Blogs and Stories
Will Obama Really End the Iraq War?
Neither plan specifies how long these residual forces would remain by mutual agreement between Washington and Baghdad. Can such a massive presence be regarded as an “end” to the war? And will an Obama administration slow the withdrawal if the Iranians resume their attacks through their proxy militias, or will he leave the Iraqis to their fate?
Starting a war is always easier than ending it. And as George Orwell put it, “the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.” The key question now is whether the Obama administration is willing to lose a proxy war with Iran in order to declare peace in Iraq. An emboldened Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki now calls the SOFA a “withdrawal agreement” to end the U.S. occupation, a language similar to what we often hear from Iran.
We will not know the answer to these questions until the president elect picks a Secretary of State, who can then spell out the road ahead. During the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s position was essentially the same as Obama’s on ending the war. So she is not likely to change course on the basics of the SOFA if she becomes Secretary of State unless there is some terrible breakdown of security in Iraq.
Bound by national security concerns, the opinion of commanders on the ground, and the preservation of vital U.S. strategic interests in the region, the new administration must be ready to change direction depending on what actually happens next in Iraq. Iran remains a huge factor, so outcome of the current standoff with Tehran may alter U.S. policy in Baghdad.
Colin Powell argued that to win a war you need to go in with overwhelming force. But Donald Rumsfeld’s view was that you go with the army you have. Adequate troop levels were never deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating by the day. And because of that, we are now where we are.
Bush may have made the SOFA, but Obama will have to sleep on it.
Salameh Nematt is the International Editor of The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington Bureau Chief for Al Hayat International Arab daily, where he reported on U.S. foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the U.S. drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Qaddafi Struts In
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
The Pharaoh Comes to Washington
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
Iran's Nervous Neighbors
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
I certainly hope so, we have been there far too long...shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I also don't think we need to have a permenant base over in Iraq either....the troops need to ALL leave that country.
"Colin Powell argued that to win a war you need to go in with overwhelming force. But Donald Rumsfeld's view was that you go with the army you have."
Rumsfeld sought to minimize US casualties and to avoid taking over the country and the appearance of an occupation. Those are valid considerations.
Those who now claim we should have gone in with massive force should then also project what the response of the Afghans would have been and where we'd be today had we done so.
Second guessing on Afghanistan and Iraq is usually limited to a simplistic view and little discussion of the repercussions of recommended actions. In fact, proponents of initial massive force should ask themselves how the Middle East would have responded to a large scale occupation of Afghanistan.
Obama will respond to events on the ground just as Bush has had to do. One temptation I hope he avoids is the tendency to view pushback from our enemies as a signal of our failure. And Obama must now consider the consequences of an American pullout -- something conveniently ignored until now.
The author tries to cram too many points (by my count eight points) without fleshing them out further, rendering the piece unreadable. Mr. Nematt should either stick to one or two points and give them the elaboration and treatment that they deserve, for they are interesting points, or he should write longer essays. Otherwise, this piece suffers from the same liabilities as was the case with Mr. Nematt's past pieces for the DB: unreadability and messiness.
We need to have a presents in the Middle east somewhere. The 23 Moslin countries are hanging by a thread and can destablize the world's economies if they war on which other and there is no alliance similar to NATO to step in. On the other hand I have often thought we should consider removing our troops from South Korea, West Germany, and Bosnia. These are less important then the middle east. Also why are we in Africa? If we do not want to go to war to protect American economic interests we should not send our troopers anywhere in the world. While we are on the subject less end our participation in the United Nations. It is a worthless body that has no teeth to resolve any conflict.
I predict that in 2012 we will be as deeply involved in Iraq, as we are now.
It is another Vietnam, and we'll be there for 20 years.
http://www.newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/
We have posted the text of what appears to be the signed Status of Forces Agreement of November 17:
http://publicservice.evendon.com/SOFA-17Nov2008M.htm
Don
Pittsburgh, PA
http://publicservice.evendon.com
Everything on our site is free and permanent.
Loading is very fast.
Each page includes a highlighted link which you can copy/paste to cite the page online.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.