What Would President Obama Really Do On Iraq?

Political junkies on all sides are obsessed these days with Senator Barack Obama's July 3 remarks on Iraq. Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination in large part because of a promise that, if elected, he would "end the war in 2009." More specifically, he pledged to immediately begin withdrawal of U.S. forces and remove all combat troops within 16 months of taking office, leaving behind only enough to counter terrorists and train Iraqis.

But on July 3 he sounded as though he might be backing away from that stance. He told reporters that his 16-month timetable "was always premised on making sure our troops are safe...and that Iraq is stable," and that he would "continue to refine" his proposals after consulting with military commanders on his forthcoming visit to Iraq. So strong was the reaction to those statements, to the effect that they suggested a policy change, that Obama called a second news conference later that day. He denied any change in policy, and said he had "not equivocated," on Iraq. Nor, he insisted, was he "searching for maneuvering room."

Should Obama get elected, what is now strictly a theoretical problem will become a very difficult practical one. One of the wisest commentaries on the issue a President Obama would face, and how he would react, was written more than a month ago by Thomas Powers in the New York Review of Books. Powers is a veteran Pulitzer-prize winning reporter and author who has spent decades covering national security and intelligence issues. His commentary below is taken from his review of half a dozen books on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was written on April 30, when Obama was still contesting Hillary Clinton for the nomination, and appeared in the May 29 issue of the Review:

Getting out of Iraq will require just as much resolution as it took to get in -- and the same kind of resolution: a willingness to ignore the consequences. The consequence hardest to ignore will be the growing power and influence of Iran, which Bush has described as one of the two great security threats to the US. Israel shares this view of Iran. No new president will want to run the risk of being thought soft on Iran. This is where the military error exacts a terrible price. A political conflict transformed into a military conflict requires a military resolution, and those, famously, come in two forms--victory or defeat. Getting out means admitting defeat.

Is it possible that the new president will have that kind of resolution? I think not; to my ear Clinton and Obama don't sound drained of hope or bright ideas, determined to cut losses and end the agony. Why should they? They're coming in fresh from the sidelines. Getting out, giving up, admitting defeat are not what we expect from the psychology of newly elected presidents who have just overcome all odds and battled through to personal victory. They've managed the impossible once; why not again? Planning for withdrawals might begin on Day One, but the plans will be hostage to events.

At first, perhaps, all runs smoothly. Then things begin to happen. The situation on the first day has altered by the tenth. Some faction of Iraqis joins or drops out of the fight. A troublesome law is passed, or left standing. A helicopter goes down with casualties in two digits. The Green Zone is hit by a new wave of rockets or mortars from Sadr City in Baghdad. The US Army protests that the rockets or mortars were provided by Iran. The new president warns Iran to stay out of the fight. The government in Tehran dismisses the warning. This is already a long-established pattern. Why should we expect it to change? So it goes. At an unmarked moment somewhere between the third and the sixth month a sea change occurs: Bush's war becomes the new president's war, and getting out means failure, means defeat, means rising opposition at home, means no second term. It's not hard to see where this is going.

We are committed in Afghanistan. We are not ready to leave Iraq. In both countries our friends are in trouble. The pride of American arms is at stake. The world is watching. To me the logic of events seems inescapable. Unless something quite unexpected happens, four years from now the presidential candidates will be arguing about two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one going into its ninth year, the other into its eleventh. The choice will be the one Americans hate most -- get out or fight on.

That's something to think about...and worry about.

Comments

[joebhed]

Well, I am really surprised at the lack of comments.
Ummm.... Iran.

We have elevated , and we continue to this minute to do so, the power of Iran over the political situation in Iraq.
With a break between the Iranian Revolutionary Party in Iraq, my name, under Hakim, and the block held by Muqtada al Sadr, the Iraqi-loving nationalist whom we despised because he's pissed that we invaded his country, we further the efforts of the Iranian regime in Iraq.

So, we need to stay in Iraq because we are worried about Iranian influence.
And, we continue to bolster the iranian influence in Iraq by supporting the Iranian-backed parties against the iraqi nationalists.

The Iraqi nationalists, Sunni and Shia, will not lay down their arms until we commit to leave.
We will n ot commit to leave until there is something called 'security", which is achieved when all the nationalists will lay down their weapons.

So, if this doesn't sound like an endless cycle of war, with escalating Iranian influence until our military presence does not matter to Iran, then I don't what it is.

Where's Professor Irwin Corey when we need him to explain all this to Obama?

[LizM]

That was a pretty good start to a summary of what's up in Iraq and the region. But, you know what...all Senator Obama needs (to get elected and through the terms of his administration) is Senator Biden at his side as Vice President With Special Portfolio on Iraq.

By the way, the lack of comments on such a post doesn't surprise me...par for the course, really...

[XME]

All I can say is that I'd MUCH rather find out what President Obama would really do on Iraq, than find out what President McCain would really do on Iraq (not to mention Iran, etc.)

[Merlin7]

It's disturbing that Obama sounds eager to ramp up the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan -- to expand our role just as carelessly as we blundered into Iraq. Oddly, no one in the media seems concerned about this, just as they weren't overly concerned five years ago. The basic questions aren't being asked: What are our objectives in Afghanistan? How will we know if those objectives are being met? After seven years of fighting -- and with the situation little improved -- what makes U.S. leaders think our search-and-destroy methods are the correct ones? What would victory look like? Why do U.S. officials continue the policy of routinely killing large numbers of civilians, when they must know that merely adds to the insurgency? How many of the insurgents are Taliban and how many are just disgruntled Pashtun tribesmen? Do U.S. officials know -- or care?
No one is even asking these questions, much less answering them.

[LizM]

Let me first apologize for sounding like a bloody broken record on this. And, just as soon as Senator Obama picks his running mate, I'll shut up...or...tone it down, at least!

This blog post is about as close as we'll get around here to a perfect example of why it is so important that Senator Obama has Joe Biden as his side as Vice President With Special Portfolio on Iraq. That is not to say that this selection will guarantee an Obama victory or a successful political solution in Iraq. But the chances for both will surely be improved over any other VP choice, exponentially!

[RDixon]

What Obama WILL do about Iraq if he is elected president:

The exact same thing Nixon did about Vietnam after 1968.

Fail to deliver on his promises and the war will continue unabated and even be secretly expanded into Iran.
Thousands more of America's youth will be sacrificed for nothing.

It seems destiny has decreed that the last chopper will not be leaving a rooftop in Baghdad until around 2015 or maybe later.

The only thing left that is a legitimate question about Iraq is this:

Who will be the last to die for another stupid mistake?

[alkamm]

Obama knows that his presidency will be judged on how the states deal with the Iraq and Afghany wars. The idea that he'll simply stay the course is a simple, ridiculous reduction of possibilities into the worst case scenario.

The idea that the only legitimate question about Iraq is who will die last for our mistakes is appealing though. That person will join the other dead, and many of those still alive will hope that some good will come from the dead soldiers employed in the Bush administration's lame efforts in the region.

They will hope that the subplots of making Bush cronies richer will not be the only benefit of the war. They will hope that the war will result in a less disastrous end and maybe even a middle east that may tire of blowing itself up with our help.

New leadership will be able to admit our mistakes and work to redress middle east grievances with smart diplomacy and real statecraft that is respected rather than hated and mocked.