One of the first things Obama will need to is get out of Iraq. Not only is this required if he decides to double down in Afghanistan (something I’d recommend against) but the cost of the Iraq war is no longer bearable. The problem with getting out of Iraq is going to be all the hand wringing from the usual suspects, either about al-Qaeda, or about the possibility of Iraq not being stable without Americans there. While it’s true that Iraq isn’t stable with Americans there, and that everything is being held together on the one hand by Americans paying protection money to the Sunnis not to get uppity and on the other hand by Iran tamping down Shia disquiet, it’s also true that there’s some potential for destabilization.
One of the biggest problems is Maliki’s perception of his own strength. Folks like Visser and Eric Martin have been arguing that the central government’s increasing strength means it thinks it can survive without the US. Combine with Iranian pressure to get the US out, and stupidity like the raid into Syria; add in a dollop of general Iraqi hatred of the American occupation, and you’ve got the unwillingness to sign the SOFA. Iraqis want the US out, and no longer fearing that much for his life and power without the US, Maliki is willing to go along.
The problem is this: I’m not so sure the Sunnis and Sadrists perceive Maliki’s power as being as great as he seems to think it is. Yes, he’s built up a very nasty security apparatus. Yes violence has declined due to the demobilization of the Sadrists, paying Sunnis not to fight, and due to ethnic cleansing mostly having been completed. Yes, he’s got a big military. But that military has never performedl against the Sadrists without US help. My suspicion is that it’s paper, and will fold under the least pressure. And "demobilization" of Sadrists doesn’t mean much. They’re a militia, and Iraq is awash with weapons. If his people back him, Sadr can whistle them up pretty much whenever he wants to.
Likewise, the Sunnis of the Awakening councils have spent the last couple years being given money, training and weapons by the US in exchange for not shooting at Americans, and for shooting at al-Qaeda in Iraq. When the US leaves, that money will get cut off, but they’ll still have the weapons and training. Cutting that off is actually one reason Maliki probably wants the US out—"please stop arming my enemies." However Maliki will have a choice of either paying them himself, or of trying to crush them. And maybe they’ll decide they can get more with guns than he’s willing to offer.
The great peacemaker, the force pushing Iraq to be stable, is Iran. Iran wants a friendly government in charge of a stable country. Maliki is friendly, and they will back him if they think he can win. They don’t like Sadr nearly as much, though they can do business with him, and they definitely don’t want the Sunnis back in charge of Iraq (that whole Iran/Iraq war thing).
All of this is worth considering, but should be largely irrelevant to US decision making. At the end of the day, the only people who are going to make Iraq stable are Iraqis, with the help of their close neighbors who have a real interest in their stability. Americans are exacerbating internal tensions, especially Sunni/Shia tensions, even as their muscle ensures that no one can succesfully militarily challenge Maliki. But until Maliki proves he can survive without US help, or fails, there can be no real stability, because there has been no real test of power.
And, perhaps more to the point, the US has other fish to fry. The money being spent on Iraq can be better used either helping the US economy (frankly, a greater security concern than Iraq at this point) or perhaps in Afghanistan (as noted, I don’t think Afghanistan is "winnable" anymore, but if you do, then that’s an argument to pull out of Iraq). Most of whatever gains the US can get in Iraq have been achieved. If after all these years and all the money and training Maliki’s army can’t win against its internal enemies, another couple years aren’t going to make a difference, especially as the issue is not guns and money, but esprit de corp and morale. And morale will improve massively when soldiers don’t think they’re fighting for an American puppet government.
So, while acknowledging the risks, it’s time to leave. The elephant in the china shop has done what little it can to fix the situation, now it’s up to the people who work in the shop to finish the job as best they can. One of the lessons the US still needs to learn is that "it’s not about you". Sometimes you just have to let other people take care of their own problems, and not interfere.
And, more to the point, sometimes you need to tend to your own affairs. This is one of those times.



54 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Seems as if the shia are not on board with giving the sunni money and guns in exchange for not bombing US troops- they figure that eventually the guns will be used against them- and they’d be better off to get the US out of the game—at least that’s how it looks to me.
History is some judge.
the British withdrew from their empire between 1948 and 1970, starting with India and ending with Aden & Cyprus. The majority of the withdrawal came between 1958 (Ghana) and 1964.
