Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, December 27, 2008

New year marks U.S. milestone in Iraq

December 27, 2008

Advertisement

— America’s relationship with Iraq will undergo a sea change next week.

On New Year’s Day, the status-of-forces agreement recently signed by Washington and Baghdad will take effect. From that day on, Iraq must sign off on all U.S. military operations. The accord also calls for all U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, and for all U.S. forces to leave the country “no later than Dec. 31, 2011.”

Already, one can see signs of change on the streets of Baghdad. U.S. convoys appear far less often, while the Iraqi police and army man innumerable checkpoints and wheel about in cruisers with sirens blaring. Meantime, joint U.S.-Iraqi committees are laboring to work out the details of the transition.

U.S. forces will continue, should Iraq ask, to do many jobs Iraqis can’t yet handle. In theory, Iraq could request that some U.S. troops stay longer than three years. However, “every plan that I am running has us leaving by 2011,” said Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of U.S. forces.

“I truly believe this agreement is historic,” Odierno said in an interview. “It is a huge step forward, showing we now recognize Iraq is a sovereign country.”

The Bush administration opposed a finite schedule for withdrawal as too risky until Iraqi pressure compelled it to accept one. Given recent improvements in training of Iraqi security forces, U.S. military officials now believe three years is a reasonable time frame.

“In the past, we did this too quickly, before the Iraqi army was ready,” Odierno said, referring to previous drawdown efforts that led to increased violence. The improved security situation in Iraq has mitigated the risk, he said, so “this might be the right time to have a time line. A three-year time line is fairly long.”

When U.S. troops pull back from the cities, Odierno said, “There could be an uptick of violence, but not a reversion to previous levels. We have to do this. It is time.” But he added: “We’ll still be in overwatch.” So what does overwatch mean?

“Combat forces will be out of the cities by 30 June, but that doesn’t say that trainers and mentors are out,” said Maj. Gen. Guy Swan III, director of operations for coalition forces in Iraq.

Small advisory teams will continue to be embedded with some Iraqi military and police units, inside the ministries of defense and interior, and within the air force, navy and special forces. Swan said U.S. units that now partner with Iraqis still may engage in joint combat missions, with Iraqis “in the lead.”

The difference, after Jan. 1, is “not that we can’t do, but we can’t do without their (Iraqis’) permission,” said Maj. Gen. David Perkins, spokesman for coalition forces. “In many cases, action on the ground will be done exactly the same as before.” But the overall goal is to transfer security responsibilities to Iraqi forces as soon as they can handle them.

Iraqi forces have improved substantially in recent months. The police still have far to go, but the national police force has made big strides. However, the Iraqis still have serious problems with logistics and strategic planning. And there are many technical areas, such as air-traffic control, where they will need extended U.S. help.

The question often heard from transition planners assessing Iraqi capacity is: How good is “good enough”? Political pressure within Iraq — and within the United States — may force a redefinition of good enough.

During the next six months, it will be imperative that Iraqis see clear signs they are taking back control of their country, meaning they need to see less of U.S. troops. In July, there will be a referendum on the agreement. “The SOFA (status-of-forces agreement) will be rejected if you don’t respect our sovereignty and implement a joint plan,” said Iraq’s national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie.

“This is our country now,” Rubaie added, speaking intensely. “I believe the time has come to wean ourselves off the American dependency syndrome.” He believes Washington should be concentrating more intently on a second agreement with Baghdad that calls for closer economic and cultural ties.

Yet the process of handing back security control to Iraqis is not simple. Take the issue of shifting control of the so-called Green Zone, the large swath of Baghdad where many Iraqi government buildings and foreign embassies sit. There is important symbolic value in moving the U.S. Embassy out of Saddam Hussein’s huge palace. But then comes the hard part.

The government wants to remove the large concrete barriers that snake through the zone, opening main roads to the public. But Iraqi police haven’t yet prepared plans to screen visitors or protect buildings from terrorist attacks. So the transition is likely to take months. (The huge new U.S. Embassy complex will be guarded by U.S. troops.)

Another potential flash point is the issue of Iraqi jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers who commit crimes when off duty. A joint committee is working on more clearly defining what that proviso means.

The list of potential glitches is long. The pullback will no doubt be tested by those who want it to fail. So the process of turnover is likely to be slow but steady. Military commanders will no doubt advise President-elect Barack Obama that his campaign pledge of withdrawal in 16 months would be too swift, even though some Iraqi officials think three years is more than is needed.

