By Gareth Porter
Asia Times
WASHINGTON - The political maneuvering between United States President Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by Central Command chief General David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an account of the January 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.
The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers on February 5 and then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at the January 21 meeting.
The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the US military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.
This writer became aware of Petraeus' effort to influence the coverage of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a military source close to the general, who insisted on anonymity, offered the Petraeus account on February 4. The military officer was responding to an Inter Press Service story published two days earlier (Please see, Obama not bowing to top brass, yet, February 4, 2009.)
The story reported that Obama had rejected Petraeus' argument against a 16-month withdrawal option at the meeting and asked for a withdrawal plan within that timeframe, and that Petraeus had been unhappy with the outcome of the meeting.
(More here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment