Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

On "Withdrawing Responsibly" from Iraq

by MALOU INNOCENT

Sixty percent of Americans want the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, according to a March 12th Gallup poll. And sixty-four percent, according a recent CBS poll, believe that the Iraq War was never worth fighting to begin with. After five years, four thousand troops killed, and thousands more crippled and mentally traumatized, Americans are fully comprehending the horrendous cost of our endeavor in Iraq.

The general sentiment of pessimism is correct. The Iraq War should have never been authorized and the time for withdrawal is now. But others in the political mainstream—yet statistically on the political fringe—employ several arguments for staying the course. They argue that Al Qaeda in Iraq will regroup, gain strength, and attack us here, even though Al Qaeda in Iraq comprises only 2 to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency, a paltry figure for a group allegedly poised to dominate a country of 27 million people. Supporters of the war claim that it’s merely been a problem of execution, and that withdrawal would make America look weak. But this assertion could easily be stood on its head: Iraq is now the cause célèbre for jihadists flooding into Iraq because we are there, thus the longer we stay the weaker we become. Leaving would weaken the jihadists and actually improve our standing in the region. But arguments for staying the course usually come from the very people who got us into Iraq; so these shouldn’t be the go-to-experts for developing solutions to get us out.

But how do we withdraw responsibly, minimizing the chaos left in our wake? How do we turn our moral obligation to aid Iraqis into an achievable mission for withdrawal? There are numerous components to withdrawing from Iraq. A central one is a component that has been least addressed: engaging Iran. Implementing such a policy will be tricky, not only because the Iran’s clerical leadership is difficult to deal with, but because engaging Iran will require America’s foreign policy establishment to significantly shift its ideological orientation, moving from the belief that diplomacy is weak to the thinking that diplomacy is one of the most potent instruments in our foreign policy toolbox.

Untangling the diplomatic, economic, and ideological roadblocks established over the last three decades will not be easy. But the stability we seek in Iraq is impossible unless we make a concerted effort to induce the actors surrounding Iraq to be responsible stakeholders. That result can come about only if we engage Iran openly, maturely, and without preconditions.
Since 1979, when a group of Iranian students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the United States has attempted to isolate Iran throughout the Middle East. Occasionally, the interests of Tehran and Washington have overlapped, most recently, when Iran quietly supported America’s effort to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But overall, relations with Iran have been frosty, and until a U.S. administration alters that situation, diplomatic avenues will remain closed, and stability in Iraq will remain elusive.

Today, Iran is the only country that has the necessary influence to promote peace in its war-ravaged neighbor. As U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, told The Washington Post several weeks ago, no one in the U.S. and Iraqi governments “feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.” Constructive Iranian influence could provide that crucial tipping point.

Let’s look at area in which negotiations with Iran might progress. Iran currently sits on some of the largest known oil reserves in the world, but lacking refinery capacity and technical expertise, is forced to import more than 40 percent of its gasoline. America can offer incentives to reduce this burden, and in return, Iran could encourage Iraq’s two largest Shi’ite political parties, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and the Dawa Party-both of which Iran supports-to offer concessions to al-Tawafuq, the main Sunni political bloc.

Iran’s role in Iraq is just one piece of the puzzle. Negotiations should also involve Iran’s control of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and, of course, Tehran’s nuclear program. Moreover, rather than engage Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the United States must go directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who truly controls the apparatus of government and has the final say on the country’s nuclear ambitions.

But Americans still skeptical of engaging one’s adversaries need only look at historical precedents: Richard Nixon’s engagement with China. Nixon’s engagement occurred during the Vietnam War, when China’s assistance to the North Vietnamese could have precluded dialogue. But U.S. officials recognized the regional role China was playing and used it to America’s strategic advantage. The same should be done with Iran. It may take months, or even years, but dialogue is imperative, and the sooner the better.

Finding an American leader who will engage Iran without preconditions will be difficult. The U.S.-Iranian relationship is currently at a stalemate because America insists that Iran suspend uranium enrichment before a dialogue can take place. That demand is unrealistic and short-sighted. Demanding as a precondition the very goal we want to achieve is illogical, although it perfectly encapsulates why Bush’s foreign policy on so many fronts has been a failure.

The Persian Gulf is a nexus of energy, security and economic interests. To address one area without regard to the others and expect satisfactory outcomes is unrealistic. Most important, refusing to talk with our adversaries unjustly burdens our armed forces, saddling them with the responsibility of meeting all of our expectations in the region. Fighting a needless, ideological war in Iraq is bad enough. Ignoring other states in the region only exacerbates the quagmire, ensuring that any palatable resolution remains out of reach.

Pulling ourselves out of Iraq will take true leadership. And true leadership will take a bold visionary willing to initiate sound, pragmatic statecraft, rather than continuing the faulty reasoning that saps America of its treasure, soldiers, and influence within the region.

MALOU INNOCENT is a Foreign Policy Analyst at The Cato Institute

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]