Without too much trouble. Including Iraq in the early 1950s.
If the locals want to shoot up each other, let them, let their neighbors or the UN, broker a peace. Occupying a country is an invitation for the factions to have a common target. US.
And again, this ignore a cancer in the Middle East, that ferments discontent, enrages the populace, and helps the violent mindset. the Israeli/Palestinian relationship.
Peace in the Middle East flows though Israelis and Palestinians. The end of a presidency is the wrong end of the presidency to try to establish peace. It needs to come early, and with persistence.
I don’t know how high up on the list Iraq is -probably pretty high, along with the economy – but they’re planning to fix a lot of stuff.
A fine analysis, Ian.
Although, as the jokers in investment say: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results” — it is instructive to look at the pages of history and ask: did anyone ever win in Afghanistan?
Other ways for the Obama administration to save money: why the hell do we have those 730 bases in foreign countries? The first Cold War ended some time ago and we can’t afford starting another one. The women of Okinawa would cheer if the U.S. pulled out — there’s a good place to start. And 19 bases in Germany?! Korea?
We sure didn’t win in Afghanistan by bailing on them after the kicked the Russian’s asses.
The US hasn’t won a war where the opposition hides behind trees and blows people up since WE were the ones hiding behind trees and blowing up the opposition….doesn’t seem to be our thing.
you got that right
And when the balloon goes up in Pakistan?
The British have, three times.
1. The Boer war.
2. The Malaysia insurgency.
3. The IRA, 1968 to 2000 (approx)
And withdraw from an empire on a timetable.
Want some lessons?
1st or 2nd Boer War? 2nd I guess.
mmm- well they may have lost the knack- they’re in iraq and afghanistan with us—showin us their game.
we leave it’s gonna be a fuckin’ bloodbath. but whadya gonna do? not our problem. we need to get out. that’s best for us.
Ian,
Now I’m going to VENT. I’ve protested this war for the last five years. I was # 6 in the draft in Vietnam And I ,Unlike JOHN M c CAIN, chose not as a patriotic AMERICAN to randomly MURDER innocent citizens of another country. I went to church at a young age and absorbed THOU SHALL NOT KILL.
This is nazism pure and simple. George Bush has acted like a Nazi and now is the time to Judge try and convict this scum in OUR White House, no if ands or buts.
There is no other way to redeem the soul of our AMERICAN Dream.
Just like the criminal in OUR White House Said you’re for us or against us,you’re for the way that’s right or support the criminality that has become our MO.
They aren’t in charge. It’s like when the Aussie’s offered to teach us how to fight jungle warfare in the Nam and shit head Westmoreland said noooooooooooooo.
Can’t imagine Obama wanting to go after the Clusterfuck inner circle as a first step to his “bi-partisan” administration….ain’t a gonna happen.
it wasn’t all that random
40 year anti war activist here. Good post hope Barack’s team is lurking.
Yeah- maybe they’re holding back…my non military insticts going into this thing was that american didn’t have the stomach for this kind of war. The Nazis and the Romans were pretty good at stopping insurgencies- they went out and randomly killed 10% of the population in the area whenever an attack occured- can’t see us doin that. (decimation)
New post upstairs!
I had a question for you back yonder.
One of the great puzzles, are we the root of all evil or not?
Mike Peterson:
“Doesn’t that give the villager only the choice of becoming a refugee?” one journalist inquired.
“I expect a tremendous increase in the number of refugees,” Westmoreland answered.
In effect, Westmoreland had declared war against peasant society in Vietnam. In my own opinion, that is the day the United States irretrievably lost that war.
No- but we are the root of much stupidity and arrogance which often leads to evil outcomes.
I think Obama will withdraw active forces. The permanent bases will stay however.
If Iraq blows up it will be labeled as all Obama’s fault. It’ll be as if Bush never invaded in the first place.
Shock and awe was not random…it was bombing civilians. Richard Clarke wrote a pretty good book. Taking Baghdad and turning the Shites loose on the Sunnis population was part of Bremers stategy. Letting the Iraq army starve, who depeded on government stipends was murder. The blood is on the Bushco administraion…unless we let them walk then it is ours as well.
