the timetable: iraq war to end by august 2010

"By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," President Barack Obama promised today in a speech before a group of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune.

As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we've made and protect our troops. Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.

Some Perspective on the Surge

The administration is launching a full-scale PR campaign now to hail the latest statistics in Baghdad. Citing a 55 percent reduction in violence over 2006, when the sectarian violence began escalating out of control, the war proponents have quieted many critics by claiming the "surge" has been a success.

Successes in Iraq have been few and far between, and while conservatives claim critics simply can't stop looking at Iraq as a glass half empty, some parts of this story simply don't add up.

For the moment, put aside all the questions that have been raised about the accuracy of the military's reporting of casualties, and let's accept that violence is down. Various sources, including some administration critics, seem to agree that significant progress has been made since summer in reducing both levels of sectarian violence and attacks in U.S. forces.

When the surge was first being discussed, the military brass went on the record against the surge, in part because the strategy lacked a clear and achievable objective. But the surge is working, right? How could they have been so wrong?

Well, something seems to have quelled the insurgency, but it probably wasn't the increase in troops, which were widely considered too little too late. What apparently has been effective are the bribes that Patreus has sprinkled on Sunni militias.

A report by independent filmmaker Rick Rowley noted that tossing around large sums of cold, hard cash had an immediate impact on violence in the Anbar province.

The U.S. is funding Sunni militias. They already funded the Shia militias. They're now funding all sides of this sectarian war......

Anbar is their big success story. They don't think that anyone who comes up there is going to go to the refugee camps and see the other side of it, or going to speak enough Arabic, which David Enders and Hiba Dawood do, to figure out what's going on. I think they were desperate to get people up there. It was all good news to them. And it was truly amazing. We were able to walk in the street and take our flack jackets off in a neighborhood, which just six months ago had been one of the most dangerous places in the country, where tanks couldn't even go. And that image is the image they wanted to circulate. Of course that's only possible because the people who were shooting at them six months ago are now on the payroll.

Anbar Province then became the model for Baghdad. Having staked future funding of the war on showing some "progress," and knowing that the number of troops deployed during the surge were never going to be sufficient to have a meaningful impact on the outcome, our war strategists simply bought the enemy off.

Well, if that's what it takes.....

Now that we know the key to peace in Iraq is giving bribes directly to the insurgents and bypassing all the bureaucratic middlemen, can we bring the troops home? After all, how many soldiers does it take to drop off bags of money?

Of course, there is a question as to whether this peace can hold, especially with the administration admitting that political progress in Iraq remains as elusive as ever. It also raises the issue as to how the Shia will respond to being two-timed.

.....Shiite "special groups" were believed responsible for a series of rocket and mortar attacks against American bases in eastern Baghdad on Nov. 18.

In addition to those attacks, an estimated 10 rockets or mortars fired from Shiite areas slammed into the Green Zone last Thursday in the biggest attack on the U.S.-protected area in weeks. U.S. officials said the barrage wounded an undisclosed number of people but caused no deaths.

Baghdad was generally calm Saturday, with no major incidents reported by police. But the recent uptick in attacks raised questions whether anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, would call off the six-month truce he ordered last August.

U.S. officials have said the truce was generally holding and partly responsible for a 55 percent decline in attacks nationwide since June.

It may not be a long term solution, but so far it has been used effectively to quell critics of the war and the administration's incompetency. And every time the intensity of criticism against Bush's war eases, he buys a little more time in his goal toward long-term occupation.

When considering the U.S. shift in alliances from Shia to Sunni, keep in mind the goal of this war is to secure the oil rights. As the debate over the oil law drags on with no resolution in sight, the administration rhetoric against the Maliki government is picking up. Perhaps there is more than a little threat implied in the latest U.S. actions. A strong, united Iraqi government would almost certainly not support the oil law being pushed on them by U.S. corporate interests. But by backing Sunni militias, many experts think the U.S. may be weakening the long-term chances for Iraqi political stability. Maybe such an outcome isn't unintended. If the U.S. can't get Iraq's parliament to bend to its will and let Exxon Mobil and company plunder Iraq's oil fields, maybe a weaker government is seen as desirable. There are many levels of intrigue at play in Iraq, and the official scenario surely doesn't begin to explain it.

