-
How Long Is This War?
May 20, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 148 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
-
Obama’s Thin Red Line
April 29, 2013 | 207 comments
Loose Canons
Are We Staying in Iraq?
What’s behind Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s pleas to Iraqi leaders last week?
What’s behind Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s pleas to Iraqi leaders last week?
Gates, visiting Iraq to meet with government officials, said not once but twice that American forces could stay in Iraq past the end of 2011, which the Bush-negotiated Status of Forces agreement established as a firm withdrawal date.
Talking to troops in Baghdad, Gates said: “I think there is interest in having a continuing presence, but the politics are such that we’ll just have to wait and see because the initiative ultimately has to come from the Iraqis.” He added later that, “If folks here are going to want us to have a presence, we’re going to need to get on with it pretty quickly in terms of our planning.”
In meetings with Prime Minister Maliki and Kurdish leader Barzani, Gates reportedly urged them to determine how much — and what kind — of American forces they needed beyond this year.
It’s as if America were Iraq’s crazy old uncle, invited for Thanksgiving dinner, staying through St. Paddy’s Day and then begging to stay by threatening to go home. What is Obama up to?
As with everything else Obama does, it’s a political calculation. And, like Obama’s brief “kinetic military action” over Libya, it’s a comprehensively bad idea.
Obama doesn’t want Iraq to fall apart on the eve of the November 2012 election. He’s looking at the fact that since 2006, when Nouri al-Maliki became Iraq’s prime minister, the progress of “nation-building” in Iraq has stalled. Thanks to the 2007 U.S. troop surge into Iraq, and the relentless action of Special Forces Command in hunting down terrorist leaders and operatives, terrorist violence was nearly eliminated. But the process of developing a working government for Iraq didn’t progress to the point at which the Maliki government can provide security and basic government services across the nation.
As soon as U.S. forces depart, the lack of security will affect everything political and economic in Iraq.
Maliki came to power in 2006 with the help of his co-religionist, radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who had fled to Iran about two years earlier, seeking refuge from anti-terrorist forces trying to enforce a murder warrant that charged him with the killing of a rival. As a source e-mailed me in 2004 when U.S. troops were trying to catch al-Sadr, “Look what is happening now to Al Sadr and his radical followers. Why [was] Al Sadr not arrested from day one? He killed Abdul Majid Al-Khoie [a leading Shiite cleric who favored peace] in Najaf, established his own courts, intimidated even Al Sistani, and [yet was] left alone…. As if, if you leave bad guys alone they will leave you alone.”
Al-Sadr is now back in Iraq, closely allied with Tehran, and threatening that his militia will attack U.S. forces if they don’t leave this year.
And, with the government’s failure, economic development of Iraq also stalled. Though oil exports have increased to about pre-2003 levels, the revenue gains mask the fact that there is still no overall legal structure to share oil revenue among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish groups that comprise the vast majority of Iraqi constituencies. The failure to reach agreement on revenue-sharing creates a political time bomb that will go off when U.S. forces aren’t there to provide the appearance of stability. Other economic development and foreign investment are thwarted by Byzantine regulations and corruption.
Economic and political stalemate in Iraq works to Obama’s benefit: he doesn’t want to be accused of losing Iraq in 2012. What happens afterward is of no political consequence to him. Thus the Gates initiative to plead with Iraqi leaders to ask our forces to stay.
Libya doesn’t prove that Obama has suddenly acquired a taste for war. In fact, Gates’s plea to Iraqi leaders, the half-measures in Libya, and events in Afghanistan prove Obama’s taste for stalemate.
Libya shows the danger of Obama’s strategy. To stalemate an enemy requires sufficient force — kinetic or political or both — to prevent the enemy from obtaining a stalemate-breaking advantage. Gaddafi isn’t cooperating and the Libyan rebels are so disorganized, untrained, and ill-equipped that their rebellion can’t last longer than Gaddafi’s forces have the ability to attack.
