Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Obama's Iraq speech: Brought to you by George W. Bush
By Christian Brose
Today begins the leap in the dark.
For six years we've known that the Iraq war must end and that at some point U.S. forces would leave. The question that always hung out there was -- and then what? President Bush chose not to learn the answer to that question. He could have, especially in January 2007, but he left that decision to his successor -- and left it in better shape than at any point since the invasion. If there was ever a time to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, it is now. And Obama, in large part, has George W. Bush to thank for that. Still looming is the uncertainty of, and then what? And the only answer is, we'll see.
Obama's speech was good. His message to the Iraqi people, and his continued emphasis on Iraqi sovereignty, was right and nicely done. He realistically framed the challenges ahead. Having opposed the war, it's hard to then tell a bunch of Marines that their sacrifice is worth it and that they've won honor for themselves, and yet Obama came off as genuine. That said, though I understand the need not to overstep rhetorically, I wish he would have emphasized more the success of the war (late though it was) rather than just its ending. And by success I mean an increasingly stable, representative Iraqi state that is beginning to be able to meet the needs of its people, protect them, and reconcile with its fellow Arab countries.
Beyond that, a few other things struck me.
1. Obama can say all he wants that he's "ending the war" by August 2010, but believing that is nutty, and being surprised that by then we'll still have 30-50,000 troops in Iraq, as some on the left are, is even nuttier. We knew this was coming. From the moment he said during the campaign that he'd pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months, Obama has backtracked -- first drawing a false distinction between "combat" and "non-combat" troops, and now pretending that a "residual force" of 30-50,000 Americans under arms, many of whom will be fighting al Qaeda, constitutes "ending the war."
2. This speech should be seen in the context of the assurance Obama reportedly made to Sen. McCain and others that he will evaluate the troop drawdown as it unfolds in light of developments on the ground. This will be an important test of Obama's realism.
3. Bush probably would have given a very similar speech. After all, that was the logic of the surge. It was one last push to stabilize Iraq and pass off to Iraqis the best possible situation. And to think that Bush would have just stayed in Iraq forever -- well, that's directly contradicted by the Status of Forces Agreement that he supported. The U.S. government already resolved that point. Some pushed for a maximalist position that would have left as many options open as possible -- on what our troops could do, where they could be, and when they would leave. Bush rejected it because the goal was to leave Iraq to the Iraqis under conditions of success, and now that we finally had them, we had to take yes for an answer. Oh, and it wasn't possible to get a maximalist outcome, even if we'd wanted one, because Iraqis wouldn't go for it.
So maybe Bush would have laid out a different withdrawal plan today than Obama did, but my sense is he too would have begun moving toward the goal of getting all U.S. troops out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 because he had already committed to it.
4. Though Obama said the right things about continuing our non-military commitment to Iraq's success, I question whether the administration fully appreciates the importance and urgency of this point and is really prepared to follow through. The fact that it's been two weeks now, and we still don't have an ambassador in Baghdad, nor will we for some time, is hugely worrisome. As our military leverage decreases, now is the time to ramp up our political, diplomatic, and economic support for Iraq. It was no secret that Ryan Crocker was leaving, and yet here we are, ambassador-less. And with all due respect to Chris Hill, he is not the man we need in Baghdad right now. My own preference would be Bill Burns, if I didn't think he was absolutely indispensable where he is, which I do.
Iraq just had a successful election, and a lot of responsible nationalists won power. We have a deep interest in their success. These Iraqi leaders have enemies, especially Iran, that are out to undermine them at every turn, and we can't let this happen. We can't let the next few years in Iraq mirror Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007 -- when the Bush administration assumed that the good guys had won, the bad guys were routed, and that they could start treating Afghanistan like a normal country. The competition for Iraq's future is only just beginning, and we need the best people there to step up our support for responsible Iraqis.
5. At the risk of heading into la-la land, I think Obama should have tipped his hat ever so slightly today to President Bush, Sen. McCain, and other Republicans who had supported the surge strategy, naming them and thanking them. Of course, there's no telling how Iraq would look today had the surge never happened, but it's likely that conditions would be pretty grim and that this withdrawal plan would have the smell of defeat to it, rather than the opposite, as it does.
Obama could have caveated this to death -- "I opposed Bush's decision to begin this war, I opposed how he sold it to America, I opposed the way he prosecuted it," etc. But he could have recognized that Bush's decision to change strategies in 2007 is in large part why the security situation in Iraq has turned around more than anyone could have hoped, why we can now begin drawing down our forces with a good measure of confidence, and why our troops now feel more and more that their sacrifice is worth it.
