But the major and more politically sensitive area of concern is the US military's role in keeping tensions from erupting along the disputed boundaries between the Kurdish-controlled north and central Iraq. In those flash-point areas, US soldiers have served as a buffer between the Kurdish peshmerga forces and Iraqi government soldiers.
"Let's be clear – the reason we should stay is to keep the Iraqis from fighting each other, particularly the Kurds and the Arabs," says Peter Mansoor, a former executive officer to Gen. David Petraeus and a professor of military history at Ohio State University. "We can couch it in whatever terms we want to but ... they need us to protect them from themselves," he said in a telephone interview.
While the Kurdish-Arab divide is the most obvious internal flashpoint, it isn't as critical now as it was during the major insurgency fighting when Kurdish troops were amongst the best troops Iraq had to offer. Then, a break would have been a tremendous blow to defeating the Syrian- and Iranian-sponsored insurgents and terrorists.
But without a robust insurgency to fight, Iraq could easily survive the loss of Kurdish regions that separate in a peaceful manner. Heck, during the 1990s the Kurdish regions were effectively lost anyway, right?
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be foolish for the Kurds to seek independence since they'd be landlocked with two states--Iran and Turkey--hostile to them. The only outlet to the world would be through Iraq, so why not stay within Iraq and have the support of the entire Iraqi state as well? Sure, negotiate self-governing and border issues, but the Kurds might invite partition by Turkey and Iran if they are on their own.
So the Kurdish-Arab split could be a major crisis if it breaks out into open warfare, but it wouldn't destroy Iraq. I think keeping American troops in Iraq to keep the split from becoming a civil war is the right thing to do, but there are other things we need to do that are more important.
Generally, keeping political disagreements in the political arena rather than tempting factions to resort to arms without our presence is important. Most specifically, staying to keep that scumbag Moqtada al Sadr in check is our main job. I've long considered him the biggest threat to our success because in theory he can appeal to the majority Shias. As bad as the death toll from the Sunni Arab-based violence was, I never doubted we would beat this minority-based threats.
Sadr is already resorting to violence and can be expected to use that tool more--as he has in three previous military conflicts with US and/or Iraqi forces. And as bad as seeing political violence break out in Iraq would be, Sadr provides an opening for Iranian intervention within Iraq to either seize control of the Iraqi state as a whole (apart from the Kurdish regions which would then declare independence) or just the southern Basra region. Using Sadr, Iran could astro-turf an uprising and claim to be rescuing the Shias of Iraq from American and Jewish plots.
Iraq needs us to keep our military in Iraq. I can understand the desire of many Iraqis to stand on their own and watch our troops leave, but there are Iraqis who need us to leave to end Iraq's still-fragile democratic path. We need the Germans, Japanese, Italians, and South Koreans to explain to Iraqis that the presence of American troops protects freedom rather than reflect lack of freedom. Would any Iraqis really say that they wouldn't one day want to achieve what these "occupied" countries have with American forces still on their soil?
Really, Iraq, just ask us to stay. We'll say yes. How could we reply otherwise when even President Obama cites your democratic path as an example for others in the Middle East?
