TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Where will Obama leave Iraq?

ADVERTISEMENT

By JOHN P. HANNAH

Special To The Los Angeles Times

Published: July 5, 2009

On Tuesday, U.S. troops left Iraqi cities in accordance with an agreement negotiated under President George W. Bush. Although President Barack Obama has largely endorsed the Bush timeline for reducing the U.S. military presence in Iraq, far less clear is the extent to which he has adopted his predecessor's appreciation for the importance of achieving America's strategic goals there.

For all his administration's mistakes in Iraq, Bush clearly understood the imperative of victory once U.S. forces were committed. He knew that removing our troops under fire would have been disastrous. Al-Qaeda and Iran would have been emboldened. American credibility throughout the Middle East would have been shattered. Iraq would have descended into chaos, further destabilizing a region vital to U.S. interests.

More positively, Bush also understood that fulfilling our commitment to help Iraq establish a stable democracy could dramatically advance long-term U.S. interests. The Arab Middle East - the region that provided the ideology, funding, leadership and foot soldiers for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - would get a powerful example of a successful, modernizing democracy. And the United States would secure a strategic foothold in one of the Muslim world's historic centers of political, religious and cultural power.

While Western elites may scoff, many people in the Middle East appreciate the validity of Bush's central strategic insight. A democratizing Iraq - aligned with the United States and endowed with vast oil reserves, water resources and a large, industrious population - could transform their region for the better, bolstering the forces of progressive reform at the expense of Sunni and Shiite extremists.

Under Obama, Bush's commitment to winning in Iraq has all but vanished. Convinced from the start that the war was a mistake (a conviction fortified by the Bush team's post-invasion bungling), Obama has for years been the salesman in chief for a narrative of failure: Iraq is seen as a colossal disaster.

When Bush authorized the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the psychological impact was arguably as important as the military one. Amid insurgent claims of victory and hemorrhaging U.S. domestic support, Bush's decision to double-down rather than retreat sent friend and foe alike a powerful message that the U.S. had no intention of abandoning Iraq.

Reassured, Iraqis were galvanized in their efforts to confront al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, and recommitted themselves to building an independent, pluralist democracy. Obama risks fueling the reverse dynamic.

Although the Bush administration made many costly mistakes in Iraq, the surge was a resounding success that put the goal of an independent, democratic Iraq back within reach. Obama is in position to achieve that goal, but only if the U.S. military withdrawal is offset by a corresponding deepening of high-level diplomatic and economic engagement.

That, however, will require the president spend far less time signaling his eagerness to get out of Iraq and more time working with Iraqis to figure out how best we can stay.

John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served as Vice President Dick Cheney's national security adviser in 2005-09.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT