The New US-Iraq Security Pact: Will We Eventually Pull Out?

This week I have looked at the Iraqi government’s vote on the security pact, which allows the U.S. troops to stay longer in Iraq, but then puts a timetable for the first time to pull out by year 2011. The agreement was already made last August between the U.S. and Iraqi government, but the Iraqi parliament has yet to ratify it. And after they ratify it, then it gets put on a public referendum for the citizens. Then in November, the United States has elected Barack Obama as its new president, who has been against the Iraq War from the beginning and constantly called for troop withdrawals throughout his campaign. It seems the President-elect might be now in an easier position to commit to his proposals after the vote. However, the recent security pact was met with more skepticism from both the supporters and critics of troop withdrawal. One blog I have looked at was by Alissa J. Rubin, a reporter for the New York Times Baghdad bureau. She had used her resources on the field to get the views of Iraqi citizens on the issue. She has concluded that basically the Iraqis think “they [Americans] will never leave” (which is also the title of the post) mainly because the country would never simply leave after costing so much lives and money on the invasion. The other one was Maya Schenwar of Truthout.com who had argued that the pact has created more confusion than about the future direction. The main factors have been loopholes and restrictions imposed by between the US government and a few Iraqi government officials despite oppositions from the majority of its citizens. Both posts have conveyed mostly Iraqi views. Here are my reactions to them:

Analysis: 'They Will Not Leave' by Alissa J. Rubin

http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/they-will-not-leave-analysis/

I have followed your reporting from Baghdad on NYT, and it was once again insightful to see Iraqi citizens’ points of view on this important issue. I will be an Air Force officer after graduating from college and have tried to follow up on the situation there, whether through the media or the military sources. However, I do believe that the Iraqi’s points of view are often overshadowed in our media although that should be the most critical to our success. I know that not all Iraqis think the same, (because if they did, then we would not be still tangled in this conflict) but it was still helpful. I am now convinced that Iraqis are skeptical about our troop withdrawal any time in the near future, even with the new administration. However, the Iraqis must also understand that pulling out of Iraq has become our national interest, not staying. And since the situations have improved, the U.S. is anxious to give responsibility back to the Iraqis and deal with threats in Afghanistan or outside of the Middle East.

Iraqis are probably right on what our government is thinking – that we simply would not leave until we get what we want after costing so much lives and resources. Like you wrote, they think that the troops will stay for another “ten years” or even if they pull out of the cities, they will “stay on bases”. Like mentioned some time before, Iraq could become the next Korea, where about 35,000 U.S. troops are indefinitely stationed after the armistice in 1953. Yet, the U.S. has also pulled out before when it thought it was enough, especially in the case of Vietnam. And we also have a new president who was elected for opposing the war and demanding troop withdrawals. This will now be the test to his promises and political future, especially when it has gotten a bit easier with a timetable. I am not guaranteeing we will pull out but the new administration will work on it as much as it can.

You mentioned the attitudes of our soldiers towards the end, which I believe was a strong conclusion; that the soldiers, like the American people, “have moved on”, regardless of the political situation. They believe they have done enough, and will continue to serve. I really commend them and hope they will all return home with honor they deserve.

Thank you.

Despite Agreement, US Future in Iraq Unclear by Maya Schenwar

http://www.truthout.org/112808Z#comment-28037

Thank you for your insightful article and more people should be concerned about this, whether they are Americans or Iraqis. It seems like the media only does a superficial coverage of the pact, not even mentioning the fact that the pact will not be released to the public. As someone who will be an Air Force officer after college, I believe I have to be fully aware of this situation.

President-elect Obama has opposed the war from the beginning, continuously called for the troop withdrawals, and putting a timetable for it too. It seems like the tide has already been turned to his favor as he takes office next January. This gives him more advantage to keep his campaign promises. However, as you point out, there are more loopholes and constraints for him. The security pact makes the US troops leave by 2011, much later than Obama’s proposal, and has to give a one year warning for any changes, which makes it even more difficult for him to bring it earlier. I hope the new administration is aware of this before trying anything even more damaging.

Even the Iraqi government has passed this pact without going through its proper constitutional procedure – this already undermines its own constitution only less than a few years after it has been written. But then at least, there are debates going on inside all branches of government and even in the public while in the U.S., only a few number of officials in the executive branch are knowledgeable about this. This will enable the executive branch in the US to get pass the Congress and unilaterally act on treaties, which is also unconstitutional in our own country. As a former law professor, I hope the next president Obama will understand and fix this mess to get back to the legal track.

It is impossible to predict what will happen in the next three years. However, the new administration will have to be fully aware of this current situation and come up with a new agenda that determines the security of both nations’ interests without violating their own constitutions. Thank you.

Robert Gates: Too Dangerous to Keep?

Last week I have looked at the prospects of the upcoming Obama administration’s military/defense policy, and this week I decided to look at the most pressing issue concerning right now – selection of the Secretary of Defense. There have been buzz and debates over whether the current defense secretary Robert M. Gates should remain in his position (even just for a while) during the next administration. Obama had already expressed his willingness to ask Gates to stay should he get elected throughout his campaign. Now that he is elected, Obama has to decide whether he should consider bring “change” to Washington right away as he promised, or continue stability in the Pentagon with an experienced and respected man for the job.

I decided to find articles with two different views using IMSA criteria – one supporting the decision to make him stay, and one opposing it. The first one was Continuity We Can Believe In: Why Barack Obama Should Keep Robert Gates at Defense by Michael Goodwin, a conservative columnist for the New York Daily News, who advocates Obama’s pick of Gates. The other one was The Danger of Keeping Robert Gates in the English edition of Al-Jazeera Magazine by Robert Parry who is a reporter/author that opposes Obama’s potential move. The first author praises Gates for his “honest and nonpartisan public service” and the “record of success” that justifies his stay. On the contrary, the latter points out Gates as someone who “embodies worst elements of U.S. national security policy” and very “politicized”. It was certainly interesting and important to assess two contrasting perspectives, especially because this issue is critical to our national security and also because the new administration has pledged openness and post-partisanship.

For Continuity We Can Believe In: Why Barack Obama Should Keep Robert Gates at Defense

As someone who will soon become an officer in the United States Air Force, this is a really important issue. The next commander-in-chief Barack Obama had made history already and yet will face even greater challenges when he takes office, including managing two difficult wars that he had only been watching from the sidelines. He has promised further changes in our recent policies; he had pledged to end the war in Iraq and put more emphasis in Afghanistan; he said he would talk to our enemies without precondition. He had said he would bring changes to the way policies are made by transcending partisanship, including putting people with different political affinity in his cabinet like President Lincoln did during the Civil War. If Obama truly wants to be a leader who would bring historical changes in this country, then he will have to take some chances. And that includes keeping Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense, even at least for a short period.

President-elect Obama had been a main critic of President Bush for years, literally. And there are few people who are more politically tied to the Bush family than Secretary Gates; he was appointed as the Director of CIA by President George H.W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense by President George W. Bush. So for someone who got into office for hammering Bush keeping someone too close to the family might look like a blatant hypocrisy. Many of Obama’s anti-war supporters would protest for sure. Yet, even they overlook Gates’ competence and the opportunity for post-partisanship. People tend to believe that change means complete overhaul, but history has shown that it is often too radical and risky. There should always be a balance between change and continuity. At this critical and dangerous time, it is indeed better to keep a man who has already shown that he is capable and overcame his past politicization of favoring the Bushes.

For The Danger of Keeping Robert Gates

This article mentions mostly about Gates’ history in CIA, but barely touches on his accomplishments as Secretary of Defense. It is true that there are few people who are more politically tied to the Bush family than Secretary Gates; he became the Director of CIA by President George H.W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense by President George W. Bush. Gates would not have been here if it was not for the Bush family. Gates probably had spent most of his CIA career sweet-talking to the Bushes for his own political/bureaucratic career; that could hardly be surprising. But Secretary Gates is a different man from Director Gates. Now he has not only shown competence but honesty and objectivity. If he had kept his politicization tendency, then there would not be as much progress in Iraq War right now, if not deteriorating. Also that is why it has become difficult even for current anti-Bush Democrats to criticize him.

So for Obama, who got all the way to presidency by criticizing Bush and promising change, to tying himself to a Bush crony in a very important position would seem like the least reasonable political move. He would disappoint so many of his anti-war supporters. But they should remember that this is a chance for new cooperation for the national and international interest. It would finally give a very wise man an opportunity to break away from his old realm and work with someone else who demands new directions. And it would be chance for a new president to look at complex war issues from a fresh perspective. Past records are important, but what matters more is what has happened more recently, and how things will be in the better future.

Obama Administration’s 21st Century Military: Sufficient for the 21st Century?

