Writing in the WSJ yesterday, Max Boot bewails our president’s insufficient engagement with the Iraqi government on the status of US forces remaining in theater after the 2011 draw-down deadline negotiated by his predecessor:
The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn’t insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn’t require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers’ excessive demands, but he didn’t.
He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to “end” the “war in Iraq.” Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.
The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.
When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn’t serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.
Stuff and nonsense, believes Michael Totten, writing in The New Republic:
Iraq is a completely different country today (than in 2006). Al Qaeda in Iraq scarcely even exists anymore. No militia, either Sunni or Shia, controls territory or has its own “capital” anywhere. Baghdad’s government is not going to fall, no matter how much Tehran tries to undermine it. No one will be able to claim even implausibly that Americans were driven out of Iraq under fire. Nor can anyone plausibly say the United States lost. The enemies of the United States and Iraq’s elected government have either been vanquished, forced to give up the gun, or driven into the shadows…
Iraq just isn’t as dangerous anymore, not to itself and not to others. If Iran tries to destabilize it with terror militias again, Iraq will fight back. And the Iraqis know how to fight back effectively now after so many years of American training. If Iran actually tries to invade with conventional forces—a spectacularly unlikely event, but one never knows in that part of the world—odds are excellent that the American military would respond to the breach of international law and sovereignty by again joining the fight alongside the Iraqi military.
Iraq has been gearing up to stand on its own for years. President Obama merely decided the time would come sooner rather than later. A Republican president would have eventually made the same decision even if it might have taken a little bit longer. Few Americans are in the mood for any more nation-building or babysitting. Iraqis, for their part, are tired of being built-up and babysat by Americans. Some kind of withdrawal and disengagement has been a long time coming for those reasons alone. A substantial number of American officials were persuaded that sticking around in Iraq to prevent a catastrophe was probably wise as long as we’d leave when a howling abyss no longer yawned at everyone’s feet. For better or for worse, that time has arrived.
One of these two worthies is almost certainly right. A great deal hangs in the balance.
Discuss?
For someone who campaigned on openness, honesty, and endless dialog and discussion, our POTUS seems to want to govern by presidential fiat, doesn’t he?
Totten’s record isn’t anything to write home about. He’s optimistic, but sometimes optimism is another name for deluded. I think the latter is more applicable in this case.
The Sadrists don’t like us, or the current government we are leaving behind. I predict that as soon as we leave, the Sadrists will like the Iranian 5th column they are and start undermining things.
They have just gone to ground and are waiting it out. Like the forces of Imperial Japan on the islands. Our Navy shelled and bombed the crap out of them before our invasion troops landed. They holed up, waited it out, when the shelling let up so our boys could land up they came.
QM, I’ve been reading Totten’s stuff for a long time, and he seems to have a good grasp of the region. I will note that he either ignored Boot’s point about Obama’s apparent attempt to spike negotiations, he considers that fair politics to keep a campaign promise.
I’m not too fussed about the Sadrists; Arabs have no use for Persians, and Sadr is a blatant tool of Iran.
And Joe? Please don’t insult the soldiers of Imperial Japan by comparing them to the Sadrist thugs.
QM, it is my opinion that, in his own area, Mr. Totten is excellent. He lived in Lebanon, and while initially over-optimistic about the ME, esp. Beirut, he consistently provides the most realistic view of the ME, based on his time in the region, not just from sitting back in some office in the States.
When Mike is wrong, he admits it and learns from it. One of his great quotes is, paraphrasing, that anyone who pretends to know what is going to happen in the ME is doing just that, pretending.
Of all the persons reporting on the ME, MJT is the person I view with the most validity.
Casey and Ron,
Totten has often been wrong, alas. In this case I think he’s deluded.
While Sadr is an Iranian tool, he has a strong following, with great potential for mischief, that is simply lying low for now.
As for him having lived in Lebanon, that in itself does not produce credibility. What I look for is results and he will get that only if he is truly able to make extrapolations from what he knows to the ground. Totten has been a number of times, but he has also been very wrong as well. Let’s just say I’m glad he is not a foreign policy advisor.
This is not the same as calling the man an idiot. He may be an intelligent man, I don’t know, but in fairness one must condition the fact of his screw ups on the fact that Arab culture is not the most predictable on earth. Within the bounds of Islam, they are predictable to a point, but no one is going to get rich if you need a record of 85% or better on those clowns.
QM, where/on what has MJT been materially wrong? He seldom predicts as he knows the ME is basically FUBAR.
Heck, I don’t think most of us could successfully predict our own clowns at 85%.
I do think it’s true that if Iran send troops over the Iraqi border there would be a certain clarity of the situation that would quiet opposition towards the committment of American forces.
It would also open up the question of whether handling the current situation better could have prevented such a thing from happening in the first place, with far less loss of lives, both American and Iraqi – to say nothing of Iranian, they’re people too, after all.
JTDC, this guy wouldn’t be trying to angle for just such a thing so he could look like a hero sending the cavalry in, could he?
