I know President Obama has said throughout that he'd consult with his commanders and generals

[bigtree]

. . . on the timetable for the Iraqi pullout. But, I'm not certain that there isn't a group of military advisers and military leaders who would have counseled a quicker, more thorough withdrawal.

Problem is, the announced withdrawal is reportedly a 'compromise' between the president's position and that of the military leadership he's chosen; many of those in that leadership Bush holdovers who supported and defended the very policy of escalation and prolonging the occupation that Mr. Obama campaigned so vigorously against.

“The president has been struck by the fact that there has been a meeting of the minds in a lot of ways among his military advisers about what would be a safe and responsible way to redeploy our troops while protecting our interests in Iraq,” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/washington/25troops.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=print">said a senior administration official.

I know . . . the mantra from supporters of his announced intentions point out that he's been mostly consistent in what he campaigned on - including his call for a remaining 'residual force' to fight 'al-Qaeda' and 'protect interests'. The military describes it as protecting the 'gains' they've made in supporting the Maliki regime in power and authority.

The three month difference reported from the 16-month exit he promised is really insignificant, in the broader scheme of things. But, those who took notice of the increasingly strident rhetoric in the campaign against the occupation can't help object to the new administration's insistence on attaching legitimacy and prudence to our military's destabilizing presence in Iraq.

I seriously doubt that the 'training' of Iraqi forces will entail much more than our troops' joint presence on the Iraqi force's opportunistic raids against whatever part of the population they deem threatening. And the mission of 'fighting terrorists' in Iraq is merely the flailing of our military force against the ghosts of resistance to our occupation of the Iraqi's homeland.

The exit of 100,000 or so of our troops from Iraq will be a welcome development. That goes without saying. The relief for the families, however, will have to be tempered by the obligations which are made regarding the military mission in Afghanistan which could actually keep the level of those deployed abroad into combat where it is today for an extended period of time

Hopefully, the side of the Obama administration which had our troops out of Iraq in 16 months will assert themselves more forcefully against the entrenched military supporters of Bush's military legacy. I thought that's what the election was all about.

[Political Heretic]

1. 16... 19..... I'm too exhausted to quibble.

Both are too slow. But I'll take either.

[bigtree]

3. I don't believe you will be alone in that

. . . reminds me of the 'exhaustion' in the wake of the 9-11 attacks where Americans were so overwhelmed that wide berth and leeway was given to the military in prosecuting the retaliatory responses . . . or was that just trust?

[Political Heretic]

4. I think that's an unrealistic comparison to a three month difference in timetable.

[bigtree]

7. I guess you're discounting the consequences of a 50,000 strong 'residual force'

. . . not an insignificant force.

And, I'm still not convinced that the justifications he's using don't forecast an even longer commitment.

[Political Heretic]

8. That was suggested under either timetable

I'm not defending it, I'm saying its not particularly worse than anything Obama has ever suggested when it comes to Iraq, so we shouldn't act as though there's some big change now.

He's never been courageous when it comes to doing the right thing in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and by accepting the neo-conservative frame of the "war on terror" he becomes complicit in unjustified global violence

But, that's just par for the course among our nations political leaders. It's good to keep pointing it out I guess, but people should have known this from the beginning. I have some small hope that Obama will continue to make some positive reforms to domestic policy, but our broader generations long commitment to global empire isn't going away any time soon.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. It's a helluva lot better than McCain's 100 years. eom

[bigtree]

11. obviously true

. . . but I think we should measure his proposals by our own view of what should happen in Iraq, not against the opinion of an opportunistic republican supporter of the occupation.

[Mari333]

2. you got this right

those generals and officers are very much holdovers from bush..and it pays them well to wage perpetual war..thats how they get their perks and their stripes...
I think this nation has to ensuffer complete bankruptcy before it changes its woebegotten course as a military empire of chest thumping adolescent fools. hope it happens in my lifetime.

[Myrina]

6. ... just like Russia. Too bad we didn't learn from their experience.

Sigh. :(

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Read Octafish's post on this

The 7 days in May thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5125604

[bigtree]

10. I'll kick that