|
The US Withdrawal That Wasn’t
2.9.2010
By David Romano |
|
|
|
September 2, 2010
This week U.S. President Obama declared the end of
the American combat mission in Iraq. Of course, for
the 50,000 or so remaining U.S. troops in Iraq, it’s
hardly that. Officially they may now only operate
offensively when asked to do so by Iraqi
authorities, which will happen often. They will also
engage in plenty of “defensive” combat operations,
as the civil conflict in Iraq goes on and they
remain targets for jihadi and hard-line Shiite
groups. But President Obama wants to “turn the page”
on Iraq, to better focus on Afghanistan and economic
troubles at home. That’s certainly understandable,
given American public opinion and Obama’s long-held
preference for the “war of necessity” in
Afghanistan.
Unfortunately for the President, he will find that
the next page still has Iraq written all over it.
What happens to Iraq remains, as it always has, more
important than what happens to Afghanistan. Even if
Iraq didn’t have the world’s second largest oil
reserves after Saudi Arabia, and even if those oil
reserves were not amongst the best quality, most
easily tapped fields on earth, the country would
still play a more central role than Afghanistan.
|
David Romano is a Thomas G. Strong Professor of
Middle East Politics at Missouri State University
and author of The Kurdish Nationalist Movement
(2006). |
Geography and
demographics make Iraq a central issue when it comes
to Sunni-Shiite relations in the region, Kurdish
ambitions in four crucially important states (Iraq,
Turkey, Syria and Iran), commerce through the
Persian/Arab Gulf, Iranian and Turkish aspirations
for regional hegemony, Saudi security, and political
and ideological currents in the Arab world in
general.
Following Obama’s speech, many columnists and
commentators in the region questioned whether or not
the U.S. would truly end the occupation of Iraq,
allowing Iraqis to decide their own foreign policies
without American pressure. Said Shihabi of the
Saudi-owned al-Quds al-Arabi wrote that "There is an
ongoing debate over whether the withdrawal is real
and Washington is sincere in its intention to
liberate Iraq completely and cease to meddle in its
affairs, or whether the U.S. merely seeks to control
Iraqi resources and dominate its military, oil and
foreign policies" (translation from “Babylon and
Beyond,” Los Angeles Times, Sept.1).
I sincerely doubt that the Americans are foolish
enough to “cease meddling in Iraqi affairs.” If the
Americans don’t meddle, it will leave that much of a
freer hand for the Iranians, Chinese and Russians to
do so, to name a few. The real question is, how
effectively will the U.S. continue to involve
itself? Although the Iraqi government may well
request that some American troops remain past the
end of the 2011 deadline,www.ekurd.nethow
much assistance can such a reduced force offer if
things heat up more? Does the United States have the
will and resources to send tens of thousands of
troops back to Iraq should the situation worsen
considerably? How much can a small army of American
diplomats, aid workers and contractors accomplish in
the meantime, without as much U.S. military power,
protection and support?
Of all the parties worrying about these things,
Iraqi Kurdistan in particular could use some more
reassurances from the White House. Although their
relations with Turkey, Iran and Syria improved
considerably over the past few years, these states
are not exactly in favor of Kurdish autonomy or
overly pleased with Iraqi Kurdish political
ascendancy. If Erbil-Baghdad relations ever
completely break down following a more substantial
American withdrawal from Iraq, all bets are off.
Which leads me to wonder if the Kurds should have
added one more demand to the nineteen they now make
of possible coalition partners: Baghdad’s
acquiescence to long-term U.S. military bases in
Kurdistan.
David Romano, Thomas G. Strong Professor of
Middle East Politics at Missouri State University
and author of The Kurdish Nationalist Movement
(2006, Cambridge University Press).
Copyright, respective
author or news agency, rudaw net
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
®
