When he announced last week that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of this year, said Victor Davis Hanson in NationalReview.com, President Obama did his best to spin it as a victory—a fulfillment of a 2008 campaign pledge. After nine years, he said, U.S. troops would leave “with their heads held high, proud of their success. America’s war in Iraq will be over.” What everyone knows, however, is that the administration wanted to keep a residual force of about 3,000 troops there, because Iraq’s stability remains very fragile. Radicals still detonate car and suicide bombs on a regular basis, the government remains bitterly divided and ineffective, and there’s a continuing possibility that friction among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will erupt into civil war. But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and as a result, America “simply quit and bugged out.” If Iraq melts down in the future, said Max Boot in CommentaryMagazine.com, Obama will bear full responsibility. He could have finessed some “face-saving” formula on the issue of immunity had he wanted to keep troops there, but instead he took the easy way out. To gain political credit for ending the war, Obama “risks undoing all the gains that so many Americans, Iraqis, and other allies have sacrificed so much to achieve.”
To blame Obama is absurd, said Marc Lynch in ForeignPolicy.com. It was President Bush who signed a formal agreement with the Iraqi government in 2008 to withdraw all troops by the end of 2011. And the reality on the ground is that most Iraqis are very jealous of their sovereignty, and “simply didn’t want U.S. troops to stay.” Neither do most war-weary Americans, which is why our imminent departure “should be a cause for real celebration.” Iraqi democracy may still be in its troubled infancy, said E.J. Dionne in WashingtonPost.com, but a few thousand U.S. troops would hardly guarantee stability. And what if they were attacked by the Shiite militias who resent our presence there? Would we send more troops to defend our tiny fighting force, and get sucked back in? America has already sacrificed 4,400 dead, 32,000 wounded, and at least $1 trillion on this ill-conceived war. Enough.
Obama probably had no choice, said Fareed Zakaria in CNN.com, but make no mistake: Our departure will mark a clear disappointment for the U.S., and a “strategic victory” for Iran. The Iranians enjoy close ties to Iraq’s Shiite majority, including Prime Minister Maliki. He and President Jalal Talabani are both known to be friendly with the head of Iran’s Quds security force. With U.S. forces gone, said NationalReview.com in an editorial, our political influence over the Iraqi government will wane, and the Shiites running the country will “tilt more and more Iran’s way.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
But “wasn’t self-determination what the neocons always wanted” for Iraq? said Andrew Sullivan in TheDailyBeast.com. The stated goal of those who promoted this war was to get rid of dictator Saddam Hussein, and establish Iraq as a democracy. That mission, at long last, has been accomplished. If Iraq’s democratically elected government and the majority of the Iraqi people want us to leave, how can we say no? Or was the neocons’ real goal to turn Iraq into a “neo-imperial satellite in the Middle East,” from which to project U.S. power? Sorry, but the Iraqis aren’t interested in serving as a U.S. military base. Look: If Iraq someday collapses into civil war, it won’t be Obama’s fault. “It will be because the entire project was built on wishful thinking from the get-go.”
Continue reading for free
We hope you're enjoying The Week's refreshingly open-minded journalism.
Subscribed to The Week? Register your account with the same email as your subscription.
-
China: a superpower’s slumpThe Explainer After 40 years of explosive growth, China’s economy is now in deep distress — with no turnaround in sight
-
Retirees’ biggest surprise expense
Feature And more of the week's best financial insight
-
The United Auto Workers’ strike has put Democrats in a bind
Feature President Biden will have to pick a side in the dispute
-
Obama: Did he damage his credibility over Syria?
feature With a “slip of the tongue” Secretary of State John Kerry may have not only averted war, but also saved the Obama presidency.
-
Syria: Is a ‘shot across the bow’ enough?
feature The U.S. response to Bashar al-Assad's use of sarin gas must be painful enough to serve as a true deterrent.
-
Rand Paul: What did he achieve with his filibuster?
feature The GOP senator's 13-hour talking filibuster pushed the administration to clarify its drone policy.
-
The military: Do women belong in combat?
feature Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced his decision to end the long-standing ban on female troops serving in combat roles.
-
Iraq: What was gained, what was lost
feature President Obama declared an end to the war in Iraq and welcomed home soldiers at Fort Bragg.
-
Terrorists in court: What did the Ghailani verdict prove?
feature Al Qaida operative Ahmed Ghailani was convicted of one charge—out of a total of 285 charges—for his part in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa.
-
The Catholic Church: A crisis of confidence
feature Was the pope complicit in covering up sexual abuse scandals when he served as a cardinal and an archbishop?
-
Iraq: Is Obama really ending the war?
feature Obama unveiled a timetable under which all “combat units” would leave Iraq by August 2010; the plan also allows for the continued presence of up to 50,000 “support troops” until December 2011.