While Obama Escalates War in Afghanistan, Iraq Could Blow Up in His Face

Over the past couple of weeks, the Obama administration has clearly attempted to shift the US foreign policy focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, seemingly intent on leaving the public with the impression that Iraq is under control and US withdrawal has been set in full motion; that the end of the "war" is within sight. This fantasy has been reinforced by some so-called anti-war groups, like MoveOn, which have praised Obama's Iraq plan without confronting the cold fact that Obama's vision for the country includes a sustained presence of tens of thousands of US troops, a monstrous US embassy the size of Vatican City and the continued--and likely increased-- use of corporate mercenary forces. Also, consider this fact: by September of this year, Obama will have actually sent more troops into combat than Bush.

There is great reason to suspect that the timeline for withdrawal--all troops out by 2011-- announced in February by the Obama administration will prove to be a fallacy. Military officials have told journalists of plans for "a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline," with one senior military commander saying "he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years." Moreover, Obama has made clear he views the Status of Forces Agreement as malleable.

Then there is the issue of the residual force of up to 50,000 troops whose mission has been loosely described as counter-terrorism, training and protection for US civilians. Obama has made clear that he will adjust the timeline and the size of the US occupation force according to circumstances on the ground.

I have been saying for some time that I think that if the stability or predominance of the US-backed Iraqi government was threatened, that would result in a major adjustment to Obama's announced intentions for Iraq. While the "surge" has been praised by Democrats and Republicans alike as having reduced violence in Iraq, this has always been a dishonest simplification of reality. Part of the "success" (their term, not mine) is due to the fact that the US supported, encouraged and armed a Shiite campaign of ethnic and religious cleansing in Baghdad, which, after a horrifying and sustained period of death squad operations, largely from 2005-2007, resulted in a drop in violence (after most of the non-Shiites were expelled from the Iraqi capital). Secondly, the US co-opted the Sunni resistance forces through the so-called Awakening Councils, essentially paying off 100,000 or so Sunnis to stop killing US soldiers and to stop fighting the Shiite-led government. This combined with Moqtada al Sadr's restraint over the past year created circumstances for what is portrayed in the US corporate media as a "success" in US strategy. What has not happened is that the US somehow "got it right" and stabilized Iraq in a lasting way for sustained peace. Washington basically backed one faction and paid the other not to fight it.

The point here is that, with just a few definitive events, all of this could unravel very swiftly and Obama could find himself facing a renewed guerrilla insurgency against his occupation--from both Sunni fighters and Shiite forces opposed to Maliki-- and a destabilization of the puppet regime Obama is now backing.

In fact, the early stages of such an unraveling may already be in swing, according to a new analysis of the situation in Iraq by veteran military correspondent Thomas Ricks, author of Fiasco and formerly of the Washington Post. "I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly," says Ricks. "It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad."

Ricks points out that Nouri al-Maliki's government never liked some of the US arrangements with the Sunnis and appears to be reescalating his war against them. "I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up," Ricks observes.

On his Foreign Policy blog, Ricks wrote this week, "Maliki's guys" are:

* Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
* Attacking others
* Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
* And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months

Ricks asserts:

Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post:

"As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage."

That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?

Ricks also says he "wouldn't be surprised to see Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia re-emerge. I've always thought the Sunni Awakening forced him to go to ground, because he didn't want to be the only guy taking on American forces. But if the Sunnis are on the attack again, it might be game on for him as well."

On this point, it is important to remember that the period where the US occupation was in the biggest trouble was in the spring of 2004 when Sadr and the Sunnis flirted with a unified resistance in response to the occupation.

It is extremely important that anti-war groups take a two-track approach right now: oppose the Obama administration's escalation of the war against Afghanistan and remain vigilant in demanding a complete withdrawal from Iraq.

Comments

[motown67]

I would disagree with a lot of what this article is arguing. Obama has said that he sees the Status of Forces Agreement as binding. Gen. Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, at first was saying that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq past the 2011 deadline, but that was never the administration. Odierno has since joined the game lan and said that he doesn't expect Iraq to ask for U.S. troops to stay past 2011. As for the 35,000-50,000 that will stay until 2011, Obama always said that he would keep a residual force. It's like people never really paid attention to what Obama said. What people like Sec. of Def. Gates and others have said is that they expect to remain involved in Iraq for years. That doesn't necessarily mean thousands of troops though. musingsoni­raq.blogso­t.com

[Ranger05]

Its easy to once again place blame on President Bush for yet another event that is not going the way "everyone" thought it would go. Bottom line is that by placing a timetable on withdraw we are telling the insurgents and people how long they need to hold out and play nice until things can go crazy once again. I do agree that we need to draw down the levels of troops and support we are giving Iraq, however by announcing an exact time we are pulling out is ridiculous. It needs to be a conditions based event where the government needs to meet certain standards in order for troop withdraw to happen. We also need to hold the Iraq's feet to the fire, if they don't meet these goals/standards we set they will not receive funding, or whatever...

[UltraClassic]

When in moder times hae we see a group of people so determined to cause a disaster from a fragile peace? What is with you people? How bad to you want Iraw to fail. Is this just one more issue you want to pin on GW? I say that if Iraq fails, Obama wil get much of the blame.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

"What is with you people? How bad to you want Iraw to fail. Is this just one more issue you want to pin on GW? I say that if Iraq fails, Obama wil get much of the blame."

