rssOdierno Recommits to the SOFA
Monday, April 13, 2009 at 9:35 am
- 2 Comments
Apropos of Friday’s queries about Gen. Raymond Odierno’s commitment to the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement that guarantees the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by 2011, take a look at his interview with CNN yesterday, which might have been lost amid the good news of Richard Phillips’ rescue from the Somali pirates:
[L]et me remind everyone what change was in December when the United States and the government of Iraq signed an agreement, a bilateral agreement that put the timeline in place, that said we would withdraw all our forces by 31 December, 2011.
In my mind, that was historic. It allowed Iraq to prove that it has its own sovereignty. It allows them, now, to move forward and take control, which was always — it’s always been our goal, is that they can control the stability in their country.
So I think I feel comfortable with that timeline. I did back in December. I do now. We continue to work with the government of Iraq so they can meet that timeline, so that they are able to maintain stability once we leave. I still believe we’re on track with that, as we talk about this today.
As he told The Times of London last week, Odierno reiterated that violence in the Iraqi north may lead him to recommend keeping U.S. forces in Mosul past the June 30 deadline for troops to fall back from the cities. But he also reiterated that it’s ultimately Prime Minister Maliki’s call. On the broader issue of how likely it is that U.S. troops will leave Iraq by 2011 — a question asked by John King of CNN that overlooked the SOFA for some reason — Odierno replied, “I believe it’s a 10 that we will be gone by 2011,” out of ten.
So even stipulating that Odierno actually does recommend that Mosul be the exception to the withdrawal-from-the-cities rule, it still seems Odierno is providing pretty thin gruel to those who believe he’s in favor of a permanent occupation. He’s not indicating he’ll recommend missing the deadline throughout Iraq. Nor is he contesting the terms of the SOFA. He’s not bridling under the restrictions of President Obama’s withdrawal strategy, but instead is praising it for the “flexibility” it provides him with implementing the drawdown. He’s publicly committing himself to the 2011 full withdrawal. Is it really so surprising that a military commander would be wary of meeting a withdrawal deadline for what’s become the most dangerous city in Iraq? Perhaps it’s time for my fellow progressives to let this one go.
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
2 Comments
Comment posted April 13, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Oh the credulity!
Is it really so surprising that we don't trust a damn word spoken by any of these high priests of a bogus “holy” war?
I'll let it go, my fellow progressive, when the outrageous rape of Iraq is over, not to be replaced with the outrageous rape of Afghanistan or any where else at all.
For me, being progressive means moving away from perpetual bogus “holy” wars as our only way of being in the world. Nothing short of leaving and paying reparations will convince me to “let this one go.”
Being progressive, to me, also means that it is our elected and appointed public servants who must speak our truth to our power; government officials are the ones under the onus to be perfectly honest, not we, the people, to be perfectly gullible, when it comes to forming our more perfect union. And when they shy away, we are supposed to have the power to demand the truth, but too often, when confronted with blatant corruption of Justice, we just let it go.
Are we supposed to let go the fact that we were jacked to war to begin with? And place our trust in the perps? I'm sure they know best how to end a war we never should've begun, right? What ulterior motive could they possibly have?
I'll be ready to let it go when the last American occupier, whatever the designation, has left Iraq–to begin with. Then I'll want to end our empire by bringing home all of our occupying forces.
Let's let Odierno's actions speak for themselves, shall we? Until then, no benefit of the doubt for any of our high priests of the temple of “full-spectrum dominance.”
Comment posted April 13, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Oh the credulity!
Is it really so surprising that we don't trust a damn word spoken by any of these high priests of a bogus “holy” war?
I'll let it go, my fellow progressive, when the outrageous rape of Iraq is over, not to be replaced with the outrageous rape of Afghanistan or any where else at all.
For me, being progressive means moving away from perpetual bogus “holy” wars as our only way of being in the world. Nothing short of leaving and paying reparations will convince me to “let this one go.”
Being progressive, to me, also means that it is our elected and appointed public servants who must speak our truth to our power; government officials are the ones under the onus to be perfectly honest, not we, the people, to be perfectly gullible, when it comes to forming our more perfect union. And when they shy away, we are supposed to have the power to demand the truth, but too often, when confronted with blatant corruption of Justice, we just let it go.
Are we supposed to let go the fact that we were jacked to war to begin with? And place our trust in the perps? I'm sure they know best how to end a war we never should've begun, right? What ulterior motive could they possibly have?
I'll be ready to let it go when the last American occupier, whatever the designation, has left Iraq–to begin with. Then I'll want to end our empire by bringing home all of our occupying forces.
Let's let Odierno's actions speak for themselves, shall we? Until then, no benefit of the doubt for any of our high priests of the temple of “full-spectrum dominance.”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
