Seems we just get started then before you know it…

Yes, the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq | Marc Lynch

Iraq still faces many difficult challenges and won’t be fully secure or politically stable for a long time.  But the U.S. military presence is now largely irrelevant to those problems. Nor would the remaining troops have greatly troubled Iran.  Iraqi politics and security institutions have long since adapted to the reduced American role and its impending departure.  Disaster did not follow when U.S. troops stopped patrolling, or when 100,000 troops left over the course of a year. Instead, Iraqi Security Forces took over the lead role in internal security under the new conditions, and adapted effectively enough.  Even if an agreement had been reached to keep some U.S. troops after 2011, they would have been almost exclusively involved in training and support. The ongoing terrorist attacks and unresolved instability along the Arab-Kurdish border pose real challenges, but the U.S. troops which might conceivably have stayed behind in 2012 weren’t going to be dealing with them.

Crucially, Iraqis will not be surprised by the American withdrawal. This is no rush to the exits. Thanks to Bush’s 2008 SOFA deal and Obama’s clear public declarations over the last few years, the withdrawal will not be a sudden, unexpected or disruptive removal of a vital support structure. Iraqi politics have already adapted to the declining American role, and factored it in. The result hasn’t been pretty — worrying centralization of power by Prime Minister Maliki, a fractious and ineffective Parliament, continuing institutional deficiencies, a nasty political discourse, and ongoing low level violence. But it looks resilient enough to avoid catastrophe, and above all it doesn’t depend on (or want) constant American pushing and prodding and intervention to carry on. 

The reality, too often downplayed in the U.S.-centric debate, is that most Iraqis simply didn’t want the U.S. troops to stay.  This matters in the intensely polarized Iraqi political arena.  The scars of invasion, occupation, and civil war run deep. There are plenty of Iraqi elites who privately hoped that the U.S. would stay, who recognized Iraq’s external military weakness, warned of a resurgent civil war, or feared for their political future. But very few would make that case to Iraqis in public because they knew it would be political suicide. And that matters.  It should not be a surprise that negotiations over extending the U.S. presence collapsed over the question of immunity for U.S. troops — essential to the Pentagon, but perhaps the single most politically incendiary issue for Iraqis. 

While there’s of course a wide range of opinion, it’s worth noting that Iraqi officials with whom I’ve spoken recently shrugged when asked about the likely effects of a full American withdrawal. They didn’t expect a major impact on security, and some thought that removing the issue of extending the U.S. troop presence from the Iraqi political debate would have a healthy effect.  People whose political lives depend on it don’t all seem to share the apocalyptic fears often heard in Washington — and if they did, presumably they would have behaved differently during the negotiations. 

Even those who privately hoped the U.S. would stay opposed the idea of a small residual force, which they pointed out would keep the political issue alive without providing many real security gains. Trying to circumvent public opinion through a secret agreement or through a deal which didn’t require Parliamentary approval would have been even worse, leaving the U.S. presence in a vulnerable condition of contested legitimacy which would have ensured that it remained a top political wedge issue.

The Obama administration did what it could to negotiate an agreement to keep a training and support mission in Iraq. But administration officials involved with the issue seem satisfied with the outcome, as they should.  As I wrote months ago, I wouldn’t have been bothered much if Obama and the Iraqi government had ultimately agreed to keep a few thousand troops in an agreement ratified by the Iraqi Parliament.  It wouldn’t have been necessary, and would have looked like he had broken his commitment to withdraw, but it wouldn’t have remotely resembled an occupation under those terms.  But I am glad that it didn’t work out that way. It’s simply better that the troops all leave.  And it’s far, far better that the Obama administration didn’t accept either a fatally flawed deal or one which had not won Iraqi political consent — which were the only other plausible outcomes. 

I do hope that Obama’s invitation to Maliki to come to Washington in December to discuss the implementation of the Strategic Framework Agreement leads to real, mutually beneficial cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq.  The fact that most Iraqi elites recognize that they still need U.S. logistical support, especially for external defense needs, should give them a strong incentive to stay engaged with us even without a new SOFA. There are plenty of non-military ways that the U.S. could help Iraq, more important to building an enduring relationship than the military dimension, even if Congress still doesn’t seem inclined to pay for them.  One way to get around the deal would be to rely even more on private contractors — and, indeed, their continuing role is one of the main criticisms already aired on the left against the withdrawal announcement. But it wouldn’t surprise me if the expected army of thousands of American security contractors and massive Embassy staff also soon comes into question.  

Those questions will all come up soon, though I suspect that the actual fallout on the ground and in the region will be limited. But for now, the announcement of the withdrawal of all U.S. troops should be welcomed as a major step forward and an opportunity to develop that new relationship. 

13 comments on “Seems we just get started then before you know it…

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. You know, I take Obama at his word, he wanted out of Iraq in 2006, at the time of the Anbar Awakening. Ironically, Malilki is quite nearly as parochial a politician as him, having been opposed to the intervention, without which he would now be a minor
    figure in Syria’s Da’wa chapter. So consider me unsurprised.

    A more distressing note, today is the passing of Prince Sultan, the Saudi Defense Minister, if not quite a moderate, he was a realist in the Palace at Riyadh, Prince Nayef, a man after Abdul Wahhab’s own heart, now moves closer to succession, and
    Prince Ahmed, another ultramontane figure, ends up in the Crown Prince role, interesting times.

  2. You know, sometimes his word is good. We can’t stay in iraq and we shouldn’t stay. There’s nothing there for the troops to do…except serve as targets for the zillion Iran-sponsored thugs roaming around Iraq.

    You’re engaged in rollong Iranian influence out of the Middle East and if it comes to squeezing them hard, maybe dropping some ordinance or supplying some to Iranian underground groups, we aren’t going to want those troops to be sitting around.
    Iran has more than once threatened that if we push too hard, they’re going to go after them.

    We still owe the Iranians for the marine barracks in Lebanon and don’t need any more of that shit.

  3. Well if the details of the latest Pasdaran plot is right, and I tend to doubt it, because I think they have better accumen than to recruit the likes of Arbsiar, their unresponded operations in Iraq, encouraged this overreach. Bin Laden, learned from Mugniyeh, if you hit us hard enough, we will cry uncle, and why is it so hard to believe if we ‘redeploy’ from Iraq, they won’t go after Manama and Al Ubeid AFB.

  4. yeah miggs, Bahrain’s a place where they had anti-government protests…..and where the government showed how sympathetic and pliant they were in response to the Shi’a demands for equality by being about twice as brutal as necessary to flat beat it down.

    so, yeah, I’m thinking that the government of Bahrain is not gonna be anything but helpful in securing our base against Iranian attack

  5. What’s the problem?…I’m pretty sure that I could make the case that Gaddafi didn’t receive a fair trial conducted by a court system with world-wide recognition and, thus, legitimacy.

    There was no UN permission to kill Gaddafi given to just anyone….It was NOT an open contract….just NATO members and a couple others

  6. Can we be blunt, Quaddafi or Gathafi as his passport said, was ‘dead man walking’ after Quaradawi’s fatwa. just as Sadat
    was, it was only a matter of time.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *