When it Comes to Iraq, Honesty is the Best Policy
The ongoing fighting in Basra and Baghdad between forces of the Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the militia of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr should explode the comfortable notion held by proponents of the occupation in Iraq that the so-called “surge” of American troops was primarily responsible for the quelling of violence over the last six months or more.
This is not to disparage the drastic improvement in the manner in which United States forces now conduct security operations in Iraq. The employment of classic counterinsurgency tactics such as frequent foot patrols in towns and city neighbourhoods, the establishment of a permanent presence in key areas, funding infrastructure improvements and the utilization of special operations units to target high value terrorist targets, have all contributed significantly to a better security environment. The fact is, however, that violence is down mainly because the Sunni Awakening and the truce called by al-Sadr means that as much as 80% or more of the people who were shooting at or blowing up Americans and causing general mayhem in Iraq stopped doing so. The key contributor undoubtedly has been that Sunni tribes in Anbar Province and elsewhere who had formed the most formidable part of the insurgency, joined the Americans in combating al-Qaida in Iraq, a threat they saw as far more deadly in the long term than a temporary foreign occupation. That assistance which has taken the form of providing local forces for security and precious actionable intelligence has enabled the American forces to inflict substantial damage on al-Qaida in Iraq. And since the latter had instigated a disproportionate amount of the most murderous violence against civilians, the positive effect has been dramatic.
Yet we shouldn’t kid ourselves that the US controls the agenda. Hopefully the Mahdi Army will be defeated by the American-backed Iraqi Army in the current struggle for control of Basra. If the rogue Shiite militia emerge the victors or at least fight the government to a draw, al-Maliki will be considerably weakened – and so will the American position in Iraq. And if the Sunnis become disillusioned with the government and no longer see the alliance with the Americans as in their interests, the violence could yet again spin completely out of control. And even 160,000 American troops will not contain it.
Both of the potential Democratic nominees to take on Senator John McCain are right to advocate a change to national policy that envisions a military withdrawal from Iraq. Every time McCain and the Bush administration engage in fear mongering on the dire consequences of what they term a “retreat” from Iraq, it is an admission that the decision to invade and occupy Iraq was a calamitous miscalculation that has created in its wake a failed state, one that cannot be trusted to stand on its own feet without the perpetual presence of American soldiers and Marines. The only way we will ever find out for sure is to treat the Iraqis like adults and allow them to manage their own affairs rather than create a dependency on Americans that is bad for them and not in our own strategic interests, given the debilitating effect on our Army and Marine Corps, the disproportionate resources expended on the endeavour and the more critical effort in Afghanistan which is being short-changed. By setting a time-table for withdrawal, the Iraqis will have a powerful incentive and imperative to negotiate a real reconciliation.
It could, of course, also go the other way and the country descends into civil war. In which case we will have, hopefully, a Democratic administration that will prepare for the worst by working with all neighbouring states, including Iran and Syria, to contain and minimize the fallout from a return to chaos in Iraq. We must be realistic, also, in allowing for the possibility that we will not be able to leave any military presence in Iraq even to conduct training and special operations again terrorists. Once we declare a firm time-table for withdrawal, a worst-case scenario may be that the Iraqi government, whoever leads it, may insist that it be complete and not permit a residual American military presence to target al-Qaida in Iraq. On the other hand, whilst resurgence by al-Qaida in Iraq is a possibility, the absence of American occupation forces will likely serve to marginalize the terrorists among all Iraqis regardless of whether they are Sunni, Shiite or Kurd.
Above all Democrats must not flinch from answering the assertion that a stable and democratic Iraq is in America’s national interest and, therefore, justifies our indefinite occupation. An honest and straightforward response from either Senator Obama or Clinton should be that, whilst a stable Iraq is indeed a benefit and may, in any case, be promoted by such a withdrawal, it is far outweighed by the greater national interest in extricating our military ground forces from Iraq and reforming and redirecting them, as well as our financial and diplomatic resources, to meet more critical domestic and foreign challenges of the 21st century. Foremost among these is to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and, ultimately, al-Qaida in its safe havens in Pakistan.