AIPAC, Rahm Emanuel and friends probably see it a bit differently as citizens of Isreal.
Why not let Isreal and the Arabs work it out amonst themselves with the help of the UN and US Diplomaic core starting the peace process and resolving the State issues? It has taken more of our treasury and political capital than we have to give.
The random comment was a reply to tbjs’s post about Vietnam.
Rahm was a civilian volunteer in the Israel Defense Forces during the 1991 Gulf War and was born an Israeli citizen due to his father’s (dual) Israeli-U.S. citizenship, but relinquished his Israeli citizenship when he turned 18.[14][15]
You want to go back through the post you were not commenting on…I think the web site can be search by name. Give it a try. If you are not sleeping you might just be a bit grouchy, maybe caffiene. I don’t know. Jogging and aerobic can produce endorphins that help sleeo naturally. Otherwise the VA will prescribe meds side effects not withstanding you will sleep.
I will repeat I welcome your comments whether I agree is my perrogative. When people start to be affected negatively by other opinions on adaptive behavior is withdrawal.
We are not the enemy, we are all working for progressive change. Something worth holding on to. Namaste
Listen, I took “tantrum, manipulative, man up” so ease the fuck up. I asked when and how you urged me to come back.
Please explain. I thought 3/6 Million innocents died and that was pin-point planning?
I want to make such an impression on our population this shit never occurs again. Peace to you, my brother.
Some of it was most surely random (see my post at 23, free fire zones) but plenty of it was very specific and very targeted.
That said there are a number of Isreal dual citizens including the attorney general, in the Bush administration. A citizen of the ME might well assume it may not be in their interest. One of my republican friends here. Isreal is hawkish to their nieghbors and vice versa. I support the President Carter approach, The world needs to insist on a peaceful resolution as Palestinians need to be allowed the necessities of living water, sewer food and shelter. To keep the ME inflamed is unaceptable. Peace
Wondered about your well being as the Norseman had made inquiries. You know a lot when you chose to share it. I am a subsriber to John Donne the poet that Hemingway quoted in For whom the bells toll: “Each man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” ” — John Donnein the flyleaf. . You certainly have the freedom to tell me where I can go…I would not be at all insulted. Cheers.
I hope that is easing up enough…my target is the perps in the WH.
I would extend that concept to the plant and animal kingdom and the bioshere that supports us all.
I just didn’t recall your having made contact. It’s strange, Biodun made a huge deal out of leaving and I thought that was pretty tacky. When I was feeling pretty negative I thought it was best to simply stop posting and I did. A couple of folks on FB contacted me and I let them know I was just trying to figure out what was best and they left it alone. When I came back some people told me that people had jumped on Christy because they thought she might have banned me. Because of that I though it might be a good idea to express my trepidation so if I did bail it wouldn’t be an issue for Christy et al. My issue lately has been almost exclusively with one person and I have done my best to not address that person but I am pretty clear in who it is. So, what’s best? I don’t know, this place has meant a great deal to me but nothing lasts.
I agree that George Bush needs to be tried for war crimes. Sadly, I think we’ll never see it, unless he’s stupid enough to visit Holland or some such.
2nd. Kitchener was the general.
Concentration Camps were the tool.
and regulation 3.03
Never give up, never give up, NEVER GIVE UP
American Empire is running out of borrowed Chinese money to stay on in Iraq. If Bush had paid for his oil grab war with war tax loads he would have lost in 2004 likley enough. It will come down to the money.
The neo-cons of course will denounce idea of American Empire pulling back and out. They ought to be all sent (starting with Cheney)to Iraq to back up their bellicose rhetoric with deed and real sacrifice.
Afghanistan will prove no more winnable than Vietnam. It just is not going to happen. Let Asia deal with Afghanistan. It is not a North American problem. If and when Afghanis should mount a sea and air borne attack on USA then take them out. Fair is fair then. Iraq was not going to attack USA. USA attacking Iraq was surely a lopsided affair based more on cheap propaganda and fake military claims of superiority.
Let us hope Barack Obama has the moral and political integrity to do what is right and pull out of Iraq and pull out of Afghanistan.
Americans cannot spend or kill themselves to a win in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Certainly cannot in Iran,Pakistan or in real world measures anywhere in Asia.
