President Obama Chooses Democracy Over Short-Term Security Interests In Iraq

[bigtree]

from Max Fischer at the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/obamas-difficult-choice-on-iraq-democracy-over-security/247173/


President Barack Obama's announcement today that all U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end is about much more than just American troop deployments. His administration faced a tricky dilemma in Iraq. He could leave the troops, knowing they would play an important role in Iraqi security and in counter-terrorism. Or he could bow to the troubled and often dysfunctional Iraqi Parliament, which has not formally requested that the Americans stay. Ultimately, Obama seems to have chosen long-term diplomatic interests over short-term security interests. It's not the kind of calculus one usually sees from the U.S. in the Middle East, but it might be exactly the right approach for Iraq -- and, in the long run, for the U.S. as well . . .

If Obama left troops in Iraq, he would be helping that country's security but subverting its sovereignty and its political process. The perceived legitimacy of Iraqi politicians and of the democratic process itself would take a hit in the eyes of Iraqi voters, who in turn might become a little more skeptical about democracy and a little less likely to pick the ballot over the bullet. Despite the continued violence in Iraq and its still incredibly severe problems of every kind, there have been some small but very real miracles in that country's democratization. Civilians, often at enormous personal risk, have chosen to engage earnestly with the process, trusting this new system, volunteering for political parties, and running for office. Iraqi leaders who might have had wielded greater power if democracy had failed there -- especially Sadr -- have instead given up a great degree of their personal influence, trusting that they will be better off under a system that is meant to promote everyone's interests collectively . . .

This isn't a surprising move from the Obama administration, which has clearly stated several times it will not keep troops in Iraq without formal government invitation. Since the summer of 2010, when Vice President Joe Biden led a sort of "reset" of U.S.-Iraq diplomacy, the U.S. has made a concerted effort to treat Iraq as an ally rather than as a subservient client state. When Iraq was deadlocked by months of Parliamentary bickering over forming a ruling coalition, the White House could have pressured Parliamentary leaders one way or another to quickly resolve the dispute. After all, the faltering Parliament made it more difficult for the country to make much-needed security and economic improvements. And Biden did travel to Baghdad several times during this difficult period. Still, he was careful to never interfere, respecting the Iraqi political process as independent and sovereign.

The decision not to interfere in Iraqi politics, even when it might be the best thing for both Iraq and the U.S. in the short term, was a hard choice in summer 2010 and it's a hard choice now. But it might be the best thing that the U.S. could do to help Iraq continue progressing on the long and difficult path to democracy. A truly, functionally democratic Iraq -- even one that is closer to Iran and further from the U.S. than it is today -- would ultimately be the best possible outcome to serve Iraq's 30 million people and to honor the memory of the 1,814 American troops killed there.


read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/obamas-difficult-choice-on-iraq-democracy-over-security/247173/

related:

VP Biden knocks down yet another excuse to remain militarily engaged in Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9006554

Puppet wants to hold his own strings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5022077

Biden: US will follow Iraq wishes on troop pullout
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4065558

A Clear Iraq Exit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7813595

[bigtree]

1. .

[malaise]

2. K & R

Good post

The ungracious response from ReTHUGS is breath-taking.
The troops are coming home for Christmas and that's great news

[SidDithers]

3. K&R...nt

Sid

[bigtree]

4. .

[Exilednight]

5. The real reason he is pulling out all the troops is due to the fact tht he was unable to

negotiate a SOFA that would protect soldiers from prosecution of Iraqi laws.

[bigtree]

6. that means

. . .that he's respecting Iraq's sovereignty (democracy), as he has since the beginning of his presidency -- unlike his predecessor.

[Exilednight]

7. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. He didn't get what he wanted, so it forced him into a

decision that he really didn't want.

[bigtree]

9. so, he respected their sovereignty and will leave

If Iraqis could 'force' the U.S. to get out, we would have left years ago.

[Exilednight]

13. No, but one day you'll figure it out. n/t

[BOG PERSON]

8. the status of forces agreement went into effect during the bush administration

i don't understand where your line of thinking is supposed to lead. is there something magnanimous about him not trashing the SOFA?

