaders working together among themselves and with others. The reality is that there must be a political accommodation at home as well as in Iraq. Overseas, Iraq's neighbors, as well as our friends and allies, have serious stakes in salvaging this tough situation. They must be involved. To involve them, we must talk with them.

If we need more talented American leaders working on this than those who have the responsibility today, we should be able to come up with them. America is the world's strongest and most powerful nation and we require leaders who measure up to our principles and work to advance the country's interests. That's what elections are for.

We must have a strong, capable, agile, well-trained, and equipped military. It has to be prepared for all the relevant fights: against terrorists, drug cartels, pirates, nuclear proliferators, and against other nations, when our national security demands. The military must be multi-lingual, culturally attuned, disciplined, temperate, restrained, and ferocious at the appropriate times.

Our military today is as fearsome an instrument of national power as has ever existed. When necessary in the future it should specifically be feared. So leaving Iraq without considering the future military power and image of the United States would be a serious mistake. Iraqi and foreign insurgents must not be allowed to define the limits of American power for years to come.

Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.)

Vice Admiral Gunn is a member of the American Security Project's Board of Directors. He is President of the Institute of Public Research at The CNA Corporation, a non-profit corporation in Virginia. During his 35-year career in the Navy, he served as Inspector General of the Department of the Navy; Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel; Commander, Navy Personnel Command; Commander, Amphibious Group Three; and Deputy Commander, Combined Task Force UNITED SHIELD, protecting the withdrawal of U.N. forces from Somalia.