Obama, Clinton Plan for Residual Forces
NEWS UPDATE as of 4/8:
After a Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington“Obama said a diplomatic initiative is needed to resolve the issues of Iran’s role in Iraq. He asked whether the status quo in Iraq would be sustainable with just 30,000 American troops.” — Bloomberg
One of the primary issues for the upcoming election will be the strategy for Iraq. McCain and the GOP have already started lambasting and pass condemning judgment on the two Democratic potentials as irresponsible leaders, because they advocate a withdrawal from Iraq. In a recent speech, McCain reprimands the Democratic candidates’ calls for withdrawal as “reckless and irresponsible . . . just at the moment when [the troops] are succeeding.” From a GOP perspective, a withdrawal will lead to certain calamity for the Iraqi people and a complete destabilization of the Middle East — as if that hasn’t already happened.
Although it is true that both Obama and Clinton have talked about troop withdrawal from Iraq, the one thing that McCain cannot acknowledge without weakening his argument is that neither Obama nor Clinton advocates complete withdrawal from Iraq. The proposed plans by both candidates don’t come anywhere close, actually. Obama and Clinton have both advocated, for some years now, leaving potentially tens of thousands of American troops for the purposes of training Iraqi security forces, eradicate any lingering terrorist cells, provide logistical support to Iraqi security forces, and provide any needed border security.
According to the Center for American Progress and the Center for a New American Security, the estimated number of troops needed for residual operations is somewhere between 40,000 to 60,000. Although neither candidate has formerly endorsed either study, there is strong reason to believe that both candidates endorse the whole or parts of the report.
The official line from Obama’s website reads as follows:
[Obama] will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
The exact wording from Obama official website is somewhat ambiguous, since he doesn’t cite a specific number of troops needed — obviously a political strategy, since Obama’s emphasis has been extrication from Iraq. However, what he doesn’t say — which is key — is complete withdrawal. The prospect for residual forces is evident.
Chris Bowers, a writer for Open Left, did an excellent job at compiling months of research, strategizing and placing questions to campaigns, after which he concluded that both Obama and Clinton support residual force plans that leave somewhere between 40,000 - 60,000 troops in Iraq.
As of April 4, Bowers wrote:
A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
This isn’t something that the Clinton campaign should crow about, because the 60,000-troop plan is also exactly the same as their residual force plan. If anything, unless their proposals have changed, the Clinton campaign’s plan is worse, since their residual force missions are listed as definite rather than as possible, and also listed as happening in Iraq, instead of some possibly happening in a neighboring country.
Regardless of the general GOP assumption that the Democratic nominees favor complete withdrawal from Iraq, proposals for residual forces have been public for some time. Perhaps the reason it isn’t well-known is the fact that neither Obama nor Clinton want to focus on residual forces in Iraq, because that means Americans are still in Iraq. Instead the focus has been on altering the discourse of American foreign policy and shifting away from Bush’s’ strategy of escalation.
As McCain and the GOP rally behind the war message and slander the Democrats for calling for troop withdrawal as “reckless and irresponsible,” the subtler truth is that neither Obama nor Clinton will probably propose a complete withdrawal from Iraq, if elected. Both candidates know that the issue is far too complex and the stakes too high; simply withdrawing all American military and foreign personnel is neither tactically nor politically advisable.
I suspect the Democratic nominee stays rather ambiguous and irresolute, since the de facto position of the Democratic Party is to oppose occupation, seemingly of any type. However, this isn’t the true reality of the situation, and I hope that perhaps one of the two, whomever is nominated, will give America a clear plan for a new direction in Iraq. It will indeed be interesting to see how this issue plays out come election time.
I have a hard time believing that McCain’s message will resonate with the American people. He is taking a huge gamble by sticking to his guns with Iraq as the popularity of that war sinks ever lower. He should have jumped that ship a long time ago. He still would have gotten the hawk vote (they would never vote for Obama or Clinton), but he could have been more competitive with normal people and independents who don’t want to stay in Iraq with our full combat forces in perpetuity.
David M. Manes
8 Apr 08 at 8:25 am
Perhaps. The bottom line is that this extrication en masse that everyone is bent on is probably not on the agenda, and for good reasons.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 8:38 am
Do you think it will come out during the general election that Obama plans to keep a residual force in Iraq? It could be an effective answer to the “wimping out and running away” accusation from McCain; however, it could also tick off the base that wants complete withdrawl and thinks that they are going to get it with Obama.
But then again, he may not have control over keeping this plan a secret. It could become too juicy to hide all through the election cycle.
