Round The World

New Delhi, 1 July 2009

End of Era In Iraq

US WITHDRAWAL TIMING TRICKY 

By Prof. Chintamani Mahapatra

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

From this month, the US troops will no longer be visible in cities or urban areas of Iraq in their combat role. This change in role, after six years and three months of military intervention in Iraq would mark the beginning of the end of US troops’ presence there.  

A large number of Iraqi people have come out on the streets to celebrate what they call restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and an end of foreign occupation. Iraqi Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki himself declared victory in the war, annoying the Americans in the process.

Clearly, President Barrack Obama has been a consistent opponent of the US military intervention in Iraq. He fought the 2008 presidential election promising, among other things, an end to the US troops’ presence in Iraq. While Republican candidate John McCain considered continuation of the US presence essential from the perspective of safety, security, prestige, President George Bush had already engaged the Iraqis for months in negotiations to conclude the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with a distant goal of ending US military operations.

It is on the basis of SOFA that the US troops will no longer patrol, guard or fight insurgents and militants in the urban areas of the country. The troops will go back to their forward bases and remain there until called for help by the Iraqi Government. As per the agreement, some US soldiers will stay back in their capacity as advisors and will not indulge in any combat.

By the time, President Obama gets ready to contest the next presidential election in 2012 there will be no US soldiers on Iraqi soil. He then would be in a position to claim that he delivered what he promised during the 2008 elections. As a candidate, Obama had vigorously argued against the Iraq war describing as a blunder.

But will President Obama accept defeat in Iraq at the hands of the insurgents? Certainly not. Why should he go down in history as a President who was responsible for ending the war in Iraq, even if it is an unpopular war, by conceding defeat to the insurgents? It would be a larger political disaster than what President Richard Nixon faced in Vietnam. After all, the GIs were battling not only insurgents in Vietnam but also North Vietnamese military, which in turn was backed by the Soviets and the Chinese until after the Sino-US détente. In Iraq, on the other hand, the insurgents enjoy no substantial support from any major or even minor power.

Thus, the claim by the Iraqi Prime Minister that the withdrawal of US troops from urban areas to start with and the total planned and phased withdrawal from the country by the end of 2011 is a considerable diplomatic challenge for the Obama Administration. The deadly strike by the insurgents’ days before the July 1^st deadline for ending US military operations in urban centres is an additional challenge. Whoever may be the President now, the US will always be blamed for leaving Iraq more insecure than before the US military intervention.

There is little doubt that the American soldiers who bravely carried out the orders from their political bosses in Washington for years would not like to return with the description: “mission failed.” And, on their part, the Iraqi insurgents will perhaps not allow the Obama Administration to declare victory and exit.  The 130,000 troops that will stay back in Iraq until another two-and-half years will have to assume tacit, if not direct, responsibility for law and order disruptions and continuing political violence.

It took about half a dozen years for the implementation of the Vietnamization policy of the Nixon Administration. Indeed, the Obama strategy is similar in the sense that the US troops have been training the military police of Iraq to assume total responsibility for law and order. If the Iraqi forces succeed, Washington would certainly claim success. But if the Iraqis fail, will the Obama administration accept the blame?

By winding up the military operations in Iraq, President Obama admittedly intends to focus more on Afghanistan and Pakistan. But then 130,000 US troops will continue to stay on in Iraq for more than two years. That means, it is not going to be an either or situation at least in military terms. For that matter, even the “AfPak” strategy involves training and use of local forces to fight the Taliban and other insurgents. The current surge of US troops in Afghanistan will either remain the same or may increase further.

But the real challenge for the Obama administration will come from the fact that any sign of or interpretation of US failure in Iraq would only embolden the Taliban and Afghan insurgents. President Obama’s Cairo speech signaled to the Islamic World that the US, under his administration would alter the Bush policy and peacefully engage the Muslims around the world. But then he delivered that great speech, while the US troops kept on militarily engaging the Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani insurgents. However, the US withdrawal from Iraq may actually be understood as the weakness of the only superpower and that there may be a demand for similar withdrawal of US and allied forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Will Obama then consider US military involvement in South and Southwest Asia as a costly affair and spell out an exit strategy?

The fact remains that while the US disengagement may be economically cheaper and militarily not such a big defeat, its fallout in the region would be negative. This is not to argue that US interventions in these countries are a welcome development. What is significant to note is that disengagement at the time and pace of what the US desires would mean more chaos and instability in the region. And such a scenario would be more expensive for the regional countries than for Washington.

Undoubtedly, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan were politically more stable before the American intervention. Today, the three countries have become more unstable and poorer. Consequently, it is the responsibility of the US to leave the region more peaceful at the time of its departure.

Here the idea is not to recommend prolonged US military presence, but to call for more multilateral and cooperative approach with plural decision-making in resolving such contentious issues. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)