Not only would this have been magnanimous, it would have been smart politics. It would have acknowledged the bipartisanship that underlies the decision to begin bringing our troops home by drawing an important line of continuity through our Iraq efforts of the past two years. It would have disarmed Obama's more hawkish critics on Iraq by conceding their point on the surge and turning it into an argument for the drawdown, which it is. And it would have shown Republicans that Obama is committed not just to a bipartisanship of style but of substance -- not just being willing to recognize when the other side has valid points, but actually incorporating them into one's own thinking.
The fact remains, we had to leave Iraq at some point. This is as good a time as any to start. And there is bipartisan support to do so, because of the events of the past two years. Now what? Time will tell. I just hope that if, God forbid, things take a turn for the worse in Iraq, Obama will find the same courage his predecessor did two years ago, and that he won't let inconvenient truths become the enemy of good strategy.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition.
Re: "Residual force"
Those like Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich and their fellow lefties who express surprise or disappointment today with the level of Obama's long-term commitment to Iraq were evidently not paying attention to then-Senator Obama last April when he had the following exchange with Ambassador Crocker at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing on Iraq:
OBAMA: And so my final -- and I'll even pose this as a question and I won't -- you don't necessarily have to answer it -- maybe it's a rhetorical question -- if we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success?
It's obviously not perfect. There's still violence, there's still some traces of Al Qaida, Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we'd have to devote even more resources to it?
CROCKER: Senator, I can't imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.
BIDEN: That wasn't the question.
OBAMA: No, no, that wasn't the question. I'm not suggesting that we yank all our troops out all the way. I'm trying to get to an endpoint. That's what all of us have been trying to get to.
And, see, the problem I have is if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.
If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.
CROCKER: And that's because, Senator, is a -- I mean, I don't like to sound like a broken record, but this is hard and this is complicated.
I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.
But that's not where we are now.
We have no choice but a large
We have no choice but a large drawdown. Without it, our army will break. We have no choice.
Never mind what happens in iraq if we draw down. We gain nothing by staying at high levels and breaking. That's worse than a drawdown.
So we do what we have to, and we plan for victory. Heh.
Depending on the economy we may not be able to keep 50,000 troops in iraq. We may not have the foreign exchange.
doubtobama
Obama was disgusting during his speech. To stand there with that smirk on his face- to take credit for the war. Bush and the military won the war. Obama is a military disaster. This is another case of Obama behaving in a grandiose fashion and taking credit for accomplishments he had nothing to do with. He has to do this because the only thing he has accomplished in his life is to read a teleprompter well.
Doubtobama, if you believe
Doubtobama, if you believe that the war is won, why should anybody take you seriously about anything?
I to agree that Obama did a
I to agree that Obama did a solid job today in highlighting the tremendous sacrifices and successes of our men and women in the military, and that his strategy is much like Bush's or McCain's would have been, but I would have even more taken Obama to task for reluctance to mention Bush's surge decision. If the surge had not occurred Obama would probably still have taken these troops out and it is likely a bloody mess would have been left, damning him and the US image for years. Another unfortunate aspect of Obama's speech is the lack of 'success' or 'victory' talk. It seems that the US can never 'win' a war anymore. Should we feel ashamed that we kicked a dictator embedded in an dictator-controlled region to the curb of history? No, we should be proud of every step Iraq makes toward democracy and a free, stable society, just like we lamented and felt saddened when they went in the opposite direction. America has done good and we should not let the naysayers have loudest voices.
...brought to you by George Bush
I am struck by just how many apologists for the previous administration manipulate facts and gloss over differences in an effort to portray President Obama as the mere implementor of the courageous and far reaching policies of President Bush. Karl Rove kicked-off this effort even before Mr. Obama took office.
Here, too, Mr. Brose attempts to portray President Bush as the "decider" and President Obama as the fortunate inheritor of his predecessor's successes. I cannot be alone in finding it hilarious that one would position Mr. Bush as the thinker to Mr. Obama's do-er.
Mr. Brose's most egregious fault comes in point 3, where he makes the unsupported argument that President Bush would have made the same speech as President Obama. Then, in his only attempt to support this conclusion, he slides by the reader the clear untruth that Mr. Bush favored the new status of forces agreement.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Bush would have made a speech setting a timeline for a draw down of troops more rapid than that required by the status of forces agreement. There is certainly no indication that he would have offered the same policy reasons for that withdrwawal. And there is no evidence that Mr. Bush would have outlined a major shift to economic aid and regional dialogue to assist the still shaky Iraqi government adapt to a world without our massive military force holding it together.
