« Max Boot Nails it on Iraq and Skewers Obama in the Process | Main | Goodbye Greece! Hello USA? »

November 6, 2011

Obama Lost Iraq, And Did So Deliberately

Once again I am so busy I have no time for any of my usual analysis, but this Krauthammer column seems to sum up what I've been reading about the current situation.

Who Lost Iraq?
You know who.
National Review
November 3, 2011 8:00 P.M.
Charles Krauthammer

Barack Obama was a principled opponent of the Iraq War from its beginning. But when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won. The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with American backing, by the forces of Shiite prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City.

Al-Qaeda decimated. A Shiite prime minister taking a decisively nationalist line. Iraqi Sunnis ready to integrate into a new national government. U.S. casualties at their lowest ebb in the entire war. Elections approaching. Obama was left with but a single task: Negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to reinforce these gains and create a strategic partnership with the Arab world's only democracy.

He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, finally collapsed last month. There is no agreement, no partnership. As of December 31, the American military presence in Iraq will be liquidated.

And it's not as if that deadline snuck up on Obama. He had three years to prepare for it. Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated. And all major parties but one (the Sadr faction) had an interest in some residual stabilizing U.S. force, like the postwar deployments in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

Three years, two abject failures. The first was the administration's inability, at the height of American post-surge power, to broker a centrist nationalist coalition governed by the major blocs -- one predominantly Shiite (Maliki's), one predominantly Sunni (Ayad Allawi's), one Kurdish -- that among them won a large majority (69 percent) of seats in the 2010 election.

Vice President Joe Biden was given the job. He failed utterly. The government ended up effectively being run by a narrow sectarian coalition where the balance of power is held by the relatively small (12 percent) Iranian-client Sadr faction.

The second failure was the SOFA itself. The military recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan, and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead a level of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

A deployment so risibly small would have to expend all its energies simply protecting itself -- the fate of our tragic, missionless 1982 Lebanon deployment -- with no real capability to train the Iraqis, build their U.S.-equipped air force, mediate ethnic disputes (as we have successfully done, for example, between local Arabs and Kurds), operate surveillance and special-ops bases, and establish the kind of close military-to-military relations that undergird our strongest alliances.

The Obama proposal was an unmistakable signal of unseriousness. It became clear that he simply wanted out, leaving any Iraqi foolish enough to maintain a pro-American orientation exposed to Iranian influence, now unopposed and potentially lethal. Message received. Just this past week, Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurds -- for two decades the staunchest of U.S. allies -- visited Tehran to bend a knee to both Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

It didn't have to be this way. Our friends did not have to be left out in the cold to seek Iranian protection. Three years and a won war had given Obama the opportunity to establish a lasting strategic alliance with the Arab world's second most important power.

He failed, though he hardly tried very hard. The excuse is Iraqi refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. forces. But the Bush administration encountered the same problem, and overcame it. Obama had little desire to. Indeed, he portrays the evacuation as a success, the fulfillment of a campaign promise.

But surely the obligation to defend the security and the interests of the nation supersede personal vindication. Obama opposed the war, but when he became commander-in-chief the terrible price had already been paid in blood and treasure. His obligation was to make something of that sacrifice, to secure the strategic gains that sacrifice had already achieved.

He did not, failing at precisely what this administration so flatters itself for doing so well: diplomacy. After years of allegedly clumsy brutish force, Obama was to usher in an era of not hard power, not soft power, but smart power.

Which turns out in Iraq to be . . . no power. Years from now we will be asking not "Who lost Iraq?" -- that already is clear -- but "Why?"

Posted by Tom at November 6, 2011 8:27 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1750

Comments

Snake Hunter Sez,

Of course, Obama lost Iraq deliberately.

Everything he does is done precisely as his mentors say it must be done to achieve the
New World Order a'la Open Society Institute.

Allahu Akbar!

And Obama's minions in the House & Senate also do as they are told, if they want those fat campaign donations to keep rolling in next year.

Have you read 'The Bubble of American Supremacy'?

reb
___ ___

Posted by: Ralph E. at November 8, 2011 1:37 AM

Hello Tom:

"....when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won" - This is just a plain silly and faulty assumption VDH has based his whole argument on. If you consider handing Iraq to the Shi'ite (Iranian backed bunch of exiles), then yes, we had almost 'won' the war.

But I am not here to argue the merits of a long and controversial war of choice in Iraq. What is more interesting to me is the all but open 'cyber war' with Iran. Stuxnet, the mysterious bombings of Iranian nuke factories, assassinations of nuclear scientists, and now the capture of an American drone: the conflict with Iran has begun. Obama escalated the Af-Pak war, violating Pakistani airspace with an impunity that event the most hawkish Bush neocon would have only dreamed about.

Iran has stocked up their proxies in Syria (Hezbollah) and they are up to who knows what, while the Russians, Turks, Israelis and who knows who else (Americans too) are pre-positioning for events in Syria. Drones in Yemen, Libya, Iran (and these are just the places we know of operations) are providing a radically different new element to warfare, usually to our advantage. Obama would fully be "Cartered" if that drone was a manned flight, and a pilot was Iranian hands.

Iranian goons probably learned to target (electronically?) drones from Israel fighting along side Hezbollah, and now I'd wager they used those skills to ground our plane, probably with Russia help (who, along with the Chinese, want to look at our fancy plane). The only question is if this 'cyber-war' will eventually jack up oil prices. That will give the debates here in the USA something to talk about.

Hope all is well.

Posted by: jason at December 14, 2011 3:10 AM

Hi jason, and thank you for stopping by. As you know I disagree with your opening paragraph but have no wish to debate that one either.

Interesting that you're more interested in Iran. Pardon me for this observation, but I can't but help but to notice that most people who are against the Iraq War are in favor of war or action against someone else. Would I be a cad to theorize that if we attacked Iran suddenly they'd be against that too?

The cyberwar aspect our fight (can I call it that?) against Iran is interesting. More so, perhaps, are the assassinations of leading Iranian nuclear engineers and the bombs that have destroyed nuclear facilities. My hat would be off to Obama if this turns out to be part of a CIA operation that he approved.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at December 27, 2011 7:26 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)