Withdrawal from Iraq? The Escape Clauses Begin

NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki: "Military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years."

The Washington Post: "[Obama] promised to 'proceed carefully' and 'consult closely' with military commanders and the Iraqi government, and he said 'there will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments'. Does that mean Mr. Obama is open to altering his plan if al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias rebound as U.S. troop levels decline?"

Randy Schoenemann, founder of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Washington Post: "[Obama's] plan features a longer timetable, commander flexibility, tactical adjustments and the presence of some 50,000 American troops for years....We should all hope President Obama continues to listen to Gens. David Petraeus and Ray Odierno, rebuffs his left-wing critics and stays the course with an Iraq policy John McCain might have formulated."

Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute: "Will the residual force tasked with counterterrorism, training and force protection have accomplished its mission by the end of 2011?"

Christian Brose, "Shadow Government" blog of Foreign Policy: "I just hope that if, God forbid, things take a turn for the worse in Iraq, Obama will find the same courage his predecessor did two years ago, and that he won't let inconvenient truths become the enemy of good strategy."

Mr Obama's War: Gareth Porter on the Afghanistan "Mini-Surge"

Gareth Porter, who is emerging as the best observer of the US military manoeuvres on Iraq and Afghanistan, looks behind President Obama's eventual decision to approve only part of the 30,000 extra troops request by US commanders for the Afghan War (Porter says 17,000 sent; we put the figure at just over 20,000). While the President has apparently drawn the line with the military, Porter warns, "Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month." And he has an analogy which is just short of terrifying:

Both Obama's decision to agree to just over half of his field commander's request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.

 



'What is the End Game?': Why Obama Rejected a Bigger Surge in Afghanistan
Gareth Porter

President Barack Obama decided to approve only 17,000 of the 30,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander, after McKiernan was unable to tell him how they would be used, according to a White House source.

But Obama is likely to be pressured by McKiernan and the Joint Chiefs to approve the remaining 13,000 troops requested after the completion of an Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review next month.

Obama's decision to approve just over half the full troop request for Afghanistan recalls a similar decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson to approve only part of the request for U.S. troop deployments in a parallel situation in the Vietnam War in April 1965 at a comparable stage of that war. Johnson reluctantly went along with the request for additional troops within weeks under pressure from both the field commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The request for 30,000 additional troops, which would bring the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan to more than 60,000, had been approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before Obama's inauguration. A front-page story in the Washington Post Jan. 13 reported that Obama was ready to "sign off" on the deployment request.

On Jan. 30 Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said between 20,000 and 30,000 more troops would "probably" be sent to Afghanistan and the figure would "tend toward the higher number of those two."

But on Feb. 9, Mullen indicated that the Pentagon would soon announce that three brigades, or about 16,000 troops, would be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming months.

What had changed in the nine days between those two statements, according to a White House source, was that Obama had called McKiernan directly and asked how he planned to use the 30,000 troops, but got no coherent answer to the question.

It was after that conversation that Obama withdrew his support for the full request.

The unsatisfactory response from McKiernan had been preceded by another military non-answer to an Obama question. At his meeting with Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon Jan. 28, Obama asked the Joint Chiefs, "What is the end game?" in Afghanistan, and was told, "Frankly, we don't have one," according to a Feb. 4 report by NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.

Obama had also learned by early February that earlier assurances from Petraeus of an accord with Kyrygistan on use of the base at Manas had been premature, and that the U.S. ability to supply troops in Afghanistan would be dependent on political accommodations with Russia and Iran.

The rationale from the military leadership for doubling the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, even without a strategy or a concept of how the war could end, had been to "buy time" for an effort to build up Afghan security forces, as indicated by Mullen's Jan. 30 remarks.

The 17,000 troops, on the other hand, presented the upper limit of what Obama had pledged to add in Afghanistan during the campaign, according to Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, who was an adviser to Obama.

Korb told IPS that Obama's decision not to wait until the key strategic questions were clarified before sending any more troops was based on the belief that he had to signal both Afghans and Pakistanis that the United States was not getting out of Afghanistan, according to Korb. "There are a lot of people in both countries hedging their bets," said Korb.

McKiernan reminded reporters Wednesday that the 17,000 troops represent only about two-thirds of the number of troops he has requested. That complaint suggested that he had been given no assurance that the remainder of the troops would be approved after the policy review.

The Wall Street Journal quoted an administration official Wednesday as saying that the troop authorization addresses the "urgent near-term security needs on the ground," but "does not prejudge or limit the options of what the [Afghanistan] review may recommend when it's completed."

Obama may have become more wary of getting mired down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, despite his strong commitment to increasing troops to Afghanistan during the campaign.