In the meantime, violence may keep falling, or go back up. The Iraqis may come together in a consensus government, or more likely splinter even further. Whatever happens, the events will be woven into the rationale for keeping troops stationed in Iraq indefinitely. And we will all continue to pay the price.

The Iraq War Bridge Fund to Nowhere

Yesterday, the Democrats in the House managed to pass an Iraq war funding bill with strings attached. The $50 billion emergency funding bill requires that the monies only be made available if the President establishes a clear timetable for bringing troops home from Iraq.

The Democratic-led House of Representatives defied a White House veto threat Wednesday and inserted timelines for an immediate troop withdrawal in a 50 billion dollar Iraq war funding bill.

The House voted 218 to 203 to pass the emergency war budget, calling for a pullback of most combat troops to start within 30 days, with a goal of completion by December 15, 2008.

President George W. Bush, who has thwarted every previous Democratic attempt to change his war policy, has repeatedly warned he will never accept mandated troop withdrawal timelines.

The Senate is expected to vote on the bill as early as tomorrow. It is doubtful that enough Republicans will side with the Democrats to provide the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and force the bill to a vote.

On Wednesday's session of the Newshour, Representatives John Larson (D-Conn) and Dallasite Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who looks more like Alfalfa from Our Gang every day, debated the bill and the criteria for redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Here are some excerpts:

REP. JOHN LARSON: ....It's unconscionable for us to continue this war in Iraq, a war of choice, where this administration continues only to want to run out the clock on its term in office, in a very self-serving way that I think does not serve the American citizens or our troops extraordinarily well.....

REP. JOHN HENSARLING: .....I agree with John. I want to bring the troops home, too. But I don't want to bring them home until they're able to achieve their mission and we give them an opportunity. [Which mission was that again? Eliminating WMD's, uh..establishing freedom, er... making progress....?]

I mean, your reporter had it right. The Democrats are yet again trying to attach strings to our warfighters....... [Warfighters. Don't you love the way Hensarling throws around the military jargon? Keep in mind, neither representative served in the military, but Hensarling was an Eagle Scout.]

And, listen, the Democrats have pointed out all the bad news that has happened in Iraq in the past. They ought to at least admit the good news. Violence is down precipitously. Deaths are down precipitously. People who used to fight the U.S. Army are now in concert with the U.S. Army against al-Qaida.

I mean, we have to remember the threat that we're up against. This is the greatest national security challenge of our time: radical Islam. I mean, these leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq have previously said that they want to kill four million of our citizens, two million of them children.

Now, listen, two of those children are mine. I'm a father of a 5-year-old and a 4-year-old. I take this very, very seriously. [Sure, now kids are important. Too bad you didn't feel that way when you voted against the SCHIP bill.]

There's more, including Hensarling trying to accuse the Democrats of fiscal irresponsibility. Sorry, but Bush has taken that issue off the table with his "taxcut and spend" policies of the last six years. Even the Cato Institute has thrown in the towel.

Larson does a good job of pointing out the obvious - that the Democrats have made considerable progress at cleaning up the fiscal mess made by Republicans, through pay-go and reforms on earmarks, among other things. Go read the rest here.

The True Definition of Victory in Iraq

George Lakoff has posted a must-read article on the implications of Alan Greenspan's admission that the war in Iraq wasn't started because of any imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. Greenspan's quote has gotten some press, but not as much as it deserves.

The former head of the Federal Reserve writes in his memoir, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Greenspan even advised Bush that "taking Saddam Hussein out was essential" to protect oil supplies.

Okay, we knew that, but having it spelled out in black and white is still rather chilling. One reason why Greenspan's comments haven't been a bigger story is because the press is also downplaying a story that would tie it all together: The Iraq Oil Law.

The contracts the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements" (or "PSA's") - a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. Exxon Mobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75 percent of the "cost oil" profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20 percent of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement.

Yes, this is ultimate goal in Iraq - not the defeat of terrorism, not the spread of democracy, not the neutralization of weapons of mass destruction. Those were just the shifting sands of rationale to cover our real purpose for the invasion - the control of Iraq's oil reserves.

