The drawbacks of the US Iraq withdrawal

US troops hand over Camp Kalsu to Iraqi troops (11 Dec 2011) Some feel the rush to pull US troops out of Iraq will have long term consequences

President Barack Obama is to visit a military base here in North Carolina to thank the troops for their service in Iraq, and make a historic declaration: The war is over, and in a few days' time the bases will be gone - no troops will remain.

The end has come sooner than many imagined. The US military and the Iraqi government failed to negotiate an agreement which would allow thousands of US troops to remain. I imagine the president is not heartbroken by this failure. It means he can make a clear announcement well before next year's election.

President Obama said this week that it will be for history to judge the decision to go to war. But how do the architects of war feel now?

I have been speaking to Doug Feith, who was undersecretary for defence policy at the time and seen as a leading neo con. Like many who backed the war, he points out that a brutal dictator has gone, Iraq is a democracy and may have a brighter future.

But he worries that the pullout has come too quickly.

"I think it is a particularly risky course. What the Obama administration has done is a adopt the high-risk option. I think the country would have a greater chance for the political institutions to develop and the quality of the security forces to improve if the US forces had been maintained at an appropriate level," he says.

"But Obama came in with a commitment, a determination, to leave, and that has caused a lot of problems.

"He made it clear early on that when he thought about Iraq, his thought was not to accomplish anything particular on the ground, his thought was to get out. He communicated that over and over again. And I think that had an ill effect on the thinking of a lot of people in Iraq."

Mr Feith is critical of Mr Obama's whole approach to foreign policy, but does admit that the failures of the Iraq war have dampened America's enthusiasm for the muscular diplomacy he favours.

"The fact that the war didn't go well after Saddam got removed has made Americans, at least for the time being, more reluctant to consider military action and depending on one's view, that is something that will make the world better or more dangerous."

He says the turmoil and early failure of the occupation weakened America's clout.

"In the immediate aftermath of Saddam's overthrow our diplomacy was more potent, more persuasive. The Iranian government saw that the government to the left of them had been overthrown, the government to the right of them had been overthrown and they were nervous. They immediately started some negotiations.

"Once the war didn't go well in Iraq and they realised there was no credible military threat, their position in negotiations hardened and they became completely uncooperative."

I put it to him that it is ironic that neo cons, who believe American power can be used to change the world for the better, made that less likely because of their enthusiasm for the Iraq war.

"I don't think it is ironic, it is the way things go. If one launches a military action and it goes well, it builds up the strength of one's diplomacy. If it doesn't go well, as in Iraq, it is dangerous and it can have very bad consequences."

That's the view from a former member of the Bush administration. I will be reporting, here and on Twitter, not to mention radio and TV, on the president's speech later on Wednesday.

Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell Presenter, The World This Weekend

Trident question comes to the surface

In 2016, the new government will have to decide whether to continue to invest in the Trident programme - and this could be a key issue in a hung Parliament, says the BBC's Mark Mardell.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 178.

    You mean like Italy and, formerly, France? Revolving door governments are not that great. As for Israel, where ptoprep allows the religious minor parties to block change as a condition of coalition building, no thanks.

  • rate this

    Comment number 177.

    It is astonishing how a nation like the United States of America,endowed with the best minds that any nation could ever be "blessed or cursed" with continues to make blunders after blunders. I would like to think that Iraq is the last blunder that the United States have made...Only time will tell. I hope that Mr Obama will be able to justify why he was awarded the Nobel Peace.

  • rate this

    Comment number 176.

    "GWB sure milked the Country's Collective Post 9/11 Grief to force the coalition to rush into his very own War with Iraq, illegally"

    I disagree with almost everything else this poster has written, but this is very true [with the possible exception of "illegal," GWB cheated, connived and bent the rules, but it was not clearly "illegal" ]

  • rate this

    Comment number 175.

    I find it laughable that Iraq wants US investment. Their Dinar is worth less than a penny. I wouldn't invest with them with no signs of their money becoming worth anything. No thanks! A lose lose deal here in my opinion.

  • rate this

    Comment number 174.

    Apples and oranges...

    True, but Obama managed to eat his apple without making a huge mess.
    Bush managed to dribble out such a mess, its taken 8 years of clean up to get to the state we're in now.


Comments 5 of 178



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.