Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 5:26 PM Share

Look, I think old Obama is a pretty good president. And I've said I think Gates is the best secretary of defense ever. But I think getting all hot and bothered over the possibility of taking one more brigade out of Iraq this year overlooks two basic facts:

  • Obama has broken a campaign promise to take out a brigade a month. (I think he was right to do this, but that's neither here nor there.)
  • Right now, we have about as many troops in Iraq as on average over the last six years.

But I know, this is just today's lead...

Meanwhile, old Juan Cole, among others, says that the Iraqi interior ministry's raid on the MEK shows that pro-Iranian hardliners are getting the upper hand in the Baghdad government.

Patrick Riviere/Getty Images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, IRAN, IRAQ, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

JWING

7:37 PM ET

July 29, 2009

Can't let go

The only reason why we're keeping 130,000 in Iraq is because Gen. Odierno is afraid of things reversing and to help secure the Jan. 2010 Iraqi elections. With all the new restrictions on U.S. forces however, will the U.S. even be wanted to provide real help for the vote? If not, why not draw down more now? Also, the Iraqi forces can't defend their country, but I don't see any of their neighbors invading anytime soon, and they're good enough to handle the insurgency as well, so there's another reason for pulling out troops. I think Odierno and others are just afraid to let go. Things are really not going to get qualitatively better there anytime soon, and the Iraqi government can putter along in gridlock for the foreseeable future.

 

CHARLIEFORD

11:40 PM ET

July 29, 2009

Can they?

It's not a rhetorical question, btw, ie, I haven't any answer to this I already think I know.

But, if the we leave, and Maliki and the Shi'a turn on the Sunnis--purging them from the police, etc., hunting them down, denying services to Sunni areas, etc.--will the Sunni insurgency flare up again?

If it does, can Maliki's govt. deal with it?

If he can't, what will Iran's move be?

If Iran moves in (in some degree), or even if Maliki just on his own does crush the Sunnis, what will Saudi Arabia et al's response be?

I realize all this is speculation, but how likely is this scenario, in whole or in part?

I also realize some would say however likely it may be, we've done our part and they need to take it from here, come hell or high water. But I'd still like to know how likely it is.

 

JWING

11:20 AM ET

July 30, 2009

Sectarian war is over

That won't happen because the sectarian war is over. The Sunnis lost and they know it. That's why there is the Sons of Iraq. The majority of the insurgency gave up and switched sides and Maliki and the Shiites know it.

The Shiite south is actually still the poorest part of the country by far. In Anbar, the most Sunni of Iraqi provinces, the Awakening Sheikhs want to run with Maliki in the Jan. 2010 parliamentary elections. The Sunnis are also disproportionally represented in the army compared to their numbers in the population. There has been no reports of Sunnis being transferred around or kicked out. These are all examples contradicting fears that the Sunnis and Shiites will go at it after the U.S. leaves.

As far as Iran goes, they are already there. They are the 1st or 2nd largest trade partner to Iraq. They are the largest source of tourism. They provide electricity and gas to Iraq. They still have large sway over members of the Supreme Council and the Dawa party, plus friends in the Kurdish parties. They are trying to push the Shiites to run together in the United Iraqi Alliance in 2010. Plus they still fund Shiite militants who have had a little uptick in attacks on U.S. forces since April 09. In the U.S. most reporting is on their military policy of supporting the Special Groups, but Tehran's political and economic policy are much more important. They want a friendly Iraq run by Shiites so that it will never be a rival again.

Here's something on Iran's policy towards Iraq that I wrote if you're interested:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2009/03/irans-policy-towards-iraq.html

 

BLUE13326

10:51 AM ET

July 30, 2009

What are you using to base

What are you using to base your opinion on Obama being a good president?

He's had no foreign policy successes (and a few humiliations) and the economy has lost 3 million jobs and counting under his watch. The nosedive in his approval ratings this early in his presidency is unprecedented.

Even if you blame all this on Bush (and you likely do), what concrete positive achievements do you use to base your opinion on him?

 

BILL KELLER

1:51 PM ET

July 30, 2009

Time to come home.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31advtext.html

Diogenes may have an heir.

 

CHARLIEFORD

5:39 PM ET

July 30, 2009

Thanks, JWing & JThomas, for responses to my questions.

I realize it's all conjectural, but it's nice to have a sense for the contingencies. That was all very helpful.

I'm wondering if, with all the unraveling going on (and this doesn't seem to be the kind of problem US power can effectively address--or am I wrong?) if Mr. Ricks still thinks it's necessary to keep the US military involved? Do you think the risks of a renewed civil war are as negligible as seems to be described above? Is there any other reason we need to be there?

 

JWING

9:34 PM ET

July 30, 2009

Possible conflicts

Most of the conflicts in Iraq today are political. Baghdad vs. Kurds, federalists vs. centralists, etc. If there's a flare up it will probably be with Kurdish peshmerga getting into a shootout with an Iraqi army unit. Even then I don't think that would lead to war. At the worst, if the Kurds hopes for an expanded Kurdistan and autonomy on oil are squashed they will push for independence. The U.S. hasn't shown much initiative in starting talks to resolve these issues. All they're doing now is trying to keep out of the political battles and set up communications between the Iraqi units on the ground so they don't start shooting. It's helpful but not really solving anything.

 

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

Read More