November 4^th, 2008 will be remembered in history as the day Barack Obama was elected as the first African-merican President of the United States of America. People throughout the nation and even the world will remember where they were and what their initial reaction was the moment he was projected to win. But then they will also remember what they had been going through at the time – the world is in the biggest financial crisis in seventy years, the U.S. has been making fragile progress in two difficult wars, and the world had just simply become too unpredictable. They finally saw a new leader of the free world who has inspired millions around the world with his charisma and words. They now have to see if he can actually lead people out of all these real-life chaos. Economy was the top concern on the voters’ minds, and the President-elect has made this as his top priority. Nevertheless, the new president should also keep in his mind that he is also the new Commander-in-Chief during the most difficult wartime in the nation’s history yet, while American ideals and leadership have been largely undermined both domestically and internationally. President-elect Obama has promised to rebuild America’s defense into the “21^st century military”, following with solid ideas during his campaign. Now, he should work on keeping his commitments as the next great leader of the 21^st century.

President-elect Obama has had no previous military experience, and also had been continuously charged by his rival war hero candidate Senator John McCain as too “naïve” and therefore “not ready”. The same charge has been made by even Senator Joe Biden during primaries before eventually becoming his running mate. It is true that Obama’s record on national security policy is little. Therefore, during his campaign, Obama put an effort to formulate his defense and foreign policy agendas. He has tried to assert he will become both a strong and careful commander-in-chief at the same time. One of the earliest previews of his foreign policy agendas was his speech at Chicago Council of Global Affairs in April 2007, where he first coined the term “21^st century military”. Then he elaborated on the “21^st century military” in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs. Here are the excerpts of his main views from the article:

“…to renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace…I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened…We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

To show his strong side, he added specific plans including “adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines”, “foreign languages” as one of the skills provided to the people in uniform, and “to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness”. On the Air Force note, Obama did call for spending enormous amount of money on the new UAVs, improve electronic warfare capabilities, and building more C-17 cargo planes and KC-X refueling tankers for America’s “future ability to extend its global power” in his speech in Chicago. He overall also promised to provide necessary equipments, trainings, and other resources to those all in the service.

Then to show his wise side, he also mentioned that when he is sending troops in their harm’s way, he will “clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.” He also would garner support from the U.S. allies and use diplomacy along with armed forces in order to succeed. Few stances have been changed throughout the campaign, and they’ve been all laid out to the public, including in his website. If he follows through on all of his proposals, the U.S.’s defense is likely to be revitalized and strong again.

However, there are some concerns and criticisms towards Obama’s defense plans, especially on his pledge to cut spending on “missile defense systems”, “slowing or suspending the development of future combat systems”, and “not weaponize space”. Certain critics believe these plans “threaten foreign policy consequences inimical to American interests, and would pose perilous problems for some of our key allies around the world”. Then in order to meet all these plans of rebuilding the military, the defense spending has to be either increased or stay the same. But one Democrat House member has already called for 25% in overall defense spending, and probably more members will join him. The situation in Iraq is getting more unpredictable although the US and Iraqi government have recently agreed on withdrawal of American troops by 2011. The situation in Afghanistan is “not going in the right direction” according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen. Then Russia and China are mobilizing their own military to challenge the U.S. superiority. Therefore, President-elect Obama should stick to its original position and look for other ways to improve the economy without negatively impacting the defense budget.

President-elect Obama has recently proven his determination for national security when he has selected Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to keep the job and a retired Marine general James L. Jones as his National Security Advisor. Both men have distinguished records and credentials on years of service and leadership, and Obama has selected them based on merits, not political affiliation. Not only that but he has already spoken with the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of National Intelligence, and former experts from both the Democratic and Republican administrations as well. This is certainly a positive start but the new president must continue to be both strong and wise throughout his administration regardless of the condition. When President Obama takes office in January 20^th, it will be remembered as a historical day for some reason, but it should be remembered especially as the day when America re-emerged as the leader and protector of freedom and peace in the 21^st century.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: Unsung Active Victor

Wars create ironies, and that is certainly the case now in the United States’ war in Afghanistan and Iraq. After developing the strongest military ever seen on Earth, the U.S. is actually struggling to fight against groups of terrorists, even without the threat of the Soviet Union anymore. The U.S. Air Force has the undeniable air superiority around the globe, and one of the many factors is its arsenal of cutting-edge aircraft. And yet, the types of aircraft that are making the biggest difference in the combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan are the unmanned aerial vehicles, or simply known as the “UAV”s. When people say they want to become “pilots”, they mean the ones who “fly” aircraft while also physically being in the “air” themselves as well – the UAV pilots do not; they sit, look at the screen, and control their aircraft with joysticks like video games. Therefore, it is reasonable for the U.S. Air Force leaders to consider UAVs as trivial. However, it is time for the leaders of the United States military and government to accept the effectiveness of this weapon and continue developing more to adapt to this asymmetrical war.

