The American Spectator : Leon Panetta Is Right

Text Size

Leon Panetta Is Right

By Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi on 9.13.11 @ 6:08AM

Keeping too many U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely will spell political disaster.

As the original withdrawal deadline of December 31, 2011 under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) edges ever closer for U.S. troops in Iraq, reports have emerged that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has come out in support of a plan that would keep 3,000 to 4,000 American troops in the country beyond this year. Their sole purpose will be to provide training for the Iraqi security forces.

On the other hand, senior military figures such as General Lloyd J. Austin III -- the senior American commander in Iraq -- would prefer to see a much larger and open-ended presence of around 14,000 to 18,000 U.S. troops. Such a view is based on four lines of argument that ultimately do not stand up to scrutiny.

Generally, when U.S. military and think tanks argue for a significant indefinite presence of American forces, they highlight concerns over Iranian influence, ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq's north, problems in forming an Iraqi government, and conducting counter-terrorism operations against groups like al-Qaeda. However, even where these anxieties are valid, it does not follow that a large U.S. military presence is the solution.

Iranian influence: The presence of U.S. troops is supposedly the only thing that can prevent Iran from turning Iraq into a subservient satellite state. Nevertheless, there are several problems with this claim. Although Nouri al-Maliki's government maintains friendly economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran, political parties in Iraq that are perceived as having pro-Iranian agendas do not win significant support even among the Shi'a population.

For example, the Supreme Islamic Council, which is probably Iran's staunchest ally in Iraq and changed its name from "Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq" amid suspicions of being an Iranian agent, only won 20 seats out of 325 in Iraq's parliamentary elections in March 2010.

One of the main reasons for this outcome is that the Shi'a clergy in Iraq generally reject the principle of velayat-e-faqih, or "guardianship of the clerics," that forms the basis of Iran's system of government. The concern for the Iraqi Shi'a religious authorities and the mainstream Shi'a parties (e.g. the Dawa party) is to maintain Shi'a dominance in internal Iraqi politics, not to subordinate the nation to Iranian interests.

In any case, maintaining a large American military presence is only going to lead to continued Iranian support for the Shi'a militant "Special Groups" (e.g. The Hezbollah Brigades) that receive financial aid and arms supplies from Tehran via smuggling through Maysan province in the southeast. Owing to restrictions on movement, U.S. troops have become easy targets for the Special Groups, which in general do not attack the Iraqi security forces, for good reason.

After all, when al-Maliki aimed to consolidate his power base in the period 2007-2008, he successfully used the Iraqi army against the most powerful Shi'a militia at the time -- Muqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army" -- in "Operation Charge of the Knights" in the spring of 2008. The Mahdi Army was subsequently forced to disband. The Shi'a militants cannot afford to cross swords with the central government again.

Ethnic and sectarian tensions in the north: This problem is indeed a real one, and amid the debate on whether U.S. troops should stay beyond the original SOFA deadline, Massoud Barzani -- president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) -- has urged Baghdad to sign an agreement with the United States to keep forces beyond 2011. The reasoning is that American forces have helped to maintain peace between Arabs and Kurds in cities such as oil-rich Kirkuk, which Jalal Talabani's party recently declared to be Kurdish and not subject to negotiation, even though the Iraqi constitution stipulates that a referendum should have been held on Kirkuk's status in 2007.

Nonetheless, the tensions are much more complicated, and go back to issues that are too deeply rooted to be resolved through mediation by a U.S. military presence. Kirkuk is also home to a substantial number of Assyrian Christians and Yezidis, both of whom have seen their political representatives (the Assyrian Democratic Movement and Yezidi Progress Movement respectively) marginalized by the KRG.

Concerning the Yezidis, the problem is that the Yezidis do not identify as Kurds but are not recognized by the KRG Constitution as a separate ethnic group, while Assyrians have legitimate grievances that pre-date the U.S. invasion in 2003, such as the fact that in October 2002 the KRG passed a resolution legalizing the confiscation of Assyrian land by Peshmerga militiamen.

