Friday, December 16, 2011 - 6:09 PM

President Barack Obama's administration has disproved the notion that a large military footprint helps fight terrorism and, following the end of the Iraq war, is now returning the United States to a pre-1990 military level in the Persian Gulf, according to a White House official.
Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, told a group of supporters on a private conference call Wednesday that the entire idea of deploying large numbers of troops in the region, which has been U.S. policy since the Gulf War in 1990, is now over.
"The tide of war is receding around the world," said Rhodes. "It's certainly going to be the lowest level, in terms of number of troops, that we've seen in 20 years. There are not really plans to have any substantial increases in any other parts of the Gulf as this war winds down."
Just after the administration announced it was not able to reach a deal with Iraq to extend the U.S. troop presence there in October, the New York Times reported the administration was planning to increase troop levels in nearby countries, such as Kuwait, to account for the risk of Iraq backsliding into violence. But Rhodes said Wednesday that's just not the case.
"I don't think we're looking to reallocate our military footprint in any significant way from Iraq. They won't be reallocated to other countries in the region in any substantial numbers," he said.
Rhodes explained that the scaling back of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf was part of the administration's strategy to "demilitarize" U.S. foreign policy and shift to an approach that favored counter-terrorism tactics. He also said the end of the war in Iraq -- and eventually the war in Afghanistan -- proved that large military deployments are not necessary to deny terrorists safe haven in foreign countries.
"The argument several years ago... was that you needed to have a very large U.S. military footprint so that you could fight the terrorists ‘over there,' so they wouldn't come here. But we've demonstrated the opposite, that you don't need to have a large U.S. military footprint in these countries, that you can shrink them and focus on al Qaeda in a far more specific way... and still very much accomplish your national security goals," said Rhodes.
"That allows us in many respects to demilitarize elements of our foreign policy and establish more normal relationships," he added. "That's our posture in the region and its far more in line with where we were before 1990."
Rhodes also framed the end of the Iraq war as a fulfillment of an Obama campaign promise.
"President Obama has kept a core promise of his to the American people. He opposed the war in Iraq as a candidate for Senate in 2002, before it started. He put forward a plan to end the war as a senator and promised to end the war as a candidate. And now we can definitively say he has kept that promise as president," said Rhodes. "America is safer and stronger because of the way we ended the war in Iraq."
One terrorist who will remain "over there" is Ali Musa Daqduq, who U.S. military officials claim is a Hezbollah commander. Daqduq has been imprisoned by U.S. forces in Iraq because he led a team that kidnapped and killed five U.S. soldiers in Iraq in January 2007.
The White House told the New York Times on Friday that the United States had transferred Daqduq to Iraqi custody. 21 senators had drafted a letter urging the administration not to hand him over out of concern that the Iraqi government might release him.
"Failure to transfer Daqduq to Guantanamo Bay or another American military-controlled detention facility outside the United States before December 31st will result in his transfer to Iraqi authorities, potential release to Iran and eventual return to the battlefield," the senators wrote in the letter, which was never sent because the administration handed over Daqduq first.
"Daqduq's Iranian paymasters would like nothing more than to see him transferred to Iraqi custody where they could effectively pressure for his escape or release. We truly hope you will not let that happen."
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told the New York Times on Friday, "We have sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes."
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
" But we've demonstrated the opposite, that you don't need to have a large U.S. military footprint in these countries, that you can shrink them and focus on al Qaeda in a far more specific way... and still very much accomplish your national security goals," said Rhodes. "
Exactly how have we demonstrated the opposite? We've had a large force, even made it larger, in these countries since Obama took office. This is complete propaganda NOSPEAK-empty, ridiculous statements that couldn't be further from the truth if they tried just STUFFED in our faces like we have to swallow it.
Sorry 'bama, masks are off, YOU ARE THE ENEMY.
The White House is out to whitewash the recent history, Oops, yet to be defined, relatively fluid, Oops, flummoxed, frustrated, tired, not trusted by friends in the Democratic Party and not believed by the Republican party.
Foreign Policy is not MRE, The Meal, Ready-to-Eat. — commonly known as the MRE — is a self-contained, individual field ration in lightweight packaging bought by the United States military for its service members for use in combat or other field conditions where organized food facilities are not available. The MRE replaced the canned MCI or Meal, Combat, Individual rations in 1981[1] and is the intended successor to the lighter LRP ration developed by the United States Army for Special Forces and Ranger patrol units in Vietnam.
It, not MRE, MCI or LRP or any other variations, past, present and future, Foreign Policy, is a very cumbersome, cautiously planned, conveniently prepared, tested, retested and sometime, tested in a controlled and limited functionality on subjects, not necessarily, volunteers in other cases where, experimental medicines, drugs, products and models are tested in the real world.
The (political) scientists (sic) rather announce the most (favorable) results, like our Doctor of (political) medicine Barack Obama, thru his propaganda machine, oops, underlings via media more friendly to their administration than to their evil cousins. No wonder, NYT was chosen.
NYT, like an obedient dog, propagates the message in print and electronic media, blogs and banter.
Nothing personal, NYT, I am not cancelling my home delivery and internet subscription over this character flaw. Ask Mr Rhodes to talk to my good buddy, James Taranto if he would be kind enough to listen to this officially unofficial drivel.
"RingaLingaDingaDingDingDinDinDin."
"His highness, the lord and master of the domain, the main man, James Taranto, speaking. How may I direct my vicious, vacuous, vile editorial?"
"Hello, I am Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications for the White House speaking. How are you, James?"
"Ben who?"
"Ben Voodoo medicine man."
"Wrong number. Try NYT. They need more Voodoo medicine that we do."
The End.
...and I am Sid Harth@arabuhuru.org
If we're returning to pre-Gulf War levels does that mean we're withdrawing soldiers from bases in Saudi Arabia?
The U.S. does not have combat forces in Saudi Arabia and has not had them there for some time. We are, essentially, at pre-1990 levels in Saudi Arabia and have been since shortly after OEF began. This is what the Saudi government wanted. We have small training missions there and occassionally rotate forces through for exercises.
The issue is the other Gulf Araba States as well as what we keep afloat in the Persian Gulf/North Arabian Sea. What happens in Qatar? Do we downsize the navy base in Bahrain? Does the U.S. attempt to keep an aircraft carrier battle group in that region on a 365 days a year basis or will it be less than that?
I was referring to the air expeditionary group near Riyadh. My point was that there is some use in keeping soldiers in nations and I also did have the fleet at Bahrain in mind.
That AEG left shortly after Baghad fell in OIF. That was part of the reason the Saudi government supported our overthrowing Saddam -- it would then lead to large U.S. forces leaving Saudi. We may still have some small numbers of HQ elements, but to the best of my knowledge and what one can find in open sources, the U.S. does not currently have military forces (other than trainers, embassy personnel, perhaps a small number of advisors) in Saudi Arabia. We support our operations in the Persian Gulf from the other GCC states. The AEW near Riyadh was moved to Qatar in April 2003 as was the U.S. air operations center for the region.
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE