Obama Has More Faith in the UN, Iran & Syria Than U.S. Soldiers in Iraq
by Aaron Goldstein | View comments |
Print This Post
Whatever reservations conservatives have about John McCain, it is impossible to imagine McCain willing to leave Iraq in the hands of the United Nations, Iran and Syria.
With his sweep of the Democratic primaries in the Potomac earlier this week, Barack Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nomination is now his to lose.
Besides his charisma, what has so attracted Democratic Party activists to Obama is his pledge to end the War in Iraq, a war he believes never should have been fought in the first place.
Well, hindsight is 20-20. But this then begs the question, how will Obama end the war in Iraq?
Obama, who has been oft criticized for lacking specifics, did deliver a major speech on Iraq on September 12, 2007, while campaigning in Clinton, Iowa (I kid you not). That speech serves as the foundation of his policy on Iraq.
Having read Obama’s policy concerning Iraq, I find myself troubled both by its premise and its prescription. It is titled, “Turning the Page in Iraq.” It would be more aptly named, “Turning our Back on Iraq.”
Obama’s prescription of withdrawal is predicated on the premise that the surge is not working and that the sole purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq’s leaders to reconcile. This is simply wrong.
The surge is actually rooted in six fundamental elements as spelled out by the Bush Administration. First, let the Iraqis lead. Second, help the Iraqis protect the population. Third, isolate extremists. Fourth, create space for political progress. Fifth, diversify political and economic efforts. Finally, situate the strategy in a regional approach.
Have all these elements been achieved in the space of one year? No. Have some of these elements been achieved and is Iraq a better place now for it? Yes.
Obama ignores the fact that there was an Iraqi-led initiative to secure Baghdad known as Operation Imposing Law. This operation led to a significant decline in violence by insurgents. Don’t get me wrong: Baghdad is still a dangerous place. But the streets are no longer deserted and Iraqis are again beginning to enjoy the café nightlife that was unthinkable a year ago.
The surge has helped to isolate extremists. There is no question the surge was a significant factor in the Mahdi Army declaring a six-month ceasefire last August (although one wonders what happens once the ceasefire expires on February 29th).
The surge has helped to create space for political progress. To be sure, watching the Iraqi Parliament work has been about as exasperating as eating Jello with chopsticks. But just this week, the Iraqi Parliament passed laws concerning a general amnesty for thousands of Iraqi prisoners and defining the powers of the provinces. Consequently, with respect to the latter piece of legislation, there will be provincial elections throughout Iraq on October 1, 2008 (save for the Kurdish region which has a well established government). Earlier this month, the Iraqi Parliament also passed a de-Baathification law which permits 38,000, mostly low-level, Baath Party members to work again for the Iraqi government.
Let’s be clear. The Iraqi Parliament has a long, long way to go. It still must, amongst other things, pass an oil revenue-sharing law as well as a measure to disarm the various Shiite and Sunni militias still operating throughout Iraq. This will not be easy. But the Iraqis are trying to resolve matters in a civil and democratic manner. Yet this is not good enough for Obama, who wants to throw the baby out with the Baath water so to speak.
If elected President, Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2009. Only a residual force would remain. Obama argues that withdrawal is the best means to ensure the Iraqi government acts. According to “Turning The Page in Iraq,” “Drawing down our troop presence is the best way to finally apply real pressure on the Iraqi government to make the political accommodations necessary to heal the nation’s sectarian rifts, and to take on more responsibility for providing security to their people.”
So who fills the void in Iraq once U.S. troops are withdrawn? The United Nations, Iran and Syria would.
Obama proposes that the UN lead a Constitutional Convention. He dismisses the 2005 Iraqi Constitution as nothing more than “the product of a Kurdish-Shiite deal.” Well, this is largely because the Sunnis boycotted the process back then. Obama proposes the UN Constitutional Convention “would not adjourn until national reconciliation is reached and contentious questions such as federalism, oil revenue sharing, and de-Baathification are resolved.” Under those conditions, the UN could be in Iraq for, say, 100 years. One could also say it is reason enough not to give Obama four years in the White House.
But let’s get this straight. Obama has unlimited patience with the UN but less than a year into the surge his patience with U.S. troops is exhausted? Sure Obama states “our troops have performed brilliantly.” So what makes Obama think the UN will succeed where U.S. troops haven’t? Suppose UN facilities are targeted as the UN Headquarters was back in August 2003, killing 22 people including Sergio Vieira de Mello, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s special representative in Iraq. After a second bombing a month later, the UN withdrew from Iraq after the attack and has only maintained a small presence since. Would the UN end its Constitutional Convention if attacked again?
But let us assume for a moment that UN facilities are not attacked and they remain in Iraq. If Obama believes the presence of U.S. troops is a disincentive for the Iraqi Parliament to resolve matters, what makes Obama think a UN Constitutional Convention will hurry Iraqi lawmakers? The UN has had a peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since 1964. The Greek and Turkish Cypriots seem quite happy not to resolve their differences.
In addition to the UN Constitutional Convention, Obama also supports “a diplomatic surge.” This diplomatic surge would see Obama “press Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to stem the flow of foreign fighters, arms, and financial resources into Iraq.” Obama also pledges he will be “a tough negotiator with Syria and Iran, sending a clear message that they need to stop meddling in Iraq’s affairs.” I am sure that Ahmadinejad and Asaad are thinking, “Obama’s going to stop us from meddling in Iraq. Oh yeah, you and what army? Oh, that’s right. There is no army because Obama withdrew it.” Obama might as well send House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be his envoy for all the good it would do.
But like many liberal Democrats, Obama takes the “blame America” view of the world. “America’s standing has suffered,” said Obama, “Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don’t like.” Well, if the United States is so averse to talking to Iran why was it that Iran postponed meeting with the U.S. concerning Iraq, as did it on February 14th, without explanation? Iran also backed out of talks with the United States in December 2007. Yet, in Obama’s eyes, it is America’s reputation that is in tatters.