In Afghanistan, U.S. abandonment of key areas such as the Pech Valley to the Taliban reinforces the enemy’s long-term will to win. But Obama apparently plans to fine-tune the commencement of withdrawal from Afghanistan this summer to the decreasing cooperation from the Karzai government and the Zardari regime in Pakistan. With that fine-tuning, U.S. troops will continue to fight, and some will die, so that the Taliban won’t be able to sufficiently break the stalemate to bring down the Karzai government in 2012. The Afghanistan stalemate can be maintained at least until the U.S. election is over.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/11/are-we-staying-in-iraq
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Kenny| 4.11.11 @ 7:07AM
"As soon as U.S. forces depart, the lack of security will affect everything political and economic in Iraq."
That's putting it mildly. Once we out of Iraq, the country will revert to Third World barbarism with Iran picking up the pieces.
Nation building should not be an option for the U.S. Where is nation building called for in the Constitution?
davelnaf| 4.11.11 @ 7:55AM
Attempting to manipulate foreign policy issues to one’s political benefit is one thing—although bad enough in its own right. But manipulating foreign policy issues that involve the battlefield casualties of thousands of American troops is something quite evil. We already knew that leftists are mainly concerned about ideology, process, and themselves. This represents an entirely different order of selfishness in a politician and is utterly disgraceful in a president.
The Bamster’s exit next year will not come soon enough.
IMKessel| 4.11.11 @ 10:00AM
Character counts. We have entered a time period (hopefully too brief to be called an era) where when people say, “character counts,” it is said with tongue planted firmly in cheek. It is spoken with irony. But the truth is character counts. No morally centered human being can create policy using human lives simply as cannon fodder. Human life has an inherent divine spark to it. Military planners use models where the loss of lives are calculated because human life will be lost in battle, but the generals who figure these losses do so with an eye on defending a greater moral good, not simple political gain. That a group of politicians are willing to sacrifice our troops and the lives and freedoms of other nations is beyond hubris.
2012 is not too far away. Where is the voice in the wilderness that will lead America back to a dignity and honor?
bobmontgomery| 4.11.11 @ 10:07AM
Nation building was successful in Japan and Germany, and if you don't think those countries were barbarous in their treatment of foreigners and infidels...well. Iraq was centrally and culturally and chronologically located to become a rock in the middle east. The Bush Doctrine was not about playing games or fooling around with nation-building as a hobby and it wasn't about oil. Sticking one's head in the sand wasn't a good idea in 1938 and it's not a good idea today. Also, the stirring up a hornet's nest is not a good analogy, because the hornets are coming to America.
Tenn Slim| 4.11.11 @ 10:12AM
All well and good analysis.
BUT, the forces at play do not stand still while the Obama presidency plays politics.
Kadafi, Karzi, Sadar, all understand the chess games far better than the neophyte community organizer and his minons.
We have debt, EU, NATO, and other Islamic Caliphate forces at play. Obama is done.
end
Richard Baker| 4.11.11 @ 10:35AM
Enough. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are, mistakenly, trying to civilize and democratise people who create nothing but chaos and killing, find sanitation a challenge, and hate each other and everyone else (Sunni live to kill Shia who hate Wahhabi and so on). All this because the Western mind doesn't want to soil it's knuckles with the truly bad actor, Iran. So let them go at it and reduce the surplus Arab population.
Thomas| 4.11.11 @ 11:10AM
Afghanistan was destined to become a quagmire. Iraq was a beachhead. Think of Germany following WWII. The United States is still there, and in significant force. Why? Germany was totally destroyed in 1945. It was no threat to anyone, least of all the United States. So why did we stay there? To contain the USSR. The same is true of Iraq. The U.S. is there to contain Iran.
Now, some people shout, "If Iran is the problem, let's take them out." Unfortunately, that is not possible, for a simple reason; it can not be legally justified. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified, if for no other reason than Saddam Hussein's violation of most of the provisions of the 1991 ceasefire. No armistice was signed, hostilities were simply suspended pending Iraq's adherence to the conditions of the ceasefire. No such justification exists for an occupation of Iran. Look at the hand wringing and chest beating that occurred over the Iraq invasion and again over the military intervention in Libya. Can anyone conceive of the outcry, both domestic and international, should the U.S. militarily intervene in Iran?
U.S. forces were never supposed to vacate Iraq until the threat posed by Iran was neutralized. If U.S. forces vacate Iraq, at this time, then all of the sacrifices made by Americans and their allies, will have been in vain.
