Sunday
Apr122009
UPDATE: General Odierno Backs Down on Obama's Iraq Plans?
Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 18:38
Related Post: Video and Transcript: General Odierno on CNN’s State of the Union
Related Post: Obama v. The Military (Part 441) - Odierno Launches an Offensive from Iraq
As we thought earlier today, the appearance of General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq, on CNN's flagship State of the Union programme was quite interesting. Indeed, it appears the General --- after his apparent challenge to the White House withdrawal plan earlier this week --- has beat a retreat.
John King's interview started with the same topic that opened Odierno's chat with The Times of London, "an uptick in violence in recent days" in Iraq. And the General initially maintained the flexibility of "stay or go" despite deadlines for withdrawal:
But then Odierno added an unexpected twist: "Ultimately, it will the decision of [Iraqi] Prime Minister Maliki."
Nouri al-Maliki never appeared in Odierno's interview with The Times. Not once. Indeed, the General showed no recognition of Iraqi politics even as he went through a checklist of the challenges that might keep US forces in the country.
Noticing the Iraqi Prime Minister, and his "ultimate decision" on US forces, was not the only shift in Odierno's position. Asked by King about his earlier statement that he would "like to see a force probably around 30,000 or so, 35,000" through 2014 or 2015, Odierno once more put the rationale for a continuing American presence:
Yet the General then gave way: "As they continue to improve in the operations they’ve been able to conduct, I believe that they will be able to do that by the end of 2011."
King pressed, "On a scale of 1 to 10, sir, how confident are you, 10 being fully confident, that you will meet that deadline, that all U.S. troops will be gone at the end of 2011?" And Odierno gave a near-definitive answer that he never offered The Times:
There are scenarios in which Odierno's shift is not a concession to his President. For example, The Times never put the blunt 1-to-10 question that King asked.
As I read and view this, however, I see this scenario. In the 72 hours between the publication of The Times interview and the CNN appearance, someone in Washington got a hold of Odierno and told him to cut out his "wiggle room". More than that, in fact. The general was instructed to recognise that the Iraqi Government, not Raymond Odierno, would make the call on whether US troops would leave by the deadines set out in the December 2008 Status of Forces Agreement.
If that is so, Barack Hussein Obama may have finally gotten the upper hand on one of his military adversaries. Which only leaves the matter of a General David Petraeus.
Related Post: Obama v. The Military (Part 441) - Odierno Launches an Offensive from Iraq
As we thought earlier today, the appearance of General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq, on CNN's flagship State of the Union programme was quite interesting. Indeed, it appears the General --- after his apparent challenge to the White House withdrawal plan earlier this week --- has beat a retreat.John King's interview started with the same topic that opened Odierno's chat with The Times of London, "an uptick in violence in recent days" in Iraq. And the General initially maintained the flexibility of "stay or go" despite deadlines for withdrawal:
We will continue to conduct assessments along with the government of Iraq as we move forwards the June 30th deadline. If we believe that we’ll need troops to maintain a presence in some of the cities, we’ll recommend that.
But then Odierno added an unexpected twist: "Ultimately, it will the decision of [Iraqi] Prime Minister Maliki."
Nouri al-Maliki never appeared in Odierno's interview with The Times. Not once. Indeed, the General showed no recognition of Iraqi politics even as he went through a checklist of the challenges that might keep US forces in the country.
Noticing the Iraqi Prime Minister, and his "ultimate decision" on US forces, was not the only shift in Odierno's position. Asked by King about his earlier statement that he would "like to see a force probably around 30,000 or so, 35,000" through 2014 or 2015, Odierno once more put the rationale for a continuing American presence:
It really has always been about Iraqi — Iraqis securing their own country. So the issue becomes, do we think they will be able to do that?
Yet the General then gave way: "As they continue to improve in the operations they’ve been able to conduct, I believe that they will be able to do that by the end of 2011."
King pressed, "On a scale of 1 to 10, sir, how confident are you, 10 being fully confident, that you will meet that deadline, that all U.S. troops will be gone at the end of 2011?" And Odierno gave a near-definitive answer that he never offered The Times:
As you ask me today, I believe it’s a 10 that we will be gone by 2011.
There are scenarios in which Odierno's shift is not a concession to his President. For example, The Times never put the blunt 1-to-10 question that King asked.
As I read and view this, however, I see this scenario. In the 72 hours between the publication of The Times interview and the CNN appearance, someone in Washington got a hold of Odierno and told him to cut out his "wiggle room". More than that, in fact. The general was instructed to recognise that the Iraqi Government, not Raymond Odierno, would make the call on whether US troops would leave by the deadines set out in the December 2008 Status of Forces Agreement.
If that is so, Barack Hussein Obama may have finally gotten the upper hand on one of his military adversaries. Which only leaves the matter of a General David Petraeus.
Reader Comments (2)
From the way he talked about moving things around, it sounds like he's got some sort of cap or quota on his troop levels, likely divided between between troops for Iraq and troops for AfPak. Is it possible that Odierno and Petraeus are actually bickering at each other for their troop levels? Each one trying to elevate their threat level in order to pressure the civilian leadership?
This logic would make sense if the troop numbers are so low, because you only fight over something that's in short supply. If there were tons of troops just waiting around, the rhetoric would be much more casual about, if the violence goes up, sure they'll send more.
This looks more like fighting over scraps. What do you think?
Josh,
I would go along with this possibility of a "fight" were it not for the past closeness of Petraeus and Odierno, both as field commanders and then as political allies in Washington and abroad.
However, Petraeus, who has been silent since his Congressional testimony, may have told Odierno that the push for Afghanistan troops could not hold up alongside maintenance of significant force levels in Iraq.
One to watch....
S.