And >I< say "So what?" Why should more young American men have to die just so the US govt never has to say "Bushie f***ed up"?

[punk]

Obama is doing all the WRONG things. He's hired deregulators to repair Wall Street and he's retained Bush cronies like Robert Gates at the defense department. I'm convinced Obama will be a one-term president. The guy is a corporate conservative.

[dwright]

You are so uninformed.

[petalsoft]

I'm sorry but Americans are really ignorant. If you mess up the place isn't it worse to just leave it in disarray? Of course we're going to be there and take responsibility. Obama isn't a hit and run kind of guy. He said it on the campaign trail and while I don't necessarily agree with his strategy in Afghanistan, it's obvious that the Taliban have issued their stakes in the game by calling out their vengeful stupidity this week. Anyways, I'm over Americans wanting things to be easy. Democrats shouldn't have ever went along with this war but the truth is they did and they can't expect to just get out all willy nilly as if it never happened. It's time we face up to our responsibilities and Obama will get real with the American people and the sacrifices we've made because of those poor choices. This is what happens when you vote for the guy you wanted to have beer with

[punk]

I'm sorry, but every opinion poll shows that the vast majority of Iraqis want U.S. forces out of Iraq, precisely because America messed up the place. Many Americans want troops to remain in Iraq mostly to fix YOUR American mistake, not to help the Iraqi people. It's just more narcissism from Americans. GET OUT.

[DryBrook]

But see http://blog.cleveland.com/pdgraphics/2008/09/us_troops_in_iraq.html

[DryBrook]

More troops into combat? Your facts could use a little checking. Why does your source discuss the March 2003 Bush troop level, when the maximum number of troops deployed by Bush occurred later?
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/02/military_families_reservists_r.html

Even accepting the ridiculous premise that troop levels established by Bush count as troops deployed by President Obama, the numbers do not support the assertion.

[UbiVeritas]

THat's OK, because O will just remind everyone that he inherited the problem.

[checkmoot]

Yeah, Iraq will blow up in our face when the Iraqis realize that we are not pulling out, that we intend to make our occupation of their country permanent. We will end up fighting the Iraqi army that we have gone to considerable trouble to train. ( I've always wondered what all this "training" was about. They had a pretty well trained army before we invaded them).

[Rule Of Law]

War is the greatest money maker ever invented.

Wall Street runs Washington.

Nuff said.

[eagledavey]

Funny how when American troops achieve a victory, no matter how slight, certain people bend over backwards to diminish it. The tide has turned in Iraq. Are there threats to it? Of course. I think its rational for our troops to remain there for years and years. We have a vested interest in keeping the country secure and hopefully democratic. Millions and millions of people are getting force fed American culture. That's a genie the mullahs wont be able to put back in the bottle. In twenty years their daughters will be wearing Jordache jeans and eating Happy meals.

[RRK70]

How is withdrawing troops diminishing victory? Some might say withdrawing troops is the ultimate sign OF a victory! Perhaps French troops should have remained in the US after Yorktown since we were so unstable at the time?

Unlike bases in Korea, Japan, Germany, I just don't see our troops taking a stroll through downtown Fallujah or Baghdad while on R&R, do you?

It just as possible that the mullah's daughters will be wearing burkas in 20 years. If we're so concerned with democracy and western culture in the Middle East perhaps we should invade Saudi Arabia next?

[eagledavey]

When Lib writers opine that the 'so called surge' only worked because of backroom deals and other circumstances, theyre belittling a hard earned, bloody victory by our military. I agree that there were other factors, but most libs surround modest statements about our soldiers acheivements with dozens of reasons why it worked when it wasnt supposed to. The mullahs are fighting a losing battle long term. They know this. Books, freedom, cellphones, internet and normal curiosity will see them begin to wane in power within two generations. The only question is will they get their hands on a nuke and use it before that happens. That's the only thing that will change this outcome. Bin Laden's grandchildren will be eating a Big Mac and Fries before you know it.

[RRK70]

Demand a referendum in Iraq and Afghanistan that asks the peoplethere if they want US troops to remain. Then when they vote us out we can claim that "Democracy has spoken" and "that ballots, not bullets have won out" and proceed to get the heck out!

[research]

Democracy! Now!

[verdantbeast]

Top-shelf analysis, Jeremy. Too many people do not understand the instability and fluidity of the situation in Iraq and how the US is actually "maintaining the peace" there. People don't seem to comprehend the smoke-and-mirrors game being played on us.

[knowBuddhaU]

We're under fire from our own military. What's the difference between Pentagon's Message Force Multipliers and snipers with high-power microphones? Hidden intentions; firing on target audiences; making a career-advancing killing.

Melvin Goodman, former CIA analyst, wrote recently: "In reality, the Bush administration relied on phony intelligence to create and employ a strategic disinformation campaign to convince the Congress, the media and the American people of the need for war." http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/031409a.html

Gen. Powell's stalking horse, Col. Wilkerson, confirms that it was deliberate:
"But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror... Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces." http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/?ref=fp2

Attorney Scott Horton:
The Pentagon’s Public Affairs Office has been one of the last redoubts of the Neoconservatives. Burrowed Bush era figures remain in key positions in the office, which had responsibility for implementation of some of the Rumsfeld Pentagon’s most controversial strategies in which the American public was targeted with practices previously associated with battlefield psy-ops." http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004359