Barack Obama appears committed to the withdrawal from Iraq of the
principal American fighting force in a strict 16-month time
frame. One wonders if he has chosen to disregard the ominous
portent of the consequences that are clearly on the horizon of
such an action — or if he and his advisors are just ignorant of
the facts.
The Shia-dominated Iraqi central government and parliament want
independence from American influence as soon as possible. At the
same time their ambition is to retain close enough relations with
the U.S. so that they can use our assistance domestically and
internationally. And they have no intention of turning over any
of the $79 billion that Barack Obama keeps mentioning is in their
treasury.
The Obama campaign has created a fictionalized Iraq political
scene in which there are virtually no consequences to America
leaving Iraq effectively on its own. Much has been made of Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s statement seeking a U.S. pullout
essentially along the Obama guidelines. If Barack Obama had even
the slightest knowledge of Iraqi and Middle Eastern affairs other
than the talking points supplied by his aides, he would have
sensed immediately he was being ensnared in a typical Iraqi con.
That atmosphere that exists in Baghdad political circles today is
best exemplified by the unfortunate situation in which a member
of their parliament, Mithal al-Alusi, finds himself. Al-Alusi ,
the head of the Democratic Party of the Iraqi Nation, attended a
conference on anti-terrorism in Israel in late 2004. For this
“crime”
al-Alusi was stripped of his parliamentary immunity and indicted
under a 1950s-era law against subversion: this is a capital
offense.
And this is the Iraq that Barack Obama believes can be left to
its own devices in 16 months. The fact is that Obama and his
left-wing, anti-war supporters want to get out of Iraq as soon as
possible at any price. Obama has danced around this issue,
changing the wording of his surrender and retreat, for no other
reason than domestic political expediency. American security
interests in the region never enter into his calculation.
Reality in the Middle East dictates that the centuries-old
animosity between Sunni and Shia in the Tigris and Euphrates
crescent is not going to be quieted by the creation of a
Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. Aside from the presence of
a powerful dictator, a colonial power, or the availability of a
neutral intervention force (as envisioned in the strategy of Gen.
Petraeus), there always will be conflict within this benighted
part of the world.
CONTRARY TO THE ROSY PICTURE currently being drawn by the Bush
White House for its own legacy purposes, Iraq remains a tinder
box. There is no question that the U.S. simply can withdraw from
Iraq and leave the country to deal with its own problems. Though
he covers his plans with rhetoric, this is exactly what Obama
intends. His entire concept is based on an expectation of the
existence of a broadly accepted strong democratic central
government.
Unfortunately the contest among the Sunni, Kurds and majority
Shia will continue for what they believe is an equitable division
of post-Saddam spoils. If the U.S. intends to remain a credible
strategic power in the Middle East, an intervention-capable force
must remain in place to prevent internal conflict in Iraq for an
indefinite period. This is what John McCain meant.
With his eye as usual on political advantage, Obama has avoided
addressing this issue. But he has given every sign of a
willingness to believe Arab and Persian good will shall rule
future regional problems.
Obama, Jimmy Carter-like, refuses to recognize the real world as
opposed to his self-created universe of reasonable and
fair-minded “international competitors.” Perhaps this is the
reason he persists in ignoring the fact that the only thing Iraq
as an Islamic country can agree upon is a hatred of Israel. As
the U.S. leaves Iraq, Iraq will return again to an active role in
the never-ending ambition of the Islamic world to regain control
of their holy city of Jerusalem.
A FURTHER COMPLICATING FACTOR in the apparent Obama strategy for
the region is the priority his advisors have placed on
Afghanistan. The stated reason is that the Obama camp believes
that is the best way to attack al Qaeda and its allies. In
actuality, Obama himself is convinced the military issues are
less complex, NATO is already involved, and, importantly, the
Afghan operation is less expensive.
If Obama really wanted to focus on destroying Osama bin Laden, he
would have emphasized the need to buy (rent?) the support of
Pakistan. In doing that he would have recognized what all
previous American administrations have done: that the key to
Pakistan’s political process has always been the military and
whatever civilian allies they chose. Pakistan is now and always
has been democratic in name only.
Putting it kindly, the social internationalist (or is it
international socialist) vision of Barack Obama is rooted in his
own ignorance of the realities of world affairs. His perception
of and plans for Iraq exemplify this.
