Risky retreat from Iraq
By STUART GOTTLIEB
Last Updated: 3:39 AM, October 22, 2011
AP
President Obama’s decision to withdraw all US military forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 has given the administration cause to crow: “The last American soldiers will [exit] Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success,” said the president at the White House yesterday.
There’s only one problem: The president’s decision went against the advice of his military commanders -- who strongly urged him to keep a follow-on force ofat least 10,000 troops beyond this year.
The fact is, Obama’s decision had less to do with what is actually needed to secure Iraq’s hard won stability, than with political considerations in Baghdad and Washington.
In Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who favors keeping a strong US troop presence, was unwilling to push back publicly against radical Shiite factions, whose No. 1 goal is ending America’s role in Iraq.
And in Washington, the president’s political advisers strongly opposed the military’s large troop request, urging to instead leave behind a token force of roughly 3,000 -- a number chosen more for public consumption than any strategic value.
Indeed, when the White House last month announced its plan to keep only the poll-tested 3,000 troops, the response of objective experts of all political stripes was overwhelmingly negative.
After all, though Iraq of today barely resembles the Iraq of the darkest days of the insurgency, Baghdad is not yet ready to stand on its own against external pressurefrom Iran or internal threats from al Qaeda and other violent groups.
Just 3,000 troops (down from roughly 50,000 now) would be blatantly insufficient to continue the vital (though incomplete) US missions in Iraq, such as training the Iraqi military and police, stabilizing the border (especially with Iran) and crucial joint counterterrorism initiatives. So small a force would in fact be barely able to defend itself.
This left Obama with littlechoice but to reconsider the 3,000 number. Yet instead of choosing the politically unpopular route -- upping the number to 10,000, and compelling the Maliki government to agree -- he instead chose zero, and a future for Iraq thatis once again suddenly fraught with peril.
And that is what’s most troubling about this decision -- its stunning short-sightedness.
Choosing zero troops certainly allows the president to say feel-good things like, “After a decade of war, the nation we need to build and the nation we will build is our own.” But then consider the costs to America in the long run -- in terms of prestige, power and reputation -- should Iraq unravel and descend intochaos and bloodshed as America makes for the exits.
And consider also the costs to America’s efforts to project power toward Iran, as Teheran continues to spin uranium and craft assassination plots on US soil.
And what would have been so wrong with being viewed openly as astrong partner in the development of the only functioning (if fragile) Arab democracy, particularly as the Arab Spring continues to swirl?
Instead we now face a likelihood of increased Iranian influence in Iraqi politics, with Shiite firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr becoming even more of a kingmaker at the expense of the Sunni and Kurdish minorities, not to mention real democratic progress.
President Obama’s decision to withdraw all US troops will certainly make sense to those whotrusted his campaign promises to “end the Iraqwar.” And it will make sense to those who favor the emerging Obama doctrine that seeks to reduce and limit America’s role in the world (what one Obama aide called “leading frombehind”).
But it makes little sense for those who expect presidential leadership on issues of such vital strategic and humanitarian importance. And it is in that context that this decision will be judged.
Stuart Gottlieb, a former Senate foreign-policy adviser and speechwriter, teaches US foreign policy and international security at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs .

Could we please also bring back any usable equipment we have brought to Iraq? It would be an additional waste of money to leave it there.

Depending on the rate, "4,000 to 5,000 private State Department security contractors" works out to anywhere from 1 to 1.5 billion dollars a year. Why are they there?

I wouldn't want to have been one of the 3000 left behind. That is like deserting 3000 of our own in a country that has been engaged in civil war for years and years and years.

We went there and disrupted the country, and someone stole their gold, gave them worthless paper money, and now we are leaving them to fight amongst themselves?

We should have never gone in there in the first place, but I'm really shocked at this development. Surprised actually. Are we leaving Iraq unprotected? Maybe.

But I don't understand this move. It is the opposite of what I expected. I have to ask one question:

How will this benefit or effect Israel?

Iran is going to love it!

I think it's a tough decision, but if you recall, Afgan's leaders are saying that everything is our fault. 9-11, and all other terror plots that have happened. Why should we continue to loose our troops fighting for a country who blames us in the first place. I understand the stratigic poistion, but at what point do we start to take care of our own?

They are probably right.

And we should take care of our own.

"Now that we have put this behind us, this will let us settle the issue of training," Maliki said."Iraqis will ask to resume talks over the number of trainers, the duration (of their stay in Iraq) and how those trainers will be used."
More than eight years after the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, violence has fallen since the sectarian slaughter of2006-2007. But Iraq still faces a stubborn Sunni Islamist insurgency tied to al Qaeda and rival Shi'ite militias.
U.S. and Iraqi officials saythe local armed forces can contain violence but they need trainers to help build up air defense,maritime capabilities, intelligence gathering and moving the military to conventional warfare tactics.
Iraq will get some military training from a U.S. embassy program and from contractors who are part of a package with the U.S.-made military hardware Baghdad is purchasing, such as F-16 fighter jets and tanks.
Military advisers workingat the embassy are covered by diplomatic immunity afforded to theState Department.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that U.S. commitment to the democratic future of Iraqremains strong despite the decision to go ahead with the withdrawal of American troops as scheduled.
"Even as our troops comehome, the United States's commitment to Iraq's future as a secure, stable,democratic nation remains as strong as ever," she said at a news conference in the Tajik capital. "This will end the war and it will open a new chapter in our relationship."
Clinton said Washington expected to have a"significant" security training presence at the Baghdad embassy.
Washington had hoped afew thousand troops in Iraq would help buttress its stability and offset theinfluence of neighboring Iran. U.S. officials initially had sought Baghdad's approval for around 3,400 troops.
Many Iraqis are worried about their country's stability and security without the buffer of U.S.military presence, and fear Iraq may slip back into the sectarian tensions that pushed the country to the brink of civil conflict.

The way I see it, Obama is looking for a 2nd term next year and his approval ratings are.......not so good. By pulling ALL the troops (like he said would have been done by now) he's hoping to get his rating up and have a shot at the 2nd. Then deal with the international issues later.

Seriously, I will believe it when I see it. (All Troops out.)

I wonder if they will be replaced by mercs.

Actually it would cost more to ship most of it back to the states than it's actually worth.

It was written and announced that the Iraqis were "buying" what we leave behind..... Did anyone read where the Sheite leadership we set up in Iraq is friendly to the Iranian leadership (which is also Sheite)?

Now they are wanting to send us into Iran because "they are trying to build a nuclear weapon.....".... can anyone else see where this is going? I'm sure Haliburton and Cheney do!

I wish that DC/politicians worried as much about what was going on here at home as much as the tried to control other happenings in the world.

I take offense to the wording of the title of this topic.

Did we 'retreat' at the end of WWII when we removed our troops from other lands and begin to heal our wounds?

No...

We are 'redistributing' our troops. (so that Iraq may grow)

There is no shame in such action.