We've got a new President on his way to Washington, one who opposed the war in the beginning and called for combat troops to be removed a year ago. Then, during the campaign, the situation got better until Iraq became a non-issue. By any reasonable standard, we have won in Iraq. So what happens now? Will Obama honor his 18-month exit strategy promise, and how many troops does that actually cover? We have purchased and built 30 bases, many of them built as permanent bases, and the world's largest embassy in Iraq. Will we keep support/security troops there indefinitely? If so, what will they do? If Iraq turns out to be another Korea, with a permanent American presence but relatively stable Iraq and trading partner, what will the legacy of the war be? And how will it affect Bush's legacy?
I hope things will continue to improve. If things keep going the way they have recently I don't think Obama will have to make a big decision on Iraq.
I dont see an 18 month exit strategy at least i hope not. Leaving now would completely undo all the progress that has been made. I'd like to think that Obama will realize this when he learns more from the presidential perspective. I would agree with the Korea analogy. It's a strategic foothold and an advantageous one. The legacy of the war will certainly be decided over the years and it is still up in the air. Things are headed in the right direction now, but as mentioned before, abandonment in the short term would certainly make that legacy a bad one. Patience and continued effort would make the legacy much more positive and in 15 years, it could very easily be looked at as a great step.
The difference is that the Koreans wanted us to stay. If we leave now, or 100 years from now, once we leave the Iranians will become Iraq’s #1 partner. Staying confers no additional benefits. It just delays the inevitable.
So how long are these "trainers and air traffic controllers" going to stay? And why do we need them there? Why Iraq take control of their own air traffic control? Why can't we help train Iraqi security forces in the United States? If we start to bring the troops home and the Shia attack the Sunnis, will we stop the withdrawal or bring troops back?
They'll be #1 partners with the Shiites, but not the Kurds and not the Sunnis. Is Kurdistan even part of Iraq anymore? I know they have their own Army and their own flag and at least up until this summer, had not even raised the Iraqi national flag. I should read up on this more, bc I'm curious on how Iraq's combo gov't of mixed cultures, major Theocratic elements, and trial part democracy will work out.
I think that it's tough to make the argument that the US has won in Iraq, but I'm very interested in hearing why you think that's the case. I think the Bush administration's move into Iraq was essentially a form of invasion. I think it was an attempt to gain control of Iraq, particularly Iraqi oil, and Saddam Hussein provided the excuse. This is why Bush, or likely more accurately the Neocon leaders who were pulling his strings, went in essentially alone, without the approval of the UN, and in contravention of international law. They didn't want to be constrained by any partners or rules that could interfere with their real objectives. Remember that it later came out that taking effective control in Iraq and spreading their influence in the ME was a key part of the Neocon's New American Century initiative. But, as we discussed on this board at the time, even a basic project management theory and risk analysis showed that the action was essentially guaranteed to fail from the outset, and given the loss of life and destruction of property that has taken place between then and now, and the level of uncertainty that still exists, I think most would agree that the action was a failure and should never have been taken in the first place. With Obama now the president elect, and the Neocons in shambles, a new course of action is now possible, but any such course has to deal with the current context. Those bases I'm sure were intended to be permanent bases, but right from the outset that had essentially no chance of happening. Now in his last days as president, I think that Bush is finally conceding to the inevitable, but he is still trying to save some face, and deflect blame, by ensuring that some Americans will remain in Iraq. A full pull out would open the door to a full postmortem of the Iraq war, and I'm very sure that Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al do not want that. With respect to the pull out of troops, I think Obama will need to consult closely with the Iraqis and determine whether a continued foreign peacekeeping presence is needed. If so, and I suspect that it is, then he will need to negotiate some kind of hand off to either UN forces or perhaps forces provided by a coalition of ME nations. The US presence there has always been a lighting rod for terrorist and radicals from all over the region, and they need to get out to remove that factor from the conflict. For obvious reasons it never made sense to have American troops on the ground in Iraq, unless the real objective was about taking control of Iraq for US. That has essentially no chance of happening. There are too many forces in the area who do not want the US there and who have the power to make life untenable for any Americans stationed there, including Iraqis themselves. You can also add the Iranians, the Syrians, likely even the Saudis, Al Qaeda, and probably a few more groups. It was the failure to identify all the stakeholders and/or properly asses their interest in the war and their ability to have a major impact on the war that that doomed it from the outset. Without a word of exaggeration anyone who had taken a few undergrad project management courses could have told you that the war would fail as soon as the Americans decided to go it essentially alone. Everyone was against the war except the Neocons, and I think they were so drunk with arrogance at that point, and the prospect of expanding their power and the whole New American Century thing, that they had lost all common sense.
