Obameter #125: Order Us Out of Iraq

Until the financial market collapse in October, the biggest issue in the 2008 presidential election was Iraq. Bush was The Devil™ who took us in and Obama was The Coward™ who would bring our troops home without victory. Rhetoric was heated hyperbole and exaggeration. It was bad.

Then Obama was elected. On Jan 21st, 2009, Obama used his first full day in office to talk to military and Iraqi experts for his big presidential war update. Obama said of the meeting, "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq." Drawdown is kind of a strange choice of words, but it demonstrates his resolve to leave Iraq acted upon on the very first day. He has acted to bring the troops home, just as he asked. Promise kept.

Perhaps more interesting is what he didn't do. He didn't spin around 180° and support a perpetual presence in Iraq as soon as he saw the confidential intelligence stuff that only Presidents see. He didn't call for troops to start being shipped home immediately and the war to be entirely declared a horrendous imperial mistake. It really was a moderate position: bring the troops home responsibly. Victory with honor in Iraq.

I like it. Fine, it's a little Nixonesque, but it's also a good thing to do. He has ended the "perpetual war" criticism of the USA (which would have been a smart trick for the Bush administration), but without actually scrapping the important work the troops are doing in Iraq (the same smart policy as the Bush administration clung to like a life raft).

Are troops actually coming home? In Feb., it was reported that "a substantial number of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would be home within a year." Just yesterday it was reported that "The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October[.]" Is 4000 a substantial number of 140,000? Maybe if he's been doing that every month without me noticing. Also, General McChrystal (commander of the troops in Afghanistan) wants a surge similar to the one in Iraq - more troops and a major strategic adaptation; even if the troops leave Iraq, they won't necessarily be going home.

Update: this article says there will be 120,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the month. Thus, 20,000 troops have left Iraq since Obama was elected. 16 to 17% probably qualifies as "significant". I don't know how many went to Afghanistan or will in the upcoming troop surge, but it's more effect than I gave credit for. General Odierno, who made the announcement, said Iraq was an enduring U.S. interest but that insurgent problems had reduced greatly in the past two years. If Iraq loses the stability we've gained in the past two years, that will be Obama's primary legacy.

Obama also announced he would "consult with the Joint Chiefs […] in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region." I like hearing him treat Iraq and Afghanistan as two fronts of the same military endeavor. They are. It's nice to hear politicians besides the Bush White House say so.

I suspect his allies on the anti-war left will be criticizing Obama for the same thing I'm praising him for: his symbolic attempts to "end the war" are diffusing criticism, but results demonstrate he's trying to win the war first. It's a beautiful thing!