David M. Manes
8 Apr 08 at 9:52 am
I think David is right that the commitment to significant residual forces will be a fairly strong counter-argument to the silly “surrender” meme McCain will try and push. Depending on the state of affairs in Iraq and the way the press covers said state (does it drive anyone else nuts that jubilant claims of stability and progress in Iraq are often bookended with breaking news reports of car bombings, pitched battles, and troop fatalities without the slightest hint of irony?), it may even make McCain look rather foolish. The far left fringe may be pissed enough to not vote for the Democratic nominee, but I even doubt that.
jkkuwitzky
8 Apr 08 at 10:21 am
I agree, too, that the commitment to significant residual forces will be a fairly strong counter-argument to the “surrender meme.” However, will Obama be willing to commit publicly to a residual force agenda? I suppose he does depend on the state of the Iraqi nation — some hope there — and as kobly put it, the press coverage of said state.
Personally, I favor such a move, because it would serve to severly undermine a crucial aspect of McCain’s attacks against the DNC. On the contrary, it could, withan equal amount of political force, disenchant democratic followers.
The two competing strategies seems to be continued occupation at the current rate (and prospects for continued escalation, although most speculate that Petraeus will call for a troop surge freeze — how long will that last, though?) or a plan for immediate deescalation followed by a plan for residual, “non-combat oriented,” forces.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 11:01 am
I think there is very little question that either potential Democratic candidate would not only publicly support residual forces but go further and make it a central aspect of their foreign policy portfolio.
jkkuwitzky
8 Apr 08 at 11:38 am
They just can’t do that until the primary is over, because they can’t afford to displease the base at this crucial point.
David M. Manes
8 Apr 08 at 11:41 am
Will either candidate disclose how many troops will compose the residual forces? Or will they remain ambiguous in commitment, saying something to the effect of, “I will make it a top priority once I am in the White House to determine the best way possible to implement a residual force plan, including the number of forces needed.”? The latter may be the best political strategy, but numbers may be something called for.
I say this because I think the number aspect is a key psychological, and subsequently a political, factor. If the candidates remain vague, the voting population will not be as likely to scrutinize the candidiate’s plan, if they consider it at all. On the other hand, if the candidates do release even a tentative number, say 40,000 - 50,000, the inevitable psychological impact will elicit political ramifications, none of which will probably be good.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 12:35 pm
“Regardless of the general GOP assumption that the Democratic nominees favor complete withdrawal from Iraq, proposals for residual forces have been public for some time.”
(Look up Emile D’Antionio’s work: Point of Order and tell me what you think))
That’s what many of us antiwar folks have been trying to tell the Obama people.
He’s not antiwar!! He has just been critical of management!
That’s why he voted to fund the war most every time.
What excuse would Obama have given to overthrow Saddam and nationbuild?
Maybe he would’ve just said it outright. We are going to invade and rebuild.
Would that have worked?
Iraq After the Surge: Options and Questions
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2008/0406_iraq_surge.html
Nation building is guesswork. Good luck.
What a mess we are in. The US Government should just come home.
Maybe its time for Private forces to take on crusades and keep the Property of the US government within its own borders.
Jesse
8 Apr 08 at 12:54 pm
“What excuse would Obama have given to overthrow Saddam and nationbuild?”
Obama opposed the war from the beginning — that much is true. Since then, he has opposed escalation, and favored a different strategy, one that allows for the opportunity of extrication. He’s anti-Bush strategy. To say that Obama would have invaded just the same, but with a different strategy is incorrect. Obama, it’s fair to say, wouldn’t have invaded Iraq at all.
Besides, there’s no such thing as being anti-war anymore, and if there is, it’s a post-facto label. Obama is anti-war in the sense that he opposed the war from the beginning, but now that its all about nation building and occupation, an anti-war label is antiquated.
Obama realizes that America, from a realist, geopolitical perspective, must find a different strategy for Iraq — which isn’t complete and immediate withdrawal of American forces. America has indeed incurred a grave responsibility in the Middle East. America’s next quest will be to restore some semblance of a balance of power, which doesn’t involve complete removal of all American forces.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 2:44 pm
Would it be better to have a residual force (presumably based in Bagdhad) still actively involved in developing Iraq or an over-the-horizon force based in neighboring countries. Either one would help guard against terrorist development or a complete humanitarian crisis.
I am leaning more towards a small residual force right now, but I also see the merits of having a small over-the-horizon force based outside the country. I think that would help Iraq begin to function on its own more without US help and US dominance.