Far from it. In 6+ years of prosecuting the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush never took a proactive position on any effort to re-evaluate the war's progress, shift course or draw down troops. Even Mr. Bush's decision to launch the tactically successful surge came after months of an ongoing denial of escalating Iraqi violence, American losses, and rapidly falling public support of the war. Only after substantial political losses and a Gates Commission report forced on him by others did he accept the need for, and eventually take action to change course.
And this brings us to the factual error of Point 3: That Mr. Bush supported the Status of Forces Agreement. This is a complete revision of history. Through most of the negotiations with the Iraqis the Bush administration argued for an agreement that provided for an open-ended right for U.S. forces to remain in Iraq. The Iraqis, not President Bush, forced the timetable into the agreement. On the contrary, President Bush and his cabinet were actively floating the "Korea" model both here at home and at the negotiating table.
No, Mr. Bush would never, ever have given this speech. He may have been forced to give some kind of speech talking about withdrawal but it would never have come at this time, in this way and in these terms.
Magnanimity
Magnanimity is not in the lexicon of a narcissistic Marxist.
Bush was a "decider"...
In 2007, he re-evaluated his strategy and the situation in Iraq, found it wanting, sought expert advice and advanced a new direction based on that advice, standing pretty much alone against an onslaught of scathing critcism and ridicule. Biden called the surge a "tragic mistake". Obama opposed it and spoke out against it. Reid eventually went so far as to call the war "lost" and Clinton called Petraeus a liar in everything but name.
Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to exhibit actual leadership?
Anyone who can look at the current situation in Iraq compared to 2007 and claim that Reid is right has serious issues with reality.
magnanimity et al.
On magnanimity: Rational argument and debate is not in the lexion of a zealot.
On deciders: Let's answer all the questions:
1. Bush did make the decision to implement the surge.
2. It is certainly clear that the surge has had success on the ground; it is not at all clear that other options would have been less successful. (If it makes you feel better, just take the Gates option, which is not the Democratic one.
3. Bush certainly did not exhibit leadership in the conduct of the war. He admits going in without conducting a serious debate on the merits, he failed to understand and act on the facts on the ground for 4+ years, and his persistence or fear of admitting failure was responsible for the extended period of failure before he his hand was forced into looking for an alternative.
He may have made a good decision but he did not exhibit the qualities of a good leader.
And...to the point of the piece, he would not have made the same decision - or given the same speech - as Obama did (which, if you forget, was the title of the article.
And, I don't believe, that his actions made the speech possible. Though this, I believe, is open for a good debate.
Re:magnanimity
Kofigan's arguments makes it look like a moot point whether Obama lacks magnanamity. With supporters like Kofigan, he does not HAVE to be magnanimous :-)
What people like Kofigan do not know or seem to understand is that Bush has shown tremendous leadership in this war -he was more often than not let down by the military leadership of people from Abizaid to General Casey. Make no mistake, these men were very honorable and tried their best to deal with the problems in Iraq. How ever they failed, not matter how hard they tried.
Bush's biggest mistake was DEFERRING to them. But in doing so he did what just about any other President would. The surge WAS OPPOSED rank and file by the military leadership and generals. It was an outsider effort through and through - its biggest backers were Fred Kagan and the neo-con crowd.
Even Condoleeza Rice opposed it and by extension Bob Gates.
Bush could have very easily started drawing down troops - his staunchest supporters would have to agree that he tried to bring peace to Iraq, but that it was essentially a lost cause at that point in late 2006.
His political opponents WOULD HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS with him drawing down - in fact they pretty much demanded him to do so.
Instead Bush refused to back down - he fired Rumsfeld who should have been fired a long time back. He understood the consequences of a withdrawal and how it would hurt American interests in the Middle East (especially with the Iranian ambitions for regional hegemony) AND gave the green light for a strategy that was riskier, cost more lives in the first few months of fighting, BUT Had a decent chance of bringing a measure of stability and order in Iraq.
He was no longer going to listen to the play it safe strategy of the Generals who simply would not allow US soldiers to go any where beyond FOBS and would not interact with the local population and find out who was scaring them into submission. COIN operations basic premise is to gain the confidence of the local people and to show a willingness to fight for them and secure them. If you are not going to do that, they are not going to tell you who the local bomb maker is or who has been trying to rig the streets with IEDS.