Aside from nature the biggest enemy, aside from very numerous other people, is usually ourselves. We adapt to one environment and then face another…badly. We learn one thing and then it becomes passe.
American and the Soviet Union and most of Europe began a bit earlier than other countries the futility of major wars when nuclear devices are involved. Hopefully we can help other countries to understand without explosions.
We also seem to be somewhat ahead of the curve in experiencing the futility of fighting insurgents when we clearly don’t have the desire to simply slaughter everyone in an area. Vietnam and Baghdad and the Taleban on the Afghan-Pakistan border are all similar. Of course, we probably taught them how to do it — we end up having to re-learn because there are some Americans who stupidly think it’s great to make money from wars. If we had a better Democracy the public would put an end to foreign expeditions. How long ’til Americans understand we don’t need to conquer Afghanistan or Pakistan? We just need to get a handful to a few thousand dangerous people (some of whom may indeed be Americans).
When I first heard about a similar strategy in Baghdad where our troops patrolled around to be blown up by IEDs I knew our military were either very stupid or they simply wanted the war to continue with a slow trail of dead Americans as evidence we had an enemy we had to kill.
There is another strategy which this tactic could utilize, but all of them are immoral. You simply can’t waste human lives that way. It’s as much a war crime to kill off your own troops as to kill other innocents.
The Real Question is…………….
Was Nuremburg a mistake?
What do I tell my kid?
What about others in the administration who pushed us into this criminal occupation of Iraq?
Is the Neocon involvement in U.S. government which pushed us into Iraq all that different than the Likud and Zionists in Israel who pushed into the West Bank? Seems they only know one final solution.
I really don’t get this whole withdrawal thing…simply don’t deploy new divisions into Iraq on the current schedule. Those there complete their tours and remove any equipment that isn’t going to be utilized by the remaining forces as they depart. That’s take about 18 months.
Any surplus equipment could be sold to the Iraqis or brought over the Saudi or Kuwait border…or simply decommissioned and left in depots in the desert for later removal.
Bullseye.
Thanks Ian.
Every division you pull out, leaves those remaining more vulnerable.
We have to drive our vehicles out and that leaves them wide open to attack. While very lethal, Abrams tanks are just very expensive, very large targets.
Do you pull out in large groups? That’s smart, you can mass your firepower.
Unfortunately, a lot of people who hate us (pretty much the whole country) wait for a narrowing in the road and block it by blowing up one vehicle. They they rain mortar fire down on everyone who is backed up.
Ok, so you evacuate in small groups. Now you have relatively little firepower with which to shoot back. Our air superiority is of little value in civilian areas unless we want to continue killing a lot of innocents.
Our soldiers understand this, you can bank on them being on edge.
It’s a logistical nightmare of immense proportions.
The troops in Iraq should be brought out during Obama’s first week in office. There is no excuse for not doing so. Especially if you believe the war was criminal and our presence there is wrong.
Obama is not responsible to see Bush’s illegal invasion and occupation through to the end. If he does that we’ll be there for “50 or 100 years” as Bush intended.
There is no rational reason to think the sectional violence in Iraq will escalate if America leaves in January; on the contrary most Iraqis (80%)see the US presence as the main reason for the violence.
Besides, who’s to say that the violence won’t increase after the US leaves in 16 months…or five years or whenever?
And even if it does that’s their problem. The US has done enough.
Why this analysis of the after effects of our withdrawal from Iraq? It is the U.S. occupation that is the problem. This war must end on January 20, 2009 and 120,000 U.S. soldiers must return home . . . it’s that simple.
Visser’s piece is a testament on how far US influence has fallen – thinking about how much leverage we’ll get by leaving. Now thats what I call leverage. I don’t think Maliki is as worried as most, if the US were to leave unconditionally, that would satisfy Sadr’s essential demand. It’s not beyond reason to think Maliki has a (secret) alliance with Sadr that should things go south after withdrawal, he would re-align with Maliki and boot the Iranian backed SIIC in a nationalist alliance. The best the U.S. could do in terms of exit leverage is to offer significant war restitution based on the kind of reforms Visser sees as in the best interest of democracy in Iraq.
Of course that should read Maliki has a (secret) alliance with Sadr.
expanded version of above