David M. Manes
8 Apr 08 at 3:03 pm
From what I’ve heard and read regarding a potential residual force, it would likely be based in a relatively remote area so as to prevent it from being easily shelled with mortar fire from urban areas. al Anbar province and Kurdistan have been suggested as possible sites.
jkkuwitzky
8 Apr 08 at 3:11 pm
I think a reduction in the violence and some semblance of stability is a pipe dream as long as there is an American or Western presence in Iraq.
gino
8 Apr 08 at 3:35 pm
That assumes that the cause of all violence is the American presence in Iraq, which is indeed true to a certain extent. However, much of the fighting is between splinter groups and Shi’ites and Sunnis — most of which centers around political and social control.
Take for example, the recent fighting between Iraqi Security Forces and the Mahdi militia. This is a fight about political control and legitimacy and about social support. The U.S. just so happens to be caught up in the middle of a power struggle, attempting to mitigate the effects.
You could make the case that the destabilization of the region was caused by the U.S. invasion. One could plausibly link to the ensuing violence to the invasion, thereby shifting all blame to the United States.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 4:12 pm
“To say that Obama would have invaded just the same, but with a different strategy is incorrect. Obama, it’s fair to say, wouldn’t have invaded Iraq at all.”
I k now I never said that. But I am hinting that he will use the American forces elsewhere.
And it’s too bad for the American people and the rest of the world that the anitwar tradition is being supressed, marginalized, and pushed out of debate. It does not serve anyone well to set this particular traditional opposition aside.
“The U.S. just so happens to be caught up in the middle of a power struggle, attempting to mitigate the effects.”
This will never be the case so long as the issue is political. War in its purest form is one thing. A war that is driven by politics is quite another. There are always other interests. Regarding Iraq as a single issue is just not plausible. It affects the whole region. War with Iran. Lebanon is being targeted, etc.
What is stability? According to who and whose interest?
Certainly not the American people’s.
Many Iraqis think aggression towards US forces are justified
It is high time we come home. Let them sort it out.
When America has internal conflict…are we ready to accept UN troops to police our streets? Canadian, Mexican, etc?
Jesse
8 Apr 08 at 4:26 pm
“You could make the case that the destabilization of the region was caused by the U.S. invasion. One could plausibly link to the ensuing violence to the invasion, thereby shifting all blame to the United States.”
That would be the case/point that I would make. Instead of blaming the US as a whole, I would be more willing to blame a certain chimp and his cronies, but I know that’s not the discussion here.
Here are that have been laid out:
A) Completely withdraw ASAP and let the power vacuum in Iraq play itself out.
B) Withdraw, but leave a limited US presence. I think this would burden those troops with an even greater threat of retaliation and violence.
C) Continue the surge (it is working after all) and/or keep the current troop level presence in Iraq. Nothing changes. Insanity continues.
Seriously, there’s no endgame to this mess is there?
gino
8 Apr 08 at 4:39 pm
Here are THE OPTIONS that have been laid out:……duh…..!!
gino
8 Apr 08 at 4:41 pm
It isn’t really a war anymore; it’s about political power and stability. There is indeed fighting, but not in the conventional sense. What we’re seeing is insurgency, counterinsurgency, and terrorism — if you want to call this war, fine, I won’t quibble any longer over semantics.
However, to assert that war driven by politics is somehow different from war in general is an improper evaluation of war and conflict, because “war is the continuation of diplomacy (politics) by other means,” says Von Clausewitz. The entirety of this war/occupation is about instituting a viable state of Iraq. Obviously, this is a political faux pas, but it is a political struggle and will always be a political struggle. You can’t separate politics from war, they are inextricable linked together, for good.
“Many Iraqis think aggression towards US forces are justified
It is high time we come home. Let them sort it out.”
Yes, I would probably feel the same way if I were an Iraqi. But just up and leaving will, more than likely, lead to a worse situation than what we have now. What the U.S. needs to do is allow the Iraqi’s to choose for themselves who rules them. This may mean a multi-state solution — perhaps that’s the only thing it can mean — since the current strategy of a united Iraq is anything but a viable solution.
In the interest of the stability of the region, the security of America and the rest of the nations in the Middle East, and in the name of self-determination it’s time we move towards a less-involved position. I think this is the most politically wise option. At this point, I think the most important question is do we implement a “residual force,” or an “over-the-horizon” force, stationed somewhere in the region.
I just can’t see it as politically feasible or tactically wise to completely withdrawal from Iraq and the Middle East ASAP and let he power vacuum in Iraq play itself out. I don’t think it should be done, nor do I think any politician would advocate such a plan.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 5:09 pm
“Many Iraqis think aggression towards US forces are justified.”
Yes, they do. I think this is probably the study you are citing: this BBC /ABC/NHK poll shows that 60% of Iraqis believe that attacks on coalition forces are justified. Among Sunnis, 93%, agree, and among Shias, 50% agree.
The rest of the data in this survey is pretty depressing, too. It shows how much animosity the Iraqis have for us and everything we are doing there, especially the “surge.”
David M. Manes
8 Apr 08 at 6:00 pm
It might not hurt to point out here that Iraq is a sovereign nation, populated with many adults who are capable of making decisions. If a strong, stable majority want us to leave, then it’s leaving time. Whatever we feel about our “moral obligations” is irrelevant. When the host says, “Go,” your only moral obligation is to go.
Of course, this war was not started for moral reasons, and it does not continue for moral reasons. So this is all a debater’s diversion. Not that those aren’t occasionally fun.
JH
8 Apr 08 at 6:14 pm
General Patreus and Ambassador Crocker testified in the Senate today. Obama hinted at the exact topic that this post was about:
“Obama said a diplomatic initiative is needed to resolve the issues of Iran’s role in Iraq. He asked whether the status quo in Iraq would be sustainable with just 30,000 American troops.” -Bloomberg.com
Kudos to you, Steve, for pointing this out. We will see where this goes from here.
David M. Manes
8 Apr 08 at 6:23 pm
“But just up and leaving will, more than likely, lead to a worse situation than what we have now.”
but for how long? US occupation is only prolonging the situation already.
why did we go there in the first place? many knew that the move would bring about a form of civil war.
“What the U.S. needs to do is allow the Iraqi’s to choose for themselves who rules them.”
that’s what i am saying too, but you think that the US government is going to allow a leader to take the reigns if they don’t follow the Pentagons lead?
“the most important question is do we implement a “residual force,” or an “over-the-horizon” force, stationed somewhere in the region.”
we have had this and have it now…we have been there for years!! we helped put saddam in power and maintain it. we subsidize the neghiboring nations, we have bases all over the place and warships in the gulf. what more do you want?
this is not bush’s war….it is old news… it is time we left….it is neocolonialism.
for my security, my friends and family, and the forces abroad that want to come home…..just come home….what purpose does it serve to carry on a foreign policy that does not protect the american people?
“I just can’t see it as politically feasible or tactically wise to completely withdrawal from Iraq and the Middle East ASAP and let he power vacuum in Iraq play itself out. I don’t think it should be done, nor do I think any politician would advocate such a plan.”
it is political suicide to take a stand against the grain. did you watch the debates? only those that want to “win” change their position. those that want to tell the truth or things as they see it stick to their convictions.
Jesse
8 Apr 08 at 6:30 pm
“this is not bush’s war..”
Yes it is. And now we are here debating which candidate has the best plan to extricate the US from this monumental pile of $h!t that Dub built.
My vote would be for immediate withdrawal and cessation of this illegal an unjustified “war” in Iraq.
Keeping US forces in Iraq equals more violence and more death for all involved parties in the Middle East. Since we are throwing around the word “moral”, I think that is morally irresponsible.
But, as was noted earlier, this war was not founded on anything that remotely resembles “morals”….
I do hope Obama makes it to the WH, and I plan to vote for him. I hope he is as fervent in listening to the voice of the people as Dub was in ignoring the voice of the people….
DICK Cheney: “So”…
gino
8 Apr 08 at 8:21 pm
I wish we’d leave the Middle East, quit unconditional support of Israel, strike a peace deal with North Korea, sign the Rome Statue, ratify the Kyoto Treaty, enforce the DOHA rounds, quit exploiting foreign farmers, give direct aid and intervene in Darfur, and quit trying neo-liberal reforms across the globe.
Then there’s political reality. That reality is our (continued) presence in Iraq, for some time to come — maybe I’m wrong, I wouldn’t be all that upset. We can debate what is the best political solution or we can throw around sky-high idealism.
Not to disparage too much against what you’ve said; because, quite frankly, it seems nice. Unfortunately, it seems to be politically impossible.
You want the West out of the Middle East — good luck.
Sorry if I came across too caustic. I am just trying to point out the realist within myself. I’m not trying to mock you in anyway.
“it is political suicide to take a stand against the grain.”
