Iraq: Mission Never Accomplished
Published in Capital
(Bulgaria) on 14 December 2011
by Marina Staneva (link to original)
According to Reuters, “Mission Accomplished” are two words that Barack Obama unfortunately cannot use when the mission in Iraq comes to an end, considering that the mission has allegedly been recognized as one of America's least popular “military adventures” since the Vietnam War.
Obama promised the withdrawal of American forces from this hot spot by the end of the year during his presidential campaign, a promise that helped him win the 2008 elections. Now he hopes that the decision will help him to retain his position after the elections next year.
However, even after the last soldier packed their stuff and put an end to the 9-year-long operation, the debate over strategic planning of the withdrawal is still very heated and, according to experts, it will be years until history makes the final judgment.
Is now the right time?
"War-weariness means most Americans just want to see Iraq over and done with. But like Vietnam, there are risks and unintended consequences that will take time to sort out,” Vanderbilt professor of history and political science, Thomas Schwartz, told Reuters.
Obama inherited both the war and the scheduled withdrawal from his predecessor George Bush. Now he has no choice but to keep his fingers crossed that Iraq has become stable enough to handle the dangerous rebels and the threat from neighboring Iran.
Questions abound. Will radical Islamic movements reincarnate since they were never completely destroyed in the first place? Will the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki resort to adopting a more authoritarian model? Will the Kurdish minority remain satisfied with their partial autonomy?
Obama has never had second thoughts about putting an end to a war that took the lives of about 4,500 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, a war that cost the U.S. taxpayers more than $700 billion, a war that permanently harmed America’s position on the world stage. Yet the president's critics — from the Republican rivals to the non-conservative experts — all claim that the time of the withdrawal has been purposefully chosen to stay in tune with the voters' moods before the upcoming elections. Such a withdrawal will not only cancel out the effect of the previous achievements in Iraq, but will also encourage Iran to become more daring than ever.
“Bush's War” versus “Obama's War”
Obama got his presidency, to a high extent, thanks to his opposition against the intervention in Iraq. In one of his speeches in 2002, he warned that such a mission will cause the U.S. to become involved in a “stupid war.”
Later on, Obama won every one's sympathy when he used some more anti-war political rhetoric to make it clear he distinguishes himself form Hillary Clinton’s agenda. Back then, he insisted that unlike her, he would never vote in favor of military action in Iraq.
Afterward, Obama used the same strategy when competing against John McCain, who completely supported Bush's political agenda. After taking over the presidency, Obama turned his focus toward Afghanistan and the border with Pakistan, stating that this region is an underrated battlefield in the fight against al-Qaida. Analysts immediately called it “Obama's War” and predicted that the future of the current president would depend primarily on the results from the campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not as much on the situation in Iraq.
Benefits of the withdrawal
As of now, Iraq has only 5,500 U.S. soldiers in comparison to 170,000 in the peak of the military campaign there. Obama intended to leave several thousand troops to serve as instructors for the Iraqi police, but he couldn't successfully negotiate that with the government in Baghdad. This became, once again, a reason for criticism from the Republican side back in the States.
At present Obama will try to obtain the benefits of the withdrawal, despite the fact that the deadline for leaving Iraq in December 2011 was actually assigned by Bush. Analysts, however, predict that the end of the Iraq affair will not bring many benefits to the current president since the presidential campaign will be dominated by the financial crisis.
In Iraq there is the risk of a second war between Sunni and Shi’a as well the risk of hostility from Iran. This will only give Republicans another chance to blame Obama for starting the withdrawal too early. “The Obama administration cannot be blamed for most of the failures that led to the insurgency in Iraq and the problems Iraq now faces,” said Anthony Cordesman from CSIS to Reuters.
“The Iraq syndrome”
Although years might pass until the consequences of the U.S. withdrawal become clear, the Iraq lesson has already affected U.S. policy. As Vietnam syndrome was a burden to the American military for years and killed the habit of undertaking operations without a clear objective, the Iraq mission will have a similar impact.
Schwartz said: “You've got a similar 'Iraq syndrome' coming out of this — be wary of committing ground forces, especially in the Muslim world."
