Generals Seek To Reverse Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Decision

Generals Seek To Reverse Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Decision

www.huffingtonpost.com

CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm glad to see Obama standing up to his campaign promises and to the Military, but this could turn out to be very dangerous for him, both politically and personally.

We've all heard the theories regarding JFK, and while one cannot pinpoint for sure what was the real reason to have him assassinated, his (alleged) intentions of pulling out of Vietnam certainly didn't help.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I hope BHO keeps his promise and does pull the troop out..... But he had better worry as Petraeus is a member of the CFR and we all know what they are capable of!

If Obama has an ounce of intelligence, he will listen to his military advisors and not the people who have no clue what is best for our military. I would love for our military to be home from all countries, on our border and streets protecting it; however, only those military leaders know what is best and how to handle it.

Plus, can you see it now - headlines on ATS: All military is coming home - Marshal Law being set into place!

I see it. And there is no winning and no pleasing everyone.

If David Petraeus wanted to reverse Obama's decision on withdrawing in 16 months they would have to scrap the SOFA agreement they made with the Iraqis and then the Iraqis would have jetissoned us out anyways. I don't think Petraeus was being very smart here. But good for Obama. I hope he is able to be a President of the people and not the elite.

If Israel does go to war with Iran by then, I doubt this other date would matter as much. It's not as-if Iraq would still expect us to leave regardless. Still, we supposedly agreed not to use Iraq territories to wage war with it's neighbors. I wonder if this also includes their waters.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by aleon1018]

Originally posted by inked up
If Obama has an ounce of intelligence, he will listen to his military advisors and not the people who have no clue what is best for our military. I would love for our military to be home from all countries, on our border and streets protecting it; however, only those military leaders know what is best and how to handle it.

Plus, can you see it now - headlines on ATS: All military is coming home - Marshal Law being set into place!

I see it. And there is no winning and no pleasing everyone.

And how long must we be over there? A year, two years, ten years? And why must he listen to them? Gee, if I were one of those Generals, I`d want to stay there also. Because as long as they are, they will continue to get the funding they are getting right now, if they come home, they drop it. For one, we can not continue to fund this war with the way our economy is. Two, if the Iraqis are ever going to stand on their own without our being there, now is the time. They never will as long as we are there to do the dirty work for them. They want to stand on their own, it`s just we won`t let them.

And why, if they were to be brought home, would we have to say Marshal Law is going to be set in place? If they are brought home, many will be mustered out of the service, because the funds will not be there to pay them.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by FiatLux]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


I truly hope for the region, for the U.S. and for Obama Iraq does not blow up in his face and slide back into chaotic feudalism due to improper and premature policy changes. If that happens he would have reversed the gains made under Bush and will have essentially thrown 7 years of military and U.S. effort in the trash.

That's why we have a department of defense, to advise the President, and implement policy through actions, that's the DoD's subject matter and profession. Granted the CINC always have final authority, however to ignore recommendations based on campaign slogans and or to micromanage the how, and not the what, is very very dangerous and irresponsible. Obama has no military experience whatsoever, no background in any related field. White House micromanagement and politically driven tactical and strategic decisions doomed us in Vietnam.

If Obama is a man of his word and his goal is a free, stable and independent properly function Iraq then we will state that and let the military go about establishing it. No matter how long it takes. I personally don't stop pissing without finishing because a T.V. show I was interested in may have started.

"If Obama is a man of his word and his goal is a free, stable and independent properly function Iraq then we will state that and let the military go about establishing it. No matter how long it takes. I personally don't stop pissing without finishing because a T.V. show I was interested in may have started."

And how much more do you think we can afford to spend on this? When we have people here who are without and will be without jobs soon. Isn`t it wiser to spend that money on helping the people here? We are printing money that has no value what-so-ever to fund the banks and for big corperations, yet, we don`t help those who are in dire need and will be in the streets soon. Like I said, if they aren`t ready to fend for themselves over there now, they never will be.

Originally posted by FiatLux
And how much more do you think we can afford to spend on this?

We're in the end game, the bulk of the work is essentially done. We have an uncanny ability to get the end game wrong due to impatience and shifting political views (Afghanistan 1988-1989).

