The Washington Post‘s Michael Abramowitz has a piece looking at what the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) approved by the Iraqi cabinet means for the Obama administration. Short answer: it goes a long way toward relieving the domestic political burdens of withdrawal.
Obama pledged during the campaign to withdraw the remaining U.S. combat troops in 16 months, at roughly the rate of one combat brigade a month. The plan tentatively approved in Baghdad yesterday would essentially give Obama until the end of 2011 to pull out all U.S. forces, while also putting the imprimatur of the Bush administration on the idea that there needs to be an ironclad deadline for troop removal.
As it happens, I was working on a piece about this that’s now been rendered obsolete. But that won’t stop me from purging my notebook! Many of the people I talked to reached pretty much the same conclusion as Abramowitz’s sources. For instance, here’s a Pentagon official who requested anonymity:
"Politically it is significant. The Iraqis are telling us to leave and the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, has basically agreed to go. Kind of hard for the far right to call what follows surrender or retreat."
That’s exactly right. Bush’s ability to be outmaneuvered on the basing pact has turned withdrawal into a consensus position. The good news — the really good news – is that we’ll probably be spared a Vietnam-like 30 years’ worth of recriminations over withdrawal. I suppose it’s premature to say that, but this isn’t Congress cutting off funding, this is the same administration that started the war capitulating to Iraqi opinion.
Hussein Ibish, executive director of the Foundation for Arab-American Leadership, adds:
"The SOFA gives both the new Obama Administration and the Maliki government in Iraq an outside date-certain for ending the US military presence in Iraq — as such its a major achievement for those who wish to see an end to the occupation and a blow to those who hoped for a long-term American presence in that country or major military bases in Iraq. There is nothing in the SOFA that precludes Obama, Maliki and others from moving more quickly and sticking to the 16-month period both had spoken about in recent months – this should be seen as an outside deadline, not a starting point."
In other words, the occupation could easily end in advance of Dec. 31, 2011, the date set in the accord. And why not? According to Maliki, who wanted a 2010 withdrawal, President Bush just wanted a 2011 withdrawal to help John McCain’s presidential campaign.
Crossposted to The Streak.



3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Oh, you are naive. Or maybe just too young. I predict a Bill Kristol ‘Stab in the back’ column before 1/1/09.
Care to share any idea about what’s going to happen in Iraq in the next couple of years? Stability? Shia grabfest? Fragmentization?
If Obama moves up the schedule two weeks, the ‘impeach the traitor’ movement in the GOP will go into overdrive. (Not that they need any excuse, you understand).
I think I agree with your basic premise that some of the Vietnam era divisions may be blunted.
But, the WH Press Sec’y is still this week calling the dates ‘aspirational’. Which proves to those previously unconvinced, that even clear words on paper don’t mean what they say when read by the GOP folks. (See Geneva Conventions).
Obama’s biggest problem will likely come from the Pentagon. Mullen is saying the dates in the agreement are way too early. Obama is likely to have to do a Truman/McArthur on some ranking Generals/Admirals, and that will reinvigorate the wingnut right even more.