Let's get something straight: there will be no complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq within the first 16 months of Barack Obama's administration.
Two days after Obama won the presidency, the US military conceded to many of the Iraqi government's demands regarding the status of forces agreement currently under negotiation, which would allow US forces to stay on Iraqi soil after the UN's mandate authorising the US troop presence there expires at the end of the year. In many respects, the Iraqi government is demanding its sovereignty, and the US is reluctantly releasing its grip.
Under the terms of the revised security pact now under consideration by Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, US forces would pull out of Iraqi cities by the end of June 2009. Except for trainers and air traffic controllers, they would then completely leave Iraq by the end of 2011. The previous draft of the security pact had language allowing the Iraqi government to ask the US to stay past 2011. The Bush administration has deleted it. Also of importance, the US military will allow US troops that commit serious crimes when off base and off duty to be tried by Iraqi's legal system. The US also included language that bars it from using Iraqi soil to attack its neighbours. Both are critical concessions if anyone is to believe Iraq's sovereignty is credible.
If the Iraqi government does sign it before breaking for December's holidays, Iraqi legislators agree that it was Obama's victory that brought the necessary peace of mind. (If they don't, the Bush administration's "fallback option" is going back to the UN security council for an extension to allow US troops to continue in Iraq, which, according to the Washington Times, "require[s] Iraqi government cooperation but not Iraqi acceptance of a bilateral accord with Washington.")
"If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable," Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Shia Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, told the New York Times. "This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr Obama."
But it's important to notice that Obama wants the removal of US combat brigades done, with some redeployed to Afghanistan, by the summer of 2010 - a full year earlier than what's on the table now.
There's a reason why the security pact is setting a date for withdrawal a year later than Obama's plan: both the US military and Iraqi legislators don't want to give up the recent security gains, which are real. If they weren't, General David Petraeus wouldn't remove a combat brigade six weeks earlier than expected.
But the fear is if the US withdraws too quickly, without a strong and integrated indigenous security force to stand up as US forces step down, then the bloody hand of civil war, if not genocide, could smear out the recent progress.
As Time reported Friday, US military officials will likely advise Obama to adjust his timetable. And whether people want to acknowledge it or not, behind closed doors Iraqis want the US military to retain enough troop strength to maintain a tenuous peace. Sunnis still fear Shia. Shia still fear Sunnis. The Kurds still fear both.
Obama understands this. On his campaign website's section on Iraq, Obama says: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as were careless getting in." Furthermore, Obama says: "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government."
Obama also talks about keeping a "residual force" of American soldiers to hunt down and kill al-Qaida and protect the US embassy and civilian personnel still on the ground. No one knows how large this residual force will be. By leaving this undefined, Obama is leaving himself room to manoeuvre on troop strength.
When these factors are added together, it's simple to see: Obama will shy away from his previous declarations to fully remove combat troops by June 2010.
If the Iraqi government does sign the security pact, it will show its support for keeping US forces in the country for a year longer than Obama's timetable. Combine this with US commanders' advice to slow down the withdrawal, and there's no way Obama will foolishly stick to his 16-month withdrawal schedule.
Over the summer, Obama all but said this to reporters:
And if it turned out, for example, that, you know, we had to, in certain months, slow the pace because of the safety of American troops in terms of getting combat troops out, of course we would take that into account. I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account.
Yes he would. The US has suffered enough under an administration that valued faith over facts. Americans should now take heart that the new commander-in-chief will responsibly navigate the mess left by his predecessor based on how the world is, not how he wishes it to be. The world should also be relieved that the new commander-in-chief believes in his responsibility to protect Iraqi civilians as much as he does US soldiers.