-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Josh Rogin
Friday, October 21, 2011 - 3:26 PM
Share
The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the president's announcement today, but in fact several parts of the administration appeared to try hard to negotiate a deal for thousands of troops to remain -- and failed.
"I can report that as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," President Barack Obama said today, after speaking with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their held -- heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end."
Deputy National Security Advisors Denis McDonough and Tony Blinken said in a White House briefing that this was always the plan.
"What we were looking for was an Iraq that was secure, stable, and self reliant, and that's what we got here, so there's no question that was a success," said McDonough, who traveled to Iraq last week.
But what about the extensive negotiations the administration has been engaged in for months, regarding U.S. offers to leave thousands of uniformed soldiers in Iraq past the deadline? It has been well reported that those negotiations, led by U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and White House official Brett McGurk, had been stalled over the U.S. demand that the remaining troops receive immunity from Iraqi courts.
"What the president preferred was for the best relationship for the United States and Iraq going forward. That's exactly what we have now," McDonough said, barely acknowledging the administration's intensive negotiations.
"We talked about immunities, there's no question about that.... But the bottom line is that the decision you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his view and the prime minister's view of the kind of relationship we want to have going forward. That relationship is a normal relationship," he said.
Of course, the U.S.-Iraqi relationship is anything but normal. Following nine years of war, the death of over 4,000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the disbursement of at least hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer' money, the United States now stands to have significantly less influence in Iraq than if the administration had been able to come to terms with Iraq over a troop extension, according to experts and officials.
"Iraq is not a normal country, the security environment is not normal, the embassy is not a normal embassy," said Marisa Cochrane Sullivan, managing director at the Institute for the Study of War, who traveled to Iraq this summer and has been sounding the alarm about what she saw as the mishandling of the negotiations ever since.
For more evidence that the administration actually wanted to extend the troop presence in Iraq, despite today's words by Obama and McDonough, one only has to look at the statements of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, "Dammit, make a decision" about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, "My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'" On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, "At the present time I'm not discouraged because we're still in negotiations with the Iraqis."
Sullivan was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would "leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States."
She said that the administration's negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.
"From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.
As recently as August, Maliki's office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.
Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.
"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."
The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn't about to do either.
"It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn't going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him," Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. "There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late."
"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan. "It's in the administration's interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement."
So what's the consequence of the failed negotiations? One consequence could be a security vacuum in Iraq that will be filled by Iran.
"It's particularly troubling because having some sort of presence there would have really facilitated our policy vis-a-vis the Iranians and what's going on in Syria. The Iranian influence is going up in Iraq," said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It makes it harder for us to play our cards, and that's a real setback. We've spent a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq. And these days, stability in that region is not what it used to be."
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) echoed those sentiments in a statement today and expressed skepticism that Iraq is as "safe, stable, and self reliant" as the White House claims.
"Multiple experts have testified before my committee that the Iraqis still lack important capacities in their ability to maintain their internal stability and territorial integrity," McKeon said. "These shortcomings could reverse the decade of hard work and sacrifice both countries have endured to build a free Iraq."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), in his own Friday statement, backed up the administration's argument that the lack of a troop extension was in the best interest of the United States and Iraq.
"The United States is fulfilling our agreement with an Iraqi government that wants to shape its own future," he said. "The President is also following through on his commitment to end both the conflict in Iraq and our military presence... These moves appropriately reflect the changes on the ground. American troops in Iraq will be coming home, having served with honor and enormous skill."
UPDATE: This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the "White House" that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops.
"The White House has always seen the president's pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period," the White House official said.
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:THUMBS, ARAB WORLD, DIPLOMACY, IRAN, IRAQ, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
""From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan. "
Those pesky politicians and their democracy.
If only Marisa Cochrane Sullivan could live in a nice, safe and non-democratic dictatorship could her point of view be given the importance she, and apparently "40 conservative foreign policy professionals", deserve.
If only they could bring back the Bush Dictatorship . . . .
It seems that Tom Ricks' blog from 9/29/11, written by Peter Van Buren, "Who won the war in Iraq? (Here's a big hint: It wasn't the United States)", makes it appear that all of this is not so relevant in the long term.
Best part of this Rogin article:
The postscript, which I reproduce below, makes clear that the article started out crap and that some wise head at Foreign Policy -- possibly Mr Rogin, possibly not -- felt it appropriate to flush out the crap when an unnamed White House official phoned to point out exactly what that crap was.
Here's the postscript: 'UPDATE: This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the "White House" that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops.
'"The White House has always seen the president's pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period," the White House official said.'
The original Rogin piece was rich in unnamed government officials and presented no evidence whatsoever that the president bungled anything in this matter. Mr Rogin is pleased to present what happened as an Obama withdrawal. It wasn't. It was an entirely legitimate al-Maliki eviction. The only alternative to accepting it would have been declaring war on Iraq, again.
How sincere Mr Rogin has been in his acceptance and presentation of sundry mutinous Washington figures is unclear. He has been unable to present any evidence that whatever these malcontents had in mind would have "worked". These shadowy figures spoke to Mr Rogin on the basis that he would protect them in their mischief and disloyalty. All he has done is make clear that much of Washington officialdom is a rabble, and a disloyal one. No surprise there.
