Just one more underline under Max Boot’s underlining of Pete Wehner’s post on the disgraceful eviction of American troops in Iraq.
Max describes at some length just how badly the White House fumbled the Status of Forces Agreement negotiations that would have enabled our forces to stay in Iraq. The sticking point was the Iraqis’ refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. forces, which Max points out was nothing new. Bahgdad had raised similar objections during the 2008 SOFA negotiations under President Bush, and the Bush administration had managed to persuade the Iraqis to grant immunity.
Bluntly put, one of two things is true. Either the Obama administration did not want to keep our troops stationed in Iraq or it was unable to prevail upon the Iraqis to grant immunity as the Bush administration had. If it’s the former, then the president and his staff dismissed the concerns of our military commanders and strategists, all of whom insisted we must maintain a military presence in the country, and instead chose to leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the Iranian mullahs. If it’s the latter, then the Obama administration is – by definition – orders of magnitude less diplomatically competent than the Bush administration. The fiasco certainly speaks poorly of the White House’s gratingly self-professed Smart Power.
There doesn’t really seem to be a third option. Either they wouldn’t or they couldn’t. The Bush administration wanted to and did.
As to what the actual answer is, there are obviously arguments on both sides. But it seems like the public evidence leans toward incompetence, inasmuch as there’s a pile of statements showing the White House tried to secure a SOFA and a pattern of Iraqi behavior showing utter disregard for other parts of the administration’s regional policy. The Obama administration simply got steamrolled by Iraq, just like they’ve been steamrolled in other forums.
Now the rest of the world is rushing to fill the vacuum we’re leaving behind.
Turkey is establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq, part of a broader and deliberate campaign to bring portions of the country under its control. Iran doesn’t really need to send in troops to physically occupy Iraqi territory, given that the same IRGC agents who tried to orchestrate the Washington, D.C., assassination of Saudi Ambassador Adel al Jubeir also run anti-U.S. military operations in Iraq. There are even reports that Hamas is getting involved on the ground. Only we’re leaving with our tails between our legs.
Obama and the rest of the foreign policy left spent a decade insisting the war in Iraq was a failure. Now they’re going to make sure of it.
This is jejune. The Bush administration did not create the rationale for bullying an Iraqi government or continuing an unwanted configuration of American forces indefinitely against its will. There is no vacuum to fill. Iran and Saudi Arabia and Turkey are regional and neighboring powers and they share cultural and societal and religious and tribal and sectarian hooks in Iraq (albeit competitively) America cannot hope to match. Iraq is not "streamrolling" anybody–it's their country and Bush predicated American military action against Hussein on the premise that America would defer to the self-governing authorities established. That a more drastically expedient turn around was envisioned with minimal "nation building" was considered (anybody remembrer Chalabi?) does not argue for likely success in America playing General McArthur tribune to the emerging if precarious consensus favoring Iran and dissing the United States. What is is and this is what is.
The American people want this nightmare to end. Thank you president Obama for keeping your word.
The spirits of Arlington are not your friend Obama, better invest in some good JuJu.
If the Iraqis don't want Americans there then then everybody is happier if they are out. Whatever America could have done via a presence on the ground it can do from the decks of its aircraft carriers. There is such a thing as knowing when you are not wanted. One has to balance the military advantages of a presence against the political disadvantages of staying where you are not wanted. It could go very pear-shaped but some times you have to take the lesser of the available evils.
The Obama administration had demanded that the Iraqi Parliament grant immunity to the US soldiers – knowing full well that the Iraqi Parliament on its own would not vote in favor of granting immunity. The point being that the Obama administration could have secured an agreement of immunity in other ways. (For example, the prime minister) or in the alternative, talked to/negotiated with the parliament.
The Obama administration seems to have no problem sending in the CIA and funding NATO’s bombing of Qaddafi without obtaining Congressional approval. The Obama administration seems to have no problem sending troops to Africa without Congressional approval. The Obama adminstration seems to have no problem with the PA (PLO) acting unilaterally by going to the UNSC and therefore cut off funding. The Obama administration seems to have no problem with the PA (PLO) seeking to obtain full state membership in UNESCO, which by US law, the US must withdrawal from UNESCO and cut funding to that organization – but from state department spokespersons, the Obama administration is looking for ways to “get around” the law. Additionally, UNESCO had already changed the names of Jewish religious and historical sites into Moslem mosques – but the Obama administration does not seem to have a problem with this either.
When the Obama administration wants to, it figures out ways to go around certain obstacles, but all the sudden in this one case, immunity for soldiers stationed in Iraq, the Obama administration cannot figure out an alternative way to obtain an agreement.