Maybe generals should worry more about the situation at home and not the future of a state that doesnt want them there.

Ok then, tell that to the homeless here, when in ten years down the road, we will still be in the end game. To heck with those who are freezing without shelters here, we must think about Iraq, right? I don`t think so. Who in their right mind wants to watch our tax money go to another country through the military, when that tax money should be helping those who need it here. I heard a guy say something the other day that has stuck with me. He was in a debate with someone else on this subject. When the other guy woudn`t back down about spending our tax dollars in Iraq, the other guy said, "Well, maybe the dollar needs to collapse then, because if we are not to help those here at home, then why are we to help those over in Iraq?". Shouldn`t we be more concerned about those here without food or a place to sleep? I quess not by your thinking.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by FiatLux]

Wow a President that actually listens to what the majority of his citizens want for once. It seems that he actually has read the Constitution! "For the people, by the people". the majority of 300 million people want us out over a hand full of generals. Being in Iraq has nothing to do with keeping this country safe.

Originally posted by TheOracle
Maybe generals should worry more about the situation at home and not the future of a state that doesnt want them there.

Maybe people should not comment on military operations when they have not a clue about them.

Do you know how long it takes just to move that many people? Not just that, but the plans that have to be set into place to ensure that those members get out safe and not dead and that those left in Iraq are in a stable environment?

Do you know exactly what the generals think or what they worry about? Because if you dont and you have no clue what it takes to move thousands of people and tons and tons of equipment, then maybe you should sit back and let those that do handle the situation.

reply to post by inked up


Yes let us all just sit back and let the military handle things as we have no clue what we are talking about. The last time a people of a country let the military handle things and just sat back and said nothing was this.

reply to post by FiatLux

And how long must we be over there? A year, two years, ten years? And why must he listen to them? Gee, if I were one of those Generals, I`d want to stay there also. Because as long as they are, they will continue to get the funding they are getting right now, if they come home, they drop it. For one, we can not continue to fund this war with the way our economy is. Two, if the Iraqis are ever going to stand on their own without our being there, now is the time. They never will as long as we are there to do the dirty work for them. They want to stand on their own, it`s just we won`t let them.

And why, if they were to be brought home, would we have to say Marshal Law is going to be set in place? If they are brought home, many will be mustered out of the service, because the funds will not be there to pay them.

I do not know. I am not a military member or advisor. So I dont know what is best for the "mission". But I do know that they know best and not everyday citizen joe. We all want our troops home. But we should first want them to leave safely and whenever leaders think it is right.

And regarding the marshal law comment. I say that based on what I read here. I dont think it will happen. But it will cause fear. And why would want the military dismantled and thousands of people loosing their job and our military being reduced to nothing? That makes no sense!

reply to post by CaptGizmo


Comparing this to Hitler is stupid. Stupid.
You, nor I, know how to handle military matters better than those who are currently serving and have been serving for years. Dont be ridiculous please.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That's why we have a department of defense, to advise the President, and implement policy through actions, that's the DoD's subject matter and profession.

WP23, I would have thought by now the truth of the matter would have dawned on you. Do you live in some naive patriotic fantasy land?

The DOD is staffed, financed and run by defense contractors whose main objective is to maximize the bottom line. Profit....it's the American way!

[edit on 2-2-2009 by whaaa]

reply to post by CaptGizmo


The German military was very weary of Hitler and of his plans, before and during his reign. In fact most German military leaders pleaded with Hitler and often clashed with him about his plans. Some took it a step further and tried to assassinate him, several times. These were military people loyal to Germany, not Hitler. However given the complete control and devotion Hitler had over the populace these military men felt it would be better to serve and dilute Hitler policies and act a a buffer to some of his military plans.

I find it ironic you choose to bring up Hitler when we're discussion Obama, there are uncomfortable similarities, not in thought but in characteristics and in circumstance. While thought is subject to change natural traits are usually ingrained within us and help promote the former.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by TheOracle
Maybe generals should worry more about the situation at home and not the future of a state that doesnt want them there.

You want Gen. Patraeus to manage the economy in the US? Don't you think we would be better off letting Gen. Patraeus handle the war and thsoe with education and training on handling the economy do so? It's not Patraeus' job to worry about the situation at home.