As 46,000 U.S. troops still remain in Iraq, as McCain (who once said that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years”) wants as many as 13,000 troops to remain in Iraq, and as our troops continue to be killed there, the new U.S. Secretary of Defense made his first trip to Iraq in that capacity.
While Obama has promised to withdraw the remaining troops from Iraq by December 31, Leon Panetta attempted to walk a fine line between conflicting political and military posturing and realities, respectively.
On the political side, in addition to McCain, there are still many conservatives and even some “senior Obama administration officials” who would be amenable to an invitation by the Iraqi government to leave some U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline. But in this topsy-turvy pre-election period there are also many Republicans who for purely political and/or fiscal reasons are now “tapping into widespread public anxiety about expensive foreign wars,” including a continued presence in Iraq. Democrats generally continue to oppose any continued involvement in the remnants of that war.
As to military realities, it is becoming more and more apparent that the Iraqi military are not quite ready yet to secure their own country, as evidenced by a recent escalation in insurgents’ attacks—attacks that also claimed the highest level of American troop casualties in two years and continue to target U.S. military installations, even in the Green Zone.
Many of the weapons used in such attacks are being supplied by Iran, according to Secretary Panetta, and are being used by Shiite militias and have become a “tremendous concern” for U.S. troops.
Finally, there are the political considerations in Iraq and by Iraqis. Considerations that keep Iraqi politicians from openly admitting that Iraq needs a continued American military presence. According to the New York Times, “The subject is particularly sensitive because the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr helped the current government come to power and has said many times that the United States should leave immediately.”
While “demurring” when asked if he would like the Iraqi government to come out and ask the U.S. to leave troops in Iraq beyond Dec. 31, Panetta certainly is making it clear that he wants the Iraqi government to make up its mind one way or another, and soon.
“I’ll encourage them to make a decision so that we know where we’re going,” he told reporters traveling with him on a tour of the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the Washington Post. “If they do make a request, we ought to seriously consider it.”
According to a “senior U.S. Defense official”:
There’s some urgency for them to make that request if they’re going to make it…Our point to the Iraqis is if you’re going to ask, you should ask us sooner because our ability to actually come through on a request is higher now than it will be in September, October, November.
Such help would be, according to U.S. officials, in the form of strengthening Iraqi air defenses, training and counterterrorism operations.
But all this, only if Iraq makes a timely, formal request.
On the other hand, McCain—as usual—is more pro-active:
The United States has got to come forth with our proposal as to what we think they need and then I believe that it’s very possible – and I emphasize possible – that the Iraqis could then decide unanimously that they want the residual US presence, which would certainly be non-combat and would certainly be largely technical.
In a continuation of this topsy-turvy season, news sources are reporting that Panetta, speaking to troops at Camp Victory in Baghdad, has suggested that U.S. troops are in Iraq because of 9/11.
His words:
The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked…And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.
This puts Panetta “at odds with President Obama, the 9/11 Commission and other independent experts, who have said there is no evidence al-Qaeda had a presence in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.”
Stay tuned
UPDATE:
An updated edition of the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes, has the following on Panetta’s earlier remarks linking Iraq to 9/11:
It has been widely reported, however, that there is no evidence Iraq was behind the 2001 attacks, and al-Qaida only flooded into this country in response to the U.S. invasion in 2003.
Panetta later clarified to reporters that he meant al-Qaida had “developed a presence here.”
He told troops it was “our responsibility” to maintain a strong forward counterterrorism presence in the region to check the spread of al-Qaida and other groups, especially during the recent turmoil.
“There’s no question we’re going to have to maintain a presence,” he said, to provide direction with continued military and special operations elements.
“We’re going to be around for a helluva long time, making sure that the world goes right.”
