Stuart Gottlieb:
The question “Who lost Iraq?” will inspire discussion, debate, and deconstruction by American foreign policy experts and practitioners for generations to come. And with good reason: the implosion of Iraq and the expansion of al-Qaeda-inspired militant movements across the heart of the Middle East represents the type of monumental setback for American foreign policy not seen since the Cold-War-era debates over “who lost China” and “who lost Vietnam.”
But while determining who (or what) is most responsible for the current Iraq debacle is important, of greater significance is figuring out what it means for America’s broader role in the world, and for an Obama White House that still has more than two years left on the ledger.
By any measure, the outlook appears grim. Indeed, Iraq is simply the most recent foreign policy calamity for an administration obsessed with reducing America’s role in the world. There is still time for a course correction. But for that to happen the administration needs to become far less concerned with winning the political “blame game” over Iraq, and focus on restoring America’s flailing global leadership.
It certainly does not inspire confidence that the White House is now in full defensive mode on Iraq, seeking to absolve itself of any responsibility for the stunning turn of events. The administration is of course blaming former president George W. Bush for starting the war in the first place (obviously true—but large bipartisan majorities in Congress also voted for the war). It is also trying to lay all blame on the Iraqi government for supposedly rejecting a proposal to leave behind a residual U.S. troop presence in Iraq after the prior Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) expired at the end of 2011.
But facts are stubborn things. And the fact is Iraq, due largely to Bush’s 2007 troop “surge” that then-Senator Barack Obama and most Congressional Democrats opposed, was stabilized when Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had been decimated, thousands of U.S. military advisers were training the Iraqi army and security forces, and tens-of-thousands of U.S. troops were helping sustain the peace; all allowing for the growth of a nascent, yet admittedly imperfect, democracy.
Circumstances were so improved that Vice President Joe Biden (another “surge” opponent) crowed in February 2010 that a stable, democratic Iraq was going to be “one of the great achievements of this administration.” In December 2011 President Obama doubled-down on that sentiment, praising America’s “extraordinary achievement” in helping create “a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.”
So the real issue is not whether Iraq had been successfully stabilized, but why Obama would order a precipitous withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military advisers from such a fragile experiment in self-government. After all, the United States kept tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea long after those wars ended.
Well, Obama is now insisting that he actually wanted to leave behind a residual force, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said no. When asked by a reporter last week if he had regrets about the troop withdrawal, he said, “Keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.”
Again, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is Maliki, despite strong domestic opposition, wanted to keep a robust U.S. troop presence after 2011, and offered to quietly sign a SOFA extension, including legal immunities for American forces. Things then quickly got complicated—and political—for the White House.
First, the administration began insisting that any agreement with Maliki be approved by the fractious Iraqi parliament; a virtually impossible demand (and, as seen with this week’s immunity agreement just between Obama and Maliki, an unnecessary demand). But it never even got to that point: political aides in the White House, worried about Obama’s 2012 re-election bid, pushed back hard against Pentagon requests for roughly 15,000 residual troops, eventually convincing Obama to approve only 3,500. Maliki—no Thomas Jefferson to begin with—was not about to risk his political life over such an insignificant contingent. America and Iraq agreed to go their separate ways.
This is the same tactic the left uses to keep any immigration reform from ever seeing the light of day; whenver a compromise is possible or near, the left always inserts a poison pill to make sure it fails, but it is someone else’s fault.
The stock line is “Blame Bush.”
@MOS 8541 –
The same goes for Rand Paul.
Sorry. No cigar. Iraq is presently the disaster that it is rapidly becoming because we unnecessarily invaded, destroyed the existing government and dismantled the army, replaced both with much nicer but far less effective replacements, and then locked ourselves into a timetable for withdrawal that left the next U.S. president with very little room to maneuver. This was the situation as it existed when Obama walked in the door. The last step was finalized only the month before his inauguration.
The U.S. intelligence community predicted what we’re seeing. They warned of the sectarian and social divisions held in check by the Hussein dictatorship that could quickly lead to internal warfare. They predicted chaos would ensue as soon as the occupying power maintaining order—i.e., the United States—left. They spelled all of this out to the Bush administration before the invasion, as bipartisan Congressional investigations completed in 2007 revealed.
So, tell me again, how is this all Barack Obama’s fault?
@Greg: Well, gee willikers, Greg, you seem to ignore the period from late 2007 to 2010 in which Iraq was stable and quiet. Only after Obama bailed out (to satisfy his cowardly, ignorant far left) and left Iraq to decide if they want to remain aligned with the United States (that was abandoning them) or other powers that show a little more determination and interest.
Yes, indeed. They warned Obama to keep 30,000 troops behind but Obama, the great and powerful warlord, with vast amounts of experience in things military and foreign affairs (far more than career military leaders) knew better and simply went golfing.
No, Greg. Bush was President during the economic collapse that, though the results of decades of bad liberal social engineering, was laid completely at his feet; but he left Obama an Iraq that only required maintenance. Obama screwed it up. Obama. He screwed it up. It was Obama. Obama is responsible. Obama was President both while Iraq was stable and, later in HIS term, when it collapsed… it is Obama’s responsibility.
Settled science. Debate over.
That’s about what I expected in the way of a response. I guess the multiple acts of terrorism that continued in Iraq right on through 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 suggested no underlying instabilities that were likely to resurface once we left. No doubt the U.S. intelligence community’s earlier warnings about that were totally off the mark.
They could recommend all they wanted. Obama couldn’t elect to do that unilaterally because of the terms of the S.O.F.A., which were finalized by the Bush administration the month before Obama took office. The Bush administration could have delayed that step, but didn’t. Instead, they wrapped up the entire package and handed it off to Obama to deal with.
Republican apologists can rewrite and spin the history of the war and withdrawal however much they want, but that is what actually happened. You’re essentially faulting Obama for not being able to undo what the Bush administration did. Iraq was an enormous geopolitical blunder. The evidence is on the nightly news, and in the tally of what this whole misadventure has cost us as a nation.
Basically, republicans are in a state of denial. They’ve left the historical reality behind for an elaborate fantasy history that they like better and find more politically useful. I don’t see how that can possibly be good for the nation.
@Greg:
This would be a great time to remind you of the multiple acts of terrorism in the United States during that same period… some of them enacted by the Obama administration.
Benghazi. The intelligence warnings aren’t much good unless you act on them, as Bush did in Iraq.
The SOFA had to be negotiated at the time of withdrawal. The Bush intention was to withdraw when the situation on the ground was conducive to withdrawal (leaving a force of 10,000-30,000). Obama was supposed to secure that. He simply didn’t bother. As is shown in the article, instead of working on ways to make it happen, this administration threw obstacles in to make sure it DIDN’T happen…. because he just wanted to get out, regardless of how it damaged national security.
Those who stand on the facts don’t need to rewrite history…. let’s just use it just like it is. Obama opposed the surge that quelled the insurgency in Iraq and calmed things down. Then, after taking ALL THE CREDIT for pulling out, Iraq collapsed because he was in such a hurry to leave, he forgot to lock the door and left the stove on. We have the Romney/Obama debate where he declared he was not going to leave a residual force and that is exactly what he committed to do… then he blames Bush, Maliki and anyone else not on his team for HIS failure. Remember, when Obama took office, Iraq was STABLE with Sunni and Shite represented. Obama turned his back on Iraq, made it clear all he was interested in was golfing and getting out and he let Iraq burn. Now, look at it.
Your guy, Obama, failed. It will be much later after all the details are in when we can determine if this is his greatest failure, because it is such a competitive field, but this is a huge failure.
It may be Obama, but must likely it will be some Republican, but some US leader will have to go to war somewhere to correct this mistake. Again, vast amounts of equipment, women, men and treasure will have to be committed and much of it spent to overcome the tragedy Obama has wrought upon the world. But, it will come, lives will be lost and it is due to Obama’s failure… or design. Who knows.
@Bill, #7:
As I said, many on the far right appear to be totally out of touch with reality.
Refer to the preceding comment. If that was Bush’s intention, why the hell did he sign a binding agreement that created a specific timetable with specific dates for withdrawal, which could only be altered with the consent of an Iraq government that we already knew wanted us out as soon as possible? And why did he do it only a few short weeks before the new administration would have to take over?
This assertion is totally ridiculous. It strains credulity to the breaking point. Unfortunately, many on the right cannot seem to recognize the totally ridiculous when it’s looking them straight in the face.