After billions of dollars and nearly nine years of training, American troops are leaving behind an Iraqi security force arguably capable of providing internal security but unprepared to defend the nation against foreign threats at a time of rising tensions throughout the Middle East.
Remember that initially we hoped that we could build a three-division conventional army that would be the core of a new force for external defense as we withdrew the bulk of our ground forces. Internal security against remnant Baathists would be handled by local police and para-military light infantry forces, and hopefully allied peacekeepers.
As Iran and Syria essentially invaded post-Saddam Iraq, we had to adapt and turn the new army into a counter-insurgency light infantry force that absorbed the para-military force into the army itself. We provided the external defense.
We succeeded in turning the Iraqi military into an effective light infantry force capable of providing internal security and defeating insurgents and terrorists. This was no small feat given the brutality of the enemies we faced. But the army we built is insufficient for external defense through no fault of the Iraqis. Heck, the bulk of our own forces have been grossly unprepared for conventional combat as we focused on counter-insurgency training and skipped conventional warfare training. Even we are just now starting to correct that imbalance.
The plan was that we'd continue to provide external defense of Iraq with our own troops kept on bases and not involved in security operations, while we trained the Iraqis for conventional operations.
But our president has been more interested in leaving Iraq than winning. Right now, as I calculated, the Iraqis are in no position to hold out for more than a few days if Iran attacks in force.
The bright side is that we could deploy troops to Turkey (this time they'd let us) and Kuwait to counter-attack in force. And if Iran turned
Of course, this assumes Iran doesn't have nukes to deter us from liberating Iraq (again).
In time, another bright side is that Iraq's personnel are combat experienced and trained in the basics of soldiering. Once properly equipped and trained in conventional warfare, they'll be the most effective army in the Arab world.
But our hasty departure risks not getting the time that Iraq needs. Our troops did their job through 8-1/2 years of heavy combat and difficult training and mentoring of Iraqis. Our president had the responsibility as the president of all of America to defend that victory despite his opposition to the war and his conviction that our troops could not win. Instead, he played to his left-wing base.
After three years in office, it isn't appropriate to call this amateur hour in the White House. No, they just seem to be victoryphobic--as shown in President Obama's inability to utter the word "victory" at Fort Bragg Thursday and instead celebrate that we are "ending the war responsibly."
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
UPDATE: My worry about Iran isn't mostly about invading Iraq. Although it is an option for Iran if they are at war with us anyway and they want to lash out--even if it doesn't work in the long run.
My worry isn't even about Iraqis gravitating to become Iranian puppets without our presence in Iraq. I have confidence that relatively few Iraqis want Iran to run their lives, as this article addresses. Yes, Iran will have better relations with Iraq because Sunni Arab Saddam is gone and fellow Shias dominate Iraq. Heck, we'd have had better relations with Iraq had Saddam and his evil spawn died in a horrible hot tub accident back in 2002. But this is a far cry from saying that Iran will dominate Iraq:
But the biggest winners of all have been Iraqi Shiites, whose ascent to power reversed nearly 1,400 years of sometimes brutal Sunni domination. And although Iraqi Shiites broadly welcome the departure of the Americans, they seem in no mood to substitute one form of foreign domination for another — and least of all, they say, from Iran.
Nowhere is that more evident than in Najaf, the spiritual capital of Shiite Islam, the site of its holiest shrine and a base for a new form of Iraqi nationalism, one that asserts the doctrines and rituals of the Shiite faith but also embraces a distinct Iraqi identity.
Obviously, Iraqis would like better relations with the larger country that borders them. The fact that Iran is also largely Shia increases that desire for better relations. But 8 years of Iranians killing Shia conscripts on the battlefield in the 1980s and 8 years (and counting) of Iranians supporting pro-Iranian terrorists inside Iraq haven't made Iran loved in Iraq.
My biggest worry is that without our continued strong military presence, some Iraqi faction will try to achieve with guns and bombs what they can't achieve with ballots. And I worry that Iranian-supported Shia factions could trigger that violence. There is always a chance that Iran will support a coup by a Shia faction that astro-turfs the image of a mass movement to take control of Iraq even though they are a tiny minority.
What would we be able to do if Iranian-backed Sadrists staged a revolt in the Basra region and declared independence, with Iran recognizing them and immediately moving troops in to the region to defend it? Iraq would have a lot of trouble ejecting a strong Iranian force in southern Iraq. Would Iraq's government give up portions of the south to get a ceasefire? Would we do more than send troops to defend Kuwait if Iraq sued for peace? Even if Iran has no nukes?
Yet we didn't bust a gut to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq for a while longer. Things may work out just fine without our presence. Our troops wouldn't have guaranteed a good outcome. But our troops would have increased the odds of things working out fine. Let's hope for the best and do what we can without troops.
UPDATE: President Obama commended the troops for what they did in Iraq:
Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We're building a new partnership between our nations.
Why can't he call it victory? Of course, the "reality-based" community has trouble thinking straight about Iraq.