He believes that his words were proven right by the limited intervention in Libya and this factor will increasingly affect Washington's decision making.
Obama promised the withdrawal of American forces from this hot spot by the end of the year during his presidential campaign, a promise that helped him win the 2008 elections. Now he hopes that the decision will help him to retain his position after the elections next year.
However, even after the last soldier packed their stuff and put an end to the 9-year-long operation, the debate over strategic planning of the withdrawal is still very heated and, according to experts, it will be years until history makes the final judgment.
Is now the right time?
"War-weariness means most Americans just want to see Iraq over and done with. But like Vietnam, there are risks and unintended consequences that will take time to sort out,” Vanderbilt professor of history and political science, Thomas Schwartz, told Reuters.
Obama inherited both the war and the scheduled withdrawal from his predecessor George Bush. Now he has no choice but to keep his fingers crossed that Iraq has become stable enough to handle the dangerous rebels and the threat from neighboring Iran.
Questions abound. Will radical Islamic movements reincarnate since they were never completely destroyed in the first place? Will the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki resort to adopting a more authoritarian model? Will the Kurdish minority remain satisfied with their partial autonomy?
Obama has never had second thoughts about putting an end to a war that took the lives of about 4,500 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, a war that cost the U.S. taxpayers more than $700 billion, a war that permanently harmed America’s position on the world stage. Yet the president's critics — from the Republican rivals to the non-conservative experts — all claim that the time of the withdrawal has been purposefully chosen to stay in tune with the voters' moods before the upcoming elections. Such a withdrawal will not only cancel out the effect of the previous achievements in Iraq, but will also encourage Iran to become more daring than ever.
“Bush's War” versus “Obama's War”
Obama got his presidency, to a high extent, thanks to his opposition against the intervention in Iraq. In one of his speeches in 2002, he warned that such a mission will cause the U.S. to become involved in a “stupid war.”
Later on, Obama won every one's sympathy when he used some more anti-war political rhetoric to make it clear he distinguishes himself form Hillary Clinton’s agenda. Back then, he insisted that unlike her, he would never vote in favor of military action in Iraq.
Afterward, Obama used the same strategy when competing against John McCain, who completely supported Bush's political agenda. After taking over the presidency, Obama turned his focus toward Afghanistan and the border with Pakistan, stating that this region is an underrated battlefield in the fight against al-Qaida. Analysts immediately called it “Obama's War” and predicted that the future of the current president would depend primarily on the results from the campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not as much on the situation in Iraq.
Benefits of the withdrawal
As of now, Iraq has only 5,500 U.S. soldiers in comparison to 170,000 in the peak of the military campaign there. Obama intended to leave several thousand troops to serve as instructors for the Iraqi police, but he couldn't successfully negotiate that with the government in Baghdad. This became, once again, a reason for criticism from the Republican side back in the States.
At present Obama will try to obtain the benefits of the withdrawal, despite the fact that the deadline for leaving Iraq in December 2011 was actually assigned by Bush. Analysts, however, predict that the end of the Iraq affair will not bring many benefits to the current president since the presidential campaign will be dominated by the financial crisis.
In Iraq there is the risk of a second war between Sunni and Shi’a as well the risk of hostility from Iran. This will only give Republicans another chance to blame Obama for starting the withdrawal too early. “The Obama administration cannot be blamed for most of the failures that led to the insurgency in Iraq and the problems Iraq now faces,” said Anthony Cordesman from CSIS to Reuters.
“The Iraq syndrome”
Although years might pass until the consequences of the U.S. withdrawal become clear, the Iraq lesson has already affected U.S. policy. As Vietnam syndrome was a burden to the American military for years and killed the habit of undertaking operations without a clear objective, the Iraq mission will have a similar impact.
Schwartz said: “You've got a similar 'Iraq syndrome' coming out of this — be wary of committing ground forces, especially in the Muslim world."
He believes that his words were proven right by the limited intervention in Libya and this factor will increasingly affect Washington's decision making.
Previous article![]( "What If Ron Paul Wins Iowa?")
