Obama: ‘I Believe That 16 Months Is The Right Time Frame’ For Getting Out Of Iraq
Obama: ‘I Believe That 16 Months Is The Right Time Frame’ For Getting Out Of Iraq
At a press conference today where President-elect Barack Obama announced his national security team, a reporter asked Obama if he still intended to “withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq in 16 months after Inauguration.” “I believe that 16 months is the right time frame,” said Obama, noting that he has ‘consistently” said he will listen to the recommendations of his commanders on the ground.
Obama noted that during the presidential campaign he promised to “remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months with the understanding that it might be necessary, likely to be necessary, to maintain a residual force.” Obama then said that the status-of-forces agreement passed by the Iraqi Parliament last week means that “we are on a glide path to reducing our forces in Iraq.” Watch it:
Obama’s re-commitment to the 16 month withdrawal timeline is significant because the status of forces agreement passed by the Iraqi legislature last week contains a longer time frame for withdrawal. In the agreement, U.S. troops must be withdrawn from Iraq by December 31, 2011. Obama’s continued endorsement of the 16 month timeline is also important because some in the Pentagon are challenging Obama’s time frame:
Many senior military officials agree with Mr. Obama’s call to withdraw tens of thousands of troops from Iraq next year. They believe that the large U.S. military presence in Iraq is causing significant manpower strains on the armed forces and preventing needed reinforcements from being sent to Afghanistan, where conditions have worsened in recent months.
Still, there is a fair amount of skepticism within the Pentagon about Mr. Obama’s call to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by 2010. In recent interviews, two high-ranking officers stated flatly that it would be logistically impossible to dismantle dozens of large U.S. bases there and withdraw the 150,000 troops now in Iraq so quickly. The officers said it would take close to three years for a full withdrawal and could take longer if the fighting resumed as American forces left the country.
This isn’t the first time since winning election that Obama has pushed back against media speculation that he will abandon his campaign promises. At a press conference last week, Obama said that “the vision for change comes” from him. He said that he will “provide a vision” and his team will implement it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can I just say how much I appreciate hearing the word “nuclear” pronounced correctly? Thank you, sir.
PEACE
December 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pmI appreciate that Obama continues to state that the vision comes from him despite the cries of warning from both the left and the right that Obama is enacting Clinton 2 (or Daddy Bush 2).
I guess the media has become so used to having a President do what his advisors tell him to do that they forgot what its like to have someone really in charge once again.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pmsome in the Pentagon are wary of Obama’s time frame…
Hmmm, let me think about that.
Oh yeah! The Pentagon’s business is war. Obama wants to end this war. Well, I guess I can see how the Pentagon’s interests don’t line up perfectly with Obama’s.
Some US citizens are wary of the Pentagon’s intents…
December 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pmCan I just say how much I appreciate hearing the word “nuclear” pronounced correctly?
Says A LOT about how far the Neocons have lowered the bar, doesn’t it?
December 1st, 2008 at 12:39 pmBut, but, but Thomas Friedman is doing his damnedest to give Obama an excuse through SOFA for at least seven (7) more Friedman Units.
¶ AIO
December 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pmThis is change since Bush was just holding the title as President while others ran the Country, it will take time for it to sink in to many that we now have a President who is not only educated and intelligent but is running the Country himself.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pmObama wants to end this war. Well, I guess I can see how the Pentagon’s interests don’t line up perfectly with Obama’s.
Ummm…beg to differ.
It is my understanding that Mr. O does NOT want to “END” the “GWOT,” only to move the front lines closer to the Trans-Caspian oil puddle and the threats to US domination of it posed by china, india, russia, and iran…
this is called “real-politik.” it’s not going away…Read Zbigniew Brzhinksy’s book. He’s a senior Obama foreign policy advisor, former Nat Sec guy, etc…
Forget cars. War is THE big bidness of Uhmruka. Since 1938, the whole USer economy has depended on the Pentagon.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pmO.T., but Rush Limbaugh is out “sick as a dog” today.
Doesn’t that make you just want to LYAO at all the buffoons who have run out and bought ZYCAM at his urging?
¶ AIO
December 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pmThis isn’t the first time since winning election that Obama has pushed back against media speculation that he will abandon his campaign promises.
there is a concerted effort by the media “bobbleheads” and “villagers” to manipulate obama’s agenda, to TRY to make sure he will do things their way… it’s amazing, actually…
two good threads about such yesterday at C&L:
The Chris Matthews Show: Obama’s Problems Will Come From The Angry Left, Not Republicans
December 1st, 2008 at 1:02 pmThis Week Panel: Concern Trolling The Obama Administration To Be More Republican
This makes me wonder if Rush went back to the Dominican Republic over Thanksgiving and “accidently” overdosed on Viagra.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pmRush mistakenly ingested his own cigar.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pmWell, maybe that will shut the naysayers up. I doubt it, but one can hope.
