Withdrawal from Iraq … and Afterwards

President Barack Obama has announced that he will withdraw his forces from Iraq in two phases. He will begin by withdrawing the American forces by the end of December 2010, although thirty-five to fifty thousand soldiers will stay in Iraq and be withdrawn at the end of 2011. Obama wants to leave Iraq. But what kind of Iraq will he leave after years of occupation? A divided and destroyed Iraq contended by political powers who arrived with the occupation and gained authority by means of it. They are political powers whose distinguishing characteristic is the sanctification of sectarianism and racism. They stole, looted, killed, and drove more than five million Iraqis out of their homeland, caused the deaths of one and a half million Iraqis, and left thousands wounded and paralyzed.

Obama said that Iraq would no longer be the number one priority for the United States. That is what the new American president said. In contrast, former president Bush considered the occupation of Iraq necessary for security and stability in the world, especially for the security of the United States. But Obama sensed the great deception played out on the American people by the right-wing Republican former administration, which used the slogan of “establishing democracy and liberty” in the world, especially the Arab region. The actual result was not expected by the American people nor the world. That is why Obama gave a speech to the American people in which he promised to withdraw all of the American forces from Iraq within 16 months of his assuming power.

Obama spoke of transparency, especially with respect to his administration and its understanding of America’s position and its new role in the world after the end of eight years of Bush’s rule, which created chaos, wars, and stirred up people’s hatred of America. Since the beginning, the American invasion of Iraq was a mistake that cost the American people a great deal in lives, economic regression, and America’s prestige in the world. It is a mistake they should step back from, especially after the United States was exposed to danger and threatened by leaving its forces scattered in Iraq. After it lost its prestige before the whole world, it saw its soldiers yelling and screaming and dying every day, and not able to provide themselves with security. Despite the strategies and plans set in place by the American military leadership for Iraq, every one of those military campaigns was met with defeat, and American military losses grew in number. The new American administration and the American people were presented with a tragic picture, especially the families of the soldiers, as they received the pallbearers carrying the corpses of their sons, and those injured and paralyzed, and saw a rise in the number of suicides among the ranks of the American soldiers…

Obama’s speech, which he gave at an American military base was what the American people were waiting for. They were waiting for him to keep the promise that he made to withdraw the American forces from Iraq within sixteen months. But, in his speech he took the first step back from his promise by dividing the withdrawal into two phases as a way of satisfying two currents of thought: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. It was a median decision in which two dates were chosen. The first was conciliatory to his lieutenants and supporters, by carrying out his promise, and the second was to satisfy the other side, by having a second withdrawal aligned with the Security Agreement made between the former Bush administration and the Iraqi Government to withdraw all of the American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011. This is a confirmation of the American political and military defeat in Iraq, and the flight from the Iraqi swamp in which it was drowning. I believe that the timing of the withdrawal is subject to change and adjustment, and it is not binding, because it is tied to the decision of the military leadership in the field in Iraq. There are fears on the part of some American politicians about a lack of urgency in withdrawing from Iraq. Indications from the field are that the security situation could revert back to square one. There could be a recurrence of the security chaos, especially due to the existence of sectarian political powers supported by regional countries for which stability in Iraq is not in their interest. That is because their interests are tied to the prolongation of the occupation. They may try to re-entangle the American forces in battles with the militias they support.

Obama’s speech comes as a message for both the domestic and foreign audience. It is for the domestic audience because it carries out his promise to withdraw from Iraq at the end of 2011. The message for the foreign audience is that it asks them, especially the countries of the region, to support the American decision to withdraw, and to provide aid. But the most important thing in his message to the domestic audience is that he promised to raise the salary for members of the American armed forces, to take care of those returning from Iraq, and to improve services provided to them. He pledged to consult with members of Congress in order to draft new laws in an attempt to send a message to those who were killed or injured in Iraq. It is a smart move on his part which plays to the ordinary citizen’s emotions with respect to the withdrawal, and this is what is asked for by the organizations of families opposed to the war on Iraq.

Obama recognized that Iraq is not secure, that it will face much violence, and that many of the problems won’t be solved, especially the problems of security and displaced persons. He also recognizes that the solutions in Iraq are political and not military. He called for a just government for all the Iraqis which would include everyone. He entrusted the new American ambassador in Iraq with working towards that end. He also called for international support for Iraq, and for the return of displaced persons to their homes, in his statement: “A comprehensive peace in Iraq won’t be achieved without the return of all those driven out of their homes.” But Obama didn’t speak out on some issues, such as the American strategic situation in Iraq, especially his pledge to transfer some of the American forces from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the meantime, we find a concession from the pinnacle, where he says: “The American administration has been defeated in Afghanistan.”

Here we ask, “How does Obama seek victory in a new gamble in Afghanistan, especially when an economic crisis is storming America?” I believe that Obama will lose in Afghanistan just as George Bush lost in Iraq. The American army will be defeated in Afghanistan. It hasn’t learned the lesson from the previous example, that nations don’t accept occupations and don’t accept the killing of their people by means of American soldiers and planes, and that this is what increases hatred towards Americans.

There will still be debate inside the American administration about the American withdrawal from Iraq. There is debate inside the Democratic Party which raises doubts about Obama’s plan to withdraw that number of troops. One wing of the party rejects withdrawing that number. But Obama pledged to keep fifty thousand military members in Iraq under the pretext that those troops would train the security and military forces and fight so-called “terrorism,” and support the government in its military operations against armed groups. The Democrats aren’t satisfied with keeping a limited presence of fifty thousand soldiers after August 2010. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the American House of Representatives said, “I don’t know what the justification is for fifty thousand troops in Iraq…I would think that fifteen to twenty thousand soldiers (is sufficient).” The leader of the Democratic minority (sic) in the Senate, Harry Reid, told the New York Times newspaper that he hadn’t expected such a large number. Democratic senator Robert Menendez, who voted in 2002 against the war on Iraq, expressed his dismay over the size of the force that will remain in Iraq after August 2010. The far left wing of the Democratic Party is clearly expressing their dissatisfaction, take, for example, Representative Dennis Kucinich who said, “You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war.” Many in the Democratic leadership are wary of Obama’s plan for a partial withdrawal from Iraq.

Obama considers the lesson we have learned from the war in Iraq to be to clearly define the objectives of the war. There was no objective and no point to this criminal war in Iraq which the Bush administration launched. Besides, what are the results of the war? This is what the new American administration should learn…

Many observers are optimistic about the decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq, but some fear that statements by some American officials associate the withdrawal of troops with a stable security situation in Iraq. That won’t be achieved until national institutions free of ethnic and sectarian apportioning are built, and that is the only guarantee. Establishing the political process is the pivotal element of a successful stability and that depends, first of all, on political harmony. ..

That being said, if America does withdraw from Iraq – if it is to be believed – then Iraq’s gates will be open for the greedy regional powers to increase their strength in the region. But the withdrawal will bring to the forefront the Iraqi resistance, which can take control and bring back stability, security, and unity to Iraq, and will defeat all of the foreign agents along with the occupation.