Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Editorial

Time to leave Iraq

President Barack Obama's announcement Friday that American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year was greeted with jeers in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail from Republicans who said the U.S. was ignominiously bowing to pressure from Iraqi politicians. Ironically, these were many of the same GOP leaders who once hailed former President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, which he cast (at least after the fact) as part of a doctrine of spreading the universal values of democracy and self-determination to the region. But Republicans can't have it both ways. If the democratically elected government we fought so hard to help establish now wants us out, we must respect its decision and leave.

American military leaders would have liked to keep a residual force of up to 18,000 troops in the country past the Dec. 31 deadline for withdrawal set by the Bush administration. Its mission would have been to provide backup for Iraq's fledgling security forces and run counter-terrorism operations the Iraqis lack the capability to mount. Though the White House whittled that number down to 5,000 to 10,000 in negotiations with Iraqi lawmakers, the deal still came apart after the Iraqis refused to grant U.S. personnel immunity in their courts.

Iraqi lawmakers surely knew the issue of immunity was a poison pill the Pentagon would never stomach. But as elected officials, they also knew they needed to respond to popular sentiment among constituents who have grown tired of the U.S. presence and show they were willing to stand up to the Americans. In the new democratic Iraq, as elsewhere, all politics is local.

Granted, the Iraq war was begun under false pretenses — Saddam Hussein never possessed the weapons of mass destruction President Bush claimed as the original rationale for launching the invasion — and for the first three years of the war, the U.S. military strategy was often ill-conceived and poorly executed. Rather than promoting democracy, our presence initially prompted a collapse into civil war and the rise of a vicious al-Qaida affiliate that had never before gained a toehold in the country. It took eight years, more than 4,000 American lives and $1 trillion — and, of course, millions of Iraqis killed, injured or displaced — to enable Iraq's fragile and imperfect democracy to emerge.

Yet, fragile and imperfect as it is, Iraq is capable of standing on its own. In the estimation of U.S. officials, Iraq's army and national police are now strong enough to maintain order in most parts of the country, even if they still can't do some things as well as U.S. forces. They will continue to need help in developing their intelligence capabilities and building an air force. But much of that work can be done by the thousands of American private contractors still in the country and by the token force of 160 or so uniformed personnel who will remain after our combat troops depart. The Obama administration also plans to bring Iraqi officials to the United States for training, or to take advantage of assistance from other allies in the Middle East.

Whether the Iraq invasion had anything to do with the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring that toppled authoritarian governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya this year is debatable at best. But whatever the cause, Mr. Bush's vision of an emergence of democracy in the region is coming to pass. The besieged regimes of Syria's Bashar al-Assad and Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh, along with the recent death of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, suggest even more transformations may be in store. President Obama's strategy of encouraging democracy movements in the region while avoiding unnecessary U.S. military involvement has actually strengthened our influence there.

Yet the reaction of Mr. Bush's fellow Republicans to President Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq has hardly been to proclaim "Mission accomplished." Rather, they accuse him of failing to show sufficient resolve by not browbeating or bullying the Iraqis into accepting an open-ended U.S. troop presence there. But that's no way to win friends in the region. Better to simply accept that Iraqis are capable of running their own affairs, even if they make mistakes and there are some things our forces can do better than theirs.

To be sure, a complete withdrawal presents risks to American interests, particularly if Iran once again tries to wield its influence in Iraq. But we dishonor the only positive outcome of our misadventure there if we fail to respect the wishes of Iraq's leaders and people. We'll best serve our own interests as well as theirs if we just leave Iraqis with the message that if they get into a jam and need help, all they have to do is ask.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Confronting terrorism requires force
    Confronting terrorism requires force

    Regarding Barbara Risacher's recent letter on the war on terror, the least attractive option is to fail to respond forcibly to terror — a view the writer apparently favors ("New thinking in war on terror," Feb. 26).

  • Obama ended the Iraq war, which was what voters elected him to do
    Obama ended the Iraq war, which was what voters elected him to do

    In response to reader Jay Hilgartner's letter, Bud Adams asserts that the "disaster of nation building in Iraq" occurred when President Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country in 2011, against the advice of his military advisers and at a time when the country was calm and stable...

  • New thinking in war on terror
    New thinking in war on terror

    Thank you for publishing Eve Bruce's commentary on America's failed war on terror ("America's failed war on terror," it is evident that "we the people" have been had by the fear mongers and those who are benefiting from unending war. Now is the time to stop and think. Is the world any better...

  • Obama fails to recognize Muslim terrorist threat
    Obama fails to recognize Muslim terrorist threat

    I could care less what the global war on terrorism is called ("Not a holy war," Feb. 20). But two thoughts come to mind.

  • Islam is a religion of peace
    Islam is a religion of peace

    As an Ahmad Muslim, I believe Islam condemns terrorism and that there is no room for any violence in the name of blasphemy. The Qur'an constantly exhorts people to think while also telling Muslims to ignore the ignorant and provocative, not harm them.

  • Our real Mideast problem: Support for despots
    Our real Mideast problem: Support for despots

    I agree with both presidents Obama and Bush that the U.S. is not engaged in a war against Islam and that the Islamic State, or ISIS, does not represent a legitimate interpretation of that religion ("Not a holy war," Feb. 20).

  • Obama not standing up to terrorists
    Obama not standing up to terrorists

    I am a committed U.S. citizen who loves his country, a former U.S. Marine and a participating Jew, but I am currently feeling some concern and fear. I strongly believe that when leadership loses the respect and trust of the majority, it's time to re-evaluate or step aside. I believe that we...

  • With ISIS, give peace a chance
    With ISIS, give peace a chance

    Finding a president asking Congress for permission to go to war is about as rare as finding a liberal Republican. So it was a surprise to read that President Obama has formally asked Congress to authorize military operations against the Islamic State ("Obama seeks war powers," Feb. 12).