It is hard to know what to think of the administration’s announcement that we are leaving Iraq, since President Obama has said so many contradictory things, from ‘all troops out by March 2008’ to ‘staying on until the foundations of civil society are established and institutionalized.’ Neither happened. The U.S. military, which evolved in brilliant fashion to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, cannot be happy that in the midst of the usual contorted negotiations, we simply quit and bugged out.
The so-called Arab Spring may have been inspired by the removal of Saddam Hussein, and yet without a direct U.S. presence, most countries are perhaps more likely to follow the Iranian model: removal of the tyrant, establishment of a weak elected government, the hijacking of the revolution by self-proclaimed “moderate” Islamists, and ultimately, theocracy of the Khomeinist/Hezbollah/Hamas sort. Note that Iraq, almost alone, escaped Arab Spring mass demonstrations, largely because the U.S. had shepherded a constitutional government considered legitimate and stable enough to endure the almost nonstop efforts by both Iranian agents and al-Qaedist terrorists to overthrow it. So, will the postwar American presence in 2008–11 turn out to have been sufficient, given that Iraq is still not able to defend its borders and its democracy is deeply feared by Tehran? Time will tell, but we should worry about everything from the survival of Iraqi territorial integrity to preserving the near miracle of a booming Kurdistan.
As for the cost in American blood and treasure, it was immense, which to Obama and many Americans means enough is enough, but to others argues that we owe to veterans and the dead an adequate peace-keeping force to ensure their sacrifices lead to a stable and constitutional Iraq, something now within our grasp. We have two postwar models — well apart from Italy, Germany, and Japan (where U.S. troops still reside) — South Korea and Vietnam. Both the latter wars cost the U.S. dearly, but the former, with a committed U.S. postwar presence, evolved into a strategic partner and a humane society; the latter, with helicopters fleeing the embassy, is still a Communist authoritarian state. And remember there are geo-strategic ripples, as we saw from Vietnam, when a pro-U.S. government and partner in war unravels. Nothing would make terrorists happier than to go after Iraq in force after in January 2012, to show that the noble effort of 2003–11 ended in infidel failure.
We also must not confuse irony with U.S. strategic interest. One artifact of Obama’s “leading from behind” foreign policy is a sense that many of our allies had it coming — “be careful what you wish for,” essentially — and now can no longer ankle-bite with unquestioned and guaranteed U.S. commitments. The more we consulted and defended Europe, the more it criticized us; the more we helped Iraq, the more its politicians blustered that we should leave, pronto. Now, with everyone unsure exactly of the present U.S. global foreign policy, many of our former friends are shocked and confused that American is no longer there for them anymore. This evokes schadenfreude, of course; but we should ignore that and decide to what degree a relatively defenseless Iraq is in our national interest, in the way that a shrinking and insolvent Europe is not in our interest, in the way Somalia-like chaos in the monarchial Gulf is not in our interest.
Right now, the future of Iraq is up in the air. If it is stable in 2012, Obama will campaign on the boast that he got all U.S. troops out. If it is not, ‘Who lost Iraq?’ will be the counter-charge. How sad — the U.S. was slowly drawing down with an eye on any unrest, and was planning to leave eventually anyway. Without much violence in Iraq (five Americans lost during the last three months), a U.S. force of say 10,000–15,000 was an iconic presence of U.S. commitment and did not cost the taxpayer much more than these troops being stationed elsewhere — and may well have proven a bargain in the retrospect.
Violence is down in Iraq is a flawed premise. Reporting of violence is down. Not violence. Not coincidental that the highest level of attacks was during when we had the most troops / accurate reporting. Removing the reporting mechanism (troops) doesn't lessen the violence. Monkey see no evil. Then theres no evil. Win!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight now, the future of Iraq is up in the air. If it is stable in 2012, Obama will campaign on the boast that he got all U.S. troops out. If it is not, ‘Who lost Iraq? from repply Obama to resolve the crisis in Iraq sent an army to the Kurdistan region of Iraq.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn total agreement. This whole thing costs next to nothing, and what's 5 Americans KIA'd every few months? If it means people like VDH get to feel warm inside, I think we should try to stay.
