 |
A Progressive Iraq: Obama’s Plan |
 |
Last week I called for progressive plans for Iraq. Today, Barack Obama says he has one:
The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We’ve had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We’ve had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We’ve had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.
I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.
Any progressive plan for Iraq must adhere to the four assertions I’ve put forward. They are, in summary:
- The Iraq War was a mistake.
- Our presence in Iraq is making things worse, not better.
- Iraq is a political problem, and it requires a political solution.
- Our goal in Iraq should not be to “win,†but to leave responsibly.
Barack’s new plan is a step towards these assertions. But it also falls short and leaves some troubling questions that must be answered.
Right off the bat, Obama calls the Iraq war a mistake:
The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We’ve had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We’ve had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We’ve had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.
This is a crucial first step towards building credibility with the American people, the Iraqis, and the larger world. Iraq was the wrong war, and we need to admit that.
Obama also speaks at length about how our presence in Iraq undermines our goals. He doesn’t come full out and say our presence there is making things worse, but he comes pretty close:
The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq’s leaders to reconcile. But as the recent report from the Government Accountability Office confirms, the Iraqis are not reconciling. Our troops fight and die in the 120 degree heat to give Iraq’s leaders space to agree, but they aren’t filling it. They are not moving beyond their centuries-old sectarian conflicts, they are falling further back into them.
However, Obama stumbles a little bit when addressing political solutions to Iraq. His first statement is correct:
Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.
But his “surge of diplomacy” leaves a little to be desired. First, Obama calls for a new Iraqi Constitution. While his reasoning for doing so is sound (the current document was written without the participation of all Iraqi sects), the first constitution took 10 months to write with ratification votes split heavily down sectarian lines. Today, Iraqi politics have become more divisive and sectarian tensions have gotten worse. There is no guarantee a new Constitution would ever be created or ratified, or that a new document could ever represent all Iraqis fairly.
While Obama does well in calling for the UN to oversee this process and says that delegates will not be allowed to leave without an agreement, there is still too much reliance on the Iraqi political process. To be clear, this is a big step beyond “when they stand up, we’ll stand down,” but it isn’t far enough to be called truly progressive.
Along with calling for a new Iraqi Constitution, Obama calls for a large international conference to talk about Iraq. In a step up from other plans, he says who he is going to invite:
This effort should include all of Iraq’s neighbors, and we should also bring in the United Nations Security Council. All of us have a stake in Iraq’s stability. It’s time to make this less about what America is trying to do for Iraq, and more about what the world can do with Iraq.
The goal of this conference would be to secure Iraq’s borders, keep out meddling neighbors, deal with terrorist threats, and “support Iraq’s unity” (whatever that means). Obama specifically mentions working out differences between the Turks and the Kurds and working with Sunni states like Saudi Arabia.
The proposed conference is a welcome change from Bush’s anti-diplomacy, but it still seems a little vague. For example, what might the U.S. be prepared to offer in return for cooperation? How exactly is a stable Iraq in each of these countries’ interests? How do you define a stable Iraq? Most importantly, will you be asking these nations for peacekeeping forces?
A more detailed description of this international conference would convince me that Barack really understands the subtleties of politics in the Middle East, and that he is thinking broadly and deeply enough to be effective.
More troubling, however, is Obama’s take on Iran:
Now is the time for tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure. It’s time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it’s time to deliver a direct message to Tehran. America is a part of a community of nations. America wants peace in the region. You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations. Or you will face further isolation, including much tighter sanctions.
Further isolation is never a good policy. Moreover, though it does use diplomacy, Obama fails to recognize that Iran is anything but a reactionary nation. He doesn’t offer anything to Iran directly, other than the vague “rejoining of the international community.” If North Korea has taught us anything, states like Iran can be brought back to the table with carrots, not sticks.
Obama also has problems with my last assertion as he tries to “leave responsibly.” While he intends to withdraw all combat forces within a year, he advocates maintaining a large residual American troop presence in Iraq:
We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We’ll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We’ll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces.
While he doesn’t tie the removal of these forces to Iraqi political benchmarks expressly, exactly how many troops he is talking about, and how long they are to remain, is a big open question. As Chris Bowers points out, that number could be significant and the time frame could be years.
Any American troops in Iraq are targets. Furthermore, there is no mention of asking for international peacekeeping forces to take over, or specifically asking Arab nations to contribute troops to the anti-terrorism effort. Granted, moving out combat troops from Iraq is a start, but we need a more forward thinking plan. Even though there will be far fewer American troops left in Iraq under Obama, those troops will still lack legitimacy, and they will still be hampered by sectarian civil war and Iraqi political inaction. It is not a full solution.
Despite my criticism, I commend Obama on his plan. As I’ve stated before, progressives need to start coming up with their own plans for the future of Iraq instead of simply criticizing Bush’s failed policies. The Obama plan is a step in that direction. I realize that this speech is the first of many for Barack. I’m hoping that as he refines his message over the coming months, some of my questions will be answered.
But what do you think? As a progressive, is this a plan you fully support? Do you agree with my criticisms or do I go to far? More importantly, what plan do you support for the future Iraq?
DISCUSSION
7 RESPONSES to “A Progressive Iraq: Obama’s Plan”