The
confusion inherent in the Obama's approach to Iraq continues, according to this
New York Times account.
From
a short term perspective, the confusion hasn't seemed to matter much. August,
which by some measures was the bloodiest month in Afghanistan, was an
exceptionally low-cost month in Iraq. If one tabulated success in U.S.
body counts, Obama's approach appears to be working for now.
The
long term outlook is more worrying. According to several unnamed sources,
military commanders are "livid" with President Obama's decision to
authorize a plan that is resourced at a fraction of the level that the military
considered to be the minimum -- and even that minimum would only work
"in extremis." Obama's approach appears to involve
several multiples of risk beyond what the military consider prudent.
Reportedly, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued for a level of
resources above what Obama appears to have authorized.
Reasonable
people can disagree whether it makes national security sense for Obama to adopt
such a risky path. For my part, I wish he had invested more effort in the
Iraq file, especially working more closely with Prime Minister Maliki to push
the process towards an outcome that is more favorable to American (and, I would
argue, Iraqi national) interests.
The
part that mystifies me is why his team thinks it makes political sense to have
taken this course. His administration has already pocketed as much
political benefit as there is to be wrung from Bush's surge -- and the media
has generously refrained from pointing out that whatever positive developments
came in Iraq came because of policies Obama and Biden tried strenuously to
thwart in 2007. Given that the administration has already claimed
Iraq as a great achievement,
why take so risky a course now, one that could result in a great unraveling
during the presidential campaign?
There
is no domestic political pressure to speak of demanding a reckless withdrawal
from Baghdad. The cost savings of denying the military the resources they
say they need is trivial compared to the stakes. For that matter, the
amount of time and effort it would have taken Obama to invest in Iraq policy so
as to achieve greater progress with Maliki was probably trivial, too. Yet
it seems that when it comes to Iraq, Obama is determined to do whatever is less
than the minimum.
This
is a strategy that depends heavily on luck. For the sake of U.S. national security, I hope Obama is lucky on Iraq. If he is not, at some
point his choices could produce outcomes that are seen to be Obama's doing, and
not merely the legacy he was handed. That point may well be this winter.
Read More
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE