Yesterday, a barrage of at least 15 bombs were set off in Baghdad, which according to press reports rocked almost every major neighborhood in the Iraqi capital. Dozens of people were killed. We’re seeing a dramatic resurgence of sectarian and ethnic divisions. And the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, issued a warrant for the arrest of Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni leader who has since fled to the autonomous northern Kurdish region. (Maliki has ordered the Kurds to “hand over” Hashemi or face “problems.”) This is precisely why U.S. commanders recommended we maintain a residual American force of 15,000 to 18,000, in order to keep violence down, ethnic divisions in check, and Maliki in line. But President Obama thought he knew better, and now we have no U.S. presence in Iraq to speak of.
Until now, Iraq had made impressive strides since the civil war that almost consumed it in 2006. But it has been a fragile affair. Iraq, and especially the Sunnis and Kurds, needed an American presence to continue to help bind up the wounds of the war. It was perfectly predictable that if America withdrew its troops, trouble would follow. And now trouble has come, only a week after the president declared Iraq to be “sovereign, self-reliant, and democratic.”
It is quite amazing that Maliki would begin what the Wall Street Journal rightly calls a “putsch” against his Sunni coalition partners so shortly after having met with President Obama. This is yet more evidence of the diplomatic skills our community-organizer-turned-president brought to the job. Indeed, having the United States steadily pull away from Maliki since Obama assumed office has created and exacerbated many of the problems we now face. And they are about to get a good deal worse. Now begins what the celebrated Arab writer Adonis called a “march backwards into the sun.”
CIA Director David Petraeus, who worked near-miracles overseeing the success of the so-called surge in 2007, was dispatched to Iraq earlier this week, to help undo the damage. But of course thanks to the president’s decisions, we have very little leverage now. “Tell me how this ends,” General Petraeus would often ask in the context of Iraq. It could have ended reasonably well; it now looks as if it will end very badly. We know which Western leader we have to thank for that.
What is happening in Iraq is sickening, in part because the gains came at such a high cost and in part because what is happening there was so avoidable. Obama was handed a war that was largely won. What America had given to Iraq is what the Arab scholar Fouad Ajami called “the foreigner’s gift.” But Iraq being Iraq, maintaining an American troop presence there, separate from engaging in combat operations, was necessary if Iraq was ever to become whole again. President Obama has undone much of what had been achieved there, almost in the blink of an eye. And when the history of his administration is written, it increasingly looks as if he will be fairly judged to have been the man who lost Iraq.
In an administration full of failures, this one may well rank among the highest. The human cost to Iraq and the strategic damage to America may be unimaginable. And so unnecessary.
"But Iraq being Iraq, maintaining an American troop presence there, separate from engaging in combat operations, was necessary if Iraq was ever to become whole again." n nIsn't this the problem, though, "Iraq being Iraq"? Were it not for the enormous sacrafice in blood and treasure, I would completely support President Obama's pullout. While I once thought otherwise, experiience has tought me, at least, that we cannot impose liberal western democracy on recalcitrant and primitive cultures. Iraq isn't post-war Germany or Japan and it is folly to believe otherwise. n nBut that is an argument against a long term presence there. In the short term, I do agree with you that, especially in light of the huge investment of blood and money, we should have stayed in force in a non-combat role a bit longer to give them a chance, however small in my view, to get their house in order.
Actually, Gord11, Despotry has to imposed – not democracy. Iraq’s control freaks and wanna be leaders for life along with time traveling mentalities and intolerance can be marginalized 9or annihilated). Time, literacy and a free, uncensored press are keys.
How did Tony Blair put it? Oh, yeah -
“…There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don’t; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values…These are not western values – these are the universal values of the human spirit”
Also check out Amb Palmer’s book about ditching every unfree regime by 2025. A dictator free world is possible. More than anyone realizes
http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Real-Axis-Evil-Dictators/dp/0742532542
With respect, Tony Blair is wrong. A love of freedom is nurtured and grows as a result of institutions created over many, many years in cultures conducive to such institutions. Rather than freedom, it is, as the examples demonstrate many times over, security that most people desperately desire. Good luck to Iraq and the other Arabs in the Middle East, but I see trouble ahead and little hope.
15 bombs! The Iraqis are filled with hatred. The people they most hate are the Jews, but when there are no Jews available, the hatred has to be directed against whoever is close at hand. nHatred has a life of its own.
Mr. Wehner: By how many billions of dollars would you increase the budget for Iraq's security over the coming decade? Or do you just see that as irrelevant?
We invaded Iraq based on lies, we occupied Iraq with an insufficient force, George Bush made an agreement with the Iraqi government to leave, the sovereign government we helped create in fact wanted us out, and we left. n nJust how long should we have stayed in force in Iraq? Five years? Ten? Fifty? n nHad Obama managed to keep troops in substantial numbers in Iraq, Wenher would, in fact, argue the opposite that he has here. I'm sure it'll make for nostalgic reading for the troops who made it home alive, if not wounded in body and soul.
They dealt pretty well in the past with the preiodic bumps in the road without outside assistance with tihe imposition of a outside political solution. The only way iraq can solve their political/sectrian/ religious conflict is for them to do it themselves. It might not be pretty and we might not be completely satified with the final outcome, but the result will be an authenic idignous iraqie solution to and uniquely iriqie problem and in the end that is the only solution that will last in the end. BTW Many strain in this line of reasoning also applies to afganastain. I sincerly believe we all would be better off allow indignous population solve thir own problems with out outside interference, be it in iraq, afganistain, egypt or syira. These countries have been are ancient societies. Im certain they can solve thir own problems and find a path to cultural advancement all by themselves without our intervention. i fully support Oboma in his policy of cafeful but speedy diisinganment and withdrawal.
The problem is that Iraq is, and always has been, a nation in name only. From the moment of its creation, Iraq has been held together by nothing more than naked force. The US invasion in 2003 broke the grip of the ruling elite and threw power into the street. At that moment, Iraq began to fracture along the ethnic and religious fault lines that were there all along. As the recent upsurge in violence shows, the US occupation suppressed but could not eradicate these mutual hatreds. Perhaps over a period of twenty or thirty years it could be done. But unfortunately the American people have concluded that it's not worth doing. That provided Obama with all the cover he needed for this ignominious retreat.