I want to underline a point made by Pete Wehner in a recent post about the breakdown of talks with Iraq: “The administration’s diplomacy was so inept, in fact, that one can reasonably conclude the White House half wanted this whole effort to fail so Obama could simply wash his hands of a war he never supported in the first place.” Pete, as usual, gets at the core of the issue, which has been obfuscated by so many other commentators who want to put the onus on the Iraqis for the imminent withdrawal of all American troops.
In fact Iraqi political leaders—including the leaders of every major bloc except the Sadrists—had publicly and courageously taken a stand in favor of allowing a substantial American troops stay in a training mission. At the same time they also said that they would not grant immunity to those troops. The issue of legal immunity has long been a contentious one in Iraq; it certainly was in 2008 when the last Status of Forces Agreement was negotiated. In fact it was much more pressing at the time since there were roughly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq then, compared with 50,000 now and–even if an agreement were reached–fewer than 20,000 in the future. Yet the Bush administration was committed to getting an agreement done, so an agreement got done.
The Obama administration, by contrast, has consistently been ambivalent about whether it even wanted to remain in Iraq. The administration did not enter into negotiations until very late in the game, with only a few months to go before all U.S. troops would have to leave, and then the administration undercut its own negotiators by leaking word that we would agree to keep only 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq–well below what our own military commanders judged to be necessary. This suggested that the administration was far from committed to Iraq, which no doubt caused Iraqi leaders to ask themselves why they should run political risks for a relationship that the U.S. was not serious about continuing.
If the administration had been whole-heartedly determined to keep a presence post-2011, it would have lobbied much harder and would not have given up on the talks over the issue of immunity. Something surely could have been finessed, especially if Pentagon and State Department lawyers had dropped their counterproductive demand that the Iraqi parliament approve any immunity deal. But, like Pete, I sense that the administration was more interested in finding an excuse not to make a deal than to make one.
One revealing piece of evidence is this McClatchey Newspapers article which reports: “Throughout the summer and autumn, as talks on a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq foundered, President Barack Obama and his point man on Iraq, Vice President Joe Biden, remained aloof from the process, not even phoning top Iraqi officials to help reach a deal, according to logs released by the U.S. Embassy here.” Those logs reveal “that Obama had no direct contact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki between Feb. 13, when he telephoned the prime minister, until Friday, when he called al-Maliki to tell him U.S. troops would be withdrawn by Dec. 31,” and that “Biden telephoned al-Maliki on Dec. 21, the day al-Maliki formed a new government, and visited here Jan. 18, but had no direct contact after that date.”
That is almost criminal high-level neglect of such an important relationship–one that President Bush nurtured in weekly video teleconferences with Maliki. But something more than neglect was going on here, I suspect. Another suggestive–if not conclusive–piece of evidence is this article from the Atlantic’s website recounting a conversation that occurred in early August between Vice President Biden (the administration point man on Iraq) and Rep. Barney Frank:
Here’s Frank’s description of the exchange (remember, “today” is Monday):
One other big story from [the caucus meeting] today, Biden was at the caucus, and I said I was upset about Afghanistan and Iraq. So Jack Lew says, “Well, we’re winding them down.” I said, “What do you mean, you’re winding them down? I read Panetta saying that he’s begging the Iraqis to ask us to stay.” At which point Biden asserted himself and said — there’s clearly been a dispute between them within the administration — “Wait a minute, I’m in charge of that negotiation, not Panetta, and we have given the Iraqis a deadline to ask us, and it is tomorrow, and they can’t possibly meet it because of all these things they would have to do. So we are definitely pulling out of Iraq at the end of the year.” That was very good news for me. That’s a big deal. I said, “Yeah, but what if they ask you for an extension?” He said, “We are getting out. Tomorrow, it’s over.
Biden’s self-fulfilling prediction has come true. It is indeed over—if by “over” one refers to the U.S. military presence in Iraq. But I have grave doubts about whether by this withdrawal the U.S. will in fact “end the war”—as President Obama promised. Iraq may be fine in any case, but the loss of American support makes another war far more likely in this fragile, strategically important country. Obama’s decision not to press harder in negotiations is a tragedy for Iraq—and for the United States whose military, diplomatic and intelligence personnel worked so hard and sacrificed so much to get Iraq this far.
