Brian M Downing
Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly assured the public that, if elected to the presidency, he will withdraw US troops from Iraq, and in a manner more cautious than the way in which the US went in.
He is unclear as to how many troops he would withdraw, which leaves a suspicious amount of ambiguity. Nonetheless, the Democratic faithful believe that he will keep his word and that his word denotes large-scale withdrawal. There are, however, extraordinary obstacles to large-scale withdrawal, which make some doubt that this change is one in which we can believe in.
The next president, regardless of his party, will face powerful foreign pressures to keep a major US commitment in Iraq, perhaps only somewhat less than the troop level of 140,000 we will have soon. Saudi Arabia warned the US against toppling Saddam Hussein’s government. Brutal and sometimes menacing though it was, Saddam’s Iraq was at least a barrier to Shi’ite and Iranian expansion in the Middle East. His ouster created a vacuum, and geopolitics abhors a vacuum at least as much as nature does.
Fearful that Iran might march west or at least incite the Shi’ites of Saudi Arabia and those in other Sunni states, the Saudis wish the US to stay in the region, indefinitely, as a guardian against Iran. Israel is also worried. It is not just the fear of an Iran with nuclear weapons; Israel also fears the expansion of Iranian influence in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is probably closer to Iran’s Quds Force than ever. Iran has even gained influence with Hamas – a Sunni group – in Palestine. The Saudis and pro-Israel groups are exerting pressure on the US to maintain its troops in Iraq. Each of those groups wields considerable influence throughout Washington. Combined, their influence will be very difficult to overcome.
The US military will also oppose large-scale withdrawal. The generation of officers who learned hard lessons in Vietnam are almost all gone now, leaving successors who are only vaguely wary of foreign quagmires. The torch has been passed to a new generation that believes in one main lesson from Vietnam: future wars must be seen through. The military thinks it has turned a corner in Iraq and that General David Petraeus’ troop “surge” is working well.
It will ally with like-minded members of the US Congress, conservative media and think-tanks to argue the stay-put message. If a Democratic president were somehow able to overcome opposition to withdrawal, he would bring bitter enmity between the generals and his party, which is already disliked for its lineage to the antiwar movement of the Vietnam years and for trimming defense budgets. Leaving Iraq – cutting and running, as it is often called – would poison civil-military relations as never before in the nation’s history.
Considerable portions of the public will oppose withdrawal – and react viciously to anything perceived as defeat or cutting and running. Polling data show strong support for withdrawing from Iraq, though it is neither overwhelming nor deep. Data from a previous war, one far more divisive than the present one, might be kept in mind.
As former president Richard Nixon took office in 1969, polls showed a majority of Americans opposed the war and wanted out. Yet when asked if they would favor leaving Vietnam if it meant defeat (as it surely would have), only 9% favored withdrawal (Ronald Spector, After Tet, page 315). The public wanted out, but not defeat. Pollsters don’t seem to ask that important follow-up question today, but there’s likely widespread, ill-thought sentiment on the Iraq war as well.
In the late 1940s, Americans demanded to know who lost China, as though it was once theirs to lose. Should an expeditious withdrawal from Iraq lead to renewed savagery between the Shi’ites and Sunnis and within the Shi’ites, as it likely would, fingers will point angrily to Obama, a young politician with little international experience and no military experience.
An array of nonsensical myths emerged in the decade after defeat in Vietnam, which could easily be dusted off and used against Obama and his party. We had turned the corner … victory was in sight … sacrifice was squandered … politicians meddled. It is likely that Obama and his party would be devastated in ensuing elections. Accordingly, many members of his own party will oppose sizable withdrawal.
Obama is a masterful politician, but he will have to work closely with old hands on his staff such as former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to get out of Iraq without severely damaging his presidency and party. But he will also have to avoid staying in Iraq too long. After all, a year or so after the 1968 elections, Vietnam became “Nixon’s war”. If elected, Obama will have to be at the top of his game to prevent Iraq from becoming “Obama’s war”.
Brian M Downing is the author of several works of political and military history, including The Military Revolution and Political Change and The Paths of Glory: War and Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF11Ak01.html