How This Ends

In 2003, then Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division that had participated in the invasion of Iraq, had a running joke with an embedded reporter, Rick Atkinson. Slyly acknowledging the unclear aims of the inchoate occupation of Iraq, the general would turn to the reporter and muse, “Tell me how this ends.” Today at Camp Lejeune, N.C., speaking to a large group of Marines who will soon deploy to Afghanistan, President Barack Obama — an antiwar Illinois state senator at the time of the invasion — answered Petraeus. From Obama’s prepared remarks:

The combat mission will give way to a training and advisory mission in support of the Iraqi security forces, along with “targeted counter-terrorism missions,” but that mission isn’t unconditional. Obama said the U.S. military will support its Iraqi counterparts “as long as they remain non-sectarian” — a subtle shift, but one that places pressure on the Iraqis not to allow their military as a means to a renewed sectarian struggle. What Obama elided is that U.S. soldiers who train Iraqi security forces frequently do so by participating in combat operations. The combat “mission” may end in August 2010, but the presence of U.S. troops in combat won’t. Between 30,000 and 55,000 troops will remain in Iraq for these hybrid training/combat missions.

But full withdrawal will follow within 18 months of the combat-brigades’ departure. For the first time as president, Obama attempted to resolve ambiguities about a full withdrawal along the December 2011 framework that the Iraqi government insisted upon in last year’s Status of Forces Agreement, committing himself to its mechanisms. Some on the left have wondered warily why Obama hadn’t made such a public commitment. Those worries will probably end with this line:

Finally, Obama also implied that the impending departure of U.S. troops will require a period of increased diplomatic activity — as he put it, “sustained diplomacy on behalf of a more peaceful and prosperous Iraq.” He (finally) announced Chris Hill as the next ambassador to Iraq, and charged Hill with serving as an “honest broker in pursuit of fair and durable agreements on issues that have divided Iraq’s leaders.” Heralding a new emphasis for the U.S. embassy to conduct non-traditional diplomacy, Obama signaled that the resettlement of Iraqi refugees and persons internally displaced by acts of sectarian cleansing would be a priority as high as traditional state-to-state relations with the Baghdad government. The refugee issue is one close to the heart of Obama’s Senate ally Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). And the idea of tying troop departures to intense diplomatic pressure on the Iraqis was proposed last year by Colin Kahl, a former Center for a New American Security Iraq expert who now serves Obama as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.

Finally, for those watching for a split between Obama, Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, Obama signaled out both men for praise, and framed withdrawal as only being possible thanks to the hardship borne by the U.S. military:

It’s not exactly retroactive support for the surge. But neither is it dismissive of the sacrifices made by U.S. forces in Iraq, pre- and post-surge.