Consider this exchange on August 26 at the US State Department's daily press briefing. The department's spokesman, Ian Kelly, was fielding questions on the growing tensions between Iraq and Syria, following a co-ordinated series of bombings in Baghdad a week earlier that killed or injured several hundred people. The government of prime minister Nouri al Maliki accused Iraqi Baathists based in Syria of being behind the attacks, before recalling its ambassador in Damascus.
Asked about the Syrian-Iraqi dispute, Mr Kelly shuffled through his papers. “Yeah, if you could just hold on a second. We understand that there has been sort of mutual recall of the ambassadors. We consider that an internal matter. We're – we believe that, as a general principle, that diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties. We are working with the Iraqis to determine who perpetrated these horrible acts of violence � We hope this doesn't hinder dialogue between the two countries.”
When a journalist pointed out that the Iraqis had accused Syria of being responsible for the violence, meaning it was more than an internal matter, Mr Kelly replied: “Well, again, we're � very concerned about these reports � We're working with the Iraqi government to find out exactly who was behind them, but we don't have any firm information right now...”It's hard to believe, reading through those evasive phrases, that the United States still has almost 130,000 members of its armed forces in Iraq and has spent the past six years trying to stabilise the situation there. That the Syrians might be using Iraqi Baathists to subvert security in Iraq could apparently produce no more from Mr Kelly than a bland call for diplomatic dialogue – a dialogue designed to transcend “horrible acts of violence”. You wonder if the spokesman heard what he was saying.
document.write('');
But don't blame Mr Kelly. He was only channelling the deep ambiguities at the White House over Iraq, still seen as George W Bush's war, so that the removal of American troops from the country was at the very heart of Barack Obama's campaign promises. In July, the United States began withdrawing from Iraqi cities, and the process of drawing down the military presence, while perhaps not irreversible, would be politically difficult for the president to consider even delaying.
Mr Obama summarised his views of the Iraq conflict in his Cairo speech last June. “Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis,” the president said, adding that this was why he had ordered the removal of all US troops by 2012. “We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.”
The historian Niall Ferguson once described the US as an empire with a short attention span. The US has spent six years in Iraq, and its haste to leave is understandable. However, Mr Obama's plans for the country square little with his broader regional objectives, particularly the containment of Iran and defence of America's Gulf allies. An Iran that dominates in Iraq will also dominate in the Gulf, and beyond. A fundamental problem in the president's approach to the Middle East is his consistent underestimation of how significant Iraq is to US policy and influence in the region. The argument may be academic today, since Mr Obama probably won't change course, but it must be made.
Iraq is the Middle East's Germany, a country at the region's centre – a panoptical eye on most of its surroundings. It is where the US can neutralise Iran and Syria, from where it can also keep an eye on Saudi Arabia and ensure that
Comment
Will Iran face new sanctions?
Read the newspaper as it was printed
Send us your stories and pictures
document.write(''); The stark reality of Mr Obama’s ambiguity on Iraq
Michael Young
Last Updated: September 02. 2009 9:20PM UAE / September 2. 2009 5:20PM GMT
Consider this exchange on August 26 at the US State Department's daily press briefing. The department's spokesman, Ian Kelly, was fielding questions on the growing tensions between Iraq and Syria, following a co-ordinated series of bombings in Baghdad a week earlier that killed or injured several hundred people. The government of prime minister Nouri al Maliki accused Iraqi Baathists based in Syria of being behind the attacks, before recalling its ambassador in Damascus.
Asked about the Syrian-Iraqi dispute, Mr Kelly shuffled through his papers. “Yeah, if you could just hold on a second. We understand that there has been sort of mutual recall of the ambassadors. We consider that an internal matter. We're – we believe that, as a general principle, that diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties. We are working with the Iraqis to determine who perpetrated these horrible acts of violence � We hope this doesn't hinder dialogue between the two countries.”
