Things are going poorly in Iraq. Saturday’s papers had reports that Islamist militants had captured control of at least part of both Fallujah and Ramadi (here and here). It’s disappointing, but not surprising.
Two months ago, I wrote a post entitled “Afghanistan Still Matters – And We Still Need to Try.” I argued that, even as we leave Afghanistan, we need to stay involved:
“We have invested a lot of time and money – and lives – in Afghanistan. Some people would say too much. But the investment has been made. That is not a reason to mindlessly stay. But it is also not a reason to mindlessly leave. It seems to me, if we are willing spend a little more time and a little more money, we have a chance to try to influence and guide those in charge in Afghanistan to build on what we have done so far. We have spent so much money, and lost so many lives, it would be a shame to not spend a little more to see if we can actually get something out what we have already spent and lost.”
I continued, comparing what we still have a chance to do in Afghanistan with what we didn’t do in Iraq:
“We didn’t do that in Iraq. As I have previously discussed, we didn’t really try to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq, and so we left at the end of 2011. Since then, things have gone downhill. Violence is now so bad that news reports are comparing it to 2006-07, and al Qaeda in Iraq [now called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] is coming back to life.
Part of the problem in Iraq is Prime Minister Maliki. He has not done a good job. He has been reluctant to share power with Iraq’s Sunni minority. There is corruption in the security services and the Ministry of Justice. Etc., etc. Would things have been different if U.S. advisors had stayed in Iraq after 2011? Nobody can know for sure, but we might have been able to influence things for the better. By leaving, we couldn’t.”*
Things in Iraq are now worse than they were when I wrote that post two months ago. But what is happening in Iraq is not unexpected. Here is some of what I wrote about former Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on April 4, 2011:
“[Former Ambassador Crocker said:] The U.S. has a critical role to play in Iraq’s future. …
We need to stay in Iraq because we are the one player that all Iraqis trust. We are assurance. You can really see it between the Arabs and the Kurds, but it is also true with other Iraqi groups, too. The Iraqis have learned to give in to us on things. They need to learn to give in to each other. But it will take time. Ambassador Crocker said that early in his time in Iraq, when major issues were discussed, he had to be in the room to get things agreed to. By the end of 2008, he would be available by phone, but he did not need to be in the room. While we can’t play this kind of mediating role forever, he doesn’t think we will be able to get it done by the end of 2011.
The Iraqis, with our help, have come to the point that a stable, sustainable, pluralistic democracy is possible – if we stay involved.
The U.S. needs strategic patience and a willingness to continue to provide resources to help the Iraqis. It will be fewer resources than we have provided in the past, but we still need to provide some. …
Ambassador Crocker concluded that while we have turned the page in Iraq, it was only the end of an early chapter in the book. What happens now will depend in how engaged we will stay, how intelligent we will be.”
What former Ambassador Crocker said was right on point. What he feared would happen if we did not stay involved in Iraq, is exactly what is happening. Former Ambassador Crocker said these things at a time when President Obama could have still tried to reach an agreement for us to stay and help Iraq. But we didn’t reach an agreement – either because President Obama didn’t care or because he didn’t know how to negotiate an agreement with Iraq.
Secretary of State John Kerry said yesterday that the United States would support Iraq in its fight against al-Qaeda militants:
“Kerry said the militants are trying to destabilize the region and undermine a democratic process in Iraq, and that the U.S. is in contact with tribal leaders in Anbar province who are standing up to the terrorists.
But, he said, ‘this is a fight that belongs to the Iraqis. That is exactly what the president and the world decided some time ago when we left Iraq, so we are not obviously contemplating returning. We are not contemplating putting boots on the ground. This is their fight. ... We will help them in their fight, but this fight, in the end, they will have to win and I am confident they can.’”
Secretary Kerry’s statements are useless and mostly aimed at avoiding responsibility for what is happening in Iraq. If we had stayed to help Iraq after 2011, like former Ambassador Crocker said, this might not be happening, but President Obama decided not to.
Iraq. Syria. What may happen in Afghanistan. The foreign policy failures of the Obama administration are mounting. We have three more years of them, which is a long time given how quickly things happen in the world today.
---------
* For links here, see the original post.
Comments