Friday afternoon is a traditional time to bury bad news, so at 12:49 p.m. on Oct. 21 President Obama strode into the White House briefing room to “report that, 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.” He acted as though this represented a triumph, but it was really a defeat. The U.S. had tried to extend the presence of our troops past Dec. 31. Why did we fail?
The popular explanation is that the Iraqis refused to provide legal immunity for U.S. troops if they are accused of breaking Iraq’s laws. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki himself said: “When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible. The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.”
But Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi political figures expressed exactly the same reservations about immunity in 2008 during the negotiation of the last Status of Forces Agreement. Indeed those concerns were more acute at the time because there were so many more U.S. personnel in Iraq—nearly 150,000, compared with fewer than 50,000 today. So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration?
Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.
The administration didn’t even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate.
The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn’t insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn’t require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers’ excessive demands, but he didn’t.
At times like these we must remember another unpopular war that concluded with Nixons infamous words, “Honor with Peace!” After that war American did everything in their power not to even discuss that war. The war that many felt and called a national embarrassment at that time. The military men and women who fought in that war were forgotten, men who gave their lives, and limbs and America did not want to be reminded about them or that war for years until another President came on the scene and broke that uncomfortable silence. And no it was not Peanut Jimmy. I just hope that we as a nation don’t have to repeat all that again for the sake of our veterns and their families. With that said we will not be out of there for a year, and then Iraq will become just an extension of Iran, or worse. But of course we will have won. Really?
I hear the military in IRAK and the one here who where there,
thinking with concern of those they made a difference with,
they are concerned that their protegees will be bullied by the regime and the IRANIANS INFLUENCE.
there is also the BRAVES KURDS, LEFT BEHIND ON THEIR OWN,
we see the unique MILITARY COMPASSION FOR THEIR FELLOW LEFT VULNERABLE.
WHAT A DIFFERENCE WITH THE CIVILIEN COMPASSION IN THE GOVERNMENT.
TO OVERRULES THE REGULAR WAY TO EXIT A WAR WELL EARNED, HAVING SO MANY THOUSANDS DEATH AND OTHER INJURED FOR THEIR LIFETIME,
THAT WAR HAS ENDED
BECAUSE OF THE MILITARY, NON OTHER.
THEY HAVE WON THEIR WAR, TO PROTECT EVERY AMERICAN IN THIS COUNTRY,
ONLY THOSE WHO SERVED NEED TO BE IN CHARGE OF RUNNING THIS NATION,
BRING THEM ON
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, you are exactly right. How can the Kurds defend against any of the Arabs or Shia countries. There are no fighter aircraft in Iraq while all of the adjacent countries have an extensive air force. No one can build an effective defense in 10 years. Look how long Saddam had to build up his forces and how quickly he fell. The current Iraqi administration will be lucky to find a hole to hide in if Iran wanted to invade. Turkey is already bombing the Kurds in the north.
Randy,
hi,
I must say that I gave that comment on the kurds when I read one of yours somewhere sometimes, and kept it in mind, because I remember the young leader years ago, working to protect his people the KURDS,
he had capture the heart of many, and although very reluctantly agreed to publicly show himself to the world in an interview, that afterward cause his ennemies to find him and ask for an interview also
but the trap closing on him ending up killed,
bye
@Randy: Iran has no reason to invade Iraq, as the current government is friendly to them (I won’t go so far as to call it a puppet but it’s definitely Iran-aligned). As for the Kurds… we had ten years during which we could have tried to arrange for them to have their own state. But we decided, then as now, that relations with Turkey were more important. Our staying or leaving doesn’t change the US position on that. I suppose our departure may embolden either the PKK or the Turks to take more aggressive action, but how long would you have us stay in order to keep the peace? Ten years from now the Kurds will still want their own state; must we occupy Iraq indefinitely to put off a resolution?
@bbartlog: @bbartlog: I guess you have all of the answers. Have you spent any time in Iraq with the various fractions? Do you have any idea how vulnerable a middle east country is with out air support? You are mistaken that Iran does not have their eyes on Iraq. There is a ethical issue here between the Arabs and the Persians. Just because they are all Moslems, doesn’t mean they will all get along. There is a lot of history here and the people there do not forget!
Randy,
that is a good question from bbartlog,
how come while the MILITARY THERE could have separate the KURDS,
there was an argument that SADDAM has done mass murder to eliminate them,
it could have been easyer while occuping the place, and the other good argument was that the KURDS help AMERICANS DURING THE WAR, SO it would have come as a payoff plus a protection for them to leave them now master of their land,
do you think?
and another argument, there would have been a footprint for AMERICANS TO have as a strategic place,as oppose to now
bbartlog,
hi,
you must be busy preparing for the winter now after the harvest time,
at your farm,
bye