Mr. Boot makes a very good case for believing that Obama really wanted to get out of Iraq, regardless. However, he doesn't directly address all the possible reasons why. It appears that he accepts Obama's long oppositiion to the Iraq war, as Bush's war, (although he followed through on a lot of Bush's policies vis-a-vis Iraq), the shoring up of Obama's base by this action, his ability to check the box of a campaign promise fulfilled, that Obama believes in a diminished America that ceases to interfere with other nations, etc. All of these are credible explanations for Obama's decision to get out of Iraq. n nHowever, Mr. Boot seems unable or willing, or perhaps too polite or reasonable, to conceive of the possibility that Obama might actually view favorably the regime in Iran, and that he might be acting to support and advance it intentionally. Given the multitude of actions that Obama has taken that seem to benefit the Iranian regime, it seems to me that this is a critical question. Obama looked the other way when the people of Iraq rose up against their regime, and he did nothing as they were murdered in the streets. He refused to take any action in that circumstance, that golden opportunity, to undermine the Iranian regime at all. He halted missle defense in Europe–ostensibly to reset relations with Russia, but this was a massive boon to Iran. He has continuously bashed Israel, with the effect of facilitating Iranian proxies in Gaza and Lebanon–even giving a billion dollars directly to Hamas to "rebuild" after the Israeli incursion into Gaza. He has failed to do anything to impede Assad in Syria, a major Iranian ally and proxy (the courageous actions of the US Ambassador there appear to have been free-lancing on his part, and may have played a role in his withdrawal, beyond just considerations of his personal safety–a sop to Assad, and an attempt to divert attention that was drawn to the atrocities in Syria highlighted by the US Ambassador). Obama's rhetoric was very shortlived after the assassination attempt in DC, and he did nothing effective in regard to Iran for that act. Almost immediately after that attempt he presented the Iranian regime with the greatest gift possible, e.g., the Iraq withdrawal, greatly faciliting Iran's opportunities for hegemony in the area. He has ignored Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons. He has continued to ship American military equipment to Turkey as it aligns with Iran and against Israel. He has ignored Iranian actions to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. n nI would hazard an opinion that the totality of Obama's action regarding Iran have been highly beneficial for Iran, to the point that it appears to be Obama's intent to support that regime, at the expense of America's security interests. I would further suggest that the reason for this is that Obama prefers autocratic to democratic governance. He has said himself (witness his comments about the job of Hu Jintao and his frustrations that the Chinese leadership is not constrained in their actions as he is) that he prefers autocratic governance, and is now engaged in just such governance with his executive orders. n nAn additional possibility that I would broach is Obama's extensively demonstrated antipathy to Israel–underscored by his lack of condemnation of the overt anti-Semitism of the OWS participants–which he shares with the Iranian regime. Obama has also demonstrated himself to be a very good friend of Islam, while smearing Christianity with such actions as barring Franklin Graham from a national prayer event and smearing ordinary Americans who "…cling to their God and guns.." or having his Defense Department whitewash the religious motivations of the Fort Hood killer. His Justice Department is all but imposing dhimitude with it's prosecution of a school district that refused to grant a ridiculous amount of vacation time that was contrary to her contract, to a young Muslim woman, teacher, who wanted to make a pilgimage to the Haj. n nI wonder if Mr. Boot would deign to address this perspective. I would appreciate it if he would, and explain what I am missing or misunderstanding in my perspective that Obama favors the Iranian regime and promotes the interests of Islam preferentially, in America and around the world, contrary to the security interests of America and its allies (if one is still allowed to talk of American allies,or if that means anything).
I wish the media (and others) would clarify what they mean by "immunity." n nI am familiar with the SOFAs in Korea and Japan and how each has been sorely abused by critics of the US and US foreign policy (both in Korea/Japan and beyond). It is a pain-in-the-neck issue because of the amount of disinformation and ignorance of facts that surround it. n nI am guessing that "immunity" in the Iraqi context does not mean immunity from all prosecution. That it means Iraqi authorities will not be able to hold GIs (and contractors) and put them on trial in Iraqi courts but must release them to US Forces Iraq — for criminal investigation and prosecution by the US military judicial system. n nSome Koreans still believe GIs are "never" or "seldom" brought to justice despite the fact that the first US soldiers found guilty in a Korean court and held in a Korean prison occurred in 1968. American soldiers accused of crimes against Koreans have been routinely convicted in Korean courts ever since. Before 1968, GIs were routinely investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for crimes against Koreans by the US military judicial system in Korea. Expats familiar with the GI Crimes Myth in Korean society sometimes point out that GIs accused of rape in Korea are lucky when they get handed over to the Korean judicial system these days because they would face a much, much harsher sentence if convicted by the US military. n nImmunity from prosecution by Iraqi authorities does not mean immunity from prosecution. It does not mean American soldiers can commit crimes at will in Iraq and not worry about consequences. n nIf Iraq can't live with handing accused GIs over to the US military for prosecution, that is fine. If the US can't live with handing accused GIs over to the Iraqi justice system as it is now, fine. n nI just wish the American media would clarify what they mean by immunity. n nMost Americans have never heard of a SOFA, and the amount of disinformation Korea and Japan have been able to generate over the decades makes me wonder if reporters are clear about the facts.
Americans are naturally inclined toward peace. This is a great difference between the US and Israel. Israel believes that they must be in a perpetual state of war. Americans know peace is possible and our president has led us toward that goal. It is the will of the people. It will be great to have all these wonderful American heroes home for the holidays.
In the Washington Post, an editor (I think Kagan, but I am not sure) wrote that President Obama came of age during the time of Reagan and it shows.r nIn my opinion, Obama cannot look at policy, be it foreign or domestic, without doing exactly as some past president had done.r nFor example,Obama’s Israel policy seems to be right out of the Clinton playbook. Just as Clinton seemed intent on getting rid of Netanyahu, I think that Obama believed that if he could get rid of Netanyahu, someone like Livni, whom Obama believed would work better with him, would replace Netanyahu.r nIn terms of Iraq, I think Obama is reliving Vietnam. I think, from the press reports lately, Obama regrets his move and may be trying to excalpate himself from blame. (You know, blame Biden, like what happened with his refusal to pardon Pollard.) However, he did not want to be another LBJ. I wish he had also bothered to look at the terrible killings that resulted from Congress’s inability to listen to former President Ford; maybe, he would realize what a mistake he is making now.