The drawbacks of the US Iraq withdrawal

 
US troops hand over Camp Kalsu to Iraqi troops (11 Dec 2011) Some feel the rush to pull US troops out of Iraq will have long term consequences

President Barack Obama is to visit a military base here in North Carolina to thank the troops for their service in Iraq, and make a historic declaration: The war is over, and in a few days' time the bases will be gone - no troops will remain.

The end has come sooner than many imagined. The US military and the Iraqi government failed to negotiate an agreement which would allow thousands of US troops to remain. I imagine the president is not heartbroken by this failure. It means he can make a clear announcement well before next year's election.

President Obama said this week that it will be for history to judge the decision to go to war. But how do the architects of war feel now?

I have been speaking to Doug Feith, who was undersecretary for defence policy at the time and seen as a leading neo con. Like many who backed the war, he points out that a brutal dictator has gone, Iraq is a democracy and may have a brighter future.

But he worries that the pullout has come too quickly.

"I think it is a particularly risky course. What the Obama administration has done is a adopt the high-risk option. I think the country would have a greater chance for the political institutions to develop and the quality of the security forces to improve if the US forces had been maintained at an appropriate level," he says.

"But Obama came in with a commitment, a determination, to leave, and that has caused a lot of problems.

"He made it clear early on that when he thought about Iraq, his thought was not to accomplish anything particular on the ground, his thought was to get out. He communicated that over and over again. And I think that had an ill effect on the thinking of a lot of people in Iraq."

Mr Feith is critical of Mr Obama's whole approach to foreign policy, but does admit that the failures of the Iraq war have dampened America's enthusiasm for the muscular diplomacy he favours.

"The fact that the war didn't go well after Saddam got removed has made Americans, at least for the time being, more reluctant to consider military action and depending on one's view, that is something that will make the world better or more dangerous."

He says the turmoil and early failure of the occupation weakened America's clout.

"In the immediate aftermath of Saddam's overthrow our diplomacy was more potent, more persuasive. The Iranian government saw that the government to the left of them had been overthrown, the government to the right of them had been overthrown and they were nervous. They immediately started some negotiations.

"Once the war didn't go well in Iraq and they realised there was no credible military threat, their position in negotiations hardened and they became completely uncooperative."

I put it to him that it is ironic that neo cons, who believe American power can be used to change the world for the better, made that less likely because of their enthusiasm for the Iraq war.

"I don't think it is ironic, it is the way things go. If one launches a military action and it goes well, it builds up the strength of one's diplomacy. If it doesn't go well, as in Iraq, it is dangerous and it can have very bad consequences."

That's the view from a former member of the Bush administration. I will be reporting, here and on Twitter, not to mention radio and TV, on the president's speech later on Wednesday.

 
Mark Mardell, North America editor Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell North America editor

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 1.

    I think that the comments of neo cons, as you describe them, must be discounted in light of their eagerness to spend vast sums of the public's money on their friends in the military-industrial complex. Was it in the nation's interest?
    Of course if this war had gone like the gulf war did it would have had unquestioned support. Bad decisions were made re the occupation, and the spending continued.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 2.

    Neocons are shameless ghouls with no thought at all for the human cost of 'strengthening diplomacy through war'. For them it's irrelevant how many people die and how many nations are reduced to ruin so long as they can claim to be top dog. At least they could admit that their wars are for resources, land, pure plunder. It would be the honest reason for war, not to 'strengthen diplomacy'!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 3.

    I'm glad Saddam is gone. For the rest, an early fumble cost is the lead, And as in Afghanistan, we never recovered it. Over confident, over-eager and immature leaders gave away control when we had it, and both fronts became more than we could manage. The dollars, still continued to pour out.
    Nothing could be gained after that, nothing worthwhile. Time we got out. We spent our rep and our wad.

  • Comment number 4.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 5.

    America cannot afford any more of these futile adventures. If Congress wants savings then look no further than the bloated armed forces of Uncle Sam. No talk from this Strangelove like character of the thousands of families that have been psychologically and economically disfigured by America's seemingly insatiable appetite to force its way of life on others.

 

Comments 5 of 178

 

This entry is now closed for comments

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • ITChild's play

    It's never been easier for small businesses to get their message out to the world

Programmes

  • An aerial shot shows the Olympic Stadium, which is closed for repair works on its roof, in Rio de Janeiro March 28, 2014.Extra Time Watch

    Will Rio be ready in time to host the Olympics in 2016? The IOC president gives his verdict

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.