Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
So Vice Prez Biden is apparently President Obama's envoy to Iraq, possibly due to criticism that the administration hadn't been giving a lot of outward signs that Iraq remains a high-level priority. While I'm sure that there are a lot of people at the NSC, State, DoD, and elsewhere in the government who are paying close attention to ensure Iraq doesn't fly off the rails, it has certainly been striking (and concerning) that we've got a special envoy for Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan-Pakistan, and even Sudan--but no single top-ranking person with the president's ear who is solely focused on our Iraq policy. Which, you know, seems kind of important. In that sense, it's good to know that someone is minding the shop in Washington.
That said, it's not quite clear, at least to me, that Biden is the right guy for the job. It seems that the Iraqis haven't forgotten his earlier position in favor of soft-partitioning the country into a Shiastan, Sunnistan, and Kurdistan united in name only. Now that's a bit of a caricature of the position, but that's how it was perceived. And if you're one of many Iraqis or other citizens of the Middle East (or, frankly, the rest of the world) who believes that the U.S. objective in entering Iraq was to cut it into pieces and exploit its resources, then you might find Biden's role in overseeing U.S. Iraq policy to be a confirmation of your views. Or simply not be inclined to take him seriously.
I'm also a bit iffy on the message he sent. He was very pointed in saying that the United States has no "appetite to put Humpty Dumpty back together again if, by the action of people in Iraq, it fell apart." But it seems like Maliki and some other Iraqi political leaders could care less and would prefer to do "national reconciliation" on their own, thankyouverymuch. (They can also buy their guns from someone else.) I'm not sure that's something we should welcome, given Maliki's unwillingness to rehabilitate former Baathists and his sometimes-dangerous relationship with the Kurds, both issues that might undermine the security situation if mishandled.
More pointedly, if Iraq really does go to pot for some reason, is the United States and the Obama administration prepared to let it happen, basically giving the finger to our Iraqi partners and other regional allies, with unclear-but-probably-ugly consequences for stability in the Persian Gulf and American interests there? I understand we've spent a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq and the public will to continue to do more ran out a long time ago. But honestly, isn't Iraq a lot more important to the United States from a geo-strategic standpoint than Afghanistan? I don't see how we can afford to just let things slide there, and I don't think we will. So is Biden bluffing? Posturing for the benefit of the American and Iraqi publics? Or is it a real statement of policy? If it's the latter, it just seems wrong to rule out a reaction to renewed conflict in Iraq without thinking about what a strategic game-changer that might be.
It's a sad comment on the depth of Obama's FP team when Joe Biden is the deepest thinker on Iraq.
On the choice of Biden, in my opinion the most important part was to get someone with a high rank in place. Having no experience with Biden I can't say how good a choice he is, but I imagine that the staff focusing on Iraq are a bit more likely to be used to broker deals.
On the matter of statements about the US and it's willingness to step in, it may serve several purposes. The first is to put pressure on Iraqi leaders to work to build a government and nation that can survive, as we learned in Vietnam that all of our suggestions for reform were pointless unless we could threaten to pull out. The second is to remind people that it is only a matter of time before patience in Congress and the public runs out and almost all US soldiers are forced to leave, therefore it's best if we make the point now. The third is that this may be a roundabout way of encouraging the Iraqi's to see this as regaining more of Iraq's sovereignty.
As for what will happen if everything does fall apart, frankly we don't know and I doubt the Obama administration really does either. That depends on how willing the public is to see soldiers enter Iraq again, how accepting Congress is (ironically I imagine that Republicans and Democrats would find themselves in opposite positions from where they were in 2006), and if the intelligence community thinks we would have a chance.
If everything does fall apart then personally I think that the best case scenario would a large U.N peacekeeping mission with a broad mandate for Iraq, something that member nations would be unlikely to do until we're well on the way to recovering from the recession.
"But it seems like Maliki and some other Iraqi political leaders could care less and would prefer to do "national reconciliation" on their own, thankyouverymuch."
Could it be that some Iraqis view the Lebanese experiences with forming sectarian governments as instructive? How typically white-mans-burden thinking that we, of course, know better than Iraqis what's best for them.
Excuse me for being naive, but according to the SOFA the US is supposed to be largely out of there by 2011, right? That means that the log-train is already rolling, people are packing up etc.no? Im a bit confused as to what Ibn sees as viable options if civil war breaks out in say October 2010: Reinvade? For better or worse, 0bama is stuck with the SOFA negotiated under Bush. I dont see that leaving him much room.
Oh, and get ready for a war with iran mixed in. Seems Obama just caved to the Israelis, expect launch-time within next 6 months. Crazy. http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097911.html
FNORD,
Technically, there is no SOFA in place, it is a security agreement between the GOI and the U.S. The differentiation between the two is key, as the future SOFA will drive the interaction between host nation and military forces post 2011. To assume that there will be no residual force in Iraq in 2012 and beyond is somewhat naiive; there will certainly be forces on the ground, and probably a large amount. Iraq is just too strategically important to U.S. foreign policy and greater interests in the middle east to leave completely. Even though I disagree with the timing and even the decision to invade in the first place, I still believe that leaving forces in the region is good for overall interests by giving us leverage in the region to promote and ensure stability.
