On President Obama's Speech About Leaving Iraq

I wish we were leaving Iraq sooner:

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

Note that isn't the date the US will no longer have any troops in Iraq. That's when the mission for the remaining “35-50,000 U.S. Troops” will change:

After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country.

As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. Troops.

That's a lot of trainers, equippers, and advisers. It reminds me of the US “trainers” who “trained” the South Vietnamese army at the onset of the Vietnamese civil war and who weren't supposed to have any combat roles but did. But, perhaps, the analogy will turn out to be a false one. I hope so.

Limiting our help to "advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian" is a wise move. It makes the USA's continued help contingent on Iraq steering a pluralistic path.

The absolute end date for any military presence in Iraq will be later:

And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Just in time for the 2012 presidential election year. Note also that the August 31, 2010 date occurs before the congressional elections, just when they will start heating up.

While these are dates certain, and I applaud President Obama for giving us what George Bush never did, President Obama did inject a caveat:

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.

I suppose such warnings/escape clauses are obligatory for someone tasked as the Commander and Chief.

For those who would define his plans as “surrender,” Obama said not so. He gave his own version of “mission accomplished:

We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime - and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government - and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life - that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

Note what remains to be done is giving the Iraqi people the “prospect” of a “better life.” There are no guarantees because President Obama rightly realizes that only the Iraqi people can give themselves that kind of guarantee:

The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility. The long-term success of the Iraqi nation will depend upon decisions made by Iraq's leaders and the fortitude of the Iraqi people. Iraq is a sovereign country with legitimate institutions; America cannot - and should not - take their place.

Nevertheless, the US should not expect an Iraq to emerge that is all friendliness and bliss:

What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq's streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq's union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars.

His realism is refreshing, especially since it comes after an administration that actually fantasized the Iraqi people en mass would strew flowers at the feet of our soldiers.

President Obama offered the Iraqi people some words they should find reassuring:

So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America's intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country.

Of course, the Iraqi people might ask why they can't have their “sovereignty” respected and be left with their “resources” (oil) in their control sooner than the “end of 2011.” That is an excellent question.
_______________
Source