Mr Rogin is particularly shallow in drawing our attention to the words of Leon Panetta in recent months. These words, he tells us, show that the Obama administration was fighting to leave troops in Iraq. They do nothing of the kind. The SecDef wads calling on the Iraqi government to decide what it wanted. It did. It wanted an eviction. And short of a declaration of war, that's exactly what the US government had to give it.
Mr Rogin also presents the observations of mentally and morally weak people who say Iraq isn't like a real country -- and so, anything that the really real US wants to do there would be perfectly okay. That is straightforward lying. Four thousand-plus Americans died to help Iraq be restored as a sovereign nation. Having done this, is Iraq wrong to express its sovereign right not to have 39,000 heavily armed foreign outlaws roaming their neighborhoods? Of course, it isn't. Are the troops outlaws? Of course, in the proper view of the Baghdad, yes, they are. End of case.
Gosh!! I really wish we could have stayed in Iraq past the end of this year!! Such a ripping adventure, and so successful for everyone (especially all of those jolly contractors). And now, just because BO has been silly we have to get out by the end of this year. Yar....booo....sucks.....
About 39,000 US troops remain in Iraq, down from a peak of 165,000 in 2008.
The US and Iraq were in "full agreement" on how to move forward, Mr Obama said, adding: "The US leaves Iraq with our heads held high."
"That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end."
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
While Republicans bicker over the choice of a candidate, President Obama is exciting his own base”
Mark Mardell North America editor, BBC
Read more from Mark
According to the Department of Defense, there have been 4,408 American military deaths in Iraq since March 2003.
Mr Obama spoke at the White House following a video conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.
He pledged assistance and "a strong and enduring partnership" with Iraqi government.
The US declared the end of its combat mission in Iraq in 2010. The deadline for complete troop withdrawal by end of 2011 was set during former President George W Bush's term in office.
However, the issue of a full pullout had been the subject of an ongoing debate.
Iraqi leaders had wanted 5,000 US troops to remain in a training capacity. But those trainers would not have received immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law according to Host travel agency.
Continue reading the main story
The war in Iraq
War began on 19 March 2003 with 173,000 troops, 150,000 of whom were Americans
670,000 Iraqi security forces were on duty as of March 2011
4,408 American troops have been killed
179 British troops have been killed
115,405 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed
32,195 American troops have been wounded
Source: Brookings Iraq Index, US Department of Defense
The Pentagon refused to accept that condition, with Defence Secretary Leon Panetta insisting that "we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers".
The decision to pull out all US troops suggests no deal could be reached, despite Iraq's desire for continued access to US military expertise, correspondents say.
Earlier this month, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said: "If we do not have agreement on the immunity, there will be no agreement on the number."
Many Iraqis are sensitive about the issue, given the number of civilian shootings involving US troops since the US-led invasion. Private contractors have already lost their immunity .
Mr Obama said the withdrawal comes amid changes in American military priorities, including a troop drawdown in Afghanistan, and new political realities in the Middle East and Africa.
"The tide of war is receding," he said.
'House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) echoed those sentiments in a statement today and expressed skepticism that Iraq is as "safe, stable, and self reliant" as the White House claims.'
I'm sorry, but no. The Republicans have cried wolf too many times, and I'm not prepared to listen to anything that this party has to say about Obama's foreign policy.
We should thankful we're getting out. Nothing since the Vietnam war has damaged this country's standing in the world as has this misbegotten war. There will be a price to pay, but at least we can move on.
We should thankful we're getting out. Nothing since the Vietnam war has damaged this country's standing in the world as has this misbegotten war. There will be a price to pay, but at least we can move on.
Iraq seems stable enough. We don't need to be there. Let the troops come back and be with their families.
John@ do pheromones work
Josh:
If this is accurate:
"Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity."
then why are right-wingers and warmongers so insistent this is bungling? Asking for something you know your interlocutor cannot provide, or failure to exploit an available expedient, allows the very inference you seem to be at such pains to reject.
Personally, I always thought from Day One that Obama would use Bush's SOFA as the mechanism for total withdrawal. Now that he has, I need a lot more than these phony "sources" to make me change my mind.
Obama went along with the attempts to stay. As recently as last week when the word was leaked that we would leave , the WH PR denied the story. A couple days later we learned the truth, that the Iraqis insisted that any military who stayed would not have exemptions from violations of Iraqi law. Up until that time the Military and State had been sweet talking, whining, and arm twisting to stay. Our Defense Secretary actually has the Chutzpah (shameless audacity) to suggest that they really want us and we can get an agreement in the near future. What part of NO does this bozo not understand? As far as diplo immunity for the mercenaries, the Iraqis can change that very quickly when they shoot up the first crowd of innocents. It's called "persona no grata". After thought: was this article written by the Israeli Ambassador or an AIPAC troll? It's way too smooth to have been a John McCain article.
This was NOT an Obama campaign promise. This was a bilateral agreement made under Bush to withdrawl on 12/31/2011 under the 2008 "Status of Forces Agreement". Again, this guy takes credit for something that he didn't do.
"Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.
Does Sullivan think you can ignore the politics of both countries without that in itself becoming a security concern? Is it not a clue that the Iraqis who quietly asked us to remain were afraid to say as much in public? How are the factions that have been quiescent since we promised to leave going to react when we simply redesignate our troops as diplomats in order to get around legal commitments and to improve our situation vis-a-vis third countries in our own interest? You're asking for a renewed war in Iraq in the name of security and stability.
this just in: senior hill staff heads up asses
"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."
are you kidding me? that's not done "by notification to the foreign ministry"; rather, the diplomatic list must be agreed to and endorsed by the foreign ministry (and may actually be based on an agreed-upon number of authorized diplomatic personnel). moreover, per the Vienna Convention there are specific categories of personnel to which diplomatic immunity applies, which (speaking broadly) include personnel working in support of diplomatic, consular, or IO missions in capacities that specifically do not include military service (with the exception of defense attaches which fall under diplomatic missions, and hence protections). even actual diplomats are not all on the "A-list" in many countries where they serve, depending on their specific positions and required authorities.
Barring the above realities that are based on centuries of customary and international laws, there is the political reality as well. I'd be interested in knowing what course of action our "former senior hill staffer" friend would advocate were the US Department of State to hijack an issue of significant bilateral sensitivity (viz duration of stay of an occupying force) through a procedural loophole. Surely such a senior staffer, even a former one, recognizes the political (and budgetary) fallout that would ensue.
The US declared the end of its combat mission in Iraq in 2010. The deadline for complete troop withdrawal by end of 2011 was set during former President George W Bush's term in office. Karsiliksiz cek, cek yasasi, cek kanunu magdurlari, cek magduru, cek magdurlari, karsiliksizcek, cek affi, ceklere af
grow tired of ironically saying “Smart power” whenever this administration screws up yet another foreign relations task, Cek Magdurlari especially when the bungled task was supposed to foster an “anti-war” flavored peace under the command of a man with a Peace Prize.
Ending US soldier corpse production is fabulous. Hopefully an Afghan exit is in the offing. Let them do what they wish. If Samantha Powers has her way, Israel will receive a border of American soldiers. The hated aid to Israel will disappear at that point. When Egypt attempts its first attack, all aid will stop to Egypt as well. All in all a good thing.
Who cares whether bungling or brilliance achieved the result?
Regardless of how the US involvement in Iraq is to end, it is long overdue for us to get out. All the debate over whether Obama's administration 'bungled' negotiations to keep the US occupation force in Iraq is meaningless, and it ignores the basic fact that this was an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation by a hostile US-led force based on trumped-up allegations of WMD and Saddam Hussein consorting with al Qaeda - both of which have been proven wrong. The loss of over 4,400 US lives, more than 4,700 including our 'coalition' allies, and over 32,000 wounded - not to mention trillions of dollars wasted on this Bush administration vendetta - cannot in any way diminish the fact that this was the biggest blunder in US military and foreign policy history.
The fact that Obama and his administration lacked the courage to pick up the chips and walk away from the debacle as fast as possible does them no credit. Panetta's recent pathetic posturing, and other attempts to try to badger the Iraqi government into allowing us to keep an armed force in their country should be a source of embarrasment to the US. We, begging the Iraqi to allow us to stay - that shows how low the alleged superpower will go to get a boon from a third-rate country. We now grovel and scrape when brute intimidation does not work!
Bush and his minions negotiated the SOFA in the 11th hour of their sorry administration, and Obama should have accepted it as a gift when he took office; instead he has dithered and dissembled, when he should have made it clear that his original opinion of the Iraq invasion was correct - that it was always a mistake bordering on lies and criminal motivations.
Let the Iraqi's henceforth clean up their own messes. This is a welcome conclusion to a sad chapter in our history.
a gratuitous and craven distortion—you are losing your touch
"The Iranian influence is going up in Iraq," said Andrew Tabler"
the only way Iran's influence in Iraq could go up in the aftermath of Cheney/Bush's enlightened approach to foreign policy is if al-Maliki were to officially annex Iraq to Iran.
can you imagine the howl that would have gone up if we had allowed US troops to remain without a guarantee of immunity from Iraqi courts?
and do you think Iran might be pulling strings in the Iraqi government to ensure the US troops would not be granted immunity?
so to rectify this we should what—invade Iran?
there are undoubtedly those in the middle east who want this to happen one way or the other.
here in the US's middle west, middle north, middle south and middle east—not so much!
Juan Cole wrote about the end of US military in Iraq:
"And so that is the way the war ends. No great demonstrations in the US against it in its twilight. It is ending almost by default, because the Iraqi parliament can seldom get real legislation done, the US is forced to adhere to the 2008 SOFA. In the background, the bombs are still going off and the country is riven by ethnic disputes. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed.
"The US will receive no benefit from its illegal war of aggression, no permanent bases, no bulwark against Iran, no new Arab friend to Israel, no $14 a barrel petroleum– all thing things Washington had dreamed of. Dreams that turned out to be flimsy and unsubstantial and tragic."
Peter
wemeantwell
John Hudson reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(20)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE