What Will the U.S. Leave In Iraq?

For the past two months the American Department of Defense has been busy grumbling and complaining about its reduced budget, approved by Congress regarding spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. This artificial discontent attitude of the American defense ministry will not make Congress back off and Obama will not be able to transfer money from another source to spend in Iraq. This is consistent with Obama’s style of governing and was apparent since the day Bush left the White House, which is to blame and to try to point out whenever possible, the wrong decision made to involve the U.S. army in Iraq.

During Obama’s first campaign he excessively expressed that he will be able to make the U.S. army’s withdrawal from Iraq a reality. Not because the current Iraqi government is now capable of existing alone but because the American mission no longer has any reason to be present in Iraq. (This was also mentioned during Obama’s presidential campaign)

Moreover, he had the drive, determination and persistence to make his promises a reality and he alone knows the key to solving the problem. “I have promised you and now I have fulfilled that promise,”* said Obama.

Surely it is sad to see the president of the country with the most impact in the world repeatedly expressing that everything happening in the world stems from his right decision to withdraw from Iraq. This is the card played for elections, which has been played in the past and will be played once again in the future.

Obama’s crew has resorted to promoting this partial issue too far, which has now rebounded against Obama. Obama adopted this issue to promote his new “Obamaism.” The result was the decline of Obama’s popularity since the start of the Arab revolutions, which revealed that Washington is the biggest supporter to those Arab regimes.

A recent Washington Post poll suggests that a third of its readers believe that Obama is neglecting international issues, which in turn reflects on America’s image in the world. He has not worked hard enough for world peace and does not have a coherent foreign policy.

It is clear that the American people, Republicans and Democrats alike, were disturbed by Obama’s response and reactions towards the Arab uprising of change, and now the American people are confused. While the general American public stood with the Arab uprisings, the Obama administration stood with Mubarak, revealing an embarrassing position held by Obama’s advisors and his cabinet. Later on we saw the Obama administration retreating from that view and we heard the speech Obama gave pushing Mubarak to step down, that an orderly transition “must begin now.” On the other hand, the Egyptians believe they were able to achieve what they wanted without the speech Obama gave.

It was not a Clintonian slip of the tongue but it revealed that America did not expect and did not comprehend the depth of the Arab aggravation and discontent towards their rulers.

This turnaround of views was yet not decided in Washington when we once again saw Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warning that the American embassy operations in Iraq will not be able to fulfill their operations as a result of scarcity of resources. This was supposed to be overwhelmingly borne by the U.S. embassy instead of the U.S. army, in the phase of total army evacuation.

What the Republicans are really doing through their policies towards Iraq today is to express that allowing Obama’s positions and views on the negative involvement of the army for the past two years to flourish was an error. They are effectively telling Obama that because he views Bush’s decision to enter Iraq negatively, they will not provide him with the money needed to play both roles — the role of withdrawing from Iraq, publicly expressed by Obama, and the other, Obama as the secret active pusher of Bush’s policy in Iraq. Obama will simply have to pay for the scarcity of the resources provided.

From here the game is played with two sinews, making them more dangerous and stronger than from one sinew alone. Therefore, we witness American ground forces in Iraq aiding their leaders and president abroad. The latest comments repeated by Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan reminded us that the danger al-Qaida poses in Iraq is still present and Iraqis will only be able to counter al-Qaida with the help and assistance of the United States.

We Iraqi journalists have to expect more of the same comments from the leaders of the American ground forces so we do not forget that the small incubated communities in Iraq have been a safe haven for al-Qaida rebels, a popular reason and justification for the existence of American troops in Iraq. The operations that linked the American forces with the organizations of revolutionary ideas and some of the notable clans were only the start of sedition based on common interests; army interests and national interests that cannot be distinguished. We could say that those linked operations were taken in the conduct of nearsightedness when dealing with the authorities.

What’s important is that the U.S., along with Obama, will not leave anything behind that reminds us of Iraq. The U.S. insists on dealing with the issues from afar when it comes to Iraq. However, Iraqis should sense this unstable American mentality, and to see our country as a pure sanctuary that does not go along with any political standards and criteria as much as move to the middle of the political spectrum for the good of Iraq’s national interests. In the end, Iraq will belong to the Iraqis only and American interests on the ground will expire. However, their political and economic interests will always be a long-term issue. We should not take the road of simply duplicating American policy when dealing with Iraqi issues.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.