The Marines have a joke. Actually, they have a tremendous sense of humor
because this elite force can afford to joke about itself. In this case, I am
referring to the phrase, "Withdrawal is an advance to the rear." In extremely
rare cases, due to overwhelming enemy forces (Chosin Reservoir, Korea War)
Marines have been forced to withdraw, hence, the joke.
But it is only a joke. It appears, however, that our President is taking the notion seriously. President Barack Obama declared [recently]that the Iraq war was nearing an end "as promised and on schedule," touting what he called a success of his administration. The war in Iraq is over, so say many Americans. They cite no less than the President as a source who proudly proclaimed some sort of a political victory??? Many media sources clapped their hands in glee.
White House counter-terrorism chief, John Brennan, called the drawdown in U.S. troops a "truly remarkable achievement."
Unfortunately, these assertions are simply not true, and, in some respects, the withdrawal is farcical. Dale McFeatters of Scripps Howard writes, "The 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, had the distinction of having been the last U.S. combat brigade in Iraq when the last of its armored vehicles rolled across the Kuwaiti border in the predawn hours [recently]. To which the soldiers of the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, which arrived in Iraq last month for a one-year deployment, might fairly ask: "What are we? Chopped liver?' But on its arrival in Iraq, the "Combat' part was dropped from its name and it became the "Advise and Assist Team,' a distinction its commanding officer was careful to make in an interview with an Iraqi radio station."
The stay-behind units are to be out by the end of 2011, a departure perhaps to be as celebrated with symbolism and optimism as the safe and uneventful arrival of the 4th Stryker Brigade in Kuwait. But after seven years and five months, the Iraq war remains inconclusive and the nature of its outcome in doubt.
George Friedman of Stratfor provides us with a unique overall perspective on the war in Iraq from its beginning to today. From the onset of the American invasion of Iraq, the Sunnis had a problem. Friedman states, "Facing a hostile American army and an equally hostile Shiite community backed by Iran, the Sunnis faced disaster. Taking support from where they could get it -- from the foreign jihadists that were entering Iraq -- they launched an insurgency against both the Americans and the Shia. The Sunnis simply had nothing to lose. In their view, they faced permanent subjugation at best and annihilation at worst. The United States had the option of creating a Shiite-based government but realized that this government would ultimately be under Iranian control. The political miscalculation placed the United States simultaneously into a war with the Sunnis and a near-war situation with many of the Shia, while the Shia and Sunnis waged a civil war among themselves and the Sunnis occasionally fought the Kurds as well. From late 2003 until 2007, the United States was not so much in a state of war in Iraq as it was in a state of chaos."
Gareth Porter, IPS, reports, "When the Obama administration unveiled its plan last week for an improvised State Department-controlled army of contractors to replace all U.S. combat troops in Iraq by the end of 2011, critics associated with the U.S. command attacked the transition plan, insisting that the United States must continue to assume that U.S. combat forces should and can remain in Iraq indefinitely."
Porter further states, "All indications are that the administration expects to renegotiate the security agreement with the Iraqi government to allow a post-2011 combat presence of up to 10,000 troops, once a new government is formed in Baghdad. But Obama, fearing a backlash from anti-war voters in the Democratic Party, who have already become disenchanted with him over Afghanistan, is trying to play down that possibility. Instead, the White House is trying to reassure its anti-war base that the U.S. military role in Iraq is coming to an end."
An unnamed administration official who favors a longer-term presence in Iraq suggested to The New York Times last week that the administration's refusal to openly refer to plans for such a U.S. combat force in Iraq beyond 2011 hinges on its concern about the coming midterm congressional elections and wariness about the continuing Iraqi negotiations on a new government. Wonderful, now we are fighting a fruitless war on the basis of midterm elections. General Eisenhower has got to be rolling in his grave.
But wait; there is more for those who hunger for the incredulous. Porter goes on to report, "The plan involves replacing the official U.S. military presence in Iraq with a much smaller State Department-run force of private security contractors. Press reports have indicated that the force will number several thousand, and that it is seeking 29 helicopters; 60 personnel carriers that are resistant to improvised explosive devices; and a fleet of 1,320 armored vehicles [emphasis is mine]." "Several" is a nebulous term. Porter is an excellent reporter, but he must deal with the cards dealt by the administration. "Several" is 10,000; 50,000 are more than "several."
The contractor force would also operate radars so it can call in air strikes and fly reconnaissance drones, according to an August 21 report in The New York Times.
The overriding consideration is the calculus has not changed in Iraq, and the withdrawal of all "combat" troops does not change the calculus, either. It may, however, exacerbate the volatile issues within that forlorn country. Going back is not an option. It may happen anyway. And this time our troops may be facing the American Abrams MBT.
I have long opposed the war in Iraq, actually, even before it began. Now the American public, a President and a former President, politicians, and our military leaders are learning why.