Stoopid Stuff

Johnny Comes Marching Home

16 Months. 19 Months. 23 Months. I don't really care. All we've heard for close to six years is talk about drawdowns, discussions of withdrawals, standing up when they stand down and vague promises of troop reductions at some future point when we'd made enough "progress on the ground". Which, of course, was never defined.

I'm not concerned about the "residual force" of 35-50,000 American troops that Obama tells us are necessary. We've seen nothing but increases in the number of American servicemen and women deployed to the theater since the buildup to the invasion. The thought of having our troop presence reduced to under 50,000 fills me with joy. In theory, the SOFA takes care of the rest.

I am somewhat concerned about they way the withdrawals are structured-that is, the process is so heavily back loaded. That's an indication of some substantial doubts that the withdrawal process will proceed without major complications, and it leaves open the possibility of delays in force reductions that would not be so likely if significant troops have already been withdrawn. But at this point I'm willing to offer President Obama the benefit of the doubt, accepting his commitment to a complete American military withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011, as per the Status of Forces Agreement in place.

And for this process to be completed, it has to start somewhere. It starts with an order from the Civilian executive to bring the troops out, and a deadline for having that accomplished. So now, finally, after six years, a genuine end to this insane, wasteful and tragic war has begun. That's a great deal more than we've gotten before, and is cause for real joy and celebration.

The larger question, mostly left unasked, is why exactly we can't just bring all our troops home now. What are they doing there that is so vital to our interests? If you set aside the mad neocon desire to have a dominant American military presence on the oilfields to ensure that other nations didn't choose to do something with their oil that we wouldn't approve of, then it becomes a real valid question. The disturbing thing about any potential answer is that none of them explains this use of American forces in terms of defending America's own interests. Are the troops there to defend Israel? Sure seems like Israel hasn't had a great deal of trouble "defending" herself. Are they there to ensure free navigation of international waters, including the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? When has that ever required ground forces? Are they there to play a more symbolic role, keeping governments as diverse as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt from behaving in a manner the American leadership deems detrimental? If the American military needs entire divisions already on the ground in a given region in order to intimidate the nations of that region, we've squandered a lot of Trillions building the thing.

Certainly, part of it is guilt. The American invasion unleashed the forces that led to the Iraqi Civil War, the ethnic cleansing, the killings and the destruction. If America turns her back, the reasoning goes, and more killing results, that too will be on America's head. But while it's true that America is responsible for the state of affairs we see today, how long must she continue to police the Iraqis? When will the actions they choose to take be accepted as THEIR decisions, and not a result of an admittedly criminal and misguided occupation?

The shape of the larger outcome is mostly decided, at this point. Iraq will not be a democracy, not in the way the US or France is a democracy. She will be ruled by the tyranny of a Shi'a majority, dominated by a corrupt political party heavily influenced by Tehran, with an increasingly bellicose separatist group operating autonomously in the North. The Kurds are a special problem, completely surrounded, as they are, by nations and governments that fear and loathe them. They have been empowered all out of proportion to their actual role in the region by their partnership with the Americans since the First Gulf War. Once the Americans are no longer in a position to protect them, there is very little to prevent the Iraqis, with the support of the Iranians and the Turks, from crushing them in an afternoon.

It's at least possible, and perhaps likely, that as a result of the American withdrawal from Iraq, more blood will be shed. And it is certainly fair to say that the American occupation led inevitably to that outcome. But at some point, and this seems very much to be that point, America has to look inward, to her own interests. The time for international adventuring with neither goal nor reason is past. Obama is bringing this chapter to a close, every bit as much for pragmatic as for political reasons. Now, we can only wait for him to reach the same conclusion in South Asia...

posted by mikey @ 12:47 PM