[EFerrari]

10. Iraq refused to extend our troops' immunity. The Pentagon refuses to stay

without it. Its not difficult.

[bigtree]

12. Bush didn't give a damn about what Iraq said or wanted

No one in the U.S. is going to tolerate U.S. troops tried in Iraq under any circumstances. Fact is Bush negotiated an agreement that would allow him to use several scenarios to remain engaged:


from Geopoliticalmonitor: http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/loopholes-in-us-iraq-security-pact-1527/

A reinterpretation of the recently signed U.S.-Iraq security pact leaves loopholes in the agreement undermining the very concessions originally negotiated. U.S. troops will no longer be compelled toU.S. troops in Iraq vacate Iraqi cities as called for by the Status-of-Forces Agreement (SOFA). Exposing the deal’s loopholes threatens a rejection by the Iraqi public via the proposed July 2009 national referendum.

Analysis

Though the Iraqi parliament debated and eventually passed the SOFA with the U.S. that would remove U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by mid-2009, it turns out that the Bush and al-Maliki regimes have reinterpreted the provisions of the agreement to permit U.S. soldiers to remain in active combat roles in Iraqi cities indefinitely.

After months of intense negotiations, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki put his own political life, and that of his party’s, on the line by submitting a security pact that would permit the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq commencing with the end of the UN mandate, scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

Yesterday, however, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, admitted that yet-to-be-negotiated U.S. troops would remain in Iraqi cities past the mid-2009 deadline imposed by the security pact as part of so-called “transition teams”, manning numerous security outposts closely coordinated with Iraqi soldiers. The same day, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell also revealed another loophole: U.S. troops will continue to remain in active combat roles at the “invitation of the Iraqi Parliament”. Such an ‘invitation’ would not require a passage of law, but merely the ‘request’ of pro-U.S. Prime Minister al-Maliki.

Both revelations followed on the heels of Friday’s expose in Washington when top Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, conceded that U.S. troops would be in Iraq for another 10 years.

[bigtree]

11. who believes Bush would have left by now?

He intended for the SOFA to make it look like he was leaving, but the SOFA actually provides for him making the unilateral decision to remain if he believed 'security' required it.

from WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

To protest an agreement they saw as prolonging a "humiliating" occupation, tens of thousands of Iraqis burned an effigy of George W. Bush in a central Baghdad square where U.S. troops five years previously staged a tearing down of a statue of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi parliament was the scene of many protests before and during the vote.

After the deal passed, over 9,000 Iraqis gathered to protest in Baghdad's eastern suburb of Sadr City. Protesters burned a U.S. flag and held banners reading: "No, no to the agreement". "We condemn the agreement and we reject it, just as we condemn all injustice", Sheikh Hassan al-Husseini told worshippers right after the vote at the weekly Friday prayers in Baghdad. Iraqi theologian, political, and militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr called for three days of peaceful protests and mourning after the passing of the agreement. Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani's expressed concerns with the ratified version of the pact and noted that the government of Iraq has no authority to control the transfer of occupier forces into and out of Iraq, no control of shipments, and that the pact grants the occupiers immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts. He said that Iraqi rule in the country is not complete while the occupiers are present, but that ultimately the Iraqi people would judge the pact in a referendum. Sistani considers parts of the agreement "a mystery" and said that the pact provides "no guarantee" that Iraq would regain sovereignty.

On December 3, 2008, about 2,000 Syrian-based Iraqi refugees staged a protest against the Iraq-US military pact saying that the agreement would place Iraq under US domination. "We denounce the security agreement, a shameful and dishonorable agreement of American occupation", read one banner outside a shop in the mostly Shiite neighborhood where the protest occurred. The Association of Muslim Scholars, a group of Sunni religious leaders in Iraq, accused the Sunni Accordance Front, a party which supported the pact, of "selling Iraq" and also denounced the deal as "legitimising the occupation".

Some other Iraqis expressed skeptical optimism that the U.S. would completely end its occupation in three years.

[joshcryer]

14. Nice observation. Obama has really changed US policy in the middle east for the better.

Now if only he can pressure Selah to step down.