The End to the Iraq War
President Obama has long pledged to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, an end date that President Bush had negotiated with Iraqis. On Friday he announced he'd do just that, making it sound like good news.
The End to the Iraq War
Trudy Rubin, Inquirer Opinion Columnist
Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin is on a reporting trip to Tunsia and other spots in the middle east. She filed this report.
President Obama has long pledged to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, an end date that President Bush had negotiated with Iraqis. On Friday he announced he'd do just that, making it sound like good news.
But in reality the announcement was a gloss on a negotiating failure. This ending was not what Obama or his military commanders had intended. The Pentagon wanted to leave at least 3,000 to 5,000 as trainers for an Iraqi military that is still far from ready to defend its borders.
That remainder was also meant to symbolize - both to Iran and to Iraqis - that the United States remained firmly invested in Iraqi's future welfare. And Iraqi leaders wanted these trainers to stay. But neither side got what it wanted - which exactly sums up the totality of the Iraq war.
The plan ran aground because U.S. and Iraqi negotiators could not agree on language that exempted U.S. soldiers from prosecution for any misdeeds committed on Iraqi soil. Iraqi leaders refused to endorse immunity because of public anger at previous offenses committed by U.S. contractors, who had no legal check on their actions. Pentagon officials insisted on immunity lest Iraqi politicians backed by Iran try to make difficulties for U.S. soldiers.
It's a shame the two sides could not reach agreement, because Iran is the winner. Moreover, the lack of any U.S. military presence puts more of a burden on the huge number of U.S. civilians who will remain in Iraq, protected by around 5,000 U.S. civilian contractors. It is hard to see how those civilian contractors, mostly ex-U.S. military, will function under the new circumstances.
It's even harder to see how the enormous numbers of embassy personnel will operate, given the hostility of some Iraqi militias to their presence. I wonder if they will have any chance of expanding the broad range of U.S.-Iraqi cultural and economic ties that were envisioned by a Strategic Framework accord we signed in 2008; it will be hard for them to leave their huge embassy without being accompanied by armed guards.
Iran winds up the winner in Iraq - the beneficiary of the failed Bush occupation of the country, which produced a Shiite-led government beholden to Tehran. While Iranians pour into Iraq - as pilgrims, investors, and intelligence agents - the United States will be hamstrung in its efforts to build enduring relations.
This last chapter may be a loss for Obama, but the botched Bush war was a terrible loss for Iraqis, Americans, and the region. The chaos it caused made many Arabs cynical about U.S intentions and competence. It also soured many on democracy, especially if imposed by foreign forces. One reason fifty percent of Syrians still support President Bashar al-Assad is that they fear his fall will lead to the same kind of mayhem they witnessed in Iraq.
As they exit, our soldiers can shake hands with the Iranian soldiers who will be entering Iraq within minutes after we leave. Brilliant!!! Just what the world needs a larger, more powerful & more wealthy (unlike us, they will take the Iraqi oil) Iran. Glad so many of our children and adults died so we could simply pave the way for Iran to take the place over.— kelprod2- Sounds about right!— IvanDejesus
- Thank God we have a president that has some intellect and not a spoiled brat that thinks hes a cowboy.
— FLYERS LOSERS FOR 37 YEARS! - @FLYERS LOSERS FOR 37 YEARS!
I am tired of listening and reading silly comments like yours. Explain how Obama has more 'intellect' than George Bush. They have similar education and are clearly more driven than anyone commenting on newspaper stories. Was GWB a good president? NO! He represented the failed republican agenda of pandering to 'moderates'; nitwits who have no political thought. Cite Obama's accomplishments, there are none! Obama is the worst president since Jimmy Carter.— buggpop - So you're implying that "W" wasn't far enough to the right? Lmao!! Then you call someone else is a nitwit with no ploitical thought. Thanks for the laugh, buddy.
— wokmaster - Amazing what Obama can accomplish when he doesn't have to deal with an obstructionist Congress...— wokmaster
-
@wokmaster
I'm not your buddy. Obama's 'jobs bill', his latest attempt to raise taxes is going nowhere in the democrat controlled senate.— buggpop - You mean the minority-controlled Senate? You realize that they needed 60 votes to actually vote on that part of the bill, RIGHT? — wokmaster
- With that in mind, why would Obama even propose a bill that would not pass in that environment? Nothing more than political grandstanding in the attempt to demonize the 'enemy' as he calls his opponents. That's pretty much 0bama's strategy from here on out — camtheman
- He proposed it because he believes it will HELP the economy. It's long overdue that he demonize Repugs because they have shown time and time again that they will obstruct anything he proposes for pure political purposes. Now it is up to the American people to decide who wants to better this country and who wants to double down on dumb. — wokmaster
- If you had a clue, you'd know the answer. Republicans are saying that Obama should propose a job bill that can get passed. What would that be? According to Republicans, the only thing that will grow jobs is tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and eliminating environmental regulations. That's it. And EVERYONE knows that none of those things will create a single job. So Obama proposed a plan that would actually create jobs that consists of items that Republicans have traditionally supported. Republicans are now against tax cuts? They are against infastructure spending now? Obama did what he could under the circumstances. You'd have to be a complete idiot at this point not to see what Republicans are doing. — MikeP
- gotta know when to fold 'em...— weir99
Trudy Rubin and others who select the facts to partially inform, and ultimately, misdirect, forget that while the military pulls out, American business and Western allies business will stay and only expand their presence. Even subcontracting work, for oil, won by the Russians, will be drilled by the Americans. And all of the up front profits will come from the setting up and operation of rigs, pipelines and distribution systems, no matter the price of oil passing through the drilling equipment. And that is just oil. Telecom contracts are not going to Iran. And so on. Trudy misses the entire point of the military going in first if she thinks that is the only power the US has to use in the world. If it was, we would be shooting our way to Canada, much less Iraq. Business ties and diplomatic ties replace force and extortion. The Army is just to expensive a motivator to use all of the time.
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
