Obama will be changed by Iraq more than Iraq will be changed by Obama

Barack Obama's commitment to draw down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq reminds me of that wonderful quote from Mr. Churchill - "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies". Not that I believe Mr Obama is lying necessarily, but he has certainly hedged his bets well by letting the people know of his assurance to retain a sufficient force in Iraq to ensure stability beyond his 16 month deadline. Anybody interested in obtaining a clearer understanding of exactly what this means is fighting an uphill battle however. Mr Obama says "combat troops out in 16 months"...Mr Robert Gates on the other hand, briefing Congress in January of this year, stated that troops will be required in Iraq "for many years to come". General Raymond T. Odierno (Commanding General in Iraq) has also publicly stated that he expects troop levels in Iraq to still be in the order of 30,000-35,000 in the 2015. What is one to believe?

Putting aside the need for Mr. Obama to live up to his campaign promises, I believe Mr. Gates' and General Odierno's assessments are significantly closer to reality than Mr. Obama would wish to acknowledge. Getting troops out of Iraq "responsibly" will be no easy task. The troop reductions that happened to date have been the easy ones; taking U.S. troops from only those areas where the residual security risks remain low. Starting now, and going into 2010, the residual security risks in areas affected by troop withdrawals will increase markedly - hence the Generals want the drawdown to be slower than members of the public have been led to expect - and certainly want more troops staying behind than Mr. Obama has in mind presently. And rightly or wrongly, I think the Generals are right.

At the tactical level, which is the only level where the success of the troop "surge" is evident, the presence of troops is literally the only thing standing between order and chaos, and in several cases between life and death. At the strategic level (where the surge has had no impact), the potential regional conflicts stemming from a total U.S. withdrawal are too dreadful to seriously contemplate. The Turks (who are members of NATO) will not stand by and allow Kurdistan to become independent, Iran - who already enjoys more influence in Iraq than even the U.S. does - will fall over itself to fill the lingering power gap in a manner that best suits its own interests, and consequent to Iran's rise to power, the Arabs will undoubtedly contrive to protect the Sunni population. These regional conflicts may still become a reality even with a reduced number of U.S. troops present; but they are almost a certainty with none.

To end with another quote, this time from Thomas E. Ricks authoritative book on the inside story of the Iraq war, The Gamble..."the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered by us and by the world have not yet happened."