After eight and a half years of war in Iraq, President Obama has announced that our military will be out of Iraq by Dec 31, except for security forces guarding our diplomats, and the possibility of a yet-to-be-negotiated deployment of trainers for the Iraqi security forces. The US is leaving the field with zero clarity about why we were there, or what we accomplished, and for that reason the main message of Iraq may be lost. That message is that Iraq was a mistake.
In the State Department I once worked for a Republican appointee, Robert Kimmitt who was Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the George H.W. Bush Administration during the Gulf war. Behind his desk he had an artillery shell from the war in Vietnam, where he had served on active duty. I can’t quote him, but clearly he did not think Vietnam was a mistake. War was noble. Victory was possible.
We may never know what the real reasons for Iraq invasion were, certainly not the manufactured Weapons of Mass Destruction (to be fair, Saddam would have liked to have been manufacturing them) or setting Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. At least three months before the invasion the press virtually shut down talking about the war. The military had determined the US must invade by March before the weather got too hot. This tends to support the idea that the most likely reason for the war was a Cheney-led drive to prove that the US was the single power hegemon that could do as it wished and, quite explicitly in the case of Iraq, cheaply. Iraq was a test.
With this murky history, Republicans will hardly have to make an effort to blame Obama for anything that goes wrong, there will be such a large grab bag of unprovables. The Washington Post editorial October 23 started in on manufacturing the framework by highlighting “risks” of Obama’s decision. “Iran will be handed a crucial strategic advantage.” “A potentially invaluable U.S. alliance with an emerging Iraqi democracy will wither.” Almost anything that moves in the region could be used to “prove” those two points.
However, cheer up. For one, Iraq isn’t lost; it will be an oil rich country struggling with sectarian and regional splits within recognizably democratic institutions. It’s neighbor Iran will be the country that is weak and isolated from the international community. Second, the ignorance of the Republican base may save Obama from a “who lost Iraq” charge. Obama’s record in killing al Qaida leaders will block the charge that he is “weak”. And for the rest, the Republicans, and the country more generally have lost interest.
October 24, 2011 at 6:03 pm
As the Republicans don’t want to give him credit for anything to start with, even when he scores great successes. They are either ignored or belittled. He has to act, as he does most of the time, on the basis of what he thinks is right rather than trying to please a particular group. Freud said, “There are three impossible jobs, being a parent, a head of state or a psychoanalyst.” We need to be proactive rather than reactive
Dr.Ralph Wittenberg.
October 24, 2011 at 6:04 pm
I’m not totally sure I get the point of the blog, but my reaction to the news about the withdrawal and the Republican response is, When is withdrawing our troops with honor from a free country where they are not wanted not good news? I’m not sure we should declare victory but by almost any measure I think we did win. Yes, our goals were uncertain from the start, but we did ascertain the extent of weapons of mass destruction (negative) and the extent of Iraq’s involvement with Al Qaeda (negative), and along the way we deposed a horrible dictator. Saddam was at least as bad as Mubarrak and Qaddafi. We lost 4500 American troops in 10 years along with billions in taxpayer funds. I for one am happy the remainder of the troops will be home for the holidays.
Let’s take the positive view. As the Prsident said, the country we need to rebuiid now is our own.
October 25, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Susan – I agree it is good news, I just wanted to comment on how it might be used against Obama in the campaign. Betsy
October 24, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Nice job. We think your points are well-taken. And we also agree with Susie when she writes “When is withdrawing our troops with honor from a free country where they are not wanted not good news?” Though pleased about the withdrawal of U.S. regulars, we’re concerned about the rumors that their places might be taken by contract troops.
Alice & Lincoln Day
October 24, 2011 at 8:41 pm
With the exception of Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham and a few others, we are all glad our troops will finally be extracted from an untenable situation. I, too, am concerned about contract troops, and with every hour that goes by, this possiblility looks more and more likely.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson appeared on the Ed Schultz Show just a minute ago, and reiterated his belief that the true reason for the invasion of Iraq was oil. I have felt all along that the reason we were unable to learn who attended the Cheney Energy Task Force meetings was because they were fossil fuel companies and all promised a piece of the Iraqi pie. Perhaps if President Bush et al had been up front with the American people, I wouldn’t still have this haunting and visceral desire to hold them accountable.
October 25, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Shelly – Very good point. Many people agree with you. I just keep remembering all Rumsfeld/Cheney justifications stressing we could get other countries to do what we wanted – cheaply. Of course, that can fit with the oil theory. Betsy
October 26, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Was not the date for withdrawal established under President George W. Bush?
Has not the Iraq government opposed any extension of U.S. troops’ presence?
If so, how it is that we criticize President Obama in this scenario?