Thus, as analyst Joel Wing of Musings on Iraq points out, the joint patrols created by the United States have only helped to maintain the tense status quo, not to alleviate the animosities between the various ethno-religious groups. Most of these patrols have already been pulled out, with no noticeable change in the situation.

Breaking the deadlock between Iraqi politicians: It is argued that an extended U.S. presence can exert sufficient pressure on Iraq's politicians to move beyond the stalemate in power-sharing and work towards forming a functioning administration. Yet this argument imputes too much power to the Americans in assuming that they are the decisive game-changers. On the contrary, there is little evidence to support such a view.

After the elections in March 2010, the root cause of the deadlock was the fact that al-Maliki remained intent on retaining his position as prime minister, while Ayad Allawi's "al-Iraqiya" bloc, having won the largest single number of seats in the parliament (91 seats as opposed to 89 for al-Maliki's "State of Law" bloc), continued to insist on its right to form a government, even as al-Maliki forged a new coalition with the Sadrists. Some headway was made in December when Massoud Barzani convened the quarrelling factions in Arbil and forged a compromise that allowed al-Maliki to remain prime minister for a second term, with a "Supreme Council for Strategic Policies" created to placate Allawi.

The United States had no influence in the creation of this compromise. To this day, the government has not been fully formed, despite the American presence, for al-Maliki has gone back on many of the terms of the compromise, aiming now to control the Defense Ministry, which was supposed to be awarded to Allawi's bloc.

Hence, only the final point remains regarding counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda and similar militant groups in Iraq. Here, there is valid concern, as the springtime assault by Sunni insurgents on the provincial government buildings in Tikrit still required a joint U.S.-Iraqi team to end the hostage crisis. Yet this issue can be resolved by keeping a small, residual U.S. force, as Panetta proposes, to provide further training for the Iraqi army, which continues to make progress in morale and performance.

In short, the U.S. military must appreciate that most of Iraq's problems are challenges for Iraqis to overcome. A sustained, large American presence has already aroused too much opposition from the Iraqi public and politicians to be a viable option. In contrast, the much reduced military role favored by the White House and Panetta is far more tenable. If the aim is to have good U.S.-Iraqi relations, the best approach is through the U.S. embassy not keeping a large number of troops in the country indefinitely.

About the Author

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum. His website is http://www.aymennjawad.org.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (24) | Leave a comment

Doorgunner| 9.13.11 @ 7:00AM

Why do I suspect that your tuition checks arrive in envelope with a Teheran postmark?

To assert that the Shia in Iraq have no desire to see Iraq as a state subservient to Iranian interests is disingenuous and that Iranian support for Kateb Hezbollah will wain after the Americans leave is sheer nonsense, if not an outright lie.

One need only to fly low and south toward Al Faw and look at the millions of artillery impact craters to understand Iran's relationship with Iraq. And it is in the south that Iran's interest lies. The southern oilfield is now projected to hold reserves that will make it the second most productive field in the world. And Iraq does not have the ability to defend it.

But let's just rely on Iran's benevolence and hope for the best. And let's not worry about the hundreds of U.S. State Department personnel that reside between Iran and Iraq's southern field. It's not like there's any history of hostage taking in the region.

Good grief.

LSinAZ| 9.13.11 @ 8:12AM

Doorgunner, are you asserting that Iraq (or factions therein) in fact favors subservience to Iran?

And are you asserting that Iraq can not protect it's own interests in their Southern oilfields without the aid of the US?

Can you tell us what your definition of Victory is, and when you think it will be advisable to get out of these conflicts?

I think it is beyond time that US troops come home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I think taxing US Citizens to pay for other countries interests is anathema to the US Constitution.

Doorgunner| 9.13.11 @ 8:27AM

Yes.
Yes.
Victory in Iraq may be defined by the recognition of national, economic self-interest by it's diverse population and the establishment of a democratically elected government that responds to these interests with reinvestment in defense, infrastructure, and defense. This not happening to the necessary extent now. We leave when they can defend the borders.