“If Iran actually tries to invade with conventional forces…odds are excellent that the American military would respond…by again joining the fight alongside the Iraqi military.”
…50,000 to 100,000 US troops being instantaneously moved, fully prepared, into position by means of the new teleportation technology that someone certainly has invented. Haven’t they?
As far as I know the Iranians haven’t perfected teleportation yet either (maybe that’s the reason for the centrifuges?). Any Iranian invasion is going to be preceded by a buildup on the border, which will allow us an opportunity to match and exceed.
…distances–and political wills–being equivalent and all.
1) We’re a damn sight better than the Iranians at moving troops around, even around the globe.
2) We’ve got a large force in Kuwait, and it looks like the plans are to enlarge it.
3) We don’t have to match the Iranians tank for tank. Our kit is better, and we can be assured of air superiority. The Iranians know this.
4) The Iraqi army isn’t going to stand aside, they’ll resist an Iranian invasion. Thus the numbers we need to move into theater are even lower.
5) Not only is invasion contrary to recent Iranian history, but a shooting war between themselves and the US directly threatens their medium-to-long term goals. They can’t risk that we’d use an invasion of Iraq as an excuse to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, if not the entire regime.
Agreed, although my thoughts were:
x)We can send a carrier group
y)There’s still the pre-positioning ships at Diego Garcia. Just add Marines, and stir.
z)Most Iraqis loathe Iran. They’ll fight.
Simultaneously, airstrikes from cloaked CVs in the Persian Gulf would flatten Tehran and sweep the skies of all Iranian F-14s.
I’m sure Lex would love splashing the Tomcats.
You know there is not one jot or tittle in change between the arabs in Iraq today then back in 2006 or 1906 or 1506 or 1006. As they were so they remain.
A new pack of corrupt thieves and scumbags has crawled or slithered to the top of the bonepit of Iraqi rulership without making the slightest iota of difference in their or Iraqi’s view of the world and how the game is played.
You have the words yourself on the right side of the page. Napier could have no more effect on these people than Nietzsche. Nothing changed there and nothing ever will.
I’m in full agreement with NOT leaving our troops in Iraq if they aren’t granted immunity from Iraqi prosecution. “Memoratums of Understanding” are only feasible when kept private…that isn’t going to be the case in Iraq as subjecting our soldiers to prosecution is a very public issue in Iraq right now and they’re salivating at the mouth. We should leave even if they grant soldiers immunity. Screw them. Iran and Iraq killed each other for a decade and it cost us far less than the last decade worth of “liberation”. We didn’t expect the French to stay around and babysit after they helped us with our revolution, nor did we want them. We’ve been there far too long already.
Totten has a long history of being incredibly bullish on the war. Nothing new to see there.
If nothing else, is style in the above snippet is much more breathless than Boot’s. Never a good indicator of wisdom.
IMO Mr. Totten has a long history, in great detail, about the realities of the ME, including Iraq.
I’m not sure how anyone can have read Mike over the years and not believe that he has both feet on the ground re the ME. And he has a lot of boots on the ground time in the ME.
I’ve read Mike over the years. I’ve even donated to him. I like much of what he’s done, and think his voice is a worthwhile one to have around.
That said, I wouldn’t bet the house on a feasibility study authored by him. He’s not well-suited to that type of analysis.
Sterling, point taken, though I am unaware of anyone writing on the ME that I would bet the house on re any feasibility study.
Kind of like the stock market -lots of people will tell you why it happended, after it happened.
Iraq is Iran’s core foreign policy issue.
The Iranians have been developing their influence in Iraq since before 2003. They have not developed enough power to control Iraq outright. There are too many in Iraq, even among the Shia, who distrust Iranian power. Nevertheless, the Iranians have substantial influence — not enough to impose policies but enough to block any they strongly object to. The Iranians have a fundamental national security interest in a weak Iraq and in the withdrawal of American forces, and they had sufficient influence in Baghdad to ensure American requests to stay were turned down.
Measuring Iranian influence in Iraq is not easy to do. Much of it consists of influence and relationships that are not visible or are not used except in urgent matters. The United States, too, has developed a network of relationships in Iraq, as have the Saudis. But the United States is not particularly good at developing reliable grassroots supporters. The Iranians have done better because they are more familiar with the terrain and because the price for double-crossing the Iranians is much higher than that imposed by the United States. This gives the Iranians a more stable platform from which to operate. While the Saudis have tried to have it both ways by seeking to maintain influence without generating anti-Saudi feeling, the Iranian position has been more straightforward, albeit in a complex and devious way.
Let us consider what is at stake here: Iran has enough influence to shape some Iraqi policies. With the U.S. withdrawal, U.S. allies will have to accommodate themselves both to Iran and Iran’s supporters in the government because there is little other choice. The withdrawal thus does not create a stable balance of power; it creates a dynamic in which Iranian influence increases if the Iranians want it to — and they certainly want it to. Over time, the likelihood of Iraq needing to accommodate Iranian strategic interests is most likely.
The possibility of Iraq becoming a puppet of Iran cannot be ruled out.
