Obama’s Plan for Iraq is the Petraeus-Bush Iraq Plan

Obama’s Plan for Iraq is the Petraeus-Bush Iraq Plan

Obama’s Plan for Iraq is the Petraeus-Bush Iraq Plan

"The idea that Obama is making good on a campaign promise to end the war is playing with words,” says The Nation‘s Jeremy Scahill.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

In a speech before the Disabled American Veterans national convention in Atlanta on Monday, President Obama said: "By the end of this month, we have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office… Because of the sacrifices of our troops and their Iraqi partners, violence continues to be the lowest it’s been in years… Next month, we will change our military mission from combat to supporting and training Iraqi security forces." But as Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman points out, figures show that July was the deadliest month in Iraq in over a year with over 500 people killed.

As a guest on today’s Democracy Now!, The Nation‘s Jeremy Scahill says Obama is "implementing the policy that was on the desk of George W. Bush when he left the White House." Obama says that we are "changing from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats," but as Scahill asserts, "that doesn’t just mean that there’s going to be negotiations by pencil pushers.” Last month, Hillary Clinton submitted a request to the Pentagon to “beef up” the State Department’s military contractor force. “When you take out all these combat troops, we want to have a replacement for that capacity," says Scahill. He goes on to say that Clinton, who as a candidate said she would ban Blackwater and other mercenary firms, is now responsible for increased reliance on these companies and private soldiers in Iraq. "You can say that officially combat has ended," he says. "But in reality you’re continuing it through the back door by bringing in these paramilitary forces and classifying them as diplomatic security, which was Bush’s game from the very beginning."

—Melanie Breault

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x