How much faith does Obama place in Ahmadinejad, who has declared that Israel should be wiped off the map? How much confidence does Obama have in Iran, as it sent its Foreign Affairs Minister, Mohammed Mottaki, to attend the funeral of Hezbollah operative Imad Mughniyah? This is the same Mughniyah who was one of the masterminds of the October 1983 bombing of the U.S. military barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines. How much confidence does Obama have in Asaad not meddling in Iraqi affairs when Syria won’t stop meddling in the affairs of Lebanon?
There will come a day when U.S. troops will leave Iraq. But to do so under anything other than our own terms would render both the United States and Iraq weaker. Whatever reservations conservatives have about John McCain, it is impossible to imagine McCain willing to leave Iraq in the hands of the United Nations, Iran and Syria.
During a speech in Madison, Wisconsin, on the night of his Potomac triumph, Obama declared, “John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning.” For that matter, John McCain won’t be able to say that Barack Obama wants to win the War in Iraq either.
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
Aaron, the Iraqi government has just invited Ahmadinejad to Iraq. Clearly, they didn’t need Obama to do that.
What do you suppose they will talk about? And will the American military, or diplomats, be present at all the meetings?
I supported the Iraq war, as I have said before. But once the Iraqi’s were liberated, then its over to them. If they can’t handle it, that is their problem. If they threatened us again, then we could go in and give them another thrashing.
But throwing money at them to turn them into ‘friends’ is nothing but wishful thinking.
The continued presence in Iraq has also brought about the disability to contemplate any further ‘wars’ even when, for instance, Iran is clearly becoming a growing threat. As a result of sacrificing brave soldiers in Iraq to allow the Iraqi’s to squabble over who gets what, we have deprived ourselves of the support from the American people (and allies, for what that is worth) to face and deal with future threats.
It has weakened our resolve, our finances, and our human resources – the most crucial element in any conflict, and in our very security.
In the law they used to say that a good negotiator always knows when he has got as much as he is likely to get, then settles. In war it’s the same. If we cannot work out when we have won, and when to call it quits, we lose. The time to get out has passed – some time ago.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 16, 2008
Dear Aaron,
When I woke up this morning, I was eager to see whether Obama had responded to your article with a clarification of his position. Unfortunately, I was disappointed.
Since it seems that he probably won’t take the opportunity to do so, I thought I might see if I could stand in for him, so to speak, and address some of the objections to a “precipitous withdrawal” from Iraq, or as some describe it, prescription for defeat.
Let me say first that I do not like Obama, his vision, or his party. But I always believe it is worthwhile considering someone’s position, because you can never tell when you may find something of value in the ‘pigsty’ – if I may be so crude.
Since Obama’s position may go beyond the strict confines of your article, please permit me to do the same.
Here goes!
I am always a little baffled when those who claim that we should continue the present strategy in Iraq demand that those who oppose the present course should come up with a practical policy for disengaging in Iraq.
We get out the same way we got in: get in our tanks and vehicles, and drive out. When the US invaded, if faced a formidable enemy, well equipped, on home turf, and having the advantage of being ‘dug in’. They were smashed in 3 weeks with the loss of 140 US dead.
If I were the President, and the generals now on the ground in Iraq could not come up with a plan to get out, with no formidable Iraq forces to prevent that, I would sack the lot of them, and appoint some generals who could put such a strategy on my desk.
But let me for a minute consider the ‘objections’ to withdrawal.
First, it may result in a “blood bath” as the various factions fight it out. Well, freedom includes the freedom to ‘screw-up’, and if the only way the Iraqi’s are going to resolve their difference is to fight it out, well, they are free to do so – we provided them with that freedom. And anyway, why should young American men and women make the sacrifice by coming between these factions? Why should we offer up our brave young men and women as substitute targets for them to vent their hatred of each other?
Second, where do our forces go? Well, I have more faith in the American generals than those who think they can’t even come up with a strategy to get out. I expect that from pretty much day one of this conflict, military bases have been established strategically in Iraq to deal with the more important threats – Iran and Syria. Our troops deploy to those bases and preserve themselves for what is a virtual inevitability in the short to medium term; war with Iran and/or Syria. The vast majority of the troops could deploy back to the States, but leaving a credible force to deal with imminent threats, and having a strategy to reinforce those bases at short notice if need be.
That brings me to the third ‘objection – what to do by the threat posed by those countries (Iran and Syria)? My previous observation deals with that. At present, our predicament must be a source of satisfaction to those countries. While we are embroiled trying to placate the various faction in Iraq, Iran and Syria will not exactly be concerned about us threatening them. They are, on the contrary, emboldened. If we deployed in a manner that made it clear to those countries that our posture has become one that makes it plain that we will deal effectively and decisively with any threat from them, the tables will be turned. They would face credible military pressure, as well as the diplomatic pressure that the likes of Condi Rice are applying now.
But what about the OIL? Ah, the oil! Well, even if it were to be cut off for a time, then at least that may bring some of those in Congress to their senses to abandon their objection to extracting some oil from America’s own resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. And in any event, in the short term, the Iraqi’s will ensure that the oil will quickly start flowing again. Whatever else they may be, they are not stupid. Most Arabs are astute business people. They will not deprive themselves of the opportunity to make money.
Now the general consensus seems to be that Obama is arguing for a full withdrawal from Iraq. My reading of what he has said is that we should maintain a “presence” there even after withdrawal. What he means by a “presence” is not yet clear to me. But if it were anything along the lines I have outlined, I think that would be considerably preferable to McCain’s prescription for a 100 year war.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | February 17, 2008