Iraq Welcomes Obama’s Withdrawal Strategy
Iraqis welcomed U.S. commitment to withdraw its troops following the strategy announced by President Barack Obama, but at the same time stressed Iraq’s need for continuous support from the international community, particularly the United States, which bears a heavy responsibility in this regard.
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi welcomed the U.S. administration's commitment to withdraw from Iraq, calling for maximum efforts possible to ensure the efficacy of Iraqi armed forces. He said Iraq still needs the international community to build up an institutional state, a process to which the United States must contribute massively.
Hashemi's office said it received a call from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining that withdrawing troops is a direct result of security improvement in the country and the Iraqi administration’s desire for transition from military action to social and humanitarian action in order to rebuild Iraq.
In turn, Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Mohammed al-Askari said the decision did not come out of the blue. In the case of the withdrawal announced by President Obama, al-Askari maintained, Iraqi forces can manage national security. He added Iraqi military succeeded over the past two years to ensure security during Ashura, local elections, military operations, etc., where the need for multinational forces was restricted to air intervention.
He also emphasized this withdrawal will be reinforced by providing military training, equipment and advanced weaponry to the Iraqi military, thus enabling it to perform the tasks it was assigned. An official said military transactions would arrive during the period of withdrawal from developed industries such as the United States and Europe, which will make of the Iraqi army as developed as the armies of NATO.
Addustour, an independent newspaper, said it hopes the measures taken to speed up the U.S. forces’ withdrawal are not a political card advanced by the new administration to restore the image of U.S. policy damaged under former President George W. Bush. It pointed out that this premature withdrawal must not happen without a comprehensive analysis of the actual Iraqi state and society, founded on the principles of power division and function dispatching with regards to affiliations, nor without taking into account certain political parties’ obsession with exclusivity in the midst of political and administrative corruption that, also, can not be dismissed.
Addustour expressed its worry about the fast and surprising evacuation of elements of Iraq's stability particularly at the level of logistics, which invites the greed of certain parties. An armed clash, it warned, would bring Iraq back to its early critical condition, and even to political chaos. Addustour called for a responsible withdrawal that leaves all counter-attacks possibilities open, which may reassure Iraqis about their security and the future of Iraq.
From the general public perspective, Ali al-Zobaie, 35, said the timing is perfectly appropriate; Iraqi military is 80 percent ready. What it needs is heavy weaponry and border control. Some say America wants to withdraw troops from Iraq to lock them away in Afghanistan, said al- Zobaie. But this matter does not concern us, he maintained, what matters to us is their calculated withdrawal. Security forces, he continued, still feel dependent on a foreign army. Suppose U.S. military stays a hundred years, our military force would still feel dependent (...) therefore, al-Zobaie suggested, it is necessary to take a final decision for which we will bear full responsibility.
Yasser al-Moussawi, 31, said he believes Obama's decision would not serve Iraq’s interests but rather those of the United States. A trade company employee, Yasser said U.S. forces were supposed to stay until stability is fully achieved. U.S. support cannot stop in these circumstances, he said. They must finish what they have started, especially expertise in logistical support.
On the other hand, the Democrats in the Congress are not happy with keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq till August 2010. The moment Obama introduced the withdrawal strategy, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she does not see any justification for keeping 50,000 soldiers in Iraq. She said she thought 15,000 or 20,000 would be enough. Pelosi made a statement later on saying she wished the number of soldiers kept in Iraq could be limited.
The leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, Harry Reid, said to the New York Times he did not expect such a high figure. Reid made a statement later where he expressed that America must only keep troops in Iraq that guarantee the security our military in Iraq and Iraqis need. Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who voted in 2002 against the war in Iraq, expressed his concern about the number of troops to remain in Iraq after August 2010.
The Democratic Party’s extreme left wing members articulated their discontentment more clearly. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, for example, said America must not carry on its military operations in a foreign country and at the same time demand to end the war. Such anxiety within the Democrats group which launched a campaign last fall for withdrawal from Iraq resulted with a warning about potential tension between the White House and Congress. This tension, due to the new U.S. involvement in Iraq, which has sparked controversy since 2003 in the United States and the international community, is meaningless to the Republican Party, which applauded Obama’s strategy.
President Obama’s former rival in the presidential elections, John McCain, said on Friday in the Senate this strategy is not risk-free seeing Iraq’s fragile state and society, yet he thinks Obama’s strategy is sensible. McCain, the Senate’s Armed Services Committee member, added the 50,000 soldiers that will stay in Iraq after August 2010 will play a key role in the consolidation and development of the progress achieved by the army since 2007.
The Republican minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, expressed his satisfaction with Obama’s decision to stick to the strategy of General David Petraeus, who launched military supply to Iraq early in 2007. At the White House, the Democrats’ criticism was taken seriously. Democrat and Republican executives were invited on Thursday to a meeting with Obama. According to the press, the meeting didn’t bring any further decisions.
