Iraq

Stephen Biddle, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have a plan for withdrawing from Iraq.  Their article, published in the September/October 2008 Issue of Foreign Affairs states that Democratic and Republican goals can both be met through a withdrawal timeline.  They argue that serious draw downs should not occur until after the Iraqi national election, set for late 2009.  Further, by 2011, at least half of our current troop population will still be there.  This means that we will continue to have quite a large number of US military in Iraq for the next five years.  I personally, do not see how this addresses the Democratic goals, and I further do not see how this addresses the increased need for more troops in Afghanistan. 

The article starts with a recent history of the violence in Iraq, and explains how much the situation has improved in less than three years.  Sectarian violence is at an all-time low, and the authors explain how the Iraqi and US governments have remedied the once dangerous situation.  They then address what the US should and should not do at this point, and this is where I begin my critique. 

The authors argue that threatening withdrawal will be counterproductive, and I agree. Many of our threats are becoming empty, and most Iraqis would see a threat like this the same way, especially with Bush still at the helm.  Instead of threatening, we should be talking.  We should address conditions to our withdrawal, such as a clause stating that US troops will be brought back if elections do not go as planned and violence erupts again.  Why should we assume that Iraqis, who, according to this article, have shown such progress, cannot conduct elections?  Obviously, we should be prepared, but shouldn’t we react to disaster after it happens? 

The ”New Problems” facing Iraq, such as integrating the Iraqi Security Forces, reestablishing refugees and improving central government control, cannot be fixed by the US military.  These are problems that should be addressed by diplomacy, the UN, and US political advisers to Iraq.  The authors make a wonderful suggestion for offering vouchers for refugees and displaced persons to come back and build a home, and state that this would have to be undertaken by the Iraqi government.  The problem of improving the central government and their spending should be addressed by sharply curtailing US financial support for the Iraqi government.  At this point, American money should only be used after that of Iraq.  Therefore, letting their government stand on its own two feet would perhaps address the problem of its lack of responsible spending.  I also agree when they state that a coup would be disastrous, and that a US presence will help to avoid that situation.  However, we cannot let this be our excuse for continuing our occupation; a coup could happen the day after we leave, even if the government is considered completely stable by US standards.  We simply cannot stay there forever. 

The article addresses Kirkuk as a continuing and sticky problem, which I believe will be a large source of contention until the Kurds feel that they have been granted independence.  Whether this means actually granting their wish for “Kurdistan,” I do not know.  The place of Iraqi Kurds has been a problem long before the time of Saddam, and I believe should be addressed, and fixed, on its own, not wrapped up in the general topic of rebuilding Iraq. 

In addressing Iran, Biddle, O’Hanlon and Pollack state that there should be more Iraqi-Iranian-US dialogue, as well as incentives for Iranian cooperation in Iraqi reconstruction.  I believe that Iran has incited violence in the past in order to take pressure off of itself and its nuclear program.  The best incentive to offer Iran now is dialogue and diplomacy (not threats) concerning its nuclear progress.  As long as the US is bogged down in Iraq, Ahmadinejad knows that we cannot physically come after him.  Withdrawing our troops from Iraq would not only offer Iran some piece of mind, but also would allow us to bargain properly with them about their nuclear program, and give our threats (only if necessary) some real credibility. 

The end of the article addresses the importance of peacekeeping forces, especially when we look at Bosnia and Kosovo.  However, instead of taking on peacekeeping alone, we should be including the UN, NATO, the European Union and our allies (if we have yet to alienate them).  Peacekeeping is much different than occupation, which is the transition the US military will be forced to make with increased troop withdrawals.  This is something that the UN is familiar with, and with which our allies might be willing to help. 

The issue of whether a state is ready to succeed on its own can be debated until the end of time.  It was only my grandparents’ generation when Germany was considered the epitome of evil, and the mention of Japan made Americans nervous.  Now, Japan and Germany are close US allies.  Less than forty years ago we considered Vietnam a lost cause when we withdrew the last US troops, and today we are working toward an alliance.  Even twenty-five years ago, I highly doubt that a Russian father-daughter gymnastics combo would have become American Olympic heroes.  Things change; power cycles; states rise and states fall.  I believe that asking for independence is the best evidence that a country is ready.  And obviously the US will be there if disaster strikes.  This is, after all, how the United States came to exist. 

