By
Walter Russell Mead
The
Obama administration hoped it could walk away from Iraq without consequences.
Unfortunately, this has been far from the case. Nouri al-Maliki’s ever closer
ties with Iran have pushed him to support Assad in Syria despite Assad’s earlier
support for Sunni and Baathist insurgents in Iraq. At home, Maliki has stoked
sectarianism by purging Sunnis from his government and edging right up to open
revolt with the Kurds in the north. Things are coming to a head.
'The US and its allies, discredited by their blundering in Iraq, have little margin for manoeuvre – and Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi Kurd president they relied on to referee the sectarian jostle, has been felled by a stroke. But they had better concentrate their residual influence to prevent the dissolution of Iraq. At a time when Syria also risks break-up, even the smallest possibility of a cross-border Sunni jihadist emirate linking western Iraq with eastern Syria should be treated as a strategic nightmare.
Iraq could very
conceivably get as violent as in Syria itself, opening a major new front in the
fierce religious war smoldering all across the fertile crescent. Strategic
nightmare is right.'
SoRo: And, while people like Brayam(ing At The Moon) try to dodge questions about Benghazi by making arguments such as the following:
'Perhaps but [Benghazi]
fails to impress in comparison to Iraq. Thousands of Americans KIA, tens of
thousands more severely wounded and crippled, and for what- to remake Iraq as a
Shiite, satellite nation under the wing of Iran? Under rising levels of
sectarian violence, Iraq is now poised to descend into a failed state where al
Qaeda operates with relative freedom.
-bayam on May 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM
They
overlook the fact that the US-Iraq Project has been under new management for
the last four-plus years. They also fail to acknowledge or even recognise
the failures in Iraq that have occurred under the Obama Administration.
For example (per that extreme right-wing rag, The New York Times):
''All American forces were to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, the departure date set in an agreement signed by President George W. Bush and Mr. Maliki in 2008. Even so, Mr. Obama left the door open to keeping troops in Iraq to train Iraqi forces if an agreement could be negotiated.
Convening a videoconference on Oct. 6, 2010, Mr. Biden and top American officials reviewed the options. The vice president favored a plan that would keep Mr. Maliki as prime minister, but which involved installing his main rival, Mr. Allawi, leader of the Iraqiya bloc, near the top of the pyramid. To make way for Mr. Allawi, Mr. Biden suggested that Mr. Talabani, an ethnic Kurd, be shifted from the presidency and given another position. “Let’s make him foreign minister,” Mr. Biden said, according to the notes of the meeting.
“Thanks a lot, Joe,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting that Mr. Biden had cast the Foreign Ministry as a consolation prize.
Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I'LL BET YOU MY VICE-PRESIDENCY MALIKI WILL EXTEND THE SOFA,” he added, he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate.
James B. Steinberg, the deputy secretary of state, questioned whether Mr. Biden’s plan would make the already inefficient Iraqi government more dysfunctional.
Admiral Mullen sent a classified letter to Mr. Donilon that recommended keeping 16,000 troops.
The attempt by Mr. Obama and his senior aides to fashion an extraordinary power-sharing arrangement between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi never materialized.
'Neither did an agreement that would have kept a small American force in Iraq to train the Iraqi military and patrol the country's skies.
''All American forces were to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, the departure date set in an agreement signed by President George W. Bush and Mr. Maliki in 2008. Even so, Mr. Obama left the door open to keeping troops in Iraq to train Iraqi forces if an agreement could be negotiated.
Convening a videoconference on Oct. 6, 2010, Mr. Biden and top American officials reviewed the options. The vice president favored a plan that would keep Mr. Maliki as prime minister, but which involved installing his main rival, Mr. Allawi, leader of the Iraqiya bloc, near the top of the pyramid. To make way for Mr. Allawi, Mr. Biden suggested that Mr. Talabani, an ethnic Kurd, be shifted from the presidency and given another position. “Let’s make him foreign minister,” Mr. Biden said, according to the notes of the meeting.
“Thanks a lot, Joe,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting that Mr. Biden had cast the Foreign Ministry as a consolation prize.
Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I'LL BET YOU MY VICE-PRESIDENCY MALIKI WILL EXTEND THE SOFA,” he added, he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate.
James B. Steinberg, the deputy secretary of state, questioned whether Mr. Biden’s plan would make the already inefficient Iraqi government more dysfunctional.
Admiral Mullen sent a classified letter to Mr. Donilon that recommended keeping 16,000 troops.
The attempt by Mr. Obama and his senior aides to fashion an extraordinary power-sharing arrangement between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi never materialized.
'Neither did an agreement that would have kept a small American force in Iraq to train the Iraqi military and patrol the country's skies.
'A PLAN TO USE AMERICAN
CIVILIANS TO TRAIN THE IRAQI POLICE HAS BEEN SEVERELY CUT BACK. THE RESULT
IS AN IRAQ THAT IS LESS STABLE DOMESTICALLY AND LESS RELIABLE INTERNATIONALLY
THAN THE UNITED STATES HAD ENVISIONED.’
In
the end, Biden's plan was rebuffed by the Iraqis and the SOFA was not extended…OF
COURSE.
Also,
they cite, as bayam did in the above post, Tom Ricks without disclosing his own
conflict of interest. As Mediaite explained:
'...cites author Tom
Ricks, who made waves after accusing Fox News
of hyping the Benghazi story on a Fox News program, who has taken to
the pages of his Foreign Policy Magazine column to refute one whistleblower who insists
that American air assets could have
responded to the second attack on
a Benghazi safe house on the night of the attack. Ricks also insisted in his
infamous Fox News appearance that the claims of a cover-up in the Benghazi
story “aren’t going to stop [U.N. Ambassador] Susan Rice from being Secretary
of State.” While Toensing conflict of interest raises red flags for Drum,
Ricks’ political allegiances and obvious motive to save face do not appear to
serve as reason for Drum to be skeptical of him.
Beyond Ricks’ own conflict of interest, CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson‘s reporting has indicated that “The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.”
Make no mistake, the narrative that clears the Obama administration from culpability in the failure to save American lives in Benghazi is collapsing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the saying goes. Those on the right who would leap to the worst conclusions about the White House’s complacency in the attack on the Benghazi consulate cannot yet point to a smoking gun to support those claims. However, the kneejerk instincts of left-leaning partisans to impart malicious motives to those alleging a cover-up of the details of the Benghazi attack are now grasping at straws. Their politically-motivated objective — the destruction of the credibility of Obama’s opponents in an election year – has been laid bare.'
Yeah, that's a disinterested, nonpartisan, truth-teller.
Beyond Ricks’ own conflict of interest, CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson‘s reporting has indicated that “The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.”
Make no mistake, the narrative that clears the Obama administration from culpability in the failure to save American lives in Benghazi is collapsing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the saying goes. Those on the right who would leap to the worst conclusions about the White House’s complacency in the attack on the Benghazi consulate cannot yet point to a smoking gun to support those claims. However, the kneejerk instincts of left-leaning partisans to impart malicious motives to those alleging a cover-up of the details of the Benghazi attack are now grasping at straws. Their politically-motivated objective — the destruction of the credibility of Obama’s opponents in an election year – has been laid bare.'
Yeah, that's a disinterested, nonpartisan, truth-teller.
Not.
From David Breyer at The Daily Caller:
In December 2011, President Obama withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq
after failing to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement with the
fledgling democracy. Many military advisers, government officials, and
Iraqi leaders opposed Obama’s decision, fearing it would diminish
America’s influence in Iraq, destabilize the country, and damage
America’s interests in the region. In the past year, many of these fears
have come to fruition.
President Obama’s decision was irresponsible, and motivated largely
by politics. Obama opposed the Iraq war from day one, and wanted a
political victory to bandy about on the campaign trail.
By withdrawing
all U.S. troops from Iraq, he could boast, as he did repeatedly, that he
had ended the war. Vice President Biden recently gave a telling
interview to the New York Times Magazine, where he gushed about telling
the president, “Thank you for giving me the chance to end this goddamn
war.”
This quote is the epitome of the Obama administration’s policy: passion and politics over careful and strategic thinking.
Like Obama, Biden opposed the war from the beginning, opposed the
surge (Biden’s bold idea was to partition the country), and wanted to
wash his hands of Iraq, regardless of the consequences. Unfortunately,
the Obama administration did this by undermining eight years of progress
in Iraq, and harming America’s interests in the region.
Immediately after the U.S. withdrawal, Prime Minister Maliki moved
quickly to consolidate power and stifle dissent. He began to crack down
on Sunni and Kurdish leaders, dissident Shiites, and opposition groups.
He ordered the arrests of scores of people on dubious charges, including
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi. Thousands of Maliki’s opponents
are in jail, and tens of thousands are in the streets protesting his
authoritarian tactics. Meanwhile, terror attacks by al-Qaida affiliates —
which are trying to capitalize on this sectarian strife — are on the
rise. The situation was much better in December 2011; Iraq is clearly on
a downward trajectory and is on a dangerous precipice of sectarian
conflict.
Iraq is also causing other headaches for the United States. Recent
reports indicate that Iraqi airspace may have been used to ship weapons
to Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria (a claim that Iraq denies). And
Iraq has been cultivating stronger ties with Iran, undermining the
efforts of America and its Arab partners to isolate Tehran until it
abandons its nuclear weapons program.
Would Prime Minister Maliki have been bold enough to take all of
these actions if there was still a sizable contingent of U.S. forces in
Iraq? Probably not. And would Iraq’s Sunnis and Kurds, who are demanding
fair treatment and equality under the law, have felt emboldened by the
presence of U.S. forces? Probably so.
Why, then, did Obama barely lift a finger to maintain a U.S. troop
presence in Iraq? Because he was making policy based on his political
promises and beliefs, not the situation on the ground.
Between August and December 2011, only three U.S. service members in Iraq were killed by hostile fire (one in September and two in November). These deaths cannot be taken for granted. But they show how rare violence against U.S. forces had become. And if Obama had only left a small contingent of U.S. forces with a limited training and supervisory mission, this casualty figure may have dropped to zero.
To many Americans, this would have been an acceptable situation. U.S.
troops would have been safe, and would have served as a stabilizing
influence, just as they did in post-war Japan and Germany. And the money
we would have spent on such a force would have been well worth it,
given that the alternative was losing eight years of progress in Iraq
(progress that came at the expense of 4,000 American lives and a
trillion dollars).
Still, Obama decided to withdraw all U.S. troops. The president
claimed he tried to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement, but that
the Iraqis were intransigent. This argument was discredited by Max
Boot’s persuasive piece in the Wall Street Journal in October 2011, and
by many others since. Even the New York Times published a story
undermining Obama’s claim he made a wholehearted effort to negotiate an
agreement.
In that same New York Times article, an Obama administration official
was quoted as saying, “Stability in Iraq did not depend on the presence
of U.S. forces.” The facts on the ground tell a different story.
For the Obama administration, it was more important to end the
“goddamn war” in Iraq than to protect the hard-won gains made during the
eight years of that bloody, heartbreaking war. Obama is now facing a
similar decision on Afghanistan. One can only hope that this time he
makes a more responsible decision, based not on politics but on policy.
But judging from his inaugural promise that “a decade of war is coming
to an end,” Obama appears headed toward another strategic blunder.
No comments:
Post a Comment