FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s Non-Plan for Ending the War in Iraq

by ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

Over the last month, Barack Obama’s comments about withdrawal have raised major questions about the U.S. commitment to occupying Iraq.  The statements Obama has made over the past year, when taken in total, leave no doubt that he is a master of ambiguity and deception.

Obama has made wonderful rhetorical statements aimed at placating the majority of Americans, who have viewed the Iraq war as “not worth it” since late 2004, and supported a timetable for withdrawal since mid-to-late 2005.  Obama recently promised: “Let me be as clear as I can be.  I intend to end this war.  My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war – responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.”  This statement was made in response to media complaints about Obama’s perceived flip-flopping on the Iraq issue.  It’s not difficult to see why this confusion has arisen.  Obama has claimed that he is open to “refine[ing]” his policies on Iraq after meeting with military commanders, should he win the presidency.  The New York Times described Obama’s posturing as driven by his desire “to retain flexibilitiy as violence declines [in Iraq] without abandoning a central promise of his campaign: that if elected, he would end the war.”

But has Obama really promised to end the Iraq war?  The evidence is not very convincing.  Obama has vaguely stated that “the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”  It is true that in the past Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007.”  That plan, however, was precisely what its name suggested, a blueprint for de-escalation, not for withdrawal or for ending the war.  The bill promised only to remove all “combat” troops by March of 2008.  It did not promise to remove all troops from Iraq, or prohibit plans for permanent military bases – requirements that Democrats have refused to demand.  Rather, the plan has always been to retain an extended troop presence in Iraq (perhaps permanently), allegedly in order to train Iraq forces and “fight terrorism.”

Opposition on the part of Obama to a full withdrawal was also reflected in the admission (during a primary debate) that he could not guarantee a full withdrawal from Iraq by 2013.  This claim demonstrates the full extent of Obama’s commitment to misrepresenting his views to the American public.  His promise to “end this war now” amounts to little more than propaganda in light of claims that U.S. combat operations will continue for at least the next five years, perhaps indefinitely.  It is difficult to see how substantively different this is from Republican presidential front-runner John McCain, who recently claimed he would remove most troops by 2013 as well.

It is true that Obama recently announced a 16 month timetable for the withdrawal of “combat” troops (presumably, sometime in 2010).  However, this promise has again been tempered by fuzzy claims that withdrawal is contingent upon conditions on the ground in Iraq – as they are perceived by American political elites.  Obama repeated (following the 16 month announcement) that there were “deep concerns” about a timetable “that doesn’t take into account what they [military leaders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions.”  Presumably, changing assessments on the part of military leaders would lead to more revisions regarding the prospects for a concrete timetable for withdrawal.

There are consequences that result from Obama’s backpedaling and deception.  His constantly shifting standards for withdrawal have allowed neoconservative papers like the Washington Post to manipulate his statements in favor of their own pro-war agenda (such manipulation hasn’t proven all that hard to accomplish).  This is all too clear in recent editorials in the paper.  One editorial from early July 2008, for example, claims that “Mr. Obama can’t afford not to update his Iraq policy.  Once he has the conversations he’s promising with U.S. commanders, he will have plenty of information that ‘contradicts the notion’ of his rigid plan.  Iraq’s improvement means that American forces probably can be reduced next year [2009], but it would be folly to begin a forced march out of the country without regard to the risks of renewed sectarian warfare and escalating intervention in the country by Iran and other of Iraq’s neighbors.”

The Post’s distortions have become even more extreme in recent weeks, as is evident in a late July editorial entitled: “Mr. Obama in Iraq: Did He Really Find Support for his Withdrawal Plan?”  In full Orwellian style, the article propagandized that “neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq’s principal political leaders actually support Obama’s [16-month] strategy.”  The basis for this claim?: “Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s timetable [for withdrawal] would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s.”  Maliki’s support for a timetable, the Post contends, is actually more in line with General Petraeus’ contempt for a timetable, since Maliki has pledged that a withdrawal would be premised upon Iraqi readiness.  Presumably, the Post feels that since American military leaders have repeatedly claimed that Iraqi forces are not ready to take over security operations, this nullifies the Iraqi public’s and political leaders’ longstanding support for a withdrawal timetable.  While the outrageousness of the Post’s logic (or illogic) and the severity of its contempt for the people of Iraq are truly baffling, these conditions are the inevitable result of an Obama campaign that’s constantly shifting its promises and standards on Iraq.

American politics need not be dominated by such spin and propaganda on the part of both Democratic and Republican parties and the media.  However, a substantive change in electoral politics can only be premised upon the public’s demands for more transparency from Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.  Presidential candidates have demonstrated their longstanding commitment to spin, at the expense of sincere, open dialogue.  Only increased activism and public criticism of this spin will produce serious changes to the American propaganda state.

ANTHONY DiMAGGIO is the author of the newly released: Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Understanding American News in the “War on Terror” (2008). He teaches American Government at North Central College in Illinois, and can be reached at: adimag2@uic.edu References

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2015). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

January 23, 2017
John Wight
Trump’s Inauguration: Hail Caesar!
Mark Schuller
So What am I Doing Here? Reflections on the Inauguration Day Protests
Patrick Cockburn
The Rise of Trump and Isis Have More in Common Than You Might Think
Binoy Kampmark
Ignored Ironies: Women, Protest and Donald Trump
Gregory Barrett
Flag, Cap and Screen: Hollywood’s Propaganda Machine
Gareth Porter
US Intervention in Syria? Not Under Trump
L. Ali Khan
Trump’s Holy War against Islam
Gary Leupp
An Al-Qaeda Attack in Mali:  Just Another Ripple of the Endless, Bogus “War on Terror”
Norman Pollack
America: Banana Republic? Far Worse
Bob Fitrakis - Harvey Wasserman
We Mourn, But We March!
Kim Nicolini
Trump Dump: One Woman March and Personal Shit as Political
William Hawes
We Are on Our Own Now
Martin Billheimer
Last Tango in Moscow
Colin Todhunter
Development and India: Why GM Mustard Really Matters
Mel Gurtov
Trump’s America—and Ours
David Mattson
Fog of Science II: Apples, Oranges and Grizzly Bear Numbers
Clancy Sigal
Who’s Up for This Long War?
Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail