Leaving Iraq

Okay, the United States has officially withdrawn the last of its armed forces from Iraq as of today — but what have we left behind? Is Iraq in any better shape now than it was in 2005, when we might have pegged a troop withdrawal to the election of the Iraqi parliament? I don't think so.

US troops had been there roughly half a year when it was concluded that the "weapons of mass destruction" the Bush administration offered as a justification for invasion did not exist. After another couple of months, Saddam Hussein was captured and turned over to the Iraqis. We could have been gone by a year later, when they (very picturesquely) hanged him. They really didn't need us for that.

Today, Iraq continues to be splintered along religious and ethnic lines. Nuri Kamal al-Maliki shows little regard for the rule of law, the Iraqiya coalition of secular and Sunni Iraqis is boycotting the parliament in protest, and militias loyal to individuals like Muqtada al-Sadr have not been disarmed nor disbanded. No agreement has been reached with the Kurds about sharing oil revenues, and the Kurds seem willing to fight to maintain their autonomy. The forces of our allies in the "Sunni Awakening" are complaining of persecution by the majority Shi'a government. Iran's influence is extensive, and growing.

When the US leaves Afghanistan — at some unspecified date in the future — that country is likely to be even more disordered, corrupt, and crazy than Iraq is today. So, why wait? Let's bring all the troops home.

"Withdrawal" symptoms

Well, the president finally has decided what to do regarding Afghanistan and, to nobody's surprise, it seems to be another of his bloody "compromises." Announced as an "acceleration" of troop withdrawal, by the end of next year it still will leave more than twice as many troops in Afghanistan as there were before the "surge."

The military, needless to say, really didn't want any troop withdrawal at all. First, as long as we're over there killing Taliban (and any civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time), we can deny that we've lost the war. I imagine there are those who hate to think the 1500 American troops killed in action haven't "died in vain" — although, of course, they have died in vain, and the thousands more with severe combat related disabilities have been disabled in vain. Another factor important to the careerists is that combat is where the promotions are to be found, and a less bellicose United States would hinder their advancement.

As for Obama, I suppose it's not politically expedient to call it quits before the next election, considering all the bug-eyed, meat-rending Republicans who would call him both a sissy and a betrayer of American values — and also considering what a big deal he made in the last election about how Afghanistan was the right war to fight. On the other hand, perhaps he should pay more attention to the growing number of Republicans joining the Democratic left in demanding immediate withdrawal — mostly for fiscal reasons, but for other reasons as well. "If we're going to leave," said Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), "we should leave. The centralized system of government foisted upon the Afghan people is not going to hold after we leave. So let's quit prolonging the agony and the inevitable."

Hear hear!