When a journalist pointed out that the Iraqis had accused Syria of being responsible for the violence, meaning it was more than an internal matter, Mr Kelly replied: “Well, again, we're � very concerned about these reports � We're working with the Iraqi government to find out exactly who was behind them, but we don't have any firm information right now...”It's hard to believe, reading through those evasive phrases, that the United States still has almost 130,000 members of its armed forces in Iraq and has spent the past six years trying to stabilise the situation there. That the Syrians might be using Iraqi Baathists to subvert security in Iraq could apparently produce no more from Mr Kelly than a bland call for diplomatic dialogue – a dialogue designed to transcend “horrible acts of violence”. You wonder if the spokesman heard what he was saying.
document.write('');
But don't blame Mr Kelly. He was only channelling the deep ambiguities at the White House over Iraq, still seen as George W Bush's war, so that the removal of American troops from the country was at the very heart of Barack Obama's campaign promises. In July, the United States began withdrawing from Iraqi cities, and the process of drawing down the military presence, while perhaps not irreversible, would be politically difficult for the president to consider even delaying.
Mr Obama summarised his views of the Iraq conflict in his Cairo speech last June. “Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis,” the president said, adding that this was why he had ordered the removal of all US troops by 2012. “We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.”
The historian Niall Ferguson once described the US as an empire with a short attention span. The US has spent six years in Iraq, and its haste to leave is understandable. However, Mr Obama's plans for the country square little with his broader regional objectives, particularly the containment of Iran and defence of America's Gulf allies. An Iran that dominates in Iraq will also dominate in the Gulf, and beyond. A fundamental problem in the president's approach to the Middle East is his consistent underestimation of how significant Iraq is to US policy and influence in the region. The argument may be academic today, since Mr Obama probably won't change course, but it must be made.
Iraq is the Middle East's Germany, a country at the region's centre – a panoptical eye on most of its surroundings. It is where the US can neutralise Iran and Syria, from where it can also keep an eye on Saudi Arabia and ensure that no one in the region holds sway over oil reserves. In 1991 Washington fought a war to deny Saddam Hussein a hegemonic role in the Gulf after his invasion of Kuwait. Yet today Mr Obama seems willing to look the other way as Iran gains in Iraq, which is prompting Arab Sunni states to destabilise the country through sectarian means in order to avoid the consolidation of a Shiite order there. None of these developments can possibly be to the benefit of the United States. Nor has Mr Obama ever taken seriously his predecessor's partiality toward democracy in the Arab world.
Iraq, for all its many shortcomings, is emerging as a pluralistic order. There are no guarantees this order can survive, but ensuring that pluralism survives appears to be the least of American concerns. However, in the long term a pluralistic Iraq, with a system reflecting the will of a majority reconciled with the minority, would represent an essential plus for Washington in changing the nature of regimes in the Middle East and undermine dangerous religious militancy. The Sunni jihadists remain marginal, but unless the US can reassure its Gulf allies that it will defend them against a resurgent Iran, unless it can reconcile them with the new Iraq, these allies will continue to look for other means to protect their regimes in the future.
Washington's focus on physical and psychological withdrawal from Iraq will backfire. It is not clear that making such a departure a US priority will allow Mr Obama to remove his troops “carefully”, as he has vowed. The US must rethink its Iraq role. The president doesn't want the US to be Iraq's patron; fair enough, but that shouldn't mean he allows Iran to be. Politics is about power, not good intentions, and the Americans have no choice but to finish the fight they started. Otherwise, the Arab states will do it in much messier, more dangerous ways.
Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon
Send to friend Print var addthis_pub="noahkhan"; var addthis_brand = "The National"; var addthis_logo = "http://www.thenational.ae/images/the_national_logo.gif"; var addthis_logo_color = "3261A5"; Bookmark & Share function storeCaret(textEl) { if (textEl.createTextRange) textEl.caretPos = document.selection.createRange().duplicate(); } if ((document.all) && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Opera')== -1)) { IE = true; } else { IE = false; } function doSubmitMessage(aFormId,aUrl){ aForumForm = aFormId; aCreateUrl = aUrl+"&omniture=0"; aForumMessageUrl = ''; aAjaxDiv = document.getElementById("cpost"); processForum(aAjaxDiv); }
Have your say
Please log in to post a comment try { if (document.getElementById("_userEmail").innerHTML = '') { document.newmessageform.Body.disabled=true; document.newmessageform.post.disabled = true; } } catch(e) { document.newmessageform.Body.disabled = true; document.newmessageform.post.disabled = true; } Other Opinion stories A month of deadlines for Iran may answer little No Arab mediation for Iraq and Syria Turkey shows leadership in reconciliation The stark reality of Mr Obama's ambiguity on Iraq Visible signs of shared belonging Ramadan can include a fast from daily distractions document.write(''); Top stories Strict rules introduced on school bus safety Young nurse is fourth to die from swine flu Struggle to make ends meet on the Nile Why trains run better without any drivers The fast – and the furious The ones to watch Safin departs US Open Your View Do you worry about your child's safety on school buses?What do you do to save water?Are you worried about sending your children back to school because of the H1N1 pandemic? Is it right for schools to delay reopening because of uncertainty over how to handle an outbreak of swine flu?Have you been affected by power cuts in the Emirates? Most popular stories Most read Most e-mailed Young nurse is fourth to die from swine flu The fast – and the furious Interactive: All about the Dubai Metro Why trains run better without any drivers Lockerbie bomber is 'close to death' Not one penny has reached Gaza Laid-back commuters risk long queues on opening day UAE charity flies sick Iraqi children out for heart surgery Strict rules introduced on school bus safety Lawyers warn courts may prolong agony for Ajman investors Shisha more toxic than cigarettes, claims study Desalination threat to the growing Gulf Marina apartments defy Dubai rental slide It's the bottle that's the trouble The perfect time for dawah Not one penny has reached Gaza One to One with a self-made woman Just Dh15 to watch Barca in Abu Dhabi Riding the sea at Gaza Q&A with Zakir Naik var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs
Consider this exchange on August 26 at the US State Department's daily press briefing. The department's spokesman, Ian Kelly, was fielding questions on the growing tensions between Iraq and Syria, following a co-ordinated series of bombings in Baghdad a week earlier that killed or injured several hundred people. The government of prime minister Nouri al Maliki accused Iraqi Baathists based in Syria of being behind the attacks, before recalling its ambassador in Damascus.
Asked about the Syrian-Iraqi dispute, Mr Kelly shuffled through his papers. “Yeah, if you could just hold on a second. We understand that there has been sort of mutual recall of the ambassadors. We consider that an internal matter. We're – we believe that, as a general principle, that diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties. We are working with the Iraqis to determine who perpetrated these horrible acts of violence � We hope this doesn't hinder dialogue between the two countries.”
When a journalist pointed out that the Iraqis had accused Syria of being responsible for the violence, meaning it was more than an internal matter, Mr Kelly replied: “Well, again, we're � very concerned about these reports � We're working with the Iraqi government to find out exactly who was behind them, but we don't have any firm information right now...”It's hard to believe, reading through those evasive phrases, that the United States still has almost 130,000 members of its armed forces in Iraq and has spent the past six years trying to stabilise the situation there. That the Syrians might be using Iraqi Baathists to subvert security in Iraq could apparently produce no more from Mr Kelly than a bland call for diplomatic dialogue – a dialogue designed to transcend “horrible acts of violence”. You wonder if the spokesman heard what he was saying.
But don't blame Mr Kelly. He was only channelling the deep ambiguities at the White House over Iraq, still seen as George W Bush's war, so that the removal of American troops from the country was at the very heart of Barack Obama's campaign promises. In July, the United States began withdrawing from Iraqi cities, and the process of drawing down the military presence, while perhaps not irreversible, would be politically difficult for the president to consider even delaying.
Mr Obama summarised his views of the Iraq conflict in his Cairo speech last June. “Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis,” the president said, adding that this was why he had ordered the removal of all US troops by 2012. “We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.”
The historian Niall Ferguson once described the US as an empire with a short attention span. The US has spent six years in Iraq, and its haste to leave is understandable. However, Mr Obama's plans for the country square little with his broader regional objectives, particularly the containment of Iran and defence of America's Gulf allies. An Iran that dominates in Iraq will also dominate in the Gulf, and beyond. A fundamental problem in the president's approach to the Middle East is his consistent underestimation of how significant Iraq is to US policy and influence in the region. The argument may be academic today, since Mr Obama probably won't change course, but it must be made.
