Obama's pyrrhic great escape

Barack Obama, who before stepping into the White House had admirably voiced his opposition to the Iraq war, is very much entitled to celebrate the fulfilment of his pledge to withdraw American combat troops by the deadline that he set — August 31.

But by any measure, this turnaround is not the result of a victory or defeat for the American troops, who lost over 4,400 soldiers while Iraq's losses were steeper — more than 100,000 civilians were killed.

The choice of the American President to establish this unprecedented marker in warfare was a clever move, winning him some attention, even some national and international praise. It may also help him in the upcoming mid-term election in November where his party faces a tough battle because of the economic downturn.

But, in fairness, it was really his predecessor, George W. Bush, who had approved the American military surge months before his term ended in 2009 and must now be credited for turning the tide against the insurgency in Iraq. Likewise, the former president had also promised that the American occupation would be terminated by the end of 2011 — two decisions that Obama wisely did not meddle with.

It is also worth noting that he reserved no praise for his predecessor as some expected in his remarks from the Oval Office on Tuesday night.

But what is the effect of the withdrawal of combat troops on the situation within Iraq, a decision that has not been fully welcomed by some Americans and even Iraqis, including some leaders? The point being that Iraq has been shattered by the seven-year war, which almost all agree with the New York Times that it "should never have been fought".

Iraq remains agonisingly divided as evident in the shocking failure of the Iraqi leaders to agree on a new government after the national elections held about six months ago.

Mistaken view

The mistaken American view, which is shared elsewhere, is that the American occupation ushered in democracy in Iraq. Those ascribing to this view are seemingly unaware that almost every regime in the Arab world holds national elections. But this does not mean that democracy and freedom reign supreme in all these countries. Obviously, there is more to democracy than going to the polls.

What has been eye-catching about the American celebration is that Iraqis seem hardly aware of it. "Today's date is actually meaningless, "said Raed Jarrar, a Washington-based Iraqi consultant with the American Friends Service Committee. Rather, he continued, "the critical date is December 31, 2011" recalling that a "bilateral agreement between the US and Iraq signed in 2008 mandates that all US troops and all Pentagon contractors be out by then and that all US bases be closed or turned over".

The American mission has not yet been fully accomplished, as president Bush indicated prematurely in that banner of the Navy vessel several years ago and which was the subject of ridicule, here and there. Even today, about 50,000 American troops remain in Iraq to "advise and assist" the Iraqi government in maintaining law and order, and help in shipping out US military equipment. In this respect who can be certain that there will not be additional loss of American or Iraqi lives, a possibility that will certainly tarnish the Obama administration. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where about 30,000 US troops have recently been dispatched, run the record for America's longest military intervention, close but certainly not longer than the Vietnam war which ended miserably for the Americans.

Blunt message

When Obama announced on Tuesday night the end of the American combat mission, he underlined that "the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country".

But he went overboard when he emphasised that the US has met "our responsibility [and] now, it is time to turn the page". His "most urgent task," he stressed, is to restore the sagging US economy, which had siphoned more than "a trillion of dollars" for the seven-year Iraq war effort, and "put millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work".

This drastic shift in focus and responsibility may be devastating for Iraq.

This "cradle of civilisation," as Obama described Iraq, has been encountering a serious problem , namely the growing strength of sectarianism which has gained prominence in the wake of the US occupation. This is best illustrated in the election results. The Shiite prime minister is refusing to share a government with a non-sectarian leader whose coalition led in the election and included Sunnis who, until the American intervention, ruled Iraq.

And then, of course, there is the looming case of the oil-rich Kurdish region in the north. Since the American invasion it has had a semi-independent autonomous regime that some Iraqis fear aspires for full independence by merging with other Kurdish sectors in the neighbouring countries — Turkey, Syria and Iran.

It would take more than a plain suggestion from Obama for the Iraqis "to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people". He just can't wash his hands and walk away.

George Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist. He can be contacted at ghishmeh@gulfnews.com