Following President Obama’s lunchtime announcement that [nearly]
all American troops will exit Iraq by years end, Mitt Romney
campaign issued the following
statement:
President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly
transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that
were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American
men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is
the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer
ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American
people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our
military commanders in Iraq.
To answer Mr. Romney’s two part question about our exit from
Iraq, I suggest that the move is absolutely political, but it’s
also compulsory. We have run out of options in Iraq, but make no
mistake, American troops are leaving because the Iraqis don’t want
us there.
First of all, the politics of the matter. President Obama owed
it to his political base to end the war effort. To do so, he needs
only follow the roadmap outlined the
Status of Forces Agreement mapped out by President Bush in
2008. It was not a coincidence that the words “as
promised” were dealt into his speech today.
As far as our “sheer ineptitude,” I think Mr. Romney’s
frustration with the profile of our exit demonstrates a misplaced
presumption that the United States could maintain an insufficient
troop presence to prevent a catastrophic collapse of state.
After all these years, one remarkably simple lesson escapes him.
We cannot continue fighting what our presence makes inevitable. We
cannot prevent civil war, state failure, or safe haven for terror
by providing tinder for all of the above - unless this country is
ready and willing to dramatically augment the shape and stature of
its Mesopotamian military presence. I do
not believe it is. Perhaps more importantly, the Iraqis are
similarly disobliged.
John Tabin is absolutely
correct. The Obama administration envisioned a continued
presence in Iraq that was considerably more robust than what we’ll
be left with, and it was unable to negotiate terms. However, had we
stayed in force , it’s a safe bet that radical anti-American cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr’s bloc would
have abandoned President Nouri al-Maliki’s fragile ruling
coalition. The parliament would have collapsed into a political
melee and the flimsy bureaucracy would have followed. This would
have proven a strategic nightmare - particularly the ill-equipped
and insufficient American troops left to pick up the pieces.
Regardless of whether America troops remains in the country,
violence will increase and people will die. Just as well American
soldiers and Marines do not remain as fodder, if we no longer have
the stomach to conduct a proactive counter-insurgency.
This is the reality facing us in Iraq. In an odd way, the
aftermath of America’s troop withdrawal already exists. They Iraqis
perpetrated and endured a bloodbath, and their state survived civil
war…but barely. One doubts things could get worse than they’ve
already been, unless America stays to prevent what it actually
prolongs.
Update: This post has been edited to expand on an earlier
version and add links. 11:44 a.m.