McCain said it best when he stated that our first priority is to make sure that US troops are safe.  Our troops are no longer as safe in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq.  ‘Staying the course’ will only continue this trend.  It is time to change our priorities. 

Good news!  Iraq will be going to China next month, and sending four athletes: a men’s rowing double, a discus thrower and their sprinter, Dana Hussain (their archer may also have the chance to compete, as long as his spot is still available after entries are completed by other countries.)  USA Today reports that the IOC cleared the Iraqi athletes late Tuesday after the government’s promise to uphold their assigned National Olympic Committee.  CNN states that Iraq will be able to hold their own election for a new national committee as late as November, 2008.  Because of the missed deadline last week, a few athletes will not participate, however, all media outlets are reporting that Iraqis are thrilled to be able to compete in China.  “We look forward to seeing the Iraqi flag in Beijing,” said IOC President, Jacques Rogge. 

Bush has agreed to “a general time horizon,” as The New York Times announced last week.  Many believe this is due to the pressure from the Iraqi government regarding a future US military presence in the country.  Unfortunately, we can’t celebrate just yet, as the Bush Administration continues to be vague on the matter.  However, some of this decision will rest on Iraqi military capability, and the White House has stated that further troop reductions could come with increasingly better conditions.  Some officials claim that Iraqis should be taking charge of security by 2009, with a complete independence from the US by 2012.  Senator Obama responded to the news by saying it’s ”a step in the right direction,” but believes the Administration is still being too vague.  Senator McCain continues to back Bush, stating that the timeline is proof of the success of the surge. 

After the bombing and riots in Kirkuk on Monday, which left 51 dead and over 250 injured (The Washington Post), Iraqi lawmakers have called for a special session to discuss disputes over the city, as reported by USA Today.  Kirkuk, an oil-rich and valuable area, has long been fought over by Arabs, Turkomen and Kurds.  The Kurds currently hold most of the power on the provincial council, and current tensions are coming from a new law that would require equal seats for all three groups.  Another aspect of this problem, and one that has been plaguing Iraq for many years now, are the Kurdish claims to Kirkuk as being a part of their semi-autonomous region.  However, Turkomen and Arabs, along with the rest of the Iraqi population, want to keep Kirkuk and its oil fields under central control and contributing to Iraqi finances.  The bombing, which attacked Kurds protesting the bill, set off sectarian violence on Monday as the Kurds then rioted at a Turkoman political site, blaming them for the attack. 

It seems that the Bush Administration has given up its rigidity when it comes to troop numbers in Iraq (maybe they read my last post!).  As Time and CNN.com reported this week, the US is withdrawing troops from Iraq.  But don’t get excited yet; this only means that levels are returning to their original number prior to the surge, plus 15,000.  Interestingly, The New York Times went further, reporting that the US might actually be considering an increased draw down, continuing to 120,000-130,000, about 25,000 less than where we are right now. 

There is yet another reason not to get our hopes up though; if the US does increase our withdrawal from Iraq, the plan is to reroute our military muscle in order to combat the increasingly unstable situation in Afghanistan.  There is also the possibility of using these so-called extra troops “potentially [for] other missions.” (NYTimes)  I don’t know exactly what that means, but it scares me. 

What I’m wondering, aside from why we took our military power away from our original arena in Afghanistan, is what will happen to these troops now?  Most likely, they will be sent home for an entirely too short R&R, then called back to fight in Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, it seems that this withdrawal is bittersweet.  The problem is that many in the military do not get an adequate or even mandated rest period in between tours.  It seems that even with this withdrawal, our military will still remain overstretched. 

A picture of why it has become necessary to redeploy troops from Iraq into Afghanistan.
From the NYTimes Online