Obama's war

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Monday, January 5, 2009 - 12:52 PM Share

News flash for the president-elect: All our troops are combat troops. It isn't like some American soldiers stroll around Iraq unarmed. Nor do the insurgents inquire about the troops' MOS (military occupational specialties) before detonating an IED. Indeed, I feel safer in Iraq accompanying an infantry unit on foot patrol than I do while riding in a convoy of transport soldiers, who are much more likely to get popped by a roadside bomb. So his promise to get "combat troops" out of Iraq in the next 16 months is a phrase that means much less than it appears to. At any rate, I bet Obama is wrong: I think we are going to have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq -- mentoring, advising and engaged in combat -- for many years to come.

The recent Status of Forces Agreement also means less than it seems. For example, U.S. forces are supposed to get out of major bases in the cities later this year. But there really aren't major big bases in the cities now-the last time I was in Iraq I was told there is really only one -- and U.S. military advisors will remain in urban outposts along with Iraqi forces. I suspect the SOFA really is most meaningful for the political help it will give Prime Minister Maliki in getting re-elected at the end of 2009 by taking the American presence off the table as a wedge issue for Iraqis. 

Here are two grim early predictions for the new administration in Iraq:

  • Obama's first year in Iraq is going to be tougher than Bush's last year. Three reasons for that: First, three rounds of elections are scheduled in 2009, and those tend to be violent in Iraq. Second, the easy U.S. troop withdrawals have been made, and the pullouts at the end of this year will be riskier. Finally, none of the basic existential problems facing Iraq have been answered-the power relationships between groups, leadership of the Shiites, the sharing of oil revenue, the status of the disputed city of Kirkuk, to name just the most pressing ones. Compounding the problem will be the incorrect perception of many Americans that the Iraq was all but over when Obama took office. 
  • Despite the conventional wisdom that the war is nearly over, Obama's war in Iraq may last longer than Bush's, which clocks in at a robust 5 years and 10 months. "So now you back in the trap--just that, trapped," to quote Big Boi and Dre. My best guess is that we will have at least 35,000 troops there in 2015, as Obama's likely second term is winding down. (Self-promotional moment: more on all this in my book "The Gamble: General Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-08," out Feb. 9 from Penguin Press.)

Meantime, marinate a minute on Petraeus's letter to his troops last month: "The year ahead will contain significant challenges, among them: provincial district and national elections; resilient enemies still carrying out deadly attacks; lingering ethno-sectarian mistrust and competition; malign external influences; and a national referendum on the US-Iraq Strategic Agreement."

To those who think this thing is almost over: What part of "lingering ethno-sectarian mistrust" don't you understand? And if you think Petraeus was simply being cautious, listen to former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, who was installed by the United States but whose pessimistic assessment over the weekend was, "I did not imagine the political process would eat itself from inside or that it would abandon the rule of law and establish political sectarianism."

Photo of Obama with General Petraeus in Iraq by Lorie Jewell/U.S. Army via Getty Images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, IRAQ, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
 

OMARFEKEIKI

1:40 PM ET

January 5, 2009

One more reason

I would like to add one reason why Obama is going to have a difficult time dealing with Iraq: One of my terrifying concerns is that the Maliki government will not give a chance for elections for be held; for "security reasons and concerns." All the signs, in my opinion, show that Maliki is preparing to continue in power longer, until further notice. His alliances with tribal leaders in the south, the creation of special forces [which the US and international media covered months a go] the secret creation of special security apparatus that was rumored around 18 months ago… all these signs remind us of what Saddam Hussein did when he was preparing to take over from Ahmed Hassan al Bakr in the early 1970s.

One more reason? Well, repeating the same mistake the Bush administration did: not listening to Iraqis, the ones who spent their lives in Iraq, who lived through the good and bad and who know the community and what it needs after three decades of dictatorship and five years of civil war and ethnic cleansing. That would be a big mistake.

A tip for Obama: you have thousands of Iraqis who are now refugees in the United States. Reach out to them!

 

ESIMMERS

2:33 PM ET

January 5, 2009

SpottieOttieDopalicious

You quoted "SpottieOttieDopalicious!" That's settles it. This is my new favorite blog. Most of all, I am looking forward to the great analysis.

All the best,

Erich Simmers
weaponizedculture.org

 

UNFORGIVABLEBLACKNESS

12:08 AM ET

January 6, 2009

Erich, that alone is what

Erich, that alone is what made me register! I agree he just bacame my new favorite blogger.

 

VABLUE

8:03 PM ET

January 8, 2009

Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute

I was a Ricks fan from back in his Washington Post/Fiasco days but the SpottieOttieDopalicious reference really puts him over the top.

 

DJCARPEN2

9:16 PM ET

January 8, 2009

?

That came out of nowhere!

Question for Mr. Ricks: Are you an Outkast fan? Should I look forward to an erudite discussion of the moral implications of B.O.B.?

 

FCS258

1:18 PM ET

January 6, 2009

Obama will have the same

Obama will have the same problems as Bush and even more.New wars will open up and bring the USA many new problems in the next few years.Be prepared!!

 

STARING IN DISBELIEF

5:51 PM ET

January 7, 2009

Typical journalists view of war...

Always the risks ahead, never the achievements behind. Always the mistakes made, not the ones avoided. Always the things to fear or lose, never the things that can be achieved or gained. If we listen to guys like you, there is never a war worth fighting (oh, except the obvious spectacular successes in hindsight like the original Afghan invasion, but even then with carping).

Iraq was a large risk taken against the backdrop of even larger risk (it had overwhelming congressional support at the time). All the hindsight criticism is valuable from a lessons learned but crippling in its effect on future decisions.

Was WWII "won" in 1941? 1943? 1944? 1945? 1991? When was the VietNam war lost? 1965? 1968? 1973? Or 1975 after we'd given up? When was the Cold War won? 1948? 1972? 1988? 1991? Whether Iraq is ever judged as "worth it" or "won" depends not on what has already happened (as critical as it has been), but what still needs to happen. Your constant sniping pessimism is easy and free and would have made you wrong about every critical war our country has fought since the Revolution.

 

SOCAL55

12:58 PM ET

January 8, 2009

I sadly agree,

We are going to be in Iraq in a major and very expensive way for many years to come. There will be no "victory", President Obama has got to try and wrap our minds around that fact. What we will be doing is trying to repair some of the damage we have caused. It's the right thing to do and it will also help to re-establish the United States as the worlds most important moral authority.

The difficulty will also be to convince the Iraqi people. For almost 6 years our words have said, "we only want to help the Iraq people", our actions.........not so much.

 

HASANFARIS

3:49 PM ET

January 10, 2009

don't let facts stand in the way of sectarianism

The violence in Iraq was much worse during the last elections, yet it still went on despite the terrorist supporters boycotting them.

Obama will have a problem if he listens to any of Iraq's neighbors, especially the supporters for the fifth column that started [or shall I say continued under a different guise] their massacres of the Iraqi people.

Mr. Obama, just look @ the maps of violence and contrast then with the maps of gassings and mass graves to understand which people you should be listening to and which people to ignore, then you should be fine.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More