• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama's Middle East: Withdrawal from Iraq

    The word is out that all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. While every American shares the conviction that we don’t want any U.S. troops stationed in a Middle East country a day longer than they need to be, it is tragic to see a premature exit of U.S. troops that might jeopardize the progress that has been made in Iraq.

    Rather than a symbol of success, the withdrawal of U.S. troops seems more like the outcome of an Administration in retreat.

    With Syria in turmoil, Iran on the march, a more isolated Israel, and Turkey’s ever-more ambivalent policies, now is the worst time to see a diminished U.S. influence in ensuring continued progress in Iraq. A total troop pullout will leave Iraqi security forces much more vulnerable to terrorism, sectarian conflict, and Iranian meddling, and it will leave them much less capable of battling al-Qaeda in Iraq and pro-Iranian shia militias.

    In part, Obama and his Obama Doctrine are to blame for the Iraqi government walking away from U.S. support—though it knows this premature decision makes the future of the country’s peace and prosperity risky business. The Obama Administration’s clear preference to disengage from Iraq as quickly as possible has made it more difficult to negotiate with Baghdad from a position of strength. Iraqi leaders, sensing the Obama Administration’s eagerness to head for the exit, are reluctant to take political risks to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution. This was a deal-breaker.

    Now the Obama Administration’s policy for the Middle East is moving from leading from behind to watching from the sidelines.

    To make matters worse, the withdrawal from Iraq will do little to stem the impending military readiness crisis. Projected defense cuts even before this announcement will not leave the Pentagon with sufficient funds to pay for current operations, maintain a trained and ready force, and prepare for the future.

    As a result, in a few years Obama’s Middle East will be a very unsettled place, and the U.S. will have a greatly reduced capacity to defend its own interests.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    14 Responses to Obama's Middle East: Withdrawal from Iraq

    1. Cindi Benson says:

      God forbid this man gets reelected!

      • dottie says:

        Why doesn't any of our candidates just come out and say some of the things we all think about this? Hero my butt!

      • @DJBALL604 says:

        Bush got re-elected after lying to America and the world, launching a war of aggression against a country that didnt have a thing to do with 911 and mandated torture.
        anything is possible.

    2. @zaren says:

      Was it not Bush's timetable to have us out of Iraq by the end of this year?

      Then again, was it not Bush's plan to rid the word of Hussein and Ghaddafi?

    3. Realist says:

      "As a result, in a few years Obama’s Middle East will be a very unsettled place"

      Would you call the Middle East a settled place now with our presence in Iraq? How do you suppose the United States fix the sectarian differences in the Middle East?

    4. Realist says:

      "As a result, in a few years Obama’s Middle East will be a very unsettled place"

      Do you feel the Middle East is a settled place now with the United States' presence in Iraq? How do you suggest the United States fix the sectarian differences in the Middle East?

    5. lights on says:

      But that would mean we would never leave? I thought Iraq wanted us out?

    6. Roderick says:

      President Obama could cure cancer tomorrow and you people would complain that it was too fast and hurts drug manufactures.

    7. John newby says:

      I can't stand this President, but I applaud our troops coming home. We never should have entered Iraq in the first place and bringing the troops home cutting the loss of life is a good thing.

      Yes, a void will be left when we leave, the same void that existed prior to us being there and that has existed since the dawn of man. We aren't the workd's police force, our empire building must stop.

    8. Ken Besig says:

      Look, there are almost as many players in the Muddled East trying to influence events as there are countries.
      Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the EU, and even the US are all trying to make sure that they control the outcome of the various rebellions, uprisings, and turmoil in Libya, Syria, Egypt, and after the US pulls out, Iraq, Afghanistan, and especially the Kurdish regions.
      Some of these players are working in concert, some are working directly against others, and all of them have their reasons, some local and some international, for acting as they do.
      These intrigues could go on for months and even years and the only thing really certain at this stage is instability and uncertainty.
      And almost certainly a high level of violence.

    9. Mike says:

      I have no tolerance for liberalism. As a conservative I believe in max efficiency even in military actions. Freedom anywhere the locals are willing to fight for it is a worthy endeavour! Our actions could have been much better managed and our costs could have easily been less than half current expenditures if we had focused on productivity same as the corporate world. We are not THE ONLY FREE NATION obligated to protect and defend freedom in the world. Our Nato "partners" should NOW pick up where we are leaving! We did the killing and the dyeing and retraining of the locals, all the heavy lifting and paying thank you very much they can do the temporary policing. We should adopt Roman policy of taxing those we liberate until the bill is repaid. There is still much unrepayable giving done by US in our shed blood for freedom of others. The tax and our shed blood should be welcomed with appreciation and great gratitude! In short all those we have freed in the world should be very much MORE thankful than they have been. I'm tired of being taken for granted and demanded for nothing in return our blood and treasure! This allowing of self-centered you owe me ism needs to be ended by ALL!

    10. Soldier says:

      I'm an active duty service member currently deployed in Iraq. This is my second tour here and I'm wondering what the gains are that Mr. Carafano speaks of. I have been working directly with one of the Iraqi Division Commanders and his staff and my fellow service members and I know that we have attempted to advise, train and assist much like last 5 teams have attempted. Sustainable gains are few and far between. If the US (the government and the people) were willing to create an enduring presence on the scale of Germany or South Korea, then I might see the utility in keeping a military force here. Short of that, I would suggest that continued military support in the realm of 3,000 – 50,000 would be a waste of human and financial resources. At some point Iraq must be responsible for its own future and continuing to rely on the United States military enables them to not accept thier own short-comings.

    11. Dean says:

      "reluctant to take political risks to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution." So you're saying we could have secured immunity for our troops? How so? You obviously know something the rest of us don't. Obama is following through on an agreement established by the Bush administration. If you're concerned about an emboldened Iran, take the issue up with the idiot who started the war in the first place.

    12. beyazkorsan says:

      Who is the regional power of the middle east: Iran, Turkey or Al Jazeera Channel?

      Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are the most influential countries in the region. Iran does not want to lose it’s leverage over Syria. Turkey and Saudi Arabia however, wants to have more control over Damascus, one of the key capitols of the Middle East, by encouraging and supporting the people to overthrow the government. Iran has the backing of Russia and China, while Turkey as a NATO member has the advantage of having the west with her. Turkey wants to use it’s military and economic power, backing of NATO, while trying to keep the Arab League on her side. NATO approval may cancel out a UN resolution requirement and Arab League support means green light from the region for more serious actions against Assad.
      But there is one big problem here. The Emirs and Sheikhs of the oil rich Arab countries know that their turn will come sooner or later. Siding with the west may not help always, because the west is not so reliable when the talk is about the oil and energy. Here comes our Weapon of Media Coverage or WMC.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.