You won't read much about the oil law in U.S. press. The above quote was from a Pakistani newspaper. The MSM here is too busy chasing it's tail over the surge/son of surge/drawdown of surge and the 24-hour hype over the MoveOn ad to actually fuss with something as arcane as a piece of Iraqi legislation. But read the law, read an analysis by someone other than an oil industry representative, and tell me that it doesn't tie everything up neat as a Christmas package. As Lakoff notes:

What is most frightening is they may mean what they say, that they may have a concept of "victory" that makes sense to them but not to the rest of the country. If the goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to guarantee access to Iraqi oil for the next 30 years, then any result guaranteeing oil profits for American oil companies would count as "victory." Suppose the present killing and chaos were to continue, forcing us to keep our troops there indefinitely, but allowing the oil companies to prosper under our protection. That would be a "victory." Or, if the Iraqi army and police force were to develop in a few years and keep order there protecting American investments and workers, that too would be "victory." If the country broke up into three distinct states or autonomous governments, that too would be "victory" as long as oil profits were guaranteed and Americans in the oil industry protected. And it doesn't matter if a Republican president keeps the troops there or a Democratic president does. It is still an oil company "victory" - and a victory for Bush.

Bingo.

The first company to bear the fruits of this sweet victory is actually based here in Dallas: Hunt Oil. In a press release earlier this month, the company announced what has proven to be a very controversial agreement with Kurdistan to develop fields in Northern Iraq.

As Paul Krugman observed in The New York Times on September 14, "the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body." Hunt Oil seems to have had the first taste of "victory."

Apparently, we're fighting them over there so we can import their oil over here.

Vote in Democracy for Texas Senate Poll

Democracy for Texas is conducting a poll to determine who will receive DFT's endorsement for the Texas Senate primary: Mikal Watts or Rick Noreiga. To help voters decide, they have posted an extensive candidate questionnaire covering major issues.

To vote, click here.

And, as if you needed any reminder why replacing John Cornyn in the U.S. Senate is an imperative in next year's election, just review Cornyn's plan for supporting the troops. In a Terry Schiavo moment, he sponsored an amendment to condemn Move-On for its Petraeus ad, just after filibustering an amendment by Senator Webb to give the troops more time between Iraq rotations. Good to know the junior senator has his priorities straight.

It's so touching that Cornyn feels the need to protect Petraeus. Someone should explain to the senator that the term "character assassination" is rhetorical. The real dying is going on in the sands of Iraq by an army close to the breaking point, and the Republican rubber stamps don't care.

The One Headline that Might Actually End the War

For well over a year now, retired military brass, (the only ones who could afford to speak out,) have been saying that the rotations necessary to fight the war in Iraq were unsustainable. It is now conventional wisdom among veterans and politicians alike that our military is broken.

But not to worry.....Bush's "war czar" has a solution.

Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, says he is concerned about the toll the war in Iraq and extended deployments are taking on U.S.
forces.

The man who is widely known as the "war czar" also says that from a military standpoint, a return to a draft should be part of the discussion.

And as scary as that quote is, it's way past due.

There is a price to be paid for endless war. So if this is to be our destiny, then it's only fitting that we share this burden a little more equally.

Let those craven Republicans who have bowed to administration pressure and repeatedly blocked any meaningful legislation on withdrawal, defend the draft in their town meetings this summer.

Let all those clueless twenty-somethings who think we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here set aside their tanning lotion long enough to consider whether that argument still holds up if that "we" is no longer a proxy.

Cornyn Sees Progress in Iraq

As the President prepares to veto the House bill requiring redeployment of troops from Iraq by April of next year, Senator Cornyn and the Republican rubberstamps in the Senate continue to successfully filibuster meaningful legislation on the war in Iraq.

Earlier this week, Cornyn failed to support our troops by voting against the Webb amendment, which would have provided more rest between deployments for our over-extended military.

Disregarding the latest glum report citing the failure of the Iraqi government to achieve benchmarks established by the administration at the outset of the surge, Bush and Cornyn both agree on one thing - we may not be winning yet, but we're making progress.

"It boils down to how do we win and what constitutes a win," Mr. Cornyn said. "What we hope for and what's important to our national security is that we can stabilize it. ... We don't want to leave any safe havens for groups like al-Qaeda. That ought to be our goal, and I think we're making some progress."

Yeah, it's deja vu all over again. In February of 2006, the Senate armed Services Committee held hearings on the progress in Iraq. From a previous post, here is the exchange between Senator Kennedy and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Kennedy: [Quoting the President] I'm confident of our plan for victory...and we are winning. Those are the words of the President.....Did you tell the President we were winning [the war in Iraq]?....