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, on whom Obama has reportedly relied for advice on foreign policy, told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post Wednesday, "We have to decide more precisely what is the objective of our involvement. Because we are increasingly running the risk of getting bogged down both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan in pursuit of objectives which we are lacking the power to reach."

Brezinzski said the administration needed "very specific, narrow objectives".

Korb told IPS that the policy review will deal with political-diplomatic as well as military policy issues, including the option of seeking to incorporate at least elements of the insurgents into the government through negotiations. He recalled that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been advocating negotiations with the Taliban for two years.

Both Obama's decision to agree to just over half of his field commander's request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.

Johnson's decision, like Obama's, was made against a background of rapid deterioration in the security situation, worry that the war would soon be lost if more U.S. troops were not deployed, and an unresolved debate over how the troops would be employed in South Vietnam. Some of Johnson's advisers still favored a strategy of protecting the key population centers, whereas the field commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, was calling for a more aggressive strategy of seeking out enemy forces.

Another parallel between the two situations is high-level concern that too many U.S. troops would provoke anti-U.S. sentiment. That was the primary worry of some of Johnson's advisers about the effect of deploying three divisions in South Vietnam.

Similarly, Gates said Dec. 14 he would be "very concerned" about deploying more than the 30,000 troops requested by McKiernan, because, "At a certain point, we get such a big footprint, we begin to look like an occupier." Gates repeated that point in Congressional testimony Jan. 27, in which he again stressed the failure of the Soviet Union with 120,000 troops.

McKiernan, on the other hand, said Wednesday, "There's always an inclination to relate what we're doing with previous nations," he said, adding, "I think that's a very unhealthy comparison."

Johnson was worried about sliding into an open-ended commitment to a war that could not be won. But two months later he gave in, against his better judgment, to a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, for "urgent reinforcements". The escalation of the war continued for another two years.

Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month. And if the full 30,000 troop increase proves to be insufficient, he is likely to face further requests later on for "urgent reinforcements."

Guantanamo Update: Binyam Mohamed Home Next Week

Details emerged this afternoon that suggest Ethiopian-born UK resident Binyam Mohamed will be freed from Guantánamo Bay- where he has been held since 2004- next week. The Washington Post, citing an anonymous British source, believes that Mohamed may be released as early as Monday.

The UK government will not, however, be pressing for the release of the remaining UK resident held at Guantánamo, Shaker Aamer- the BBC has been told by the Foreign Office that the UK is "no longer in active discussions" with the US over Aamer's release.

See also:

• British Officials Devised Torture Policy For Detainees


• Binyam Mohamed Coming Home, No Need To Talk About Torture


• Binyam Mohamed And The Hiding Of Torture Evidence

UPDATED --- Not a Bombshell: The Report on Iran's Uranium and US (Non-)Reaction

See Also: Text of the International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Iran’s Nuclear Programme



Update (2:45 p.m.): The lead story on CNN International's website, "Experts: Iran ready to build nuclear weapon",  is not a "scary interpretation" of the IAEA report: it is an outright distortion. Rather than quote from the report or the officials who compiled it, they refer to the "Institute for Science and International Security", who have "interpreted" the report.

Thus we get the scary side that "Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon without any of the explanation, details, and caveats offered by United Nations officials. Or, for that matter, other "experts" who might have offered the appropriate context for the report.

Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation offers a useful corrective: "Don't Let the Iran Headlines Scare You".

On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest report on Iranian nuclear production. It was a classic half-full, half-empty analysis: those wanting to play up the Iranian threat could note that that Iran has produced more enriched uranium than previously estimated, declaring that Tehran now has enough material for "one bomb". Those preferring a more measured response could highlight the conclusion  that Iran's enrichment programme has slowed "considerably".

Some in the American and British "mainstream" media will go for the scarier interpretation --- in The New York Times, it's Iran understates enriched uranium level by one-third in Paragraph One, Enough for a Bomb in Paragraph Two. However, it is not only Agence France Presse that is pointing to the slower pace of enrichment. The Washington Post headlines, "Iran Easing Aspects Of Nuclear Program" and leads with, "The slower pace was interpreted by some U.N. officials as a conciliatory gesture in advance of any diplomatic overtures by the Obama administration."

Indeed, UN officials are also providing the general reassurance that "the discrepancy results from Iran’s estimates versus careful measurement", rather than any deception by Tehran, and that "the inconsistency [is] reasonable for a new enrichment plant". That could be important, countering the soundbites of "experts" like Gary Milhollin on the higher level of enriched uranium: "It's worse than we thought".