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi welcomed the U.S. administration's commitment to withdraw from Iraq, calling for maximum efforts possible to ensure the efficacy of Iraqi armed forces. He said Iraq still needs the international community to build up an institutional state, a process to which the United States must contribute massively.
Hashemi's office said it received a call from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining that withdrawing troops is a direct result of security improvement in the country and the Iraqi administration’s desire for transition from military action to social and humanitarian action in order to rebuild Iraq.
In turn, Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Mohammed al-Askari said the decision did not come out of the blue. In the case of the withdrawal announced by President Obama, al-Askari maintained, Iraqi forces can manage national security. He added Iraqi military succeeded over the past two years to ensure security during Ashura, local elections, military operations, etc., where the need for multinational forces was restricted to air intervention.
He also emphasized this withdrawal will be reinforced by providing military training, equipment and advanced weaponry to the Iraqi military, thus enabling it to perform the tasks it was assigned. An official said military transactions would arrive during the period of withdrawal from developed industries such as the United States and Europe, which will make of the Iraqi army as developed as the armies of NATO.
Addustour, an independent newspaper, said it hopes the measures taken to speed up the U.S. forces’ withdrawal are not a political card advanced by the new administration to restore the image of U.S. policy damaged under former President George W. Bush. It pointed out that this premature withdrawal must not happen without a comprehensive analysis of the actual Iraqi state and society, founded on the principles of power division and function dispatching with regards to affiliations, nor without taking into account certain political parties’ obsession with exclusivity in the midst of political and administrative corruption that, also, can not be dismissed.
Addustour expressed its worry about the fast and surprising evacuation of elements of Iraq's stability particularly at the level of logistics, which invites the greed of certain parties. An armed clash, it warned, would bring Iraq back to its early critical condition, and even to political chaos. Addustour called for a responsible withdrawal that leaves all counter-attacks possibilities open, which may reassure Iraqis about their security and the future of Iraq.
From the general public perspective, Ali al-Zobaie, 35, said the timing is perfectly appropriate; Iraqi military is 80 percent ready. What it needs is heavy weaponry and border control. Some say America wants to withdraw troops from Iraq to lock them away in Afghanistan, said al- Zobaie. But this matter does not concern us, he maintained, what matters to us is their calculated withdrawal. Security forces, he continued, still feel dependent on a foreign army. Suppose U.S. military stays a hundred years, our military force would still feel dependent (...) therefore, al-Zobaie suggested, it is necessary to take a final decision for which we will bear full responsibility.
Yasser al-Moussawi, 31, said he believes Obama's decision would not serve Iraq’s interests but rather those of the United States. A trade company employee, Yasser said U.S. forces were supposed to stay until stability is fully achieved. U.S. support cannot stop in these circumstances, he said. They must finish what they have started, especially expertise in logistical support.
On the other hand, the Democrats in the Congress are not happy with keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq till August 2010. The moment Obama introduced the withdrawal strategy, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she does not see any justification for keeping 50,000 soldiers in Iraq. She said she thought 15,000 or 20,000 would be enough. Pelosi made a statement later on saying she wished the number of soldiers kept in Iraq could be limited.
The leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, Harry Reid, said to the New York Times he did not expect such a high figure. Reid made a statement later where he expressed that America must only keep troops in Iraq that guarantee the security our military in Iraq and Iraqis need. Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who voted in 2002 against the war in Iraq, expressed his concern about the number of troops to remain in Iraq after August 2010.
The Democratic Party’s extreme left wing members articulated their discontentment more clearly. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, for example, said America must not carry on its military operations in a foreign country and at the same time demand to end the war. Such anxiety within the Democrats group which launched a campaign last fall for withdrawal from Iraq resulted with a warning about potential tension between the White House and Congress. This tension, due to the new U.S. involvement in Iraq, which has sparked controversy since 2003 in the United States and the international community, is meaningless to the Republican Party, which applauded Obama’s strategy.
President Obama’s former rival in the presidential elections, John McCain, said on Friday in the Senate this strategy is not risk-free seeing Iraq’s fragile state and society, yet he thinks Obama’s strategy is sensible. McCain, the Senate’s Armed Services Committee member, added the 50,000 soldiers that will stay in Iraq after August 2010 will play a key role in the consolidation and development of the progress achieved by the army since 2007.
The Republican minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, expressed his satisfaction with Obama’s decision to stick to the strategy of General David Petraeus, who launched military supply to Iraq early in 2007. At the White House, the Democrats’ criticism was taken seriously. Democrat and Republican executives were invited on Thursday to a meeting with Obama. According to the press, the meeting didn’t bring any further decisions.
Previous article![]( "The China-U.S. Dialogue")
