Iraq’s Post-American Future

While probably every American wants to be able to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home as soon as it is reasonable to do so, the President’s announcement that we would remove all but a residual force of 3,000 troops next year is a huge mistake. Undoubtedly the President was guided heavily by his re-election efforts in making that decision. While there was disagreement over an important negotiation point about immunity for American troops, the administration seemed willing to take advantage of that disagreement so that it could bring the troops home and start claiming, heading into the election year, that the President fulfilled a campaign promise.

Supporters of the President may claim that ending the war is what most voters want. That may be true, as it was true that much of the Iraq war strategy that President Bush implemented and President Obama continued was opposed by a significant number of voters. Doing what may seem popular, however, is not always wise. Such is the case with ending the Iraq effort so abruptly and risking a loss of the progress there that we have invested so much to achieve.

Former U.S. envoy to Iraq, Paul Bremer, has offered a criticism of the President’s decision to leave Iraq. He includes risks of doing so, such as more terrorism there and in the region, a weakening of Iraq’s new democratic institutions, less ability for the U.S. to gather intelligence, and the influence of Iran. Bremer’s warnings should be remembered as we unfortunately attempt to end the war on a timeline that suits President Obama’s re-election schedule.

Hold the Champagne for Libya and Iraq

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.

Reports Suggest U.S. Troops May Stay in Iraq and Afghanistan

While the President is on vacation and much of the political news is about the GOP primary, these two stories floated in at the end of the week. First, Defense Secretary Panetta suggests that U.S. troops will stay in Iraq next year. In addition, it appears that the U.S. and Afghanistan are working on an agreement that would allow U.S. forces to stay in Afghanistan until 2024. Those agreements don’t sound exactly like what the president promised.

H/T to Hot Air for the links.

Defense Secretary Gates Says U.S. Open to Staying in Iraq Beyond 2011 Timetable

I’ve been predicting all along that even President Obama wouldn’t pull out if the conditions didn’t allow it, and Secretary Gates is hinting that that might be the case:

Gates urged Iraq’s squabbling political groups to reconcile after eight months of deadlock. Any request to extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to come from a functioning Iraqi government. It would amend the current agreement under which U.S. troops must leave by the end of 2011.

“That initiative clearly needs to come from the Iraqis; we are open to discussing it,” Gates said.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have said for months they expect Iraqi leaders to eventually ask for an extension of the military agreement with the U.S., but the political impasse has put the idea on hold.

A spike in violence in Iraq over the past two weeks has underscored the continued potency of al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.

Maybe President Obama’s Iraq war withdrawal address was a bit premature.

UPDATE: Max Boot reports that a coalition government has formed in Iraq.

Reluctant Commander in Chief

A struggling president had the opportunity on Tuesday night to do the right thing, and to help himself in the process. As President Obama spoke from the Oval Office about the end of combat in Iraq, he failed, however, to do the one big thing he could have done: credit George W. Bush for the success in Iraq.

This president has shown countless times how small he can be, and that is how he looked and sounded in a speech that was not too bad for someone whose heart was not in the war that he was winding down.  President Obama used the opportunity to remind us that he was fulfilling his campaign pledge to end the war. In doing so, he not only failed to credit his predecessor for the accomplishment in Iraq, but he also re-wrote history: The drawing down of combat forces in Iraq was done on a timeline set by George Bush. President Obama had promised an immediate withdrawal, but did the responsible thing in adhering to the agreement that preceded him. Addressing that timeline, he also spoke not of victory and its significance.

As Bill Kristol reminds us, however, it was not a reasonable expectation that President Obama would put the war into a broader national security context. President Obama has never supported the Iraq war, and he opposed the surge that created the conditions for the withdrawal that he addressed last night. Politics may suggest that a president not admit when wrong, but doing so could have gone a long way for a president that has lost so many supporters. Ronald Reagan was one of the few to admit his administration’s mistake when he addressed the Iran-Contra affair. Neither in politics nor in character, however, is President Obama like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.

