Rethinking Iraq

Washington should learn from history. Given its stance on Iraq, it clearly hasn't. U.S. President Barack Obama declared on the campaign trail in 2008 that he will have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of 2011, with troops beginning to leave in large quantities beginning in the summer of 2011. This policy has been hailed by the American public, as most feel it is time to withdraw and allow Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own. However, analysts, military officials and Iraqi officials agree that the U.S. should not delude itself. One year is not nearly enough time to train Iraqi forces to counter future threats.

Although Iraq now claims to have more than enough troops and policemen in its arsenal (in the 100,000s for both divisions), it is quality not quantity that counts. Throughout the U.S. and Iraqi defense communities it is widely whispered and almost obvious to most that Iraq just isn't ready yet.

Reports on the ground indicate that the Iraqi public are uneasy about the U.S. departure one year from now. Many may not enjoy a U.S. presence in their country, but foreign troops are at least keeping the peace and providing some security while Iraqi forces are nascent. But, their confidence in the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and Iraqi Police is next to nil and some citizens are securing their own departure from the country when the U.S. leaves and current trends subsist.

Iraq's government is in gridlock with Nouri al Maliki's party and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's party unable to reach a compromise to establish a coalition government to initiate decision making. It is safe to say that there is little credence in an optimistic view of Iraq's future.

That is where Mr. Obama comes in. Much confidence will have to be churned. In his address tomorrow, the U.S. president will have to assure the American public, it's armed forces and the Iraqi public that the security situation in Iraq will not get any worse once the West is gone. However, most will see that bold attempt at reassurance as a half-hearted fabrication, and rightly so.

Current terrorist attacks in Iraq are not devastating, but that may also be because al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and affiliated insurgent groups are just getting started. Regardless of what the Obama Administration says, there is an imminent threat generating from dormant terrorist and insurgent groups waiting for U.S. forces to depart to successfully launch an anti-government campaign. This is the most daunting prospect and if not countered properly, will plunge the country back into chaos. A situation Iraq's forces are not experienced at handling.

When analyzed, it can be argued that Mr. Obama is now pushing this withdrawal policy to move the deadlocked Iraqi government to compromise. This approach may seem effective, however, what if Iraqi politicians do not absorb the threat of withdrawal? They could possibly respond by arming themselves and preparing for war all over again. Then, will the U.S. have to re-invade Iraq?

Mr. Obama is more than capable of diluting these fears. Now, it is just a question of whether or not he is willing to do so. Given the unpopularity with the war at home, it seems unlikely. However, if he chooses to, he can take the necessary steps in ensuring Iraq's stability. The Bush Administration's security agreement with Iraq may be the largest impediment he will have to overcome in order to leave Iraq somewhat stable and secure. Instead of completely removing all troops from Iraq in twelve months, the U.S. president should re-negotiate the terms of the agreement leaving at least half of the troops currently stationed for reconnaissance, training, logistics and armed support if needed. Training is the most essential. Iraqi officials and current trends declare that few if any Iraqi policemen or soldiers have been trained in counterterrorism; an indispensable component to winning any militant or terrorist threat.

However, no negotiations can take place without a working Iraqi government. Before any of this can be done, the Obama Administration should work as a mediator in talks between the two parties. U.S. envoys will be more than sufficient. Given the complexity of Iraq's government and stubbornness of its political officials; it will be a difficult task, but no one wants to leave Iraq unstable, so there is a source for motivation. It will not be easy, but if the U.S. president wants to leave behind a legacy in Iraq he will not adhere to his 2011 deadline.

Blaming the Pakistani Army is Nothing New...

The Watcher argues that the military documents disclosed by WIkiLeaks detailing the deteriorating ground situation in Afghanistan briefed the public (or at least those who follow the current events in Afghanistan) of nothing it already knew. One can argue that the public disclosure now puts the U.S. in a critical position to strengthen the pressure on Pakistan (more specifically ISI) to abandon it's military support for extremism in the South Asian region. However, given the budgetary relationship the U.S. has with Pakistan, awarding them $1 billion a year, it is difficult to understand why Washington continues to pledge such a vast amount of money when it is well aware it will be used at their own expense. Given the Americans' history, the U.S. will not openly shoot itself in the foot when its activities in the region are well known. It has recently dawned on The Watcher that there might be a secret agenda that the U.S. is pursuing in the South Asian region. This prospect may shed some light as to why they are substantiating Pakistan's armed forces with little plans to reduce foreign aid when Islamabad schemes contrary to their interests. Perhaps all roads lead to India like many Pakistani security initiatives?

Cold War 2010?

The general public of the international community is flummoxed over why the US-Russian spy swap episode came and went so swiftly and gingerly. One only need take a look at the recent success in US-Russian relations, deemed by many statesman and analysts as a "reset" in diplomacy between the two powers. It is worth noting that the international community is long passed the cold war era and for now, a unipolar world looms in existence. General Russian public opinion is that it is in Russia's best interest to pursue good relations with the US, and vice versa. However, it is important to note that every major power in the world today spies on another. So, the investigative accomplishment by the American FBI should come as no surprise. In The Watcher's opinion, embarrassment should come to Moscow, not because they were caught spying on America, but because they did it so clumsily. This is just a minor speed bump in a long road to normalizing relations between these two.

The McChrystal Fiasco

The replacement of General Stanley McChrystal with Iraq war hero Gen. David Petraeus as lead commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan has calmed some uncertainty of whether the West can succeed in Afghanistan (however you define success). As convenient as the appointment may seem, the McChrystal affair is not only another controversial topic in civilian-military relations, but it also sheds light on the friction between the Obama Administration's top national security advisors. Incidentally, this is evidence enough that the situation in Afghanistan is more grim than one may have previously perceived. With opposition to the war running rampant throughout the international community, the Obama Administration owes it to the world and the American people to explain why this truly is a "war of necessity."

For what it's worth. The Watcher has argued in favor of the war and will continue to do so. There is too much at stake for the foreign troops to pack up and leave. Such an action may lead Afghanistan to a civil war, which will drag in it's neighbors such as Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and India, vying for control and influence. Similarly, withdrawal will send a message to the Afghan people, terrorist organizations, and states currently fighting their own insurgencies that Western powers do not have the strategy or wherewithal to tackle such tasks. It will be a humiliating defeat. For the past year The Watcher has been advocating for a change in strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal's COIN initiative was hailed around policy circles around the world, but The Watcher suggests that this strategy does not reach what lies at the core of true counterinsurgency. It is imperative that foreign troops recognize that they are not being outgunned by the Taliban, they are being outgoverned. The Afghan people will never recognize a government as oppressive and corrupt as Hamid Karzai's.

Unless Gen. Petraeus turns the focus of his COIN strategy on battling corruption before improving military operations, the Taliban will continue to be one step ahead in the game. Similar to what an Afghan official once said, "if thousands of operations are carried out it will make no difference so long as corrupt officials are in place."