The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 



    Follow Tom


    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.

      Relentless Pentagon Pressure Mounts to Keep Troops in Iraq

      In a Culver City speech last week, President Obama declared that he has removed 100,000 troops from Iraq and ended their combat mission, leaving wide open the question of whether he seeks to leave thousands of American troops behind as trainers and counterterrorism specialists on a permanent base.

      In an expression of peak, Adm. Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs, called on Baghdad officials to hurry along in its internal deliberations on asking American troops to stay beyond the December 31 deadline.

      The New York Times revealed for the first time that the 2008 withdrawal pact “was primarily created so that Iraqi political leaders could show their constituencies that they were taking a stand” against the hated American occupation. “It was understood by both parties at the time,” the Times went on to explain, “that a new deal would be needed.” [April 22, 2011]

      The “new deal” has come apart in the new Iraq. Undoubtedly the Iraqi exiles put in power by the U.S. invasion would like continued protection from their Pentagon sponsors. So would the multinational oil companies negotiating leases. But the government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki survives with the support of a parliamentary bloc led by Moktada al-Sadr, a fierce critic of the occupation whose Mahdi army fought twice in uprisings against the Americans.

      Therefore, any “new deal” will have to satisfy the power agenda of al-Sadr and his allies in Iran, or risk a renewal of fighting against the retention of the smallest contingent of U.S. troops in Iraq since 2003. Nor will Obama make many friends by appearing to back away from his pledge to withdraw all troops by the end of the year. No one will believe the cover story that the Americans are only responding to a request by the Baghdad government. The State Department already is doubling its ranks in Iraq to 16,000 civilians backed by an unknown force of security contractors. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (1)

      The US troops need to be withdrawn by the deadline, not a day later. The small Number of troop in Iraq are lide sitting ducks. The Iraqi people and majority of the government do not want the US there. Let us leave gracefully or pay the price with the lives of the American military there. That, I believe, is too great a cost to pay. No more deaths, not Americans, not Iraqis.

      April 28, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRayleen Gaudet Nunez
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.