Now that major gains have been made to bring stability to Iraq, it would be foolish for the United States to simply leave the country arbitrarily, military strategists say.
“The purpose of this [war] is to advance our interests,” said Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. “That’s why America fights wars. And I think that this conflict has the potential to advance our interests in the region and in the global war on terror dramatically, but only if we see it through to its conclusion.” Kagan’s consistent support of the Bush Administration’s efforts in Iraq have made him a favorite target of left-wing blogs.
According to the testimony of Kagan and two other foreign policy experts at an AEI forum, now is not the time for an unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops, as presidential hopeful Barack Obama has suggested.
Retired Army General Jack Keane said that while al-Qaeda has been “operationally defeated” in Iraq, a precipitous withdrawal could reverse the momentum gained in the region.
Al-Qaeda has mostly fled the country thanks to a united effort by American military forces and the up-and-coming Iraqi military.
“This is a major strategic defeat for…al-Qaeda, because they declared [Iraq] as their central front,” said Keane. “Certainly with [the] U.S. presence in Iraq, they felt that this was a vulnerability that they could exploit for their own purposes. They needed the Sunni’s support to do that, and that has failed.”
Keane also praised the resilience of the Iraqi people in their everyday lives, noting how they are no longer complacent with terrorism in their land. The threat of a terrorist attack no longer dictates their actions.
“They believe intuitively that they are not going to be harmed, that the probability is not there for them,” said Keane. “So they’re on those streets with their families and children; they’re there in the evenings to have some sort of social life.”
Kagan asserts that these are major gains in Iraq, but blasted the media and Obama for “misquoting” the Iraqi people and leaders such as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Recent reports stemming from Obama’s campaign trip to the Middle East state that Maliki supports Obama’s plan for an unconditional withdrawal of troops by 2010.
However, Kagan, who taught at West Point, noted that Maliki has said such a withdrawal can only take place if many security goals and conditions have been met; specifically, the U.S. must not leave until Iraq is secure and capable of defending itself from hostile neighbors, such as Iran, and from further terrorist activity.
“How are you going to deal with an Iranian challenge at all if you start by taking what is now a tremendous setback we have imposed with our Iraqi partners on Iran,” said Kagan, “and turn it into a tremendous victory for Iran?”
“There is no question about whether the Iraqi government wants to have a strategic partnership with the U.S.”
Kagan also asserted that it would be unwise to shift the focus of the American military from Iraq to Afghanistan, as Barack Obama has suggested in his future plans for U.S. involvement in the region.
“From a pure geo-strategic perspective, it is insane to imagine that Afghanistan is somehow more important than Iraq,” said Kagan.
Instead of focusing on a withdrawal, the U.S. should seek to strengthen Iraq’s potential as an oil-producing giant. Its location also makes it vital to maintaining peace in the entire Middle Eastern region.
And as the admitted key to al-Qaeda’s success, a healthy Iraq will help to prevent the group’s ability to export terror globally and within the region.
“Remember that they are terrorists, and they will be capable of a spectacular attack from time to time,” said Keane, “but what they cannot do is sustain a level of violence that could threaten or destabilize the regime.”
Ben Giles is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