Whereas George W. Bush shifted gears from a domestic president to a commander in chief, President Obama has done so reluctantly. A New York Times piece from this weekend reports descriptions of President Obama’s priorities, which remain domestic despite entering the Oval Office as a war president:

With the economy in tatters and health care on his agenda, Mr. Obama was determined to keep the wars from becoming a major distraction. When he held a videoconference on Iraq on his first full day in office, officials recalled, he said: “Guys, before you start, there’s one thing I want to say to you and that is I do not want to screw this up.”

While the desire to not mess up the war is admirable for someone who opposed it, that attitude is a far cry from the enthusiasm President Obama has displayed for his domestic agenda. When deciding on the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan with a timeline, President Obama was supposedly calculating how his decision would affect his agenda at home:

One adviser at the time said Mr. Obama calculated that an open-ended commitment would undermine the rest of his agenda. “Our Afghan policy was focused as much as anything on domestic politics,” the adviser said. “He would not risk losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health insurance reform and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break legislation for his administration.”

Such calculation is not completely unreasonable, but it suggests that the president was setting national security policy based on his domestic priorities. He continued to make that connection Tuesday night when he oddly used the Iraq war completion as a symbol for renewed focus on the economy. While that wasn’t inappropriate, it further reiterated what his priority is. In combination with no broad vision for our foreign policy in the war on terror, that focus suggests how reluctant our commander in chief is to lead the wars.

We already knew that, of course, but the president’s address was a reminder of that as much as it was anything else.

Petraeus’ Counterinsurgency Manual Discusses Islam’s Role in Terrorism

This should be fun to watch the administration dance around. It turns out that General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency manual, which has been guiding military command in Iraq and Afghanistan, explicitly mentions Islam’s role in terrorism. This is, of course, at odds with efforts made by the administration to avoid attaching Islam to the War:

The White House’s official policy of banning the word “Islam” in describing America’s terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military’s war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John O. Brennan, President Obama’s chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.

But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.

The Petraeus doctrine refers to “Islamic insurgents,” “Islamic extremists” and “Islamic subversives.” It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.

Will the administration admit that what is in the COIN manual is accurate, or will it suggest that the manual be corrected? Or maybe neither?

Afghanistan Command Change Is the Right Move

I have to agree with the editors of National Review that General McChrystal is not the problem, and I hoped that President Obama would offer McChrystal every opportunity to stay in command. When Obama announced, however, that McChrystal will be replaced by General David Petraeus, I concluded that this was the right move.

There are two main reasons, I think, that make this the best option in what was a difficult situation for Obama. First, Obama needed to avoid the perception that he had lost control of the war. Allowing such a perception would undermine our credibility, making it difficult to win a counterinsurgency that relies on us being the strong horse in Afghanistan, and it would weaken Obama’s presidency. While it is true that Obama’s team is thin-skinned, the need to keep a strong image in this war is legitimate.

The other reason that Obama may have made this move, and one that I would support, is that he may be angling to allow himself a way out of his withdrawal timeline. Considering Obama has not prematurely withdrawn from Iraq and has not closed Gitmo as he promised he would, there is a good reason to believe he will not leave Afghanistan too early either. A major change of command could provide Obama with some cushion if he decides to loosen the timeline. If Petraeus begins pushing against that timeline, or even asking for more troops, Obama would have an excuse to disappoint his anti-war base. With Senator McCain saying Republicans will use the Petraeus confirmation hearing to question the timeline, that discussion could heat up.

Those two reasons and a few others are why I think the positives outweigh the negatives of this decision. It helps that Petraeus has a reputation of success with his counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. His selection may minimize concern for and lack of confidence in the mission, both of which may have been building with the perceived disagreement between Obama and McChrystal (which goes back before the Rolling Stone article to last year’s debate on the Afghanistan strategy). Petraeus also has experience with the Afghanistan and Pakistan leaderships, which is one source of concern about removing McChrystal.

That said, it’s necessary to point out the irony of putting Petraeus directly in charge of the Afghanistan counterinsurgency. Remember 2007?

What about that “General Betray Us” ad?

The resolution condemning the ad was sponsored by conservative Republican John Cornyn of Texas. Voting against it were Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another contender for the Democratic nomination, did not vote, although he voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. That resolution condemned the MoveOn ad as an “unwarranted personal attack,” but also condemned political attack ads that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., both Vietnam veterans.

