As often happens on these matters, I turn to Spencer Ackerman for analysis:
August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. The combat mission will give way to a training and advisory mission in support of the Iraqi security forces, along with "targeted counter-terrorism missions," but that mission isn't unconditional. Obama said the U.S. military will support its Iraqi counterparts "as long as they remain non-sectarian" -- a subtle shift, but one that places pressure on the Iraqis not to allow their military as a means to a renewed sectarian struggle. What Obama elided is that U.S. soldiers who train Iraqi security forces frequently do so by participating in combat operations. The combat "mission" may end in August 2010, but the presence of U.S. troops in combat won't. Between 30,000 and 55,000 troops will remain in Iraq for these hybrid training/combat missions.But full withdrawal will follow within 18 months of the combat-brigades' departure. For the first time as president, Obama attempted to resolve ambiguities about a full withdrawal along the Dec. 2011 framework that the Iraqi government insisted upon in last year's Status of Forces Agreement, committing himself to its mechanisms. Some on the left have wondered warily why Obama hadn't made such a public commitment. Those worries will probably end with this line:"Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."
One question: Doesn't it seem unlikely that a sectarian turn would hasten our departure? If it began to look like the Iraqi army would abet ethnic violence, would Obama pull out the troops and leave them to it? I'm not saying whether he should or shouldn't -- depend on the circumstances and prospects for peace, I guess -- I'm just asking.Anyway, full remarks of our commander-in-chief after the fold.
