PRINT
EMAIL
COMMENT
BUZZ UP
DIGG
OUR PREMIUM CONTENT
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report
SUBSCRIBER HELP
CURRENT LETTER
Facing the Recession :
How Bad Will It Be?
PREVIOUS ISSUES
Iraq is a different place today from just a few months ago when Barack Obama told American voters that he would withdraw U.S. troops from the war-torn Mideast nation within a year and four months of assuming the presidency if he's elected.
Still, Obama is unlikely to waver from his view on a withdrawal, despite many complexities. Expect him to stick to his long-held belief that a timetable would push Iraq into making more political progress and that Afghanistan should be a bigger priority. Plus to backtrack on his Iraq policy now would amount to political suicide.
When Obama travels to Iraq next week, he'll find that violence is far less frequent than a year ago, thanks to the surge that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain fought hard for when few other candidates were willing to do so. Iraqi forces are more able to do the job now, having proven that they can defeat insurgents and hold on to the territory that they have secured.
"The way you resolve an ethno-sectarian civil war is to get a cease-fire deal but have a third party to implement it, because each side doesn't trust the other side with guns," says Stephen Biddle, senior fellow for Defense Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. "That's where we are now: the nascent phase of a nationwide cease-fire."
Much of the Sunni insurgency is neutralized, having been co-opted to support the U.S. presence. The Mahdi Army, Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia, has been largely beaten, both in the Sadr City, a district in Baghdad, and in the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq. And the Iraqi parliament will soon set elections on the provincial level, which should produce leaders who have legitimacy and the backing of citizens.
But serious problems remain unresolved.
The surge hasn't led to many political gains. There's no agreement to share oil revenue, no legislation on demobilizing militias and a mixed record on reconciliation efforts. "As long as there is no clear progress on the political front, the military gains are very fragile," says Marina S. Ottaway, director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
U.S. forces remain indispensable. Though Iraqi forces are making gains, they continue to rely on U.S. participation in big operations. Al Qaeda is still strong in the northern Iraq. And if sectarian fighting is light compared to the last two years, that's in part because much of the damage has already been done. Once mixed neighborhoods have turned homogenous, as Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias each forced members of their rival sect to flee or die. Infrastructure and basic services remain inadequate more than five years after the U.S. invasion. Oil production is well under the 3 million barrels per day that the U.S. had hoped to see by now. Availability of electricity and clean water is also lagging far below Iraqis' needs.
All of the above augurs for a continued U.S. presence -- perhaps for many years. But that will be hard. The troops in Iraq are now needed in Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating. No other combat forces are available. Moreover, Iraqi leaders are demanding the U.S. set a timetable for withdrawal as part of an agreement for a long-term U.S. presence. Iraqi leaders may be acting in response to domestic political pressure, but that doesn't mean they'll back down.
In the end, no matter who is president, the U.S. approach will be cautious. Obama won't run for the exits because he'll know that would lead to chaos. And McCain will accept the fact that a big, long-term presence is beyond U.S. means.
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.
POSTED BY: Common Sense (July 17, 2008 09:08 PM)
Good point. This is exactly why everyone needs to vote for McCain. Obama wants to surrender to Iran & al-queda and let them have Iraq.
POSTED BY: Bert (July 18, 2008 05:32 AM)
We came in with power and have maintained it. If we leave there will be a vaccum and guess who will fill it? Wolfy is correct.
POSTED BY: Kent (July 18, 2008 04:27 PM)
A friend of mine is in a Provincial Reconstruction team in Iraq. He says they are now able to do all sorts of projects to improve the infrastructure because the violence has died down. He was emphatic that we cannot leave or the sectarian violence will resume killing many people, and drawing the neighboring countries into the vacuum.
Those who helped us will be killed and the fault line between Shia and Sunni in the Middle East will break into open war in Iraq, threatening the region's ability to supply oil. He says they need 4 or 5 years to bring Iraq up to the point they can resist their neighbors and be sure Al Queda or the militias do not return.
If that is true, as the previous commenters have said, electing Obama would be a mistake. Will we take in millions of Iraqis like we took in so many Vietnamese to keep them from being slaughtered for supporting us in the aftermath of abondoning Vietnam.
E-Mail Article
Print Article
Reprint Article
