Posted by
Reeson on Monday, March 09, 2009 10:05:18 AM
By Greg C. Reeson
If you read the reports in the mainstream media over the weekend, you’d swear that the recent announcement concerning the departure of 12,000 American military troops from Iraq was some bold new step toward the implementation of President Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. forces from that country.
Greg Miller and Usama Redha, writing in The Los Angeles Times, reported March 9 that “The U.S. will reduce its military presence in Iraq by 12,000 troops over the next six months as part of the first major drawdown since President Obama announced his plan to end combat operations [emphasis mine] in the country next year….” Similarly, The Washington Post announced that the move marked “the first step in the Obama administration’s plan [emphasis mine] to pull U.S. combat forces out of the country by August 2010.”
One should note, however, that the 12,000 forces referenced in the announcement and in the news reports were already scheduled to leave Iraq as part of the normal troop rotation. What’s notable is not that they are departing Iraq, but that they are able to do so without being replaced by another American military unit. Buried in the Los Angeles Times story is a short blurb that tells readers “…the drawdown reflects growing confidence in the security gains in Iraq over the last two years.” In other words, the success of President Bush’s surge of American forces to Baghdad and al Anbar Province, combined with other factors such as the Anbar Awakening and Moqtada al-Sadr’s stand down, set the conditions for the withdrawal of additional American military forces from Iraq. I say “additional” because this is not the first time the U.S. military has withdrawn troops from Iraq. In fact, over the past five and a half years, troop levels have regularly risen and fallen in response to changing security conditions.
The senior U.S. military general in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, is quoted as saying, “The time and conditions are right for coalition forces to reduce the number of troops in Iraq,” and that January elections “demonstrated the increased capability of the Iraqi army and police to provide security.” The growing technical and tactical competency of Iraqi forces, coupled with violence levels that are at their lowest since mid-2003, will allow the United States to reduce its troop presence to just under 130,000 by the end of this year.
In the end, not much regarding Iraq has really changed—except, of course, the guy sitting in the Oval Office. Iraq is still a dangerous place, the gains made over the past two years are still reversible, and security conditions are still dictating the number of U.S. troops on the ground.