Leaving Iraq

Obama fulfills his campaign promise. "As promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." Glenn Greenwald reminds us of a few important points:

There will still be a very substantial presence in that country, including what McClatchy called a “small army” under the control of the State Department. They will remain indefinitely, and that includes a large number of private contractors. None of this is to say that this is bad news (it isn’t: it’s good news), nor is it to say that Obama deserves criticism for adhering to the withdrawal plan (he doesn’t). It would just be nice if these central facts — painfully at odds with the two self-serving narratives that started being churned out before the President even spoke — were acknowledged.

Yochi Dreazen, of the National Journal, insists that we understand: "The troops aren't being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They're leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay."  Andrew Sullivan, too, weighs in:

We sometimes forget that he began as an anti-war candidate when the Great Recession was a twinkle in a credit default swap trader's eye. And when I hear people whining about his betrayals or their disappointments, I just hope they note that against great odds, the Iraq war is over without our running for cover. Given the core contradiction of the conflict and the bungling of the occupation: not so shabby. Given his core reason for running for president, mission accomplished.