Whatever the time line, change is in the air in Baghdad. Next week will mark a milestone toward bringing most U.S. troops home.

— Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 11 months ago

http://www.juancole.com/1. Iraqis are safer because of Bush's War. In fact, conditions of insecurity have helped created both an internal and external refugee problem:' At least 4.2 million Iraqis were displaced. These included 2.2 million who were displaced within Iraq and some 2 million refugees, mostly in Syria (around 1.4 million) and Jordan (around half a million). In the last months of the year both these neighbouring states, struggling to meet the health, education and other needs of the Iraqi refugees already present, introduced visa requirements that impeded the entry of Iraqis seeking refuge. Within Iraq, most governorates barred entry to Iraqis fleeing sectarian violence elsewhere.'2. Large numbers of Iraqis in exile abroad have returned. In fact, no great number have returned, and more Iraqis may still be leaving to Syria than returning.3. Iraqis are materially better off because of Bush's war. In fact, A million Iraqis are "food insecure" and another 6 million need UN food rations to survive. Oxfam estimated in summer, 2007, that 28% of Iraqi children are malnourished.4. The Bush administration scored a major victory with its Status of Forces Agreement. In fact, The Iraqis forced on Bush an agreement that the US would withdraw combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, 2009,and would completely withdraw from the Country by the end of 2011. The Bush administration had wanted 58 long-term bases, and the authority to arrest Iraqis at will and to launch military operations unilaterally.5. Minorities in Iraq are safer since Bush's invasion. In fact, there have in 2008 been significant attacks on and displacement of Iraqi Christians from Mosul. In early January of 2008, guerrillas bombed churches in Mosul, wounding a number of persons. More recently, some 13,000 Christians have had to flee Mosul because of violence.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 11 months ago

  1. The sole explanation for the fall in the monthly death rate for Iraqi civilians was the troop excalation or surge of 30,000 extra US troops in 2007. In fact, troop levels had been that high before without major effect. The US military did good counter-insurgency in 2007. The major reason for the fall in the death toll, however, was that the Shiites won the war for Baghdad, ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Sunnis from the capital, and turning it into a city with a Shiite majority of 75 to 80 percent. (When Bush invaded, Baghdad was about 50/50 Sunni and Shiite). The high death tolls in 2006 and 2007 were a by-product of this massive ethnic cleansing campaign. Now, a Shiite militiaman in Baghdad would have to drive for a while to find a Sunni Arab to kill.7. John McCain alleged that if the US left Iraq, it would be promptly taken over by al-Qaeda. In fact, there are few followers of Usamah Bin Laden in Iraq. The fundamentalist extremists, if that is what McCain meant, are not supported by most Sunni Arabs. They are supported by no Shiites (60% of Iraq) or Kurds (20% of Iraq), and are hated by Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan, who would never allow such a takeover.8. The Iraq War made the world safer from terrorism. In fact, Iraq has become a major training ground for extremists and is implicated in the major bombings in Madrid, London, and Glasgow.9. Bush went to war in Iraq because he was given bad intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. In fact, the State Department's Intelligence & Research (I & R) division cast doubt on the alarmist WMD stories that Bush/Cheney put about. The CIA refused to sign off on the inclusion of the Niger uranium lie in the State of the Union address, which made Bush source it to the British MI6 instead. The Downing Street Memo revealed that Bush fixed the intelligence around the policy. Bush sought to get up a provocation such as a false flag attack on UN planes so as to blame it on Iraq. And UN weapons inspectors in Feb.-Mar. of 2003 examined 100 of 600 suspected weapons sites and found nothing; Bush's response was to pull them out and go to war.10. Douglas Feith and other Neoconservatives didn't really want a war with Iraq (!). Yeah, that was why they demanded war on Iraq with their 1996 white paper for Bibi Netanyahu and again in their 1998 Project for a New American Century letter to Clinton, where they explicitly called for military action. The Neoconservatives are notorious liars and by the time they get through with rewriting history, they will be a combination of Gandhi and Mother Teresa and the Iraq War will be Bill Clinton's fault. The only thing is, I think people are wise to them by now. Being a liar can actually get you somewhere. Being a notorious liar is a disadvantage if what you want to is get people to listen to you and act on your advice. I say, Never AGain.http://www.juancole.com/

Commenting has been disabled for this item.