Typically, yes. I think you have to go at it incrementally — so said Max Weber.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 8:28 pm
Let me put it another, less confronting, way. If you go to Congress and say, “Out of Iraq, tomorrow!” Or next month, whenever. You’re probably not going to get anything accomplished. However, if you go to Congress and say, “I believe we can do what we’re doing now with a 1/6 of what we’re using.” You might turn some heads. The next move would be a further reduction, so on and so forth.
An oversimplified progressive example, indeed — but I think it hits the point on the head.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 8:44 pm
You really have the neoliberal bug up your ass don’t you Steven
jkkuwitzky
8 Apr 08 at 8:44 pm
Yeah, I get that a lot around here. Minus the ass.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 8:46 pm
Don’t get me wrong, Denney. I realize that my thoughts are rather altruistic or idealistic at best.
It is, as you say, politically impossible to bail in Iraq.
I go back to a statement I made earlier that there is, realistically, no endgame to this mess.
However, I will continue to hope that one of these (Dems) will make a stand.
“You can hope in one hand and crap in the other, but tell me which one is more full in the end” - Quoted from one of the great philosophizers that I work with……
gino
8 Apr 08 at 8:50 pm
Its always minus the ass with you, isnt it?
jkkuwitzky
8 Apr 08 at 9:23 pm
“this is not bush’s war..”
On Five Years in Iraq
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst032308.htm
“From the beginning, the march to war was paved with false assumptions and lies. Senior administration officials claimed repeatedly that Iraq was somehow responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. They claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They manipulated the fear of the American people after 9/11 to further a war agenda that they had been planning years before that attack. The mainstream media was complicit in this war propaganda.”
“Nearly ten years ago, long before 9/11, I requested the time in opposition to the fateful Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, where I then stated on the Floor of the House of Representatives, “I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation.” Less than five years later we were invading Iraq .”
And of course, the Gulf War started in 1990 with Bush Sr.
And we can continue to trace American intervention back for decades. Each conflict leading to another. Such is history.
But it is not solely Bush’s War.
We should not wash away the responsibility of the people and their representatives.
The Democrats and Republicans have all voted to fund the War.
It is up to the people ultimately. (To a certain extent of course, US foreign policy at present is a bit beyond the American people i think.)
“I think you have to go at it incrementally”
you see, i think this is how we got into this mess…the powers that be went at it incrementally.
as far as the procedure with which US troops withdraw is a fine thing to debate. at least we are working towards leaving. but we should not ignore how this was allowed to happen in the first place.
http://thisisbunk.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/the-3am-phone-a-hallmark-of-empire/
A third brand of Empire, continued Garrett, is the “ascendancy of the military mind.” Garrett noted that the great symbol of the American military mind is the Pentagon Building in Washington, built during World War II, as a “forethought of perpetual war.” There at the Pentagon, “global strategy is conceived; there, nobody knows how, the estimates of what it will cost are arrived at; and surrounding it is our own iron curtain.” The Pentagon allows the public to know only the information that it wills it to learn;
All the rest is stamped “classified” or “restricted,” in the name of national security, and Congress itself cannot get it. That is as it must be of course; the most important secrets of Empire are military secrets.
Garrett went on to quote the devastating critique of our garrison state by General Douglas MacArthur:
Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense. . . . Indeed, it is a part of the general patterns of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war.
Jesse
8 Apr 08 at 9:40 pm
Jesse, I am saying this for your own good. I think you have an unhealthy obsession and intellectual reliance on Ron Paul. We get it that Ron Paul is your hero in every way, but you are allowed to make your own arguments that apply to individual situations.
David M. Manes
8 Apr 08 at 10:02 pm
Oh, wow. I just realized the sexual connotation to my earlier statement.
I woke up my roommate with a burst of laughter.
S.C. Denney
8 Apr 08 at 11:26 pm
This is a good comparison of the three candidates’ Iraq plans on the Fact Check blog at the Washington Post. It critiques all of them, saying that the candidates are much better at tearing each other’s plans apart than they are at honestly talking about their own respective plans.
David M. Manes
9 Apr 08 at 3:17 pm
thanx david. lol… i am using him as a source because he is still a candidate.
somebody has to put out the information on the guy. everybody’s talking about the other three like paul doesn’t exist. its very unfair. so i am taking up the slack.
besides. there is a movement going on. i enjoy watching it unfold.
reclaiming the old right is fun!!
Jesse
11 Apr 08 at 6:24 pm
[...] probably will happen is something similar to what I wrote about earlier this year. A transition to a “residual force” or an “over the horizon” force is one [...]
What’s Really Going to Happen in Iraq? « Political Cartel
5 Jul 08 at 1:47 am