- The Washington Times - Monday, April 4, 2011


While the president’s top advisers are currently most worried about the public judgment in November 2012 on his Libyan war actions, they might be better advised to worry about his actions in Iraq.

Admittedly, the administration’s Libyan actions are yet to be convincingly explained and may constitute an unforced error that could lead to entanglement in a prolonged and unnecessary war. But Libya is nonetheless a historic sideshow. So far, not a single American casualty has been reported. And while our intervention may turn out to be a mess and an embarrassment, Libya’s tangential connection to larger events make it unlikely to become a geopolitical disaster.

On the other hand, in Iraq we have reported numbers of 4,443 troops killed and more than 30,000 wounded (many of them grievously and agonizingly mutilated). It has taken such a heartbreaking price, but we now have moved tantalizingly close to genuine success.

However, if we now remove all of our remaining troops and it all degenerates into tragedy, that decision will weigh heavily on the historic judgment of the Obama presidency.

Yet, according to the White House’s own home page: “The President intends to keep our commitment under the Status of Forces Agreement to remove all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.”

That is consistent with his campaign promise and it completes the execution of that agreement entered into by President George W. Bush and the Iraqi government. It has long been expected that the two governments would negotiate an extension of the time when our troops must leave because both Iraq’s and most of our military and diplomatic experts do not believe the country is ready to govern itself without the stabilizing effect of substantial, continued American troop presence and activity. But because of domestic Iraqi politics, their government has not asked for an extension. And if President Obama sticks - legalistically - to his position, time may run out.

A commendable editorial appeared in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post calling for Mr. Obama to negotiate quickly an extension for our troop presence. It pointed out if our troops are forced to leave at the end of the year, “military experts warn, next year Iraq will lack critical defense capacities: It will be unable to defend its airspace or borders, protect oil shipments or platforms in the Persian Gulf, or partner with U.S. Special Forces in raids against al Qaeda. Perhaps most seriously, American soldiers who have been serving as de facto peacekeepers in the city of Kirkuk and along the sensitive border zone between Iraqi Kurdistan and the rest of the country will disappear. Many experts believe that in their absence violence could erupt between Kurds and Arabs.”

In this month’s prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine, Emma Sky, chief political adviser to Gen. Raymond Odierno, commanding general of the Multi-National Force-Iraq from 2008 to 2010, described the fragile nature of the newly re-formed Nouri al-Maliki coalition government and warned that “should Washington fail to provide such [troop] support, there is a risk that Iraq’s different groups may revert to violence to achieve their goals.”

One of the greatest dangers to Iraq - as both anti-war and pro-war advocates agree - is that Iran may come to dominate the Iraqi government. That risk has just increased in the past few months as cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the murderous Shiite militia leader turned political leader, has returned to Iraq from Iran, cast his party’s 40 votes for the coalition government, and extracted as a price for his votes, as reported by Maria Fantappie, a scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, “control of the ministries of municipality, water and housing and construction. They also temporarily run the ministry of planning.

Through these positions, the Sadrists control the provision of water, irrigation systems and the building of national infrastructure - including much-needed housing, public buildings, roads and bridges. … The kingmakers of the new government now have the chance to become key players in the government itself by capitalizing on the ministries under their control.”

The danger from this is that if the stabilizing, confidence-building American troops are removed from the power equation in Iraq, the Iranian pawn, Mr. al-Sadr, may convert his community-level service portfolio into renewed sectarian violence.

How and when we leave Iraq is now vastly more important than how and why we entered Iraq. Both our interests in the Middle East and the interests of the Iraqi people hang in the balance with President Obama’s judgment. It would be a tragedy if we lose all after paying so much.

As 19th-century British poet Arthur Hugh Clough wrote in one of Winston Churchill’s favorite poems:

“Say not the struggle naught availeth,

The labour and the wounds are vain,

The enemy faints not, nor faileth,

And as things have been they remain.”

Tony Blankley is the author of “American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century” (Regnery, 2009) and vice president of the Edelman public relations firm in Washington.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide