By Steve Hynd
Over the past two days, there have been contradictory statements from the White House and Pentagon on whether events in Iraq might affect the speed of American drawdown there. First, on Tuesday morning, the London Times reported that General Odierno, the commander in Iraq, was having second thoughts about the status of forces agreement and its timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Citing increasing violence and the failure of Iraq's parliament to pass a new election law, Odierno told the Times:
I worry that it calls into question the Iraqi commitment to this form of government. [i.e. democracy - S]
...We would have to make a decision on whether we continue to draw down on the current timeline or delay it. Obviously that�s a decision made by the President, but I�d certainly have to provide recommendations on what our position should be.
Our plan here will influence how they decide to implement what decision they make on Afghanistan.
Also on Tuesday, though, President Obama told Iraqi prime minister Nour al-Maliki that the decision on the timeline had already been made and that the U.S. would keep to the current SOFA agreement.
But then, on Wednesday, Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy, who came out of the CNAS think tank which is so tight with General Petraeus' COIN posse in the military, seemed to back Odierno over the Commander In Chief. She told a Congressional hearing that Obama's timeline could be changed if the Iraqi elections weren't held on time in January.
In testimony before a key congressional committee, Flournoy said Iraqi leaders had "another week or two" to try to work out their differences over the new election law, but could also opt to use a 2005 law as a "fallback" and remain on schedule.
If an agreement is not reached soon, she said, the United States would then have to "engage with the government of Iraq to do some contingency planning on how to secure the elections at a later date, and that might well have implications."
Rep. Howard McKeon, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned that Obama's timetable for a withdrawal left the top U.S. commander in Iraq "little room to maneuver" if the election is delayed.
"Scheduling troop withdrawals in Iraq should be based on the conditions on the ground," he said during the hearing. "Do we have contingency plans in the event the security situation demands revisiting the August 2010 timeline? Does this still make the same sense today?"
Flournoy said U.S. drawdown plans were "not rigid," allowing for "reevaluating and, if necessary, changing our plans based on developments on the ground. ... If need be, we will reexamine things."
At the very least, these are mixed signals which won't do a thing to settle down Iraqi sentiment. Prime Minister Maliki has been adamant that the U.S. withdrawal must proceed on schedule and the vast majority of Iraqis agree with him. Staying past the due date - especially if in some moment of supreme idiocy it was done over Iraqi government objections - would be sure to spark extra violence as the U.S. once again would come to be seen more as an occupier than a helper.
Mixed signals is all these statements would represent, though, if it were not for one thing: General Odierno has been openly indicating that he doesn't consider the SOFA agreement binding in the way that his president does since last year. Statements from Admiral Mullen that "three years is a long time" appeared to back Odierno.
Given that history of open recalcitrance, Odierno's statements to the Times - and Flournoy's to Congress - might well indicate a quiet form of dissent at the Pentagon and among Obama's generals about the Iraq status of forces agreement, somewhat akin to the quieter dissent voiced by General McChrystal after he was smacked down by the White House for being too outspoken in advocating for his requested troop increase in Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment