Nearly nine years after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, US President Barack Obama has declared an end of the war in Iraq and ordered the remaining American troops to be pulled out by year's end, sparking controversy over his foreign policy and Washington's Middle East strategy.
While political opponents derided Obama's decision as a failure that could risk the fragile gains made through the deaths of more than 4,500 US soldiers in Iraq and the spending of over a trillion dollars of US taxpayers' money, supporters cheered it as a success of the president's leadership.
Either way, the debate seems to have sidelined the carnage that the disastrous US occupation has inflicted on Iraq and the price Iraqis have had to pay to hold their nation together amid fears of renewed sectarian violence and foreign interference.
Obama's move came as Iraqi leaders stood their ground and refused to grant immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts to US troops remaining in Iraq after the 31 December deadline for the troop withdrawal.
US officials have spent months pushing for immunity to be granted to the thousands of military trainers that Iraq agreed could stay in place of the combat forces that will be withdrawn by the deadline under a 2008 security agreement.
Most of the criticism of Obama came from Republicans who questioned the wisdom of his decision and whether it reflected a precipitous retreat that could harm US interests in the Middle East and the Gulf.
They faulted Obama for failing to close a deal with Iraq even to keep a few thousand US military trainers in the country after the end of the year, arguing that a full withdrawal of US forces could put Iraq at risk by increasing the influence of neighbouring countries, especially Iran.
Democrats and administration officials like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promptly fired back, arguing that the war in Iraq had already been won by US forces.
Clinton praised Obama's "smart leadership in a complex world," saying it had led to the death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the removal of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and the winding down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who shortly after taking over in July warned that Washington would take unilateral action to deal with any Iranian threat in Iraq, expressed his confidence that Iraq would be able to deal with any threat from Iran-backed militants after the US withdrawal.
Yet, the opinions that the debate over maintaining the troops in Iraq is attracting seem to be more about political positioning during the current election season than about Iraq's own long-term interests.
Much of the debate has centred on whether the announcement will help Obama in his 2012 presidential election campaign, amidst rising concerns at the teetering economy and the loss of jobs.
Republicans are determined not to cede ground to Obama on foreign policy, while wanting to steer the debate towards the weak US economy and away from foreign policy during the election campaign.
Whether this is electioneering, or partisan ideological squabbling over the American involvement in Iraq, the debacle reflects the absence of debate in the United States about Iraq's national interests and future.
It is astonishing that serious and responsible discussion of the US troop withdrawal has also been absent in Iraq itself.
Apart from pro-Iran radical Shia cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, who has been outspoken in his opposition to the presence of US troops in the country, Iraqis have heard nothing from their leaders about the pros and cons of the US troop withdrawal.
Many Iraqi leaders, especially Kurds and Sunnis who have long voiced concerns about the abilities of the Iraqi armed forces, are known to support a long-term stay by US troops, but they have been reluctant to take the political risk of saying so.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, who led the talks with the US officials, has sought to please Iran and avoid angering Al-Sadr, who heads the second-largest bloc within the Shia ruling coalition.
Instead, Al-Maliki has tried to extract maximum political benefit from Obama's decision, projecting himself as a nationalist leader and the protector of the country's sovereignty in the face of American demands.
Following Obama's announcement, Al-Maliki said that the Iraqi armed forces were capable of defending the country against foreign aggression after the withdrawal of US troops at the end of this year, despite opposing views expressed by senior military commanders.
Neither the Americans nor the Iraqi leadership have talked about what could happen without US troops on hand to help control political and sectarian divisions that still spark daily violence in the country.
US officials say that even with the departure of the remaining US troops from Iraq, the US embassy will still have some 17,000 employees in the country, including at least 5,000 "security contractors".
Officials say that there will still be opportunities for limited training by the Americans, and they expect the CIA to play an active role in pursuing US goals in the region.
The United States will still have some 40,000 troops stationed in neighbouring Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Whether these military ties and other US connections in the region will be enough to prevent Iraq slipping back into sectarian conflict or deter Iran from trying to expand its influence in Iraq is in doubt.
Given the sectarian conflicts that continue to plague the country, the chances are high that the US withdrawal will be followed by a sharp upsurge in violence.
Sunni groups, such as Al-Qaeda, are likely to step up armed resistance in order to challenge the Shia-dominated government and demonstrate their ability to destabilise the country.
A renewed Sunni insurgency could also become an instrument used by neighbouring Sunni Arab governments in a proxy war against Iran in the light of the rising levels of regional tension triggered by the Arab Spring.
Anti-American Shia groups are also likely to escalate attacks on US forces, hoping to claim the credit for defeating the US in Iraq.
Al-Sadr has warned that his followers will target the remaining US trainers because "they are all occupiers and they must be resisted after the end of the withdrawal period."
Meanwhile, Kurdish-Arab tensions have been rising over the fate of disputed areas such as the oil-rich province of Kirkuk, raising concerns of a flare-up after the American troops leave.
Especially troubling is the failure of the Obama administration to achieve a consensus on Iraq among its neighbours that could set the terms for a political compromise and limit the likelihood of regional intervention.
Another American fiasco seems to be in the offing in Iraq, with the retreat of US troops being as much a disaster for the country as the original occupation.
While political opponents derided Obama's decision as a failure that could risk the fragile gains made through the deaths of more than 4,500 US soldiers in Iraq and the spending of over a trillion dollars of US taxpayers' money, supporters cheered it as a success of the president's leadership.
Either way, the debate seems to have sidelined the carnage that the disastrous US occupation has inflicted on Iraq and the price Iraqis have had to pay to hold their nation together amid fears of renewed sectarian violence and foreign interference.
Obama's move came as Iraqi leaders stood their ground and refused to grant immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts to US troops remaining in Iraq after the 31 December deadline for the troop withdrawal.
US officials have spent months pushing for immunity to be granted to the thousands of military trainers that Iraq agreed could stay in place of the combat forces that will be withdrawn by the deadline under a 2008 security agreement.
Most of the criticism of Obama came from Republicans who questioned the wisdom of his decision and whether it reflected a precipitous retreat that could harm US interests in the Middle East and the Gulf.
They faulted Obama for failing to close a deal with Iraq even to keep a few thousand US military trainers in the country after the end of the year, arguing that a full withdrawal of US forces could put Iraq at risk by increasing the influence of neighbouring countries, especially Iran.
Democrats and administration officials like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promptly fired back, arguing that the war in Iraq had already been won by US forces.
Clinton praised Obama's "smart leadership in a complex world," saying it had led to the death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the removal of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and the winding down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who shortly after taking over in July warned that Washington would take unilateral action to deal with any Iranian threat in Iraq, expressed his confidence that Iraq would be able to deal with any threat from Iran-backed militants after the US withdrawal.
Yet, the opinions that the debate over maintaining the troops in Iraq is attracting seem to be more about political positioning during the current election season than about Iraq's own long-term interests.
Much of the debate has centred on whether the announcement will help Obama in his 2012 presidential election campaign, amidst rising concerns at the teetering economy and the loss of jobs.
Republicans are determined not to cede ground to Obama on foreign policy, while wanting to steer the debate towards the weak US economy and away from foreign policy during the election campaign.
Whether this is electioneering, or partisan ideological squabbling over the American involvement in Iraq, the debacle reflects the absence of debate in the United States about Iraq's national interests and future.
It is astonishing that serious and responsible discussion of the US troop withdrawal has also been absent in Iraq itself.
Apart from pro-Iran radical Shia cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, who has been outspoken in his opposition to the presence of US troops in the country, Iraqis have heard nothing from their leaders about the pros and cons of the US troop withdrawal.
Many Iraqi leaders, especially Kurds and Sunnis who have long voiced concerns about the abilities of the Iraqi armed forces, are known to support a long-term stay by US troops, but they have been reluctant to take the political risk of saying so.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, who led the talks with the US officials, has sought to please Iran and avoid angering Al-Sadr, who heads the second-largest bloc within the Shia ruling coalition.
Instead, Al-Maliki has tried to extract maximum political benefit from Obama's decision, projecting himself as a nationalist leader and the protector of the country's sovereignty in the face of American demands.
Following Obama's announcement, Al-Maliki said that the Iraqi armed forces were capable of defending the country against foreign aggression after the withdrawal of US troops at the end of this year, despite opposing views expressed by senior military commanders.
Neither the Americans nor the Iraqi leadership have talked about what could happen without US troops on hand to help control political and sectarian divisions that still spark daily violence in the country.
US officials say that even with the departure of the remaining US troops from Iraq, the US embassy will still have some 17,000 employees in the country, including at least 5,000 "security contractors".
Officials say that there will still be opportunities for limited training by the Americans, and they expect the CIA to play an active role in pursuing US goals in the region.
The United States will still have some 40,000 troops stationed in neighbouring Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Whether these military ties and other US connections in the region will be enough to prevent Iraq slipping back into sectarian conflict or deter Iran from trying to expand its influence in Iraq is in doubt.
Given the sectarian conflicts that continue to plague the country, the chances are high that the US withdrawal will be followed by a sharp upsurge in violence.
Sunni groups, such as Al-Qaeda, are likely to step up armed resistance in order to challenge the Shia-dominated government and demonstrate their ability to destabilise the country.
A renewed Sunni insurgency could also become an instrument used by neighbouring Sunni Arab governments in a proxy war against Iran in the light of the rising levels of regional tension triggered by the Arab Spring.
Anti-American Shia groups are also likely to escalate attacks on US forces, hoping to claim the credit for defeating the US in Iraq.
Al-Sadr has warned that his followers will target the remaining US trainers because "they are all occupiers and they must be resisted after the end of the withdrawal period."
Meanwhile, Kurdish-Arab tensions have been rising over the fate of disputed areas such as the oil-rich province of Kirkuk, raising concerns of a flare-up after the American troops leave.
Especially troubling is the failure of the Obama administration to achieve a consensus on Iraq among its neighbours that could set the terms for a political compromise and limit the likelihood of regional intervention.
Another American fiasco seems to be in the offing in Iraq, with the retreat of US troops being as much a disaster for the country as the original occupation.
No comments:
Post a Comment