The Dilemma That Is Iraq
Published in de Volkskrant
(Netherlands) on 3 December 2008
by Thomas von der Dunk (link to
original)
No campaign promise is as difficult to keep as in the case of foreign policy: delivering on such a promise is seldom in one's hands, because one is dependent on the cooperation of outsiders. Barack is now experiencing this in Iraq.
With great difficulty, the current U.S. government has concluded an agreement with Baghdad, which states that the U.S. Army will depart Iraq by January 1, 2012. With this, Bush has finally settled on a date---as was Obama's wish. Except that the date is quite a bit later than Obama wishes it to be.
This poses a dilemma for him: to accept the agreement, and thus stay in Iraq much longer than he really wants, or to stick to his campaign promise and thus re-open the agreement that was negotiated with so much difficulty, with an uncertain outcome?
The first option is more sensible--if only with that uncertain outcome in mind. There are too many parties in Iraq that have their own agendas and this would make reaching a new agreement impossible.
A wrong war is easier to start than to end. Also, in the meantime, too much can happen that can result in a shift in the stakes for the other side.
Swamp
Sticking to this agreement makes more sense---but that doesn't mean that it will actually be implemented. Therefore, one must always keep the second option of re-negotiations in the back of one's mind.
Paper is patient---certainly in this region. Foreign policy doesn't lend itself to planning during a war situation. A lot can happen during the three years that have been alloted to the withdrawal. The pockets of resistance of Al Sadr-Shiites, Al-Qaeda Sunnis and so on, have not been involved in the agreements, and it is best not to ever rely on the cooperation of your enemies.
It will also be wise if Obama does not, in advance, trust the Maliki government's word one hundred percent. It is possible that later, under certain conditions, he would want to withdraw from Iraq, if internal pressures after an incident--such as an American shooting spree--were to mount. Or, vice versa, if it turns out that the Iraqi army is by no means capable of guaranteeing stability, and they perform so atrociously that the Americans simply can not leave.
This makes Iraq such a political swamp. A wrong war is simply easier to start than to end.
With great difficulty, the current U.S. government has concluded an agreement with Baghdad, which states that the U.S. Army will depart Iraq by January 1, 2012. With this, Bush has finally settled on a date---as was Obama's wish. Except that the date is quite a bit later than Obama wishes it to be.
This poses a dilemma for him: to accept the agreement, and thus stay in Iraq much longer than he really wants, or to stick to his campaign promise and thus re-open the agreement that was negotiated with so much difficulty, with an uncertain outcome?
The first option is more sensible--if only with that uncertain outcome in mind. There are too many parties in Iraq that have their own agendas and this would make reaching a new agreement impossible.
A wrong war is easier to start than to end. Also, in the meantime, too much can happen that can result in a shift in the stakes for the other side.
Swamp
Sticking to this agreement makes more sense---but that doesn't mean that it will actually be implemented. Therefore, one must always keep the second option of re-negotiations in the back of one's mind.
Paper is patient---certainly in this region. Foreign policy doesn't lend itself to planning during a war situation. A lot can happen during the three years that have been alloted to the withdrawal. The pockets of resistance of Al Sadr-Shiites, Al-Qaeda Sunnis and so on, have not been involved in the agreements, and it is best not to ever rely on the cooperation of your enemies.
It will also be wise if Obama does not, in advance, trust the Maliki government's word one hundred percent. It is possible that later, under certain conditions, he would want to withdraw from Iraq, if internal pressures after an incident--such as an American shooting spree--were to mount. Or, vice versa, if it turns out that the Iraqi army is by no means capable of guaranteeing stability, and they perform so atrociously that the Americans simply can not leave.
This makes Iraq such a political swamp. A wrong war is simply easier to start than to end.