8/2/10

Today, in front of an assembly of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, President Obama will address what national security and military leaders agree is a vital endeavor: redeployment from Iraq. The President's speech anticipates the conclusion of the American combat mission at the end of this month, by which time 90,000 troops will have returned home. Redeployment is a necessary step for advancing the broader set of U.S. national security interests and for developing a strategic relationship with the Iraqi people. And while it is true that the country will continue to face serious challenges - a political deadlock and increasing violence, most immediately - these challenges must be addressed primarily by Iraqis in the lead. An occupation without end serves no one.  As commanding General Ray Odierno has said, "Iraq doesn't need more troops now."

Redeployment from Iraq is also the result sustained of progressive advocacy. For years, progressives steadily drove home the view - shared by the president - that redeployment from Iraq was the best policy for American national security. The end of the combat mission this month not only represents the fulfillment of a campaign promise but the culmination of progressives' efforts to bring U.S. foreign policy back in line with our interests.

Redeployment is first step in defining an enduring relationship with Iraq.  Speaking to an audience of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans today, President Obama will look ahead to the formal end of combat operations in Iraq, culminating in a redeployment that will have brought 90,000 troops home from Iraq by the end of this month. The redeployment of U.S. troops, which has been on track throughout Obama's time in office, is the first step in the process of building an enduring relationship with Iraq, to the benefit of both Iraqi and American security. As the president will say later today, "Our commitment in Iraq is changing - from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."

Back in March, the Center for American Progress's Brian Katulis and Peter Juul explained why this strategy is the best means of advancing broader U.S. interests in the region: "... the main objective driving U.S. policy should ultimately be to help Iraqis take control of their own affairs. Sticking to this schedule as closely as possible is best for broader U.S. national security interests unless there is a serious request by a unified Iraqi leadership to change the troop redeployment schedule. Even if Iraq's new government would make such a request, the United States would have to evaluate it in the context of broader security objectives in the region and globally."

As Marc Lynch wrote, withdrawal "doesn't mean ignoring Iraq": What it does mean, according to Lynch, is "moving to develop a normal, constructive strategic relationship with the new Iraqi government, with the main point of contact the Embassy and the private sector rather than the military, and adhering in every way possible to the SOFA and to the drawdown timeline." [President Obama, via Politico's The Playbook, 8/2/10. CAP, 3/5/10. Marc Lynch, 3/8/10]

Political instability in Iraq represents a serious challenge, but one that can only be resolved by Iraqis - not U.S. troops. As the New York Times noted, "Iraqi political leaders are still deadlocked over forming a new government," and insurgents have used this opportunity to foment violence. The U.S. can and should assist Iraqis as they address this challenge, but it is Iraqis who must ultimately take the lead. Experts agree that heavy-handed U.S. interference is not desired by Iraqis and will not stand the best chance of producing a sustainable political settlement. An Associated Press piece from last month indicated that Iraqi politicians are "cool" to the possibility of an American politician "muscling in on their political scene." Writing at the time of Iraq's elections, Middle East expert Marc Lynch cautioned, "[d]oing the sorts of assertive things which may please Obama's critics are highly likely to spark a negative reaction among Iraqis, generating more hostility to the U.S. role without actually accomplishing anything. The U.S. is wise to avoid them." Brookings expert Ken Pollack, who in the past has argued for more active U.S. involvement in Iraqi politics, also urged patience, warning that "[i]f we want a government bad, we can get one bad, but that won't serve anyone's interests."

Overcoming Iraq's challenges will not be helped by keeping American troops in Iraq, according to U.S. commander General Ray Odierno. "Iraq doesn't need more troops now, Odierno said; it needs political and economic support,'" reported the Washington Post. Odierno continued: "For us it's about eliminating the environment that allows extremism to exist. We haven't eliminated that environment. That environment will get eliminated through economic and political progress,' Odierno said. ‘We're not leaving tomorrow. We're going to have 50,000 American soldiers on the ground here . . . We're not abandoning Iraq. We're changing our commitment from military-dominated to one that is civilian led.'" [NY Times, 8/2/10. AP, via MSNBC, 7/4/10. Marc Lynch, 2/23/10. Ken Pollack, 7/23/10. General Ray Odierno, via the Washington Post, 7/13/10]

Iraq redeployment represents culmination of years of work by progressives and fulfillment of a major promise by the president. The end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq this month is the culmination of years of effort to replace the failed invasion strategy with one that better serves core American interests.  In 2006, Brian Katulis and Lawrence Korb explained the objectives of a redeployment from Iraq: "to protect the American people at home and abroad; to get Iraq to the most stable position as quickly as possible; to make sure Iraq's tensions do not spill over into a regional conflict; and to turn the tide against extremist Islamists."  Then-congressional candidate Darcy Burner's "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," released in 2007, situated progressives' push for withdrawal in a larger national security context. The report argued that redeployment would allow the U.S. to address more capably a litany of challenges, including "proliferation, pandemics, terrorism, climate change, and energy supply bottlenecks."

In his address today, the president will explain how his administration's redeployment policy represents a promise kept: "As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end...Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31, 2010, America's combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing - as promised, on schedule." [CAP, 5/06. The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, 3/07. President Obama, via the NY Times, 8/2/10]

What We're Reading

Gen. David Petraeus eased a rule covering the use of force that has been a source of discontent among American troops.

Rescuers in Pakistan are struggling to reach 27,000 people still stranded by the worst floods in 80 years.

New sanctions to be adopted soon will allow the U.S. to clamp down on illicit activities that earn North Korea hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Plans by BP to start drilling for oil and gas off Libya within weeks have prompted growing calls for a moratorium on deepwater operations while Mediterranean states assess the environmental impact in light of the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

A string of rockets was fired toward the Israeli resort city Eilat, and one hit in neighboring Jordan, killing one person and wounding four.

The Netherlands became the first NATO ally to pull combat troops out of Afghanistan, as it handed over its mission in southern Afghanistan's Uruzgan province to U.S. and Australian forces.

Cuban President Raul Castro said that his government will scale back controls on small businesses, lay off unnecessary workers and allow more self-employment.

Three Kenyans have been charged with murder for carrying out the World Cup bombings in Uganda.

The UAE announced the world's first suspensions of BlackBerry services yesterday as telecoms officials in Saudi Arabia also piled pressure on the devices' maker to allow access to messages sent with them.

In Niger, expensive imports and aid remain out of reach for 12 million people facing the country's worst food crisis in years.

Commentary of the Day

The New York Times and the Savannah Morning News urge the U.S.to ratify the New START Treaty.

Bruce Riedel writes that the U.S. should be open-eyed in dealings with Pakistan, but making and following through on commitments is vital to the relationship.

Thomas Young argues that in a post-9/11 world, it's far too easy to get sloppy in our thinking and extend our anger over terrorism to Muslims in general.