Something out there in the political world went substantially screwy when President Obama on Friday announced that all the U.S. troops in Iraq would be coming home by the end of the year.
Liberals hailed it as an Obama promise kept, and a demonstration of presidential leadership to bring an end to an unpopular war. These Democratic lefties didn’t seem to realize that up until about a week ago, the administration had been negotiating frantically with the Iraqi hierarchy to keep several thousand troops in Iraq – which, if successful, clearly would have been viewed as prolonging the war.
On the right, criticism abounded from Republicans who said that Obama was being soft by pulling out and jeopardizing hard-fought U.S. victories in Iraq. These right-wingers seemed oblivious to the fact that Obama was following through with the SOFA agreement reached with the Iraqis by George W. Bush in 2008. Essentially, he was adhering to longstanding U.S. policy to get out of Iraq by the end of 2011.
And the media, well, they got it wrong from every angle. Many of the news reports on Friday demonstrated that far too many reporters and editors had forgotten what the SOFA – Status of Forces Agreement – was all about. Bush signed it shortly before leaving office so that he could seal an end game in America’s longest war before he departed the White House.
Obama had agreed to adhere to the SOFA, and the only question was whether the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki might agree to allow 3,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops to remain strictly as trainers of the Iraqi military.
Regardless of what success Obama might have had at the negotiating table, nearly all of the 40,000 soldiers in Iraq were coming home anyway.
In Iraq, the story surrounding the negotiations took several twists and turns, with the newly democratic nation’s leaders divided and a majority of the public demanding that all U.S. forces leave. For average Iraqis, the Americans had worn out their welcome and they could no longer tolerate foreign troops on their soil.
So, when the American media reported a surprise announcement by Obama that the war was over as of Dec. 31, it simply showed how out of touch they had become with the activities in a nation that they had once obsessed over. The story wasn’t that the war was ending; the story was that the Pentagon’s hopes of extending our military presence there had been dashed.
Critics can claim that the Obama administration failed in its negotiations with Baghdad to revise the SOFA. Greater Iranian influence in Iraq is always a concern. The Pentagon is certainly not happy, based on concerns that the Iraqis are still not ready to beat back sectarian hatreds that could inflame violence. Fair enough.
As someone who supported the war and the surge, I find it fairly disturbing how our longest war has fallen off the radar of the average American’s interests. The war has grown increasingly unpopular, with polls showing about two-thirds of the nation disappointed that the conflict had not already ended.
As a result, it’s nearly impossible for the administration to ignore the sentiments of American voters and Iraqi voters and demand that the troops’ stay be extended.
Perhaps the most distasteful aspect of this entire episode surrounding Obama’s announcement is the disingenuous reactions from the GOP presidential candidates.
This same group which has avoided talking about Iraq and Afghanistan at every turn of the campaign, and who predicted that U.S. involvement in the Libyan revolution would turn into a quagmire, now has the gall to suggest that Obama is showing his weakness by not prolonging the Iraq war.
This field of candidates, which has recently sounded like group of isolationists – if not peaceniks – has suddenly found their hawkish side. Just in time to score a few cheap political points against Obama.
Herman Cain, who jokes about his lack of foreign policy knowledge, sternly warned that the president’s decision was “a dumb thing to do.” Michele Bachman, who had previously hinted that she wanted to end all U.S. military involvements overseas, said Obama was demonstrating his fealty by not keeping troops in Iraq.
Gov. Rick Perry, who likes to boast that he’s the commander of the Texas National Guard, said Obama had put “political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment.”
And then there’s Mitt Romney, whose slick politics really shined through. Romney, who has never been outspoken about the Iraq war, was particularly harsh. He said that Obama’s decision for a troop pullout was a “naked political calculation” that could mean the U.S. will “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”
Did I miss something? When did Romney stand up and say he wants to extend our troops’ deployment in Iraq?
A few months ago, Romney put out a detailed plan for his presidency that covered dozens of pages. But it never proposed an extended mission in Iraq or in what manner he would prefer the war to end.
The former governor gave a major foreign policy address just a few weeks ago and he never mentioned Iraq, other than to thank the troops for their service.
Romney apparently doesn’t realize that the leading opponent of a SOFA extension in Baghdad is firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr. Sadr’s political influence is widespread to the point where he could easily shatter Maliki’s coalition government over this issue.
In Washington, conservative Republicans in Congress like John McCain and Lindsey Graham know that maintaining a troop presence would spark a Shiite uprising. They know better. Yet, they were also among Obama’s critics.
As for Romney, I wonder if he knows the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni.
And I doubt that he’s familiar with the most important reason why the SOFA negotiations fell apart and the president had no choice but to bring all the troops home. That is the immunity issue. Maliki’s government, which faces considerable political crosswinds in Baghdad, refused to grant legal immunity to U.S. troops that stay behind.
Immunity is a staple of American military deployments in Iraq and across the globe. We don’t want a soldier who is forced to shoot first and ask questions later to be hauled into court. U.S. military and diplomatic officials said the Iraqi stance on immunity was a mistake. But it was their decision.
Romney is clueless, but that would have been a particularly poor “political calculation” for him to admit on Friday that he didn’t really know what this whole SOFA thing is all about.
If he is truly serious in his criticisms, maybe Romney should adopt the campaign slogan: ‘Let’s keep our troops in Iraq for a few more years.’ Wonder how that would work for you, Mitt.
