US Troops in Iraq in 2013?

US Troops in Iraq in 2013?

 US casualties are rising again, yet Obama and McCain want forces to remain.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

The government of Iraq, at the highest level, is reportedly meeting this week to consider whether or not to allow a substantial number of US troops to remain in Iraq beyond the end of 2011, when they’re scheduled to depart.

That scheduled departure isn’t President Obama’s timetable; rather it is the result of a framework established in 2008 by George W. Bush. Nevertheless, the United States would like to maintain forces in Iraq, and dangerously it’s looking more and more like their mission would be to confront Iran.

Yesterday Mr. Surge, Senator John McCain, said that the United States ought to keep at least 13,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. “I’m talking 10,000–13,000 specifically for intelligence capabilities, air capabilities and also as a peacekeeping force up in the disputed areas around Kirkuk and that area. I think there is a compelling case.”

McCain added, speaking with the Financial Times:

“The United States has got to come forth with our proposal as to what we think they need and then I believe that it’s very possible – and I emphasize possible – that the Iraqis could then decide unanimously that they want the residual US presence, which would certainly be non-combat and would certainly be largely technical.”

It isn’t like McCain is alone. The Obama administration, too, would like to keep troops in Iraq. But Prime Minister Maliki is under enormous pressure from Iran, from Iran-allied forces in Iraq, and from some Iraqi nationalists not to allow a residual US role, and his coalition partner, Muqtada al-Sadr, is staunchly opposed. In recent weeks, there has been a strong increase in violence directed against American forces in Iraq, and much of it is apparently directed or supported by a host of Iranian-backed Shia militias, including Kataib Hezbollah, Ahl ul-Haq, and Sadr’s Promised Day Brigade. Yesterday, a top American general and the US ambassador both blamed Iran. Said Ambassador James Jeffrey:

“There is no doubt this is Iranian. We’re seeing more lethal weapons, more accurate weapons, more longer-range weapons. And we’re seeing more sophisticated mobile and other deployment options, we’re seeing better trained people.”

General Lloyd Austin said that the stuff is “coming in from Iran, we’re certain of that.”

Maliki has ordered a sweeping crackdown against Sadr’s forces and other Shia militias in Baghdad, in Maysan province near the border with Iran, and elsewhere. But Maliki, too, is closely tied to Iran, and he’s trying to balance strong pressure from Washington and Tehran. A major failure of the Obama administration has been its inability to reach an agreement with Iran on stabilizing Iraq, and Iran is not above using pressure tactics in Iraq against the United States.

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