Let's just ignore what people in the military think, ignore what the Iraqi's want, and go with what VDH wants. If he could have, I'm 100% positive that he would have been a hard core infantryman just like Rush, 5 deferment Cheney, and National Guard Hero Bush aspired to be. Too bad medical issues, academic requirements, and the call of the Guard always seem to trump actual service among our most patriotic warrior-wannabes.
I suggest the GOP make staying in Iraq an election priority. I know it didn't work out for the GOP in 2006 and 2008, but I'm sure 2012 is going to be the big year for this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're going to the deferment argument after President Hopey Changey Community Organizer and Bill "I hate the military" Clinton? If that's your argument, you should have voted for John McCain in 2008 genius.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI want to help you, I really do. You see, the problem with chicken hawk war mongers is that they frequently dodge putting themselves in any kind of danger.
Clinton, Obama, and many on the left aren't war mongers, so I don't expect them to have military credentials. And on rare occasions where war mongers happen to have a distinguished career like McCain, the fact that they're war mongers is why a majority of people in this country don't support them.
In summary - war mongers are always silly people. But war mongers who went out of their way to avoid actually going to war when the "opportunity" presented itself, are especially silly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis makes even less sense than your first post, which I didn't think was possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama not a war-monger? Clinton not a war-monger? No, the difference is that they didn't ask permission of congress to wage their wars. Oh, excuse me Obama did ask permission of the U.N. and NATO he just neglected to let the American people or their representatives have a say in what wars were "the right wars to wage". What a hypocrite you are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse".....many of our former friends are shocked and confused that American is no longer there for them anymore...." LIKE WHO? Name them all instead of, yet again, making your personal opinion sound like the accepted consensus.
"...Iraq, almost alone, escaped Arab Spring mass demonstrations...." THEY DID? Might want to re-check those news sources.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, there were mass Arab Spring/Egypt style demonstrations in Iraq and the media missed it? Perhaps you need to re-check your news sources.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe previous commenter was just pointing out that there were many media reports of wide spread demonstrations in Iraq this summer. The media also pointed out that, unlike other countries, these protests were largely demanding that the government begin to do the job of providing basic government services rather than demanding a change in government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat ever analogies one might use at this juncture about how our armed forces could protect us and the Iraqi people from Iranian aggession by no longer be 'in country' are valid. No longer will our troops act as deterents against Iran crossing the border or act as trip wires or canaries in the mine or a visible reminder by being the observing parentheses by our having bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We cede valuable position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSaddam Hussein harbored terrorists and developed and used WMD, and he wanted to develop them again. If the government of Iraq doesn't do these things, the campaign was a success and it enhanced our security and served our national interests.
I hope the Iraqis embrace liberty but that's up to them. Like Reagan said, the Middle East isn't a place; it's a state of mind. There's nothing we can do about that, and we shouldn't try. As long as they don't build the wrong laboratories, invade neighboring countries, or cavort with the wrong people, they may do as they like as far as I'm concerned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhether I agree with the Iraqis' decision or not, it's their decision to make.
If they asked us to leave, we must leave.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they ask us to disband our military should we do that to?
I don't remember hard line islamists asking if they could try to destabilize and destroy our society!
Foreign policy is an ugly world that tamed leftists will never understand. There's no chills up and down your leg about how much mutual respect exists between you and your comrade.
If we made it our goal to destroy another country and started taking concrete steps towards that goal I would support that country's right to invade and occupy America in self defense and to stay until they felt we would stop spending our time plotting their demise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Iraqi government is a sovereign nation-state. Sovereignty means being able to tell foreign troops to get the hell out of your territory (and to use force to back that up). Since they've wronged us in no way, and are in fact allies, it would be lawless to stay without their leave.
The Iraqis demanded that US military personnel be subject to their courts. That's their right. Naturally we cannot accede to that demand, so we have to leave. Was all that posturing about bringing democracy to the Middle East simply lies? Are we now supposed to declare war against the new, democratic Iraq that we created? On what basis? Fears not even of bad acts that the government might take, but of bad acts that might befall it?