I also disagree with your assessment that Obama is stuck with the agreement negotiated by Bush. The agreement leaves tremendous flexibility to the administration and covers technical contigencies should security fail.
Fnord
The agreement (actually there are two), in toto, reads "This is the plan until/unless we change it."
"Security Agreement": http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/CGs_Messages/security_agreement.pdf
Strategic Framework Agreement: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/CGs_Messages/strategic_framework_agreemen...
I used quotes round the Security Agreement title because it's official title is (ahem) different. And while its official title isn't SOFA either I believe it's the one most people mean when they say SOFA. - Except for U.S. combat commanders, who refer to it as the Security Agreement. That subtle distinction is not trivial.
Greyhawk, visitor: Thank you for response. Im aware that there will be residual forces left behind. My question is twofold: At what point is the drawdown reaching the point that Maliki is able to dictate demands on US policy options? And at what point do the US forces become technically neutered, because the forces in-country are to small to effectively assert dominance. My point is that to me, it seems that the point where Maliki is in charge for real seems fast approiaching, and as earlier noted, he doesnt feel any political need to express gratitude, quite the opposite. (Add to this the Iranian dimension). To put it plainly, if things go south and Maliki tells you to get the hell out, what options are left?
It comes as no surprise, whatsoever, that Vice President Biden would be officially named as a 'special envoy' to Iraq. Indeed, this is pretty much a no-brainer for anyone who has been following political progress in Iraq. After all, Vice President Biden is the only US official - the only person on the face of the planet, actually - who has developed and honed, over the course of the last 5 years, a comprehensive and viable strategy to promote a sustainable political settlement in Iraq, based on principles of federalism and Iraq's own constitution.
The Biden strategy has already received the unprecedented and overwhelming support of a majority of Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress and it has been unofficially endorsed by the representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. And, more important than all of that, this strategy has the support of most of Iraq's sectarian leaders.
In a nutshell, the Biden strategy provides a mechanism for bringing the various political and ethnic Iraqi factions to the negotiating table to hammer out their differences and determine their own political future. This process would involve the regional and major powers in an effort to support and secure whatever power-sharing arrangements and constitutional amendments the Iraqis are able to achieve.
Of course, all of this is far to complicated for the vast majority of the media/blogosphere/punditocracy to wrap their minds around and they have, in large part, never missed an opportunity to wholly misrepresent what the Biden strategy is all about. Well, they are about to get an education as we see this plan put into action, at long last.
And, make no mistake - there is no one in US officialdom who is more knowledgeable about what will be required to promote national political reconciliation in Iraq than VP Biden.
Fnord, could I pick up on a couple of points you made in your last comment (July 5, 6:34pm)...
I'm thinking that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki may be saying one thing publically and quite another in the privacy of the meeting rooms. In any event, if he really believes what his spokesman said about political reconciliation in Iraq being a strictly "internal affair" and that any US help in that area is not required, then I would say good luck to Iraq and they may be the only country in the history of the world that finds itself in the situation that exists today to be able to move to sustainable political reconciliation without any outside help.
Frankly, I don't believe that Iraq - or that any other nation in similar circumstances - will be able to do this without help not only from the US but also from the UN and all of its neighbors.
However, I would say that if Iraq refuses the kind of help that the Obama-Biden administration is prepared to give in order to promote a sustainable political settlement in a stable and united Iraq, and if things go south as you describe, then the time will have come to withdraw ALL US forces - and civilians for that matter - post haste and a policy for containment will become the order of the day.
In the end, I suspect we will instead see a muscular diplomatic effort that will involve all Iraqi political and ethnic factions coming together at a negotiating table to hammer out their political future, with the regional and major powers involved to support and secure whatever power-sharing deal they are able to achieve.
Biden is also quite connected to terrorists inside the nation and outside the nation. Seems to me like giving them the man who will do the best for them and screw his own country in the process. This whole damned administration is tight as hell with the active terrorism here in the US and in the middle east.
"Active terrorism here in the US" Would you explain what is included in that?
'terrorists inside the nation'? 'Biden'? Where in the world of all things rational and sane do you get that? Seriously, are you even trying to be taken seriously? If one actually looks at the Global Terrorism Database* from 2002 to 2007 there have been about 67 terrorist attacks in the United States. Out of those the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for almost half (32), and I am not aware of any fatalities as a result of those attacks. The others seemed to be anti-government (the ricin sent through the mail to then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the White House, and the Dept. of Transportation), anti-abortion attacks, or several miscellaneous that do not appear to have had an apparent motive. In other words, there is NOTHING at all to suggest that Biden was involved in any of them. You sound like those people who are convinced that Obama is a Muslim terrorist or that Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks.
*The Global Terrorism Database can be found at the link below along with the main site.
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
http://www.start.umd.edu/start/
Everybody hates Joe Biden. The CIA has known he's a spy since the 80s. Nice hair plugs.
Add your comment