By Yang Qingchuan
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (Chinese media) -- Making a sharp turn in the U.S. policy on Iraq in nearly six years, President Barack Obama on Friday outlined a new "road map" to pull out most troops from the country in 18 months, and a three-part strategy to stabilize the war-torn country.
The decision, after more than a month of deliberations and consultations with top advisors and commanders, contains careful military, political and security calculations of the president, and faces many uncertainties ahead.
Obama's grand vision to shift the anti-terror focus from Iraq to Afghanistan will not be not easy one to fulfill.
REFLECTING A GROWING CONSENSUS
The political implication of the decision is very clear: it meets a growing consensus among the American people for an end to the war.
"Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end," Obama told an audience at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
When he declared that the U.S. has now "begun the work of ending this war," the words were met with applause, rejoicing and a sigh of relief among TV audiences across the country.
It is undeniable that there has been a longing among Americans to end the war. The country has paid a huge price in terms of lives, money, politics and reputation for its invasion into Iraq on March 20, 2003.
Nearly 4,300 U.S. soldiers have been killed there and some 657 billion U.S. dollars has been spent, and yet there is no justification for the costs.
The war has also changed the U.S. political landscape in a fundamental way.
There is no doubt that Obama, an opponent of the Iraq war from the very start, received a huge political bonus for his stance in the 2008 presidential elections.
Opinion polls show that overwhelming negative feelings toward the war has not changed in the past two years.
Although a growing number of people are now optimistic about the situation in Iraq, the majority of Americans still believe it was a mistake to go to Iraq in the first place, according to a new Washington Post poll.
The New York Times observed that there is "an emerging consensus in the United States that it is time to begin getting out" of Iraq.
Vice President Joe Biden told NBC that Obama's decision "would satisfy public hunger to begin ending the war."
"I think the American people will understand exactly what we are doing and they will be pleased. We are keeping a campaign commitment," he said.
While some leading Democrats argued about the size of the residual force beyond August 2010, Obama's decision largely won support across party lines, including from leading Republicans like Senator John McCain of Arizona, Obama's rival in last year's presidential election, and former Bush administration officials.
CALCULATIONS BEHIND THE TIMETABLE
According to Obama's plan, the bulk of the overall 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be gone by Aug. 31, 2010, and only 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain to perform non-combat functions like training Iraqi troops, carrying out anti-terror missions, and protecting U.S. personnel.
It is noticeable that the 18-month timetable is longer than the original timetable advocated by Obama during his presidential bid last year.
As a candidate, he promised to pull out U.S. combat troops within 16 months after being sworn-in as president, at the pace of two brigades a month.
But this has changed since he was sworn in on Jan. 20 this year.
Influenced by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and top generals, Obama said he would "end the war in a responsible way" rather than sticking to his 16-month promise.
Analysts said the reason Obama cannot keep his campaign pledge is because he is still unsure whether Iraq is on the solid road toward stabilization despite the improving security situation, and the recent successful provincial elections in the country.
U.S. commanders in Iraq, including the top general, Ray Odierno, favor a 23-month withdrawal schedule because they are worried whether the security gains in Iraq are sustainable.
A key test will come in December when Iraqis hold their parliamentary elections. The commanders are not certain the elections could go well without a strong U.S. military presence.
Obama acknowledged this in his speech, saying that "Iraq is not yet secure, and there will be difficult days ahead."
However, the president also faces growing pressure from within his own party to accelerate the withdrawal and he has to appease the anti-war groups who supported him during last year's election.
Another political calculation also disallows him from adopting the 23-month schedule.
In November 2010, Democrats will face the Republicans in the congressional elections.
If Obama fails to pull out most troops from Iraq before that date, the voters could turn their frustrations over the prolonged war into a disadvantage for Democratic candidates.
Based on all these calculations, Obama has chosen a 18-month schedule.
He is also very aware of the December elections in Iraq and plans to withdraw only two brigades by the end of the year before accelerating the pace of withdrawal.
UNCERTAINTIES STILL AHEAD
From a strategic point of view, the withdrawal means a shifted focus toward Afghanistan.
Obama decided to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan last week but the pace of reinforcement depends on how many troops can be released from Iraq.
For many reasons, such a strategic shift is difficult to accomplish, and there are still a lot of uncertainties head in Iraq.
First of all, Obama and his advisors still have great concerns about security and political development in Iraq.
U.S. analysts identified three risks in Iraq as the troops pullout: the growing conflict between Iraq's central government and the Kurdish provinces in the north; the sectarian rivalry for power, and the capability of Iraqi forces to secure the country.
In addition, the pullout itself poses tremendous logistical challenges as the United States needs to ship out 90,000 to 100,000 troops, 100,000 contractors, 60,000 aircraft and vehicles, and 120,000 containers within 18 months.
"Withdrawal from Iraq is expected to invite insurgent attacks and may require extra time," said Gus Pagonis, the so-called "logistical wizard" who oversaw the U.S. withdrawal after the Gulf War in early the 1990s.
Another important factor is some leading figures in U.S. political and academic circles are still wondering whether it is wise for the United States to withdraw from Iraq, a country of significant strategic value.
"Given Iraq's strategic significance, the mission ceased to be a 'war of choice' the moment American forces crossed the border in March 2003. Now we have no choice but to see Iraq through to stability," Michael O' Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two senior experts from the Brookings Institution, co-wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times.
Aside from the removal of combat troops from Iraq, Obama also illustrated two other parts of his Iraq strategy: fostering a peaceful and prosperous Iraq, and pushing forward regional diplomacy.
He also named veteran diplomat Christopher Hill, who has long been the American envoy to the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, as new the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
However, how to increase the use of diplomacy to complement U.S. military efforts in Iraq is far from clear.
Some analysts point out without a strong military presence, the United States will risk losing much of its diplomatic bargaining power in Iraq or its neighboring countries.
Obama has outlined a new course for the nearly six-year-old war, and time will tell how it all pans out.
No comments:
Post a Comment