Obama, Petraeus Butt Heads over Iraq Withdrawal?

Gareth Porter is reporting via IPSNews that President Obama met with Gen. David Petraeus, Sec. Def. Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen on January 21 in the oval office and that the purpose of the meeting was to persuade Obama to back down on the 16 month troops withdrawal timetable that he promised during his campaign. The key element of their proposal was keeping troops in place but re-naming “combat” troops as “support” troops.  So, magically all the combat troops would now be withdrawn from Iraq!  As Thers said over at Whiskey Fire “sounds kind of dishonest”.  (h/t by the way).

According to White House staff, Obama was having none of it:

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Apparently Petraeus was not happy with this response - in fact he was reported to be “visibly unhappy” when he left the meeting.  A White House staffer is quoted as saying “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

All this might not be too surprising.  Commanders in Chief are not always going to make decisions that make everyone happy.  But it appears that Petraeus and his band of Merry Men are feeling almost, well, subversive.

Subversive?  How?

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and (Gen. Ray) Odierno (top commander in Iraq) by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

On the surface I’d say “good luck with that, guys!”  But there’s more.

The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus,  Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.

The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.

The assertion that Obama’s withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus’s strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama’s Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama’s troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political “stability” that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network’s plans.

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama’s withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.

If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the “collapse” they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops. 

Wow.  These guys do realize that Obama is the President, right?  And their actual Commander in Chief?  And before the ink’s even dry on the inauguration papers they’re trying to bend him to do their will? 

It’s also far from clear that Iraq is on the brink of collapsing if we do begin withdrawing troops.  The Iraqis went to the polls on Saturday and, for the first time, the U.S. military was not involved.  The polls were guarded by Iraqi police and the level of violence was extremely low.  In addition there were no ethnic or sectarian boycotts and international observers were present.  The Iraqis are as weary of this war as the Americans. As reported by Iraqi bloggers in the NY Times, the most remarkable thing was how unremarkable it all was.

Although you can still see the spark in the eyes of Iraqis as they dip their fingers in the indelible ink, there is an air of “been there, done that,” indicating that the novelty of voting has disappeared. We understand the process — we’ve done it four times.

Another remarkable change is how uneventful the day was. We woke fearing the worst, but it didn’t happen. An explosion here or there, but frankly, what day in Iraq passes without one? From where I live, it looks as if the Iraqi police and Army managed to keep it a relatively violence-free day.

It was clearly far from perfect. In many places people were denied the right to vote when their names couldn’t be found in the registers. The huge number of candidates — nearly 15,000 for 440 seats on the councils of the 14 provinces holding elections — isn’t really a sign of political maturity, but rather shows a combination of greed and ignorance about the duties of council members.

But, by Allah, we’re looking at our own politicians for answers instead of looking abroad. If we manage to repeat this success in the national elections at the end of this year, I think we can confidently say that we’ve got the hang of this democracy thing.

It’s time to dis-engage and let the Iraqis get on with their lives and their new regime.

And the meme that Keane, Petraeus, Odierno and Gates are trying to create needs to be contradicted.  Now.  By every thinking person.

Posted by marindenver on 02/03/09 at 06:38 PM • Permalink

Wow, indeed.  I thought a politically neutral military was a feature of American government.  Man, it would be cool if Obama went all Abe Lincoln and personally took command:

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln considered personally assuming battlefield command of the Union Army, and studied military texts when he became frustrated by the incompetence and lethargy of his generals.

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.