Gareth Porter: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision Ӭ

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) – 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, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

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. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.

Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.

The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.

The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.

The assertion that Obama’s withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus’s strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.


The military may be right on this one.

Obama wants to draw down in Iraq to move into Afghanistan. This is a can of worms and the military knows it. Moreover, it could be an even bigger strategic blunder than Iraq if the US gets drawn into Pakistan, as seems increasingly likely.


What this means is that the US is abandoning its gains in securing the world’s most important strategic resource into order to enter a theater in which no one has been successful previously, where no one can even define success, where the downside is steep and the upside questionable, and where there is no strategic advantage to be gained.

While I don’t agree with the rationale of either staying in Iraq or escalating in Afghanistan/Pakistan, I can understand why the military is pushing Iraq.

About author View all posts


6 CommentsLeave a comment

  • Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen are unable to convince Obama that they have the better plan, could they sabotage his?

    Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.

  • Like, what do you mean? I voted for him, ergo, Obama was elected. Of course we are a Democracy. Riiiiggghhhhhttttttt!

    Wait a minute, the military is getting everything it wants. Those generals weren’t very happy during Bush; they couldn’t afford the really nice F22 toys. DARNIT! Lockheed Martin couldn’t sell but a handful a year. Now, watch, let us see if Obama can cross the Pentagon. You think Obama got himself elected in front of the GOP media machine all by himself? We will see …

  • i always wondered on any reasoning behind any such figure.

    it’s that we pull out is what’s important. anything, any percentage less, else is waiting and that means it ain’t happened. do it. do it now.

    besides, extravagantly “defending” a destitute america is killing it and we need to degarrison from the entire planet NOW. not just for the money but to quit alienating the world at large and this part here in particular.

    16 months??!! no, no, no…

Leave a Reply