SPEAKING FREELY Will it be 'Obama's war'?
By Brian M Downing
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say.
Please click hereif you are interested in contributing.
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
sizeable 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. He can be reached at brianmdowning@gmail.com.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say.
Please click hereif you are interested in contributing.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