Recall that it was the Bush administration that restored Iraqi sovereignty. Maybe Bush should have kept it an American military dictatorship over the long haul, or installed a puppet king. Either way it's too late to complain about that now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight now, the future of Iraq is up in the air. If it is stable in 2012, Obama will campaign on the boast that he got all U.S. troops out. If it is not, ‘Who lost Iraq? from repply all sulwation opin kurdistan iraq by Obama to resolve the crisis in Iraq sent an army to the Kurdistan region of Iraq.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI share Dr. Hanson's concerns in prematurely pulling all American combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011.
As the National Review editors in another editorial correctly noted, American troops leaving Iraq now is a major windfall for America's implacable and long term enemy, Iran. Absent those troops, Iraq stands a real chance of being subverted by Iranian intrigue. And, we are signaling American weakness and lack of resolve against Iran which the Persian Gulf states, now friendly to America, are going to notice. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are going to be tempted to cut deals with Iran since they will be less certain of American protection in the future.
Keeping American troops based in Iraq for just a few more years to protect Iraq's fledgling democracy (which Dr. Hanson wisely notes, Iran fears) and to threaten and intimidate Iran and other bad actors in the Middle East makes perfect strategic sense. Iraq is centrally located in the Middle East which gives the American military an additional place to launch predator drones and commando raids against jihadi terrorists. It's even possible that Iraq's Arab democracy will continue to inspire more Arab Spring revolutions against the remaining regional dictators. But at this critical point in 2011 with revolutions breaking out over the Middle East and Iran closer to getting nuclear bombs the U.S. is going to pull out of Iraq and risk losing all the advantages we gain by staying.
To quote Dr. Hanson:" a U.S. force of say 10,000–15,000 was an iconic presence of U.S. commitment and did not cost the taxpayer much more than these troops being stationed elsewhere." How true. Look at this list below of American troop levels in some countries allied to the USA as of December 2010:
South Korea – 28,500
Japan – 40,178
Italy – 10,771
Kuwait - 10,548
United Kingdom – 9,436
How sad indeed that America has tens of thousands troops to defend rich and stable Asian and European countries from weak or theoretical enemies but President Obama can't keep 15,000 troops in Iraq to protect a vulnerable ally and ultimately ourselves from real and dangerous enemies in the Middle East. 28,500 troops to defend a well armed South Korea and rich Japan against a basket case North Korea, but nothing for Iraq. Future historians will marvel at the folly of it all.
What is Obama's cover story for taking such enormous risks and throwing away all the advantages we gain from being in Iraq? He is supposed to be the smartest Godlike president in American history but he says we can't negotiate a new immunity treaty with Iraqi leaders for American troops . I suspect he is using that as an excuse. Obama knows he needs to placate his restless liberal base for his troubled 2012 re-election bid and is putting that concern over America's strategic interest in the Middle East. In doing so, he stands an excellent chance of being remembered as the American president who "lost Iraq" and maybe also the president who "gave the Persian Gulf oil states to Iran."
Or maybe the U.S. and Iraq and will get extremely lucky and everything will turn out hunky dory, but like Dr. Hanson, I fear not.
Lewis Forro
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVirginia Beach, VA
"This evokes schadenfreude, of course; but we should ignore that and decide to what degree a relatively defenseless Iraq is in our national interest,"
So for generations, Iraq was able to defend itself against Iran, including when it was a dictatorship under the rule of Hussein.
But after 8 years as a republic that has accepted billions and billions of American dollars and has gleefully watched thousands of Americans die and be maimed helping it build its military, suppressing internal insurrection and defending against threats from its neighbors, it's "relatively defenseless."
Fine. The Iraqis are so backward, stupid, barbaric, incompetent and bigoted that notwithstanding all this time and assistance they still can't defend themselves against the Iranians. They can't fire a gun, make money, build anything more elaborate than a falafel sandwich or get over their inane divisions among "Shias", "Sunnis", "Kurds" and "Turkmen".
Even though they could just 8 years ago.
If this really is true - if the Iraqis are genuinely this pathetic - then they deserve to be an Iranian (and perhaps Turkish) province and to disappear into the dustbin of history.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoc Hanson...Face the facts.
Iraq is now a satelite of Iran.
If that's what you wanted, celebrate.
If not, we lost.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou got us into a disastrer. Along with Bush Cheney Rice Lieberman and Clinton, and teh national Review
A trillion dollars wasted. Guys killed. America looking like a bunch of goofs. Doc, just mount ole Traveler and go home.