Generals Odeierno and Petraeus understood that the US was to fight a counter insurgency , NOT A WAR. Staying in FOBs was more secure for US soldiers, but it was not going to get the job done - ESPECIALLY when the Iraqi's were not ready to do it themselves YET.
The US troop surge would be an interim presence and lay the groundwork for the Iraqi forces to take over ONCE stability and order was restored. This strategy had a lot of risks but it was the only one which had any chance of success.
You could also point out that Bush backed Petraeus, Odierno and Ambassador Crocker to hilt in the face of strong opposition to the surge from the Democrat party leadership, rank and file.
After describing Iraq as a country, hopelessly divided between Sunnis and Shias and after saying that adding more troops to the battlefield was only adding more fuel to the fire, it WOULD HAVE BEEN DEEPLY EMBARRASSING for Obama to ADMIT that his knowledge of the Shia/Sunni fissures WAS SHALLOW at best, and that he did not know anything about counter insurgency nor the role of those surge troops. Of course this did not prevent him from running his mouth off.
For God's sakes he won the primaries because he was the clear anti Iraq war candidate who wanted US troops to start drawing down in March 2008 !! How would he ever come to acknowledging that he was so totally wrong and Bush was right ?? Forget the magnanimity - but it would be deeply embarrassing.
A candidate with ZERO experience and only claim to fame was his opposition to the Iraq war and the surge was now wrong about the surge as well. No experience, no judgement to lead. He did not even recognize the success of the surge until it was impossible not to do so.
His speech was that of an insincere sophist who can act with the best in Hollywood. Sean Penn would have been AMAZED to see this acting performance from Obama.
Magnanamity ?? Please... why dont you marvel at the acting skills of this crocodile tears politician who undermined US troops time and again, but now shamefacedly "thanks" them.
What ever Obama does or does not have, he makes it up with chutzpah.
magnanimity...nagee76
Your comments about my thoughts on magnanimity are simply not true and they are unfair. But they also miss the points in the article I was addressing. It's sad that "comments" become shrill attacks in these fora.
I think the article (and not the quips about marxists) was making the point that George Bush would have essentially made the same decisions and given the same speech that President Obama did the other day. I was pointing out that there's no support in the article to draw this conclusion and little support elsewhere. And there isn't. And, I'd believe that most supporters of President Bush could care less. In fact, I think they'd prefer to believe that he would have likely said that we'd keep more troops there for a longer period of time. But I don't know that.
I purposely did not speak to the point of whether we should be thankful for Mr. Bush's decision on the surge or John McCain's true leadership on the issue. I actually agree; finally taking war policy back in his own hands, he made a sound decision to supporting the surge - and the already successful policy of arming the local and regional leaders. It may not have been the only good approach but you can't fault it for being a bad one. And, yes, people like Pelosi, Reid and Obama should have been much quicker to acknowledge that the results were a vast improvement over the quagmire that we were stuck in until that point.
My point was that Mr. Bush never gave evidence that he would aggressively remove forces from Iraq and, in fact, never assertively backed the Status of Forces timetable that was ultimately signed with the Iraqis. It's fine to think that that's ok, it's just not good journalism to then say that these things are true and draw the conclusion that Obama is simply Bush re-visited.
To reinforce that point, I would argue that President Obama would have made a reasonably similar decision even had the surge not been successful. You can argue that that's proof that he's a fool but it certainly differentiates him from Mr. Bush and again undermines the point of the article.
The surge WAS OPPOSED rank
The surge WAS OPPOSED rank and file by the military leadership and generals.
Was that because Bush turned our military leadership into a bunch of yes-men who didn't know how to take initiative? Or was it that they were right?
Bush could have very easily started drawing down troops - his staunchest supporters would have to agree that he tried to bring peace to Iraq, but that it was essentially a lost cause at that point in late 2006.
And the net effect of that was to drag out the war for five more useless years, when it could have been over in 2006.
Pitiful.
The US troop surge would be
The US troop surge would be an interim presence and lay the groundwork for the Iraqi forces to take over ONCE stability and order was restored. This strategy had a lot of risks but it was the only one which had any chance of success.
So, Nagee76, do you still have reason to think it has a chance of success? Given the news that's come out of iraq in the last 3 months?
Are you ready to admit it's hopeless yet?