Negroponte: I personally? Recalling conversations I've had with the President and other members of the administration, my view has always been that we are moving in the right direction, that we're making progress.

I analyze it usually in terms of the political process there, the progress towards achieving their political timetable on the one hand and progress towards developing their army and their police forces, effective military and police forces. And I believe that progress has been made in both those areas. And I believe that yes, things are moving in a positive direction in Iraq - overall.

The year 2007 rang in with the loss of our 3000th solider. Seven months into the surge, that toll stands at over 3600. The April-June period was the deadliest three months for U.S. troops since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Since Negroponte spoke those words a year and a half ago, the toll of Texans on that hallowed list has gone from just over 200 to over 300.

Cornyn has been wrong on the war for five years now. Maybe it's time for Senator Box Turtle to come out of his shell and face facts - Iraq is embroiled in a civil war and the horrifying levels of sectarian violence, the escalating military casualties, the lack of a unity government, our deteriorating military readiness, the daily attacks on the once impenetrable green zone, the lack of essential services, the porous borders, etc., do not constitute progress.

See previous post All's Well That Ends.

bush vetoes war spending bill over timetable

During the attack ads next year running up to the election, the conservatives will no longer be able to use their favorite line: "The Democrats don't have a plan."

Why not? Because the Democrats do have a plan. And they put it before Congress in the form of the 2007 U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. This legislation, having passed both the House (218-208) and Senate (51-46), approved $124 billion in funding for the Iraq war, but also gave a timetable for withdrawal.

Today, President Bush vetoed the bill.

So the Democrats put forth a comprehensive plan on how to clean up the president's mess, but he rejected it. What more can the Democrats do at this point? Yes, the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, but the majority isn't large enough to override the president's veto unless the bill garners more bipartisan support. An attempt to override has been scheduled for tomorrow in the House of Representatives.

If the president will remain immovably stubborn on this costly issue, there is nothing else that the Democrats can do besides utilize the power of the purse. It will take time to work out the best approach: should the Democrats immediately cut funding, refusing to reintroduce legislation that would re-authorize the president the use of that same $124 billion that he vetoed today? Or will they take a more subtle route? Or, will they force the Republicans to face the consequences of their mistakes as a Democratic president is ushered into office in 2008?

Whatever happens in the coming months, keep in mind that President Bush started this unpopular war in Iraq, and today in the Oval Office he used a red stamp that spits in the face of the majority of Americans. At the same time, he assured us that our troops will face the continued chaos and danger of the battlefield indefinitely. No wonder his approval rating is only 28%.

the tax man cometh

In case you haven't already taken care of it, your taxes are due on Tuesday, April 17.

And if you haven't taken care of it already, maybe you can take AlterNet's advice and get a tax refund that does the world some good.

Also, be aware of where your taxes are going. Next time a Republican complains about tax-and-spend Democrats and how taxes will be higher with Nancy Pelosi running the show, remind them that the Democrats didn't think up this war... just the way out of it.

You might also want to tell them that they shouldn't be groaning about financing a war that they supported from the start, while re-electing a president that continually cut taxes for the wealthy during wartime. Perhaps, if they aren't going to end this quagmire they've created, the Republicans should pay even higher taxes to support it. Wouldn't that be ironic?

Cornyn Drops in on War Protesters

Via the News Connection and Gonzo Muckraker, we have details on an interesting encounter between local peace activists and Senator John Cornyn. The Senator was in Denton recently as the guest of Republican party officials, including Denton County Republican Party Chair Dianne Edmondson and Congressman Michael Burgess.

His presence was acknowledged by two area activists,

Leslie Harris of Flower Mound and Reverend Diane Baker of Denton – both claimed to be volunteers with The Dallas Peace Center, the oldest peace and justice 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in Texas.

The Senator came out to greet Ms. Harris and Ms. Baker and had a brief exchange. Webster concludes that the Senator is a "straight-up diplomat."

It's too bad such personal diplomacy doesn't translate to better insight on our foreign policy. The Senator's support for George Bush's deeply flawed Iraq war policies remains unwavering.

"Our soldiers aren't defending our right to freedom of speech in Iraq," said Leslie Harris, a Flower Mound resident (wearing the large, straw hat). "Senator Cornyn likes to say they are, but it isn't true. They're fighting for reasons we have never actually been told. We are defending freedom of speech, which has been under assault since Bush took office."

We applaud the opportunity for civil discourse on this volatile issue.