Washington, July 14: US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama vowed on Monday to pull out the bulk of US forces from Iraq by mid-2010, but insisted on keeping "a residual force" to fight remnants of Al Qaeda in the country for an unspecified amount of time.
And in a blow to current efforts by the administration of President George W. Bush, he also promised not to seek permanent US military bases in Iraq, if he is elected President in November. "As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in," Mr Obama wrote in the New York Times.
He added that the United States could safely redeploy its combat brigades inside Iraq at a pace that would remove them from the country in 16 months after his taking office in January of 2009 in case he wins the presidential election.
"That would be the summer of 2010, two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began," Mr Obama pointed out.
"After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."
Meanwhile, Mr Obama will visit Israel and the occupied West Bank next week, Israeli and Palestinian officials said.
Mr Obama will be in Israel on July 22 and 23 and hold talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, foreign minister Tzipi Livni, defence Minister Ehud Barak, President Shimon Peres and Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, an Israeli official said.
Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said that Mr Obama would also meet President Mahmoud Abbas.
My Plan For Iraq:
It’s time we put an end to the war
By Barack Obama
Chicago: The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops. I have long advocated it because that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president unlike Senator John McCain. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al-Qaida and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al-Qaida to Iran — has grown.
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al-Qaida — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt Gen James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. The Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender”, even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. I would give the military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war.
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al-Qaida has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
I would — as president — pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more non-military assistance to accomplish the mission there.
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. I would make it absolutely clear, unlike Senator McCain, that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favour of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war. — NYTNS
The writer is the presumptive Democratic US presidential nominee.