Despite all the history, there is reason to believe that Petraeus can lead a successful effort. Where perhaps General McChyrstal was not great at the political game, General Petraeus is (and those 2007 hearings show that). Obama may find that Petraeus is better at politics than he is, and that might actually help in the long run if that skill enables Petraeus to handle the internal problems that Obama’s administration clearly has.

All that said, it should be reiterated that McChrystal was not the problem. The administration needs to make some other personnel changes in relation to this war, and Obama needs to at least let up on his withdrawal timeline.

UPDATE: Thomas P.M. Barnett also thinks that the appointment of Petraeus could mean the end of the strict withdrawal timeline. Charles Krauthammer believes that timeline is hamstringing the effort.

Should Obama Embrace Cheney’s Criticism?

Peter Beinart makes an interesting suggestion that Obama should embrace Dick Cheney’s criticism that “Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war.” Beinart writes:

[W]hile America is obviously at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it isn’t actually at war with jihadist terrorism. Rather than proving Cheney wrong, the White House should have done something more audacious: Prove him right.

Notice how Beinart says America is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but isn’t at war with jihadist terrorism. He should explain who we are at war with in Afghanistan and Iraq then, since it’s not with the countries themselves as they exist.

Beinart does make a good point about the definition of war though. If you accept Beinart’s premise that war is primarily a military struggle, you would have to conclude that wars on drugs and poverty are not true wars. His case against the Cold War is flawed, however, as Ed Morrissey explains well:

While it is true that the US and the USSR did not fight a war on a battlefield, both mobilized as though at war with the other.  We fought active wars in places like Vietnam and Korea, proxy wars in South America, and near wars in Europe.  We did fight ideological and economic battles as well, but Beinart misses the fact that it was a massive military expansion that finally broke the back of the Soviet economy and forced the Russians into retreat in Europe.  And it was covert war in Afghanistan that broke the Soviet military, although in the words of former Rep. Charlie Wilson, we managed to “f* up the end game.”  Without their defeat in Afghanistan and their economic exhaustion from keeping pace with the American military buildup, would the Soviets still have crumbled in Eastern Europe?

Why doesn’t Obama embrace Cheney’s criticism? Because it’s a political loser for him, and as Beinart admits, how we define the war makes a huge difference in how we conduct it. Even if you accept the premise that our fight against terrorism is not primarily a military struggle, there is still a significant military component, as Morrissey explains, that makes it difficult to conclude we are not at war. Trying to define America’s efforts as something other than a war is a losing battle.

Obama needs to be able to say we’re at war, but he needs to narrowly define that war in order to win the ideological battle, and that is probably why continues “to try to have it both ways” as Beinart writes.

Military Commander Wants to Apply Iraq-Style Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan

We figured this would be the case, and I even wrote about Obama’s inclination to apply an Iraq-style counterinsurgency in Afghanistan despite his constant criticism of that strategy in Iraq. Now, General McChrystal is talking about a similar approach. Two points need reiteration.

One, Obama (and many on the left) criticized the counterinsurgency in Iraq even as it worked, but have been more interested in saying whatever they think will get them elected than actually doing the right thing. That is why the same Democrats who criticized relentlessly are now backing the same policies they opposed.

Two, the mainstream media seemingly also had little interest in getting the war right, because they won’t dare criticize Obama for doing what they said was wrong. Bush war policies that the MSM disagreed with are now being hailed as practical ideas that Obama gets credit for. These points lead one to conclude that the arguments were never about the issues, but about winning politically.

The Gamble: General Petraeus and Iraq

I’ve read and added Thomas E. Ricks’ new book The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008, to our recommended reading section. The book describes the surge that changed the course of the war in Iraq, a topic that will surely be discussed for years to come.

Ricks is critical of the Bush administration and much of the conduct of the war, but he gives credit where it is due in describing the progress made in Iraq due to the counterinsurgency effort led by General Petraeus, and the changes made by President Bush.

The Gamble details many factors that played into the switch, talks much about Petraeus’ military background and leadership, and describes the media coverage and political reactions during various stages of the war. Ricks’ predictions of a long term military presence in Iraq with the most difficult challenges there yet to come could prove to be true, and they’re a reminder of the significance of this long war.