My colleagues at the Center for American Progress and I have been arguing for several years that the best hope for creating a stable Iraq and enhancing our ability to deal with the critical threats to our security-particularly in Afghanistan-was to set a specific date for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Although we were severely criticized by the Bush administration and its acolytes for "cutting and running," we were vindicated when President George W. Bush, in November 2008, signed the security agreement that was part of the Status of Forces Agreement. The SOFA stipulated that all American troops would withdraw from the Iraqi cities to their bases by June 30, 2009 and not conduct independent military operations after that date. The United States also agreed to leave the country completely by the end of 2011.
After his election, President Barack Obama began implementing the strategic agreement and began to fulfill his campaign promise by agreeing to withdraw all combat troops by August 31, 2010 and all remaining troops by the end of 2011.
Lawrence Korb, who wrote the above, is one of those clueless analysts. Is he truly saying that withdrawing according to a fairly set schedule after winning--which we are doing (and based on no bad surprises so far to alter our plan)--is the same as setting a timetable for withdrawal while the fight was raging at its peak? Which is what the president wanted, of course--withdraw before we won and pray for victory.
Yet Korb thinks doing the former is the same as the latter--"vindicating" his advocacy for withdrawal based on a timetable before the surge took effect. The fact is, President Obama could not carry out his campaign promise because we won the war--which I marked as the date of the SOFA signing--before he took office.
So Korb's claim of vindication is like saying that calling for a withdrawal timetable for our troops in Europe would make no difference whether it took place in May 1944 or May 1945, ignoring the difference that the fighting from D-Day to the fall of Berlin made. The diffence, of course, is that the former would have been "cutting and running" while the latter was "victory." CAP should look into the nuances of that difference.
Korb truly is that dense. Honestly, I don't know if I've ever read anything by him that wasn't drivel.
I eagerly await his impressions of Iraq, where he currently is.