Intelligent Design| 4.11.11 @ 1:10PM
We should get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan, and stay out of Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc.. This would save American lives and save billions of dollars. The "rebels" in Libya are backed by al Qaeda, yet we are helping them fight against Gaddafi. The Libyan "rebels" have sold captured chemical weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas. Let the Muslims fight and kill each other. This actually helps the United States. We should bomb Iran's nuclear and military sites, and provide more assistance to Israel to kill Hamas Palestinians. Obama and most Congressmen are so dumb they think Islamic governments are going to be reliable allies of the U.S.. Afghanistan is a bottomless pit, a quagmire. And Iraq will fall apart as soon as we leave, so let it.
shipley130| 4.11.11 @ 1:54PM
We will remain there just long enough to see another dictator take over Iraq. Just you wait and see.
Quartermaster| 4.12.11 @ 6:50PM
Only a dictator was able to hold the place together in the first place. When you have a country filled with thugs, it takes a thug in power to keep the rest in line. Only the Kurds were relatively decent.
Occam's Tool| 4.11.11 @ 3:46PM
Thomas, the Iranians illegally took over our embassy in 1979, and have been a thorn in the tuchus since. I think embassy takeover is sufficient casus belli.
I do not favor an occupation of Iran. There is no need to occupy a parking lot.
Gordon W.| 4.11.11 @ 6:04PM
Occam's tool and Thomas,
May I opine in what context do you consider the war in Iraq and the theoretical war in Iran a "legal war." May it be constitutional recognition (which under interpretation rules says we abide by international common law, side note: Scalia had a very interesting opinion in Ransom v. FIA Card services), UN law, or Moral law? I only ask because you used the phrase casus belli which indicates international law, and between the two seem to intertwine the three.
Thom| 4.11.11 @ 7:15PM
Given our investment in Iraq (and Afghanistan) in things like bases and infrastructure the question should be what do we gain by leaving before the job is done? What do we lose? We fully occupied both Germany and Japan for ten years after WWII and put a lot more effort into turning those nations around to our long term benefit. The problem isn’t the mission in Iraq or Afghanistan but the execution of what some say the mission is and ultimate goals. There is considerable disconnect in Iraq in that regard and I’m not sure it was ever Bush’s goal to “nation build” Afghanistan in the first place. Having bases there was enough for his near term goals.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions the reason we still belong to NATO and have some forces in Europe and Far East is to give us access to bases and logistical support for missions in “other places”. The proposed missile shield in Poland and Czechoslovakia was to protect our forces in Europe not the Euros per say. Having a multilayered missile defense shield is a lot better than just having the point defense type defense provided by the Patriot system alone. That’s all we have now which increases the chances of a “nuke” getting through at some point. An in place long range system might have deterred Iran some but now they have a clear path to Europe where our bases are.
Some people can’t see the forest for the trees where as our national interests are concerned. The bulk of our conventional power projection capability is either sea based from 10 deployable carrier battle groups (soon to be 9) or forward bases in foreign countries our Air Force can deploy to and be in action on short notice. Take away our land bases and most of our Air Force is useless for such purposes. Take away our ability to project conventional power thousands of miles from our shores and we have no influence on foreign affairs, ie as the Euros are demonstrating with their parade ground forces in Libya. Look at a map of the Middle East and tell me Iraq is not a strategic location in that part of the world.
All too often the emotion of the issue or the incompetence of the execution of the mission over rides the rational nature of the goals as they pertain to our national interest long term. Is King Obama just going through the motions and marking time to get through re-election, certainly. That is his nature, not a rational non persona centered bone in his body. Everything is about him including the Universe. If we let short term political gains take priority over our longer term national interest we will find out selves back where we did around 8:30 AM Hawaii time on Dec, 7th 1941. Capable and effective military capability is a capital investment that requires decades to develop. We are slowly throwing it away in order to maintain two low intensity conflicts where there is neither clear cut military goals or sufficient effort to do anything beyond hold back the flood until the last possible moment where we tuck tail and run home again as we did in Vietnam. Half arseism isn’t a military strategy to win anything. Neither is running away and leaving the job unfinished.
Mike W| 4.11.11 @ 10:00PM
Everything done in Iraq was a waste. All the money spent. All of the lives lost. All of the body parts blown off. A pointless insane waste brought to us by a deeply flawed, but not all bad, president.
