The President and his administration seem jubilant that Qaddafi is dead, and that all troops will leave Iraq by 2011. To them, it seems the President’s strategy of “leading from behind” has been vindicated in Libya, and that the President will fulfill a campaign promise in Iraq. Media cheerleaders of President Obama are now suggesting that the incumbent’s strength in foreign policy will be an advantage for him in 2012. This is all entirely predictable, but before we crown President Obama as a modern foreign policy hero, let’s make sure that Iraq and Libya end up better than they were before.
Jack David and Max Boot remind us that Qaddafi’s death does not guarantee a positive outcome for Libya or the U.S., nor does it vindicate the President’s approach. As David writes, one possible consequence of Qaddafi’s ouster might be a stronger effort by tyrants to suppress citizens in order to minimize the chance of uprisings. In other words, strong horses may exercise their strength even more to stay in power. David also argues that U.S. policy had little to do with Qaddafi’s death. Boot is also skeptical of the claim that the President’s policies have been vindicated in Libya. Both David and Boot also recognize that there is no certainty about the government that would replace Qaddafi. We all remember what happened with the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, and we know about potential extremist elements that could gain power in Libya.
In Iraq, before even analyzing the potential fate of the country and the return on investment there, let’s not forget that the Obama administration is simply adhering to the agreement that the Bush administration put in place. Anyone excited about the current President’s decision should also thank former President Bush and his administration (We can credit the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism successes to Bush policies as well, for that matter) . That said, leaving Iraq is no reason to celebrate. Max Boot explains:
Ostensibly this pull-out was dictated by the unwillingness of Iraqi lawmakers to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution. But Iraqi leaders of all parties, save the Sadrists, also clearly signaled their desire to have a sizable American troop contingent post-2011. The issue of immunity could have been finessed if administration lawyers from the Departments of State and Defense had not insisted that Iraq’s parliament would have to vote to grant our troops protections from Iraqi laws. …
But for that to have happened, President Obama must have been committed to reaching a deal. He was not. …
Mitt Romney responded appropriately to the news:
“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,” Romney wrote. “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.”
We have spent a lot of time and money in Iraq, and we have lost many lives. No one wants to be there militarily any longer than is necessary, but we should not jeopardize the significant gains we have made there for a chance to score points in an election campaign. We should also recognize the blatant hypocrisy of a leader who has criticized the very policies and techniques that he now claims credit for. And most of all, we shouldn’t celebrate potential successes until we are sure they are indeed successes. To do so in these instances would be to ignore history in favor of vanity and self-promotion.
UPDATE: Rick Perry’s response to the Iraq withdrawal is here, along with comments from other GOP hopefuls.