Iraq is the Middle East's Germany, a country at the region's centre – a panoptical eye on most of its surroundings. It is where the US can neutralise Iran and Syria, from where it can also keep an eye on Saudi Arabia and ensure that no one in the region holds sway over oil reserves. In 1991 Washington fought a war to deny Saddam Hussein a hegemonic role in the Gulf after his invasion of Kuwait. Yet today Mr Obama seems willing to look the other way as Iran gains in Iraq, which is prompting Arab Sunni states to destabilise the country through sectarian means in order to avoid the consolidation of a Shiite order there. None of these developments can possibly be to the benefit of the United States. Nor has Mr Obama ever taken seriously his predecessor's partiality toward democracy in the Arab world.
Iraq, for all its many shortcomings, is emerging as a pluralistic order. There are no guarantees this order can survive, but ensuring that pluralism survives appears to be the least of American concerns. However, in the long term a pluralistic Iraq, with a system reflecting the will of a majority reconciled with the minority, would represent an essential plus for Washington in changing the nature of regimes in the Middle East and undermine dangerous religious militancy. The Sunni jihadists remain marginal, but unless the US can reassure its Gulf allies that it will defend them against a resurgent Iran, unless it can reconcile them with the new Iraq, these allies will continue to look for other means to protect their regimes in the future.
Washington's focus on physical and psychological withdrawal from Iraq will backfire. It is not clear that making such a departure a US priority will allow Mr Obama to remove his troops “carefully”, as he has vowed. The US must rethink its Iraq role. The president doesn't want the US to be Iraq's patron; fair enough, but that shouldn't mean he allows Iran to be. Politics is about power, not good intentions, and the Americans have no choice but to finish the fight they started. Otherwise, the Arab states will do it in much messier, more dangerous ways.
Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon
Have your say
Top stories Strict rules introduced on school bus safety Young nurse is fourth to die from swine flu Struggle to make ends meet on the Nile Why trains run better without any drivers The fast – and the furious The ones to watch Safin departs US Open Your View Do you worry about your child's safety on school buses?What do you do to save water?Are you worried about sending your children back to school because of the H1N1 pandemic? Is it right for schools to delay reopening because of uncertainty over how to handle an outbreak of swine flu?Have you been affected by power cuts in the Emirates? Most popular stories Most read Most e-mailed Young nurse is fourth to die from swine flu The fast – and the furious Interactive: All about the Dubai Metro Why trains run better without any drivers Lockerbie bomber is 'close to death' Not one penny has reached Gaza Laid-back commuters risk long queues on opening day UAE charity flies sick Iraqi children out for heart surgery Strict rules introduced on school bus safety Lawyers warn courts may prolong agony for Ajman investors Shisha more toxic than cigarettes, claims study Desalination threat to the growing Gulf Marina apartments defy Dubai rental slide It's the bottle that's the trouble The perfect time for dawah Not one penny has reached Gaza One to One with a self-made woman Just Dh15 to watch Barca in Abu Dhabi Riding the sea at Gaza Q&A with Zakir Naik var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs") countries.setpersist(true) countries.setselectedClassTarget("link") //"link" or "linkparent" countries.init() Products & Services Your View e-polls e-Paper RSS Feeds Home UAE World Business Sport About us Contact us Terms & Conditions FAQ Site map
© Copyright of Abu Dhabi Media Company PJSC.
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4452332-2"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); //-1?'https:':'http:') +unescape('//me.effectivemeasure.net/em.js%22%3E%3C/script%3E')); //]]> var doLoad = true; if (doLoad) { updatePollMini(); } s.Account="saxotechthenational" s.cookieDomainPeriods="2" s.pageName="Opinion,The stark reality of Mr Obamas ambiguity on Iraq:20090903:709029903" s.server="S260608AT1VW921" s.channel="Opinion" /* Traffic Variables */ s.prop1="Story" /* E-commerce Variables */ /* Hierarchy Variables */ s.hier1="Opinion,The stark reality of Mr Obamas ambiguity on Iraq:20090903:709029903" /************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! **************/ var s_code=s.t(); if(s_code)document.write(s_code)
Read Full Article »