Of course, enrichment is not the key issue for an Iranian nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear energy, programme. That issue is whether Iran is "weaponising" with any programme to develop nuclear warheads, and there is no evidence that Iran has reversed its suspension of that effort in 2003. As a UN official told The New York Times, "The material would have to undergo further enrichment if it was to be used as fuel for a bomb and...atomic inspectors had found no signs that Iran was making such preparations."

Most importantly, it is not the media reaction --- or even that matters here but the response of the Obama Administration. In the NYT, "a senior administration official" took a We're Watching line:

There is a steady timeline of improvement, especially in terms of mastering the efficiency of the centrifuges. Everyone’s nervous and worried about the possibility of Iran pursuing a clandestine capability.

There is no Administration response in The Washington Post.

Of course, with the President and Secretary of State outside the US, the Administration could be in a holding pattern until next week. Yet it's still significant, I think, that Obama's officials were not primed to return to the Bush Administration's blueprint of Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions. In effect, they've allowed the UN to take the lead, damping down any media hyperbole.

And that means, I think, that engagement with Iran is still the priority for this Administration. No bombshells here, just the steadier if slower emphasis on diplomacy.

So keep an eye on whether the Obama Administration plays up the drama of the higher enriched-uranium figures and refers to more sanctions against Iran, or whether it  plays down any threat, thus protecting the priority of engagement.

Mr Obama's World: Latest Alerts in US Foreign Policy (16 February)

Latest Post: Pakistan - Can You Balance Sharia and Missiles?
Latest Post: The Difficulties for Washington’s Diplomatic Engagement with Tehran
Latest Post: The Shock of Hypocrisy: US Operating From Within Pakistan

Current  Obamameter Reading: Fair, Possible Rumbles from South Later



9p.m. Missed this from earlier today: Italy has said it will not take any released detainees from Guantanamo Bay, further denting the Obama strategy of having "third countries" take the "hard cases" from the facility.

Evening update (6 p.m. GMT): White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has said President Obama will make a decision on US troop levels in Afghanistan "within days", not weeks.

1 p.m. Hillary Clinton has started his Asian tour in Tokyo with warm words for the "vitally important" US-Japan alliance: "Its foundation has been and always will be a commitment to our shared security and prosperity, but we also know that we have to work together to address the global financial crisis, which is affecting all of us."

12:25 p.m. A second fatal roadside bomb in Iraq today has killed four Shi'a pilgrims on a bus in eastern Baghdad. The first bomb killed four in Sadr City.

11:15 a.m. The Kyrgyzstan Government has followed up its declaration that it will close the US airbase in the country by sending the necessary documents to Parliament.

8:40 a.m. A witness says 20 more bodies from this morning's US airstrike in northwestern Pakistan have been found, bringing the death toll to at least 30. CNN is reporting at least 15 confirmed deaths.

8:15 a.m. A roadside bomb has killed four passengers on a bus in the Baghdad district of Sadr City.

In a barely-noticed incident on Sunday, a US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq, the fifth American combat facility in the past week.

7:45 a.m. In another sign of the Obama Administration's move for co-operation with China, Chinese state media is reporting that high-level military talks will resume at the end of February. The two-day "informal" dialogue will be between a U.S. assistant secretary of defense and a deputy chief of the Chinese army.

6:50 a.m. Engaging Iran via Afghanistan. The New York Times usefully notes a Sunday statement on an Afghan TV station by US envoy Richard Holbrooke: “It is absolutely clear that Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan. They have a legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan’s neighbors.”

6:40 a.m. Updates on US airstrikes: At least 12 people killed in Pakistan's Kurram region; US and Afghan officials claim nine militants, including the prominent leader Mullah Dastagir, killed in a raid Sunday night.

Morning Update (6 a.m. GMT; 1 a.m. Washington): No major developments, but yesterday's announcement in Kabul of Afghanistan participation in local security discussions with the US and in the strategic review in Washington appears to be a masterful political move, at least for now.

For President Obama and his envoy Richard Holbrooke, the measures give them some freedom of manoeuvre against military pressure for an immediate surge in forces. For Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai (pictured), it relieves Washington's direct pressure upon him and gives him a domestic political boost, with US recognition of his assertion of Afghan sovereignty.

In Pakistan, the story of US missile strikes --- which we updated last night with the not-so-surprising revelation that the American drones were flying from US bases inside the country --- runs and runs. Two more missiles were fired at "militant targets" this morning. Up to 10 people are reported killed.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton enters the first day of substantive talks on her Asian tour, beginning in Japan.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has declared victory in a referendum which would enable to run for a third six-year term in 2013. With 94 percent of votes counted, the measure was favoured by more than 54 percent of voters. Chavez's victory will drive the "mainstream" US media such as The Washington Post crazy; the Obama Administration's reaction is likely to be more measured.