Well said….”dynamic” indeed.
I’m not sure the dynamic necessarily increases Iranian influence. Nobody doubts Al Sadr is a tool of the Iranians. A major reason for his support in Iraq was due to his anti-American stance. Now that there aren’t any Americans in Iraq he doesn’t have that going for him, which means that his pro-Iran stance is a relatively larger negative than it was. No doubt the Iranians have other levers to influence Iraqi policy, but the very nature of the Iran-Iraq dynamic means that those levers are mainly single-use.
It will be interesting to see the results of the next Iraqi elections.
It leaves Iran as the largest conventional military in the region by a fur piece, nukes or no nukes. I don’t know how it couldn’t help but increase their influence. If it doesn’t, Supreme Leader down in history as Worse Than Carter.
And Muqtada or otherwise, 65% of Iraq shares a religion with Iran. A single-use lever has plenty of utility when it’s that long.
We’ll cut a deal with them sooner or later, publicly or otherwise.
I don’t see why they can’t both be right. Obviously Obama screwed the pooch in the negotiations (from time to time I get this sneaking suspicion that Obama has no idea what he’s doing). Just as obviously our pulling troops back to Kuwait won’t result in catastrophe. At least not right away. By the time the wheels come off the Iraqi wagon (again) we’ll either have a new President, who doesn’t suffer from Recto-cranial Inversion, or we’ll have bigger problems than what’s going on in Durkadurkastan.
I think we will be having much larger problems in the near future that will prevent us from doing much thereafter.
I feel like Obama spiked these negotiations on purpose. I think he had to fulfill his campaign promise to his core supporters to get us out of Iraq (but into Uganda, Libya, etc.) to keep his hopes alive in 2012. I, for one, am glad we’re out of there. Now if we can just get out of Afghanistan and quit pissing good dollars down a rat hole we’re borrowing from China, we’ll be fine.
+1
I feel POTUS likes to use & abuse the military at his whim as he truly resents them….he has never supported our military and now that he HAS TO as part of his job, it causes him nothing but grief…..He also uses it when he wants to manipulate voting as that has always been his forte.
Iraq needs to get up on its own but the issues they face are grave….democracy, yes. Stability, not so much.
Obama is a feckless, immoral bast@rd. The sooner we put him out to pasture, the better for our country.
On top of spiking them this way, I feel the “Super Committee” will somehow not come to a conclusion how to cut the paltry $1.2T and the trigger for the deep DoD cuts will, in fact occur.
Yep, nothing like maneuvering a country into economic and national security ruin by a nation of “leaders” (and I use that word more than lightly) who can’t come to any decisions, unless it involves handing out public money to their supporters….
As Lex often says: “it is to weep.”
Related reports claim that Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki in months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations and the widthdrawal of troops by year’s end. We know that his predecessor, by comparison, did so weekly via telcon. it suggests a question of wills – the will to finish the job.
In addition, it is now being reported that Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September, despite not having spoken with Mr. Maliki in months as stated above.
These two facts alone suggest that the WSJ article is far closer to the truth than Mr. Totten.
What? Will all those domestic votes to campaign for, take an hour to talk to the head of state where your forces are stationed and fighting! Come on….you’d think you thought Obama was the President and Commander-in-Chief or something (by vote)…
On the one hand I tend to think The Big O spiked the negotiations on purpose, to get out without having to take responsibility if things go south. If thing go bad he can say we left because they wouldn’t agree to term. It they go well he can say he got us out and things are fine.
Unfortunately, I don’t think he is smart enough to think through those chess moves.
Unfortunately, I don’t think he is smart enough to think through those chess moves.
I think even checkers would be a stretch for him.
There are some that would consider that RACIST! I just think it’s funny.
How do you quote in italics?
Cut an paste, thus:
How do you quote in italics?
Then, in the front put a “side caret” pointing to the left, then em and close with a “side caret >
Cut an paste, thus:
How do you quote in italics?
Then, in the front put em between less than and greater than symbols
Close with a /em between less than and greater than symbols at the end.
“less than symbol”em”greater than symbol”How do you quote in italics?”less than symbol”/em”greater than symbol”
Open the “you can use these HTML tags” link to see how they look in real life. I found that if I tried to use them in the example, they acted as the commands and things went away.
“Got it. Thanks.”
Ratification by the Iraqi Parliament? Since that’s not the normal SOP for these SOFAs, it’s an obvious (and successful) attempt to stack the deck to get what the Administration wanted. Kind of like the Fast and Furious campaign to fatten up incorrect gun statistics. Nothing this guy does surprises me, but his gall is amazing.
+1M..Shack, and Alfa Mike.
I’ll take door # 2.
Lex: I think they’re both right. I won’t say why here. I have some skin in the game on this one, too; ask me in 2013 how things are going.
(Although I’m not as optimistic as Totten, I’m leaning toward “they’ve got a shot”.)
Just because the process stinks doesn’t make it a bad decision. Time to let the Iraqis stand up. It’s not like we aren’t busy or have money to burn…
[...] Two visions of Iraq [...]