Doorgunner| 9.13.11 @ 8:30AM

I meant to say " defense, infrastructure and services", but, it's not bad as it stands.

Eisenhower| 9.13.11 @ 9:24AM

"Victory in Iraq may be defined by the recognition of national, economic self-interest by it's diverse population and the establishment of a democratically elected government that responds to these interests with reinvestment in defense, infrastructure, and defense. This not happening to the necessary extent now."

Keeping troops there isn't going to help them with this undertaking. The continuing task of building a democratic government that addresses the concerns of all of the citizens of Iraq is a task that belongs to them, not to us. Attempting to stay there any longer than they wish us to, will only cause more problems. And attempting to resolve the internal disputes between the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds, will only make them more dependent on us rather than allowing them to learn how to resolve their own internal issues.

I agree that we should help them remain independent of Iran. We should help them in regards to defense, and if Iran ever attempts to attack or Invade, we should intervene. However, if Iraq is to remain a sovereign nation than it must be allowed to make its own decisions, which means letting them decide on what sort of relationships they want with their neighbors. We've helped them win their freedom, now they must endeavor to keep it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.11 @ 7:12AM

Doorgunner,
I tend to agree with you, not about the tuition checks berhabs.
I just hate to see Iraq swebt into the Iranian sfere of tyranny after all of our efforts there.

Bob K.| 9.13.11 @ 7:54AM

Realistically, it is starting to look like that keeping too many troops anywhere in the middle east will result in political disaster.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.13.11 @ 8:08AM

Is it just ME? Or, would it make more sense to have someone who DOESN'T have a soft spot for the Enemy, making this point.
What will he write, next? That, if we want peace in the Middle East, we should leave Israel hanging in the wind?
I forgot. We're already doing that.

Have you considered| 9.13.11 @ 8:20AM

Obama has not only left Isreal hanging in the wind, he seems to have actively supported a total conflagration in the Middle East.

I honestly believe we are witnessing the beginnings of WW3.

John786| 9.13.11 @ 9:09AM

A nuanced article. Rare for the spectator. These articles do seem to bring out the"end timers"- who seem to read the end of the world into any peacemaking efforts.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.13.11 @ 9:36AM

"Peacemaking Efforts" sometimes DO precipitate the end of the world.
Neville Chamberlain's "Peace In Our Time" agreement with Hitler, comes to mind.
The Non Aggression Pact that the Soviets signed with Hitler. How many MILLIONS of Russian's World came to an end?
Never underestimate the ability of Peacemaking, to be seen as a GREEN LIGHT to ATTACK.
Perhaps you might want to peruse a History Book, or two.
DUMB*SS.

John786| 9.13.11 @ 12:01PM

Appologies. Once again I stand corrected. War & ethnic cleansing is the way forward. How could I have missed that. But, I maintain that the 'end timers' are fruitier than a fruit cake overflowing with soltanas.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 4:29PM

Tim, is not proposing war and ethnic cleansing, dumbass. He is making a point that apparently your little knee jerk liberal mind can not seem to grasp.

Expat Joe| 9.19.11 @ 9:41AM

Im pretty sure as adults everyone should be able to make thier points heard without aggression, racism and calling each other names... Grow up... Each person here is making valid points to some extent or the other. On the one hand.... lets be honest.. when ppl see weekness (such as the yearning for peace agreements) others see this as a weekness and are more than willing to trya and take advantage of the situation.. invade bomb spy...whatever....... on the other hand you cant exactly go Texas on thier ass and jsut kill them all either.... Im pretty sure everyone has a case of the monday morning quaterbacks... if you have all the answers dont blog them... run for congress.... I bet you find it to be alot more difficult in real life.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.13.11 @ 9:16AM

No. But you are very close.
"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise Authority for forty two Months." Revelation 13-5.
HAMAS believes that Obama is their DELIVERER. Their MOSES. They believe that he was sent by Allah.
Go to their Official Web Site, and get yourself a Drinking Mug with Hussein's face on it. He's wearing an Arab Hat, and a Muslim Dishrag, around his neck.
Oh, and, by the way? They have given him the name: ABU HUSSAIN. (Son of the Father)
If you were HAMAS, when would YOU attack Israel? While your DELIVERER is still on the Throne of Israel's only supporter? Or, wait, and HOPE that he is re-elected?
We are witnessing the beginning of ARMEGEDDON.
Believe it!