I can’t believe that Chris Wallace asked someone if they thought that Gates was going to follow Obama’s orders. Does he really think that Gates is that stupid? Does he really think that Gates is going to try to order Obama around? Personally, I’m betting that Gates is relieved and happy that Obama is our new President and now maybe our foreign policy will be made based on a complete and total assessment of a situation rather than a knee-jerk “shoot first and ask questions later” basis like the Bush Crime Family did.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pmI would bet anybody any amount they want that “combat” in Iraq is NOT “over” in 16 months.
And that Afghanistan is NOT pacified.
And that there are STILL huge numbers of troops, and piles of equipment, and heaps of ammo on the ground in Iraq–on our “temporary” bases there. They’re not going anywhere. When, in the last 70 years, did the US de-occupy any place?
Not Germany or Italy.
Not Japan, or Okinawa.
Not Korea.
Viet Nam! Got our asses kicked right the flock outta there…
Not Panama. We returned ’sovereignty’ there, but still occupy it militarily.
Didn’t ‘occupy’ Grenada, so that doesn’t count.
And there’s the weasel part of the whole thing, the ‘combat troops’ part. I was a titless WAF til one night they tossed me an M-16 and a helmet and told me to shoot at anything that moved.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:14 pmtokin librul Says:
I would bet anybody any amount they want that “combat” in Iraq is NOT “over” in 16 months.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. No matter that it’s based on nothing other than the wishful thinking in your feeble brain.
Combat in Iraq will be over this summer according to the agreement Bush is signing. After June, our troops will be confined to their bases and not allowed to roam on the streets of Iraq. Kind of hard to be engaged in combat on base, don’t you think?
December 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Combat in Iraq will be over this summer according to the agreement Bush is signing. After June, our troops will be confined to their bases and not allowed to roam on the streets of Iraq. Kind of hard to be engaged in combat on base, don’t you think?
I’ve seen naivety and wishful thinking, but this comment might just take the cake.
¶ AIO
December 1st, 2008 at 1:30 pmTokin, you have been the “voice of doom” since the election. Just who the hell did you want to be elected? Regarding occupations, neither Germany, Italy, Japan or South Korea are “occupied” by the U.S. We DO SOFA agreements with each country regarding our having military bases there, but we do not control the countries, which is the definition of a military occupation. In addition, we neither occupy nor have a SOFA with Panama. Our occupation there ended in Jan. 1990. All of the military bases have been converted to mostly public housing.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pmSill the recently worked out SOFA limit Obama’s options here ? (ignoring the questions about whether the SOFA needs Congress to ratify it as a treaty) ???
December 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pmSorry, but 16 months is too long to get our troopers out of Iraq. It didn’t take that long to get them in. Bring them home yesterday. All of them. Let Iraq work things out for themselves like the U.S. did in the 1860’s.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:17 pmbratboy Says:
Sorry, but 16 months is too long to get our troopers out of Iraq. It didn’t take that long to get them in. Bring them home yesterday. All of them. Let Iraq work things out for themselves like the U.S. did in the 1860’s.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
_______
Did we finally invent teleportation?
Cause that’s the only way you’re going to get over 250,000 troops, contractors, civilian personnel, and all of their vehicles and equipment out of Iraq instantly.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:33 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Combat in Iraq will be over this summer according to the agreement Bush is signing. After June, our troops will be confined to their bases and not allowed to roam on the streets of Iraq. Kind of hard to be engaged in combat on base, don’t you think?
December 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
____________
Just because the SOFA says troops need to withdraw to bases outside of the cities and towns doesn’t mean that the troops will be staying there no matter what. The agreement also leaves open the possibility that our troops may be called in by the government of Iraq to assist in fighting internal and external threats:
I’d like to think that Iraq is suddenly going to magically stabilize itself and there will be absolutely no need for our troops to engage in any type of combat operations starting in June. However, I see no evidence that that is actually going to happen. Iraq is still an extremely fragile, very segregated, barely functional state, with heavily-armed militias poised for all-out war with each other and a few million refugees and IDPs eager to come back to the country and re-occupy their old neighborhoods. It could flare up at any time, before or after June, and our troops will still be involved whether they want to be or not.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pm“Did we finally invent teleportation?
Cause that’s the only way you’re going to get over 250,000 troops, contractors, civilian personnel, and all of their vehicles and equipment out of Iraq instantly.”
Please tell me that you can understand figures of speech and tongue in cheek postings.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:36 pmWell, doesn’t the UN mandate run out at the end of December?
December 1st, 2008 at 5:54 pmSome people are nit-picking in a futile attempt to critique Obama’s team, his campaign promises, and his post election work. They can spend all their time in that losing exercise, second-guessing, speculating, whatever — the man has not taken office yet. Persons who are “in the know” and some Republicans also, are grasping at straws for criticism and coming up short.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pmThe SOFA has passed the parliament, but still needs to pass a public referendum set to be decided in the June 2009 elections. Can you really imagine this SOFA, which keeps Iraq occupied for 3 more years, will be passed publicly?
Well, at least the SOFA removed immunity for crimes committed by military and “private” forces.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:01 pm