President Barack Obama's announcement of an August 2010 withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq—while simultaneously leaving 35,000 to 50,000 troops behind to conduct training of Iraqi forces and participate in counterterrorism missions—brought expected responses from both sides of the Congressional aisle. While Republicans responded with a "told-you-so" attitude, a sizable portion of the Democratic Party expressed considerable disappointment. In fact, it appears a number of Democrats are so desperate to leave Iraq that they would retreat tomorrow if permitted—even if it meant that Al Qaeda was given keys to the Presidential Palace. Without a doubt, a phased and responsible withdrawal from Iraq will provide a needed decrease in the operational tempo and increase the overall health and well being of our Armed Forces. Everyone welcomes a drawdown. But what many lawmakers fail to fully comprehend is that the enemy does get a vote in this process. New waves of violence can change the facts on the ground and can alter the best of plans.
Fortunately, President Obama has decided upon taking a prudent approach that back loads the withdrawal to the later part of an 18 month plan and then maintains a sizable force to deal with potential problems. The Status of Forces Agreement signed prior to the departure of the Bush Administration established the parameters for President Obama's decision on Iraq. Additionally, President Bush's nomination and Senate approval of General David Petraeus as Commander of Central Command was a gift to the nation in terms of ensuring continued adult supervision and management of counterinsurgency efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Though President Obama could replace General Petraeus, removing America's most competent general would cost him.
For all the plan's merits, I do have a lingering concern in President Obama's withdrawal announcement. His call for the end of combat operations in Iraq belies an important truth: all U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the ground, despite their task or mission, will still be in harm's way. This is a fundamental reality the American public must understand. Regardless of the euphemism used to describe the remaining force—be it the “911 Force”, Iraq Counterterrorism Task Force, etc.—it is important to recognize that American men and women in uniform may very well be involved in continued combat situations. This small U.S. force will have to have teeth; simply leaving the lawyers, cooks, and administrative staff behind without the appropriate tools to defend themselves would be unwise.
Meanwhile, fixing the other war—Afghanistan—will require no less brain power and significantly more time and effort. Candidate Obama campaigned on winning in Afghanistan as the central theme of his fight against terror. President Obama is about to learn the difference between such campaign talk and actually climbing into the octagon. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the assorted half-dozen other anti-coalition militant groups that operate in the Afghan/Pak theater obey none of the rules of war as defined in the Geneva Convention; yet they plead for the protection of these accords. They kidnap, beat, rape and butcher any combatant or civilian that falls in their hands. As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama now lives with the reality and responsibility for casualties incurred in this fight.
It will be critical that the President look to Republicans for support on Afghanistan. Few in the camp that elected him will have the stomach for what lies ahead in Afghanistan and Pakistan's Tribal Areas. To date, technology and unmanned missile strikes have kept our enemies on the backs of their heels. But the enemy will surely adjust and seek new asymmetrical methods of attack. The numbers of suicide bombings in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan have doubled in the last year. The elimination of moderate tribal elders will allow for an almost immediate redefinition of demographics and unforeseen radicalization of a population merely trying to survive.
On both sides of the Afghan/Pakistani border, counter-insurgency efforts must seek to return to basics. This translates into the fundamental task of establishing the rule of law. After U.S. and Afghan Army forces seize and reestablish control of a village or town, national policing forces must arrive in sufficient number to hold and root out extremist supporters and sympathizers. Communities must then be armed and organized into larger networks to allow for their own collective defense as a means of resisting re-occupation by extremists. Such efforts will take time. They require boots on the ground and constant shared risks with those whom we seek to aid. Maintaining support for this effort will require leadership and recognition that those we currently fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan have every intention of expanding their efforts against us into the broader world community.
The dissimilarity between Candidate Obama and President Obama is getting more interesting by the day, but I'm not like Rush Limbaugh. I hope he succeeds.
Posted by: Joe G. | March 05, 2009 at 02:39 AM