Zaid al-Ali on Obama's Iraq policy

Iraqi Zaid al-Ali carefully parses Obama's statements and policy positions on Iraq and develops what strikes me as a very sound analysis:

But if Barack Obama's familiarity with and judgment about Iraq is clearly imperfect, he does understand that the US gains nothing by extending its stay in the country. He also understands that an immediate and unconditional withdrawal is not in his country's interest, and that he must proceed with caution in order to encourage a propitious environment that will allow for a withdrawal. His plan for Iraq seeks to "encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment [sixteen months, i.e. by June 2010] called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order".

The fact that Obama accepts that the Iraq war should never have happened, and that it should end as soon as possible, is a large part of what caused so much celebration in the world on 5 November 2008. Some of his supporters have ignored Obama's reasoning and have mistaken him for a dove: but at this stage, all that matters is that he is intent on withdrawing, for whatever reasons. Many Iraqis doubt that there will ever be a withdrawal, based on the assumption that the US is somehow benefitting financially from the occupation (by secretly stealing Iraqi oil or otherwise). The truth however is that Obama has already operated his cost-benefit analysis and decided long ago that the US would be better off if the occupation ended. His convincing victory on 4 November also provided him with the mandate to implement his plan. The emerging question will be whether he can actually manage to withdraw without causing chaos in the country and in the region.

***

The Barack Obama administration will almost certainly amount to a return to the Bill Clinton years, when chauvinistic military adventures were more infrequent and of a lesser scale than they have been since 2000, but during which United States interests were sometimes prioritised over those of weaker and more vulnerable states. For Iraqis, a calculating US president could still represent an improvement over the George W Bush years, assuming that the person doing the maths knows how to add.

Comments

[Jeffrey -- New York]

James,

It looks like a new security deal will be approved by the Iraqi parliament (with no input from Obama and his 500 advisors):

Iraqi Cabinet: Three More Years Sound Good.

By calling Hayder al-Khoie and Mohammed Fadhil "baby Chalibis," you're announcing to everyone a lack of understanding of Iraqi affairs. Hayder is from a prominent Shia family (you might want to research who his father is and what happened to him) and Mohammed is one of the three Fadhil brothers (Sunni) who, while supporting the overthrow of Saddam, have no connection to Ahmed Chalabi.

I agree with you, however, that it is unlikely that Obama will turn out to be the kind of president that the anti-war defeatists have hoped for. I mean, really, Obama was a candidate who said that he wants to pull troops from Iraq and have them fight in Afghanistan, while also suggesting an invasion of Pakistan might not be a bad idea. Does THAT sound like someone the Code Pink fanatics can get behind?

Let me put this without delicacy: Do you think the first black American president wants to look like a pussy in front of the brothas?!

I don't think so. The campaign and all its "kumbaya" rhetoric is OVER. Time to knock heads.

*

[James Rytting]

The incisive question Zaid al-Ali posed is whether the interest of the Iraqi people will be part of the equation when Mr. Obama makes his decisions. Zaid answers that question correctly -- "No".

Mr. Obama's cabinet choices confirm Zaid's insight; Mr. Obama is constructing an executive branch from proponents of the war -- Emanuel, Summer, Gates, Sen. Clinton (who was just ringingly endorsed for Secretary of State by no less a war criminal than Henry Kissinger). They will push for an Iraqi policy based in large part on what they perceive are Irael's interest as a regional superpower. That means, almost by definition, that an actual, as opposed to faux, withdrawal will depend on whether the new administration believes it can be accomplished without ceding influence to Iran.

So I disagree that Mr. Obama's has already made a decision to withdrawal from Iraq, and disagree with the hypothesis that its based on a "cost benefit analysis" of what's in the U.S.'s interest; certainly the interests of the political base that got Mr. Obama through the Democratic primary did not heavily weigh, nor even the economic interests in which his rhetoric of withdrawal is couched.

Indeed, we should get ready for another epoch of Clintonesque deceit. Mr. Obama says he will withdraw "combat brigades," but that is really a carefully coded loophole for continuing to build military bases from Mosul to Basra, (See the Quaker Lobby's website. http://www.fcnl.org/
iraq/bases.htm), and man them with thousands of troops (non-combat of course).

On the other hand, Mr. Obama may disappoint the baby Chalibi's quoted by Jeffrey who were counting on Bush to turn the country over to, at best, plutocracy with a measure of independence, or, more likely, a satrap along Kuwaiti lines, ... what with, the petty-bourgeoise wetdreams of the neocons ending in a sticky mess. Undoubtedly, too, Mr. Obama will staunch the idiotic millinarian rhetoric (which has largely faded away as it is)that right wing U.S. zionists fabricated

However, in the end, unless the anti-war movement shows at least a glimmer of the potential it exhibited when the U.S. first invaded, the pace of withdrawal will be about the same as, say, from S. Korea or the Philippines.

[Jeffrey -- New York]

Andrew,

For the last four and a half years I've been running Iraqi Bloggers Central, a website covering the English-language Iraqi bloggers living both inside and outside Iraq, several of whom I have befriended. Let's add a few of their voices to your entry:

Hayder al-Khoie (responding to commenter Cihad from his entry Bush, Saddam & Obama):

Cihad, Bush toppled Saddam, a new constitution was written, that constitution was ratified, a new government was democratically elected by the Iraqi people, the Iraqis can now speak and think for themselves, and the list can go on.

If all that was a failure, then I pray Obama continues to 'fail' in Iraq.

I am not saying there were no sacrifices along the way, but something happened on 9/4/2003 that sent shivers down the spine of every leader in the region. Saddam, whose name you could barely whisper, was relegated to the trash bin of history.

If Bush had listened "to the people" Saddam would still have been untouchable.

No Cihad I cannot deny that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want the US troops out of Iraq, I myself want them out of Iraq. No one with any 'gheera' wants armed foreigners on their soil for the sake of it, but the million dollar question is when, and under what circumstances, should they leave?

Mohammed Fadhil (from an article responding to the American presidential election):

Finally, I would like to take off my hat for the man who’s leaving the White House: President George Bush, the liberator of Iraq. Invading Iraq was a sound decision in spite of the mistakes that were made. He and Senator McCain, whose surge strategy saved Iraq from slipping down the brink of civil war, will be remembered as heroes by millions of freedom-loving Iraqis.

*