RCV| 9.13.11 @ 5:00PM

Yes, Timothy, you and Ahkminjad agree on the imminency of Armegeddon.

Expat Joe| 9.19.11 @ 10:01AM

OK, so i jsut read an article from Hamasinfo.net.... i have to say it didnt do much in the way of praising obama much less saying he was sent from God... have you actually read any of these... Im very curious... and how many special forces soldiers ahve you seen wearing scarves and wraps around thier head... would you DARE say these things about them... I didnt think so! almost every entry ob this article is so laughable i cant stand it... you guys need to grow up and really educate yourself about what is going on in the world... not repeat whatever fox news and your drunken neighbor says. And another thing.. if you dont like the sriter... why belittle him... go read a comic book

WJ| 9.13.11 @ 9:23AM

The day we invaded Iraq is the day Iran won. As sure as the sun rises in the East, Iraq and it's majority Shia were going be a satellite of Iran. That was just one more reason why a few thinking rational people were opposed to the war in 2003. Unfortunately, the hysterics won out.

JP| 9.13.11 @ 11:06AM

We don't need a presence in Iraq other than Spec Ops and CIA. The Green Beret can train the Iraqis and the CIA can run active operations inside of Iran to forment civil unrest. This is something the US stopped doing during the Cold War. Iran is a house of cards waiting to fall.Which is why Obama will do everything he can to maintain the murderous mullahs in Terhan.

shipley130| 9.13.11 @ 2:35PM

If it wasn't for American intervention in Iraq, they would have been dealing with Sadaam Hussein for a few more decades and then a turf war over who takes over after Sadaam. Think about those Hussein brothers in charge before you have another whine about American troops, Iraq.

Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 4:38PM

Whether it is 8,000 or 14,000, it seems that it may be time for us to expend our efforts elsewhere and draw down and let them stand on their own. Keeping a relatively smaller presence is probably a good idea and letting them deal with their nutjobs on their own for a while will teach them some valuable lessons.

The author is wrong on one point. When we do leave, Iraqi forces will be challenged and attacked just as vigorously...we have already seen this in some cases in the country already. This will be good for the population and teach them that if they want to be free they have to fight for it and it will not be easy. It will be a clarifying experience.

David Shoup| 9.13.11 @ 9:46PM

Way back in the Vietnam Era, we heard that it was not America's job to be the world's policeman. Even if America had the resources, and $14 TRILLION in Federal debt says that we don't, the internal and external security of Iraq is an impossible task for three brigades of American troops to solve. The problems within Iraq's multi ethnic society will not be solved by an American presence. I told an impressive Iraqi major, with whom I had the pleasure to work in 2006, that if there were 10,000 Iraqi soldiers like him, then the Coalition Forces could safely entrust the country to the Iraqi Army and depart.

Paul Kotik| 9.13.11 @ 11:11PM

The United States should maintain a military presence in Iraq proportional, in size and in duration, to that maintained in Europe after WWII.

Just because we were smart enough to plant boots in that region sooner, rather than later as we did in Europe in the mid-20th Century, doesn't mean we should throw away our relatively easily gained strategic advantage.

The current war, lest we forget, is with an enemy whose center of gravity is in Southwest Asia. Iran, Pakistan. Solid control and basing in Mesopotamia has been crucial to Western defenses against threats from that region for 14 centuries, and is today.

Expat Joe| 9.19.11 @ 10:03AM

P.S. your all worried about the wrong region anyways... look torwards north Africa and AQIM... theres our next big threat.... first north Africa... then they will try to move onto southern Europe... and then who knows. fyi