There was no rational justification for the invasion of Iraq. None. Any common sense analysis at the time would indicate this. In 2002-2003, I looked on in dismay, as the people I voted for, took us into a disaster that will reverberate for years.
Dee See| 4.11.11 @ 11:51PM
Suddenly (or not so suddenly if you're among the
non-hypnotized) ---Iraq and all that's a sideshow
to the 'EUGENICS friendly' disaster in Fukishima
unfolding in the CHEM-trail soaked skies of
North America.
AS the second quake hits on yet another 11 day
and even the Japanese gov is admitting is far
worse than Chernobyl-----------as monitors
here are seized and 'adjusted'
Keep a goin' kiddies----------
Keep passing on that cover!
As radiation is set to swell even beyond the gov's
massively 'relaxed' 'standards'
---------------------JUST KEEP A GOIN'!
'cause nothin's goin' on!-------------------
National march on the New York FED and
Rockefeller/Ford/Carnegie/Gates Foundation offices this July 4th!
HUAC meets NUREMBERG by 2012!
NO LONGER JOKING ----they're
Occam's Tool| 4.12.11 @ 1:25AM
Good question. Our legal scholar here is RCV, not me.
However, illegally taking over another nation's embassy (US, 1979) would seem to me to be a casus belli. Following that up with attempts to terroristically kill citizens of that same country would seem to me to be another casus belli. Attempting to develop nuclear weapos to use against US citizens or US allies would seem to me to be a third casus belli (France will be within range).
Seems to me that we have enough to destroy them with, in a rational world.
Occam's Tool| 4.12.11 @ 1:51AM
By the way, Clint's Greatest Hits:
Clint| 2.8.11 @ 8:52PM
"The April 6 and Khaled Said groups have emerged as the organizers of the anti-Mubarak coalition. "
" Leftists, socialists and pro-labor people know that the movement takes its name from April 6, 2008, when a series of strikes and labor actions by textile workers in Mahalla led to a growing general strike by workers and residents and then, on April 6, faced a brutal crackdown by security forces. A second, allied movement of young Egyptians developed in response to the killing by police of Khaled Said, a university graduate, in Alexandria. Both the April 6 group and another group, called We Are All Khaled Said, built networks through Facebook, and according to one account the April 6 group has more than 80,000 members on Facebook. The two groups, which work together, are nearly entirely secular, pro-labor and support the overthrow of Mubarak and the creation of a democratic republic."
Uh, huh. Happening.
Richard Baker| 4.12.11 @ 9:20AM
Legal, schmeagle. The Iranians want to take over in the Mid-East and have threatened one and all with nuclear weapons via missile delivery and are the main supporters around the world of terrorists. Send in the CIA, the SOCOM folks and let's help the Iranians get rid of their kleptocracy/theocracy themselves.
Rights Constitution'ly Viewed | 4.12.11 @ 12:17PM
By the way, Occam's Tool's Greatest Hits:
Occam's Tool | 4.12.11 @ 1:51AM
"Our legal scholar here is RCV"
Real Christian Virtue (Love)| 4.12.11 @ 12:27PM
By the way, Occam's Tool's legal scholar RCV's Greatest Hits:
RCV | 10.20.10 @ 9:30PM
"I abhor sanctimonious conservatism of the tea party brand, an ideology wholly lacking in intelligence or a shred of real Christian love and compassion."
RCV | 12.7.10 @ 6:27PM
"At least, skippie, I belong to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born."
Retchedly Contemptibly Vile| 4.12.11 @ 12:36PM
I don't bother with silly constitutional issues about unalienable rights endowed by our Creator that are self-evident such as life and liberty as it relates to killing fifty three million innocent unborn American babies when opining as resident expert on liberal supremacy matters.
Roy| 4.12.11 @ 5:13PM
At the end of an article making a lot of decent points, Mr. Babbin adds:
"Who among them will stand up to say that the nation-builders are wrong, and that stalemate is not a goal?
It's just as my source wrote almost seven years ago: Why do we think -- almost a decade after 9-11 -- that if you leave bad guys alone they will leave you alone? The bonfire of the neocons continues to blaze."
I see - so the "neocons" think that if you leave bad guys alone they will leave you alone. That is, erm, not the usual accusation.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:30PM
is good