The history of the UAV was imbedded with ironies as well. The drones were always considered as a "bastard stepchild of the military", especially because the U.S. Air Force’s “manned platform” has glorified the real pilots and airmen in combats. In fact, the drones have always been effective in battles but never cool. The unmanned drones were first developed and used during World War II for antiaircraft target practice. Then a young Japanese American engineer named Norman Sakamoto came up with the idea of putting a camera at the nose of the drones for aerial reconnaissance. Ironically, Sakamoto, the “godfather of drones,” spent the first two years of World War II with his family in a Japanese internment camp in Arizona. After its great use during the Vietnam War, the UAV was set aside. In the meantime, Israel has surpassed the U.S. in drones technology so that by the 1990’s, the U.S. had to learn the technology back from its allies. Since then, both the air force and the CIA have been pursuing more uses of the UAVs. This shows that the U.S. military’s preference for large conventional weapons has marginalized some of our own critical technology; so that we let it get passed onto others until we need them back again. This type of cycle has continued.

By the beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, those UAVs were only considered as fancy accessories. Just about five years later, they are crucial in the combat zones, more so than the fancy fighter jets. The total number of the UAVs in the U.S. military have increased by twenty five fold since the beginning of the Iraq War, and many seem to be frustrated with the slow pace of deployments, especially the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who said last April that “I've been wrestling for months to get more intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets into the theater. Because people were stuck in the old ways of doing things, it's been like pulling teeth.” His quote underscores the overall issue in the Pentagon. The “old ways” that Gates referred to are the ways the military has dealt with the Soviet threat – a nation versus nation, nukes v. nukes, or any massive conventional weapons to rival each other. Gates calls greater need for the new ways, including targeting borderless terrorists and reducing collateral damage. In this case, the UAVs are more effective than fighter jets.

How are the UAVs making differences in Iraq and Afghanistan then? It is mostly the tremendous technological advantage of the drones – their cameras are so sensitive that they can spot little details of appearance and movement of an individual person on the ground even at night or through gun smoke; they can also pick up radio transmissions and the location. There are two main types of UAVs used in Iraq and Afghanistan right now – Shadow and Predator. Shadow is the one mostly used for reconnaissance and espionage. Then the predator is the one that “preys” and actually engages once all the information has been gathered. The UAVs first relieve some burdens off the ground troops who used to patrol and monitor around the city for hours; they would just be in the air with its “unblinking eye” for hours. Then they track down militants even when they were hiding among the civilian population; it “finds, fixes, and finishes” by itself or by working together with the troops on the ground. For example, when it spots a very dangerous movement by a single or a small number of militants, it tracks down and stops them. It helps the human intelligence on the ground (either the U.S. troops or Iraqis) by providing information or supporting operations. For example, when scattered terrorists come out, the drones will give the live feeds of the operation theater to the commanders so they can analyze the tactics and patterns. Then it can wait until the militants move to integrate in one place, and fully attack with the ground troops. The accurate intelligence and targeting also reduces a great amount of collateral damage. And, it could be easily mistaken for a bird for its size and movement. There cannot be more ideal weapon than UAV in an asymmetrical war.

The U.S. commanders in Baghdad right now are making the best use of the UAVs they can to bring peace and stability. The prime example of its contribution is the recent turn of the tide in Sadr City, the part of Baghdad that is controlled by a Shiite cleric Al-Sadr, who is also vehemently anti-American. This has led to a mingling of civilians and anti-American Shia militias (most Anti-American insurgents are Sunnis), making it the most difficult place in Iraq for the U.S. military to attack or even simply access before. Nowadays, the civilians can come out into the streets, and the U.S. troops can easily patrol the area both day and night.

The UAV is finally receiving the credit it deserves in Sadr City, and its role is likely to expand throughout wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is still a notion that the drone pilots are not real pilots and the UAVs are not simply cool. Yet, despite the penchant for massive and fancy aircraft, the UAV, with the history imbedded with ironies, has proven it is a bigger player than any other types right now in the wars the U.S. is currently fighting. It is time for the adaptation of a new type of warfare, and put the bias aside for the effectiveness in battles. It will feel like one is just sitting playing video games, but he or she should always be proud of whatever the job is when serving the country and fighting for peace.