Category | Op Ed

Obama at War

Published on July 1, 2009 by Matthew Cole

From March 20, 2009

Obama recently unveiled his “new strategy” for Iraq and Afghanistan at Camp Lejeune, N.C. Unsurprisingly, I was disappointed by what I heard. My issue with his Iraq plan is not so much that he pushed back the withdrawal deadline several months to August 2010, but rather that he doesn’t really intend to withdraw. After withdrawing all combat troops by this deadline, Obama plans to leave 50,000 “non-combat troops” in Iraq as “advisers.”

The real issue here is not that Obama let down his anti-war base, but rather that his Iraq strategy is just counterproductive. Where’s the exit strategy that Obama demanded of Bush? I think we should just quit while we are ahead, which is the case now.

After the US-led invasion, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) came on the scene and posed a real threat, almost pushing Iraq into full scale civil war. Just look at how far we have come since then.

While the stated effectiveness of the “surge” strategy is dubious, it is undeniable that AQI has been crushed, and they no longer pose any existential threat to the new government of Iraq.

This is due, in large part, to the excessively violent tactics of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, former leader of AQI. These tactics backfired when Sunnis started turning against these extremists.

It is now time for the U.S. to solidify our gains, but we cannot do so by keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq. We should do it by leaving now and allowing Iraqis to govern their own internal affairs.

The main opposition force, the Mehdi Army, led by Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, is remaining committed to a truce they have with the Iraqi government. The future of any truce of this sort is dependent upon the eventual withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq.

I am afraid that by leaving this many troops in Iraq for an unspecified period of time, Obama may actually reverse the gains made in Iraq so far, thus resulting in a renewed escalation.

His Afghan “strategy” is similarly lacking in vision. I’m still waiting for his great rhetoric to translate into a real strategy. As the Bush administration transferred power to Obama, both presidents oversaw the deployment of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in addition to the 34,000 already there. Now, Obama has announced that he will be sending an additional 17,000 troops.

Our problems in Afghanistan are the result of mixed-up priorities, not a lack of troops. Just ask the Russians, who know how hard it is to prop up an Afghan government.

Since 2002, our Afghan strategy has consisted primarily of providing security for the Afghan government. It’s similar to the strategy we employed in South Vietnam, with similar results.

Our Canadian and British allies are doing all of the real fighting against the terrorists. What happens when they leave, as Canada has promised to do by 2011? America is going to have to fill that void, unless we manage to take control of the situation before then.

We need to be proactive now, rather than being on the defensive later. This means going after Al-Qaeda where they are based, in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan (FATA).

This isn’t an ideal situation, but the benefits of denying AQ a safe haven in Pakistan should compel us to take action. Obama must make this realization  before it’s too late. His campaign rhetoric to that effect was impressive, but so far he has not followed up with action.

Direct military action in FATA, by either US or Pakistani forces, will almost certainly result in a violent insurgency, but I actually think that could be a good thing.

Pakistanis living in the FATA are much more supportive of AQ than Afghans are. This is because most of the attacks are taking place on Afghan soil.

I guarantee that when bombs start going off in their neighborhoods, Pakistanis in the Tribal Areas won’t be such huge fans of Osama bin Laden for much longer. The Sunnis in Iraq finally woke up. Now it’s time to do the same in FATA.

Obama should take note of the failures of the Bush administration. Obama thinks he can solve America’s economic problems by throwing other people’s money where there is insufficient demand. Now he thinks he can defeat Al-Qaeda by deploying more troops where there is no Al-Qaeda. That’s not change we can believe in. We need an effective national security strategy, not a repeat of the Lyndon Johnson administration.