December 31, 2011. That is the date proposed by President Barack Obama for the entire withdrawal of American combat troops in Iraq. Ever since Obama shacked up in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., he has been berated for not owning up to various campaign promises ranging from diplomatic talks with Iran to addressing our present financial situation. Although the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act received zero House Republican votes, Obama recently won respectable and legitimate praise from high-ranking Republicans on his proposed plan for a U.S troop withdrawal in Iraq. After a long overdue sabbatical, bipartisanship or some nouveau form of Washington cooperation has returned to America.
Obama's projected troop withdrawal for Iraq states by Aug. 31, 2010-three months longer than his proposed campaign promise-all combat missions will cease and a transition force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain until New Year's Eve of the following year. It should come as no surprise that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) have criticized this plan claiming the transition force should be significantly reduced. Perhaps, Reid and Pelosi have been watching too many Westerns and tend to incorporate sayings like, "Get the hell out of dodge," into their work environments. It is a good thing that Pelosi and Reid aren't in charge because Iraq's infant status has left it vulnerable to sectarian violence, Iranian influence and increased insurgent attacks. Obama's plan is all-encompassing as it satisfies politicians on both sides of the aisle and, most importantly, ensures the future security and safety of Iraq, its citizens and all Iraqi and American soldiers.
Flexibility and accountability are the name of the game now. Obama must be flexible in selecting how many troops will remain in Iraq between 2010 and 2011. Consulting ground officers in Iraq in addition to Gen. David Petraeus, Gen. Ray Odierno and Defense Secretary Robert Gates is a must. However, the American public must realize while their sons and daughters are ending tours in Iraq, stop-loss is still plausible, as Afghanistan remains the area where the American military must shift their focus. The Bush Administration's actions in Afghanistan failed to destroy the Taliban while the combination of a minimal number of troops and poor planning allowed for scores of pro-Taliban Afghans and Arabs to flee into the mountains, mount a counter-offensive and invite Pakistan into the war on terror.
By dealing with Iraq's future in an effective manner and reaching out to the Muslim world on Al-Arabiya, Obama's accountability toward the Middle East has already taken form. Even through multiple cabinet withdrawals and the passage of a shoddy stimulus bill, Obama is taking a role of responsibility in a conflict he passionately opposed from the start. A withdrawal plan that owns up to past actions and acts accordingly in a responsible and proactive manner is a prime example of the "you break it, you buy it" policy. In 2003, we broke Iraq in all respects: militarily, economically, socially and politically. Now is the time to regain the trust of the Iraqi people, solidify and strengthen their new democratic government, assist in the reconstruction of their infrastructure and own up to our past actions. We have bought Iraq, and we are now handling the problems in a sound and proper fashion.
A recent visit to the Qatari Embassy enlightened me with an analogy for Iraq and America: Iraq has been shot with an arrow. The people, the economy, the politics-everything has been affected by the speared projectile. To all the Democrats who want out of Iraq now, let me pose this question to you: What do you do with a person who has been shot with an arrow? Well, your first instinct is to immediately pull the weapon out of the body and dress the wound. In reality, the best method is to leave the arrow in, identify the entry, assess the potential exit of the weapon, plan for the surgery and then operate to remove the arrow. Doing so minimizes and restricts internal bleeding, prolongs the patient's life and allows for doctors to effectively remove the arrow without infection. Enter Dr. Barack Obama. Obama's removal of nearly 90,000 troops by August 2010 is the extraction of the American arrow and his transition force embodies the dressing of the war wounds, addition of stitches and post-surgical checkups. Who knew modern medicine and state-building reconstruction were so alike?
Iraq has grown greatly since the start of the war in 2003-Obama and his national security team know this. According to the Brookings Institution, unemployment has been reduced by approximately 23 percent since 2003, while the percent change of Iraq's real GDP has risen by 7 percent. Additionally, the death toll of Iraqi civilians and American troops has decreased dramatically due to the surge and cooperation between U.S and Iraqi forces. However, questions still remain around the uniquely religious and ethnic Iraqi people: primarily problems identifying if one is a Sunni or Shiite or Arab or Kurd, and predicting the future of the democratic government and free elections.
Premature action without consultation and deliberation in times of significant uncertainty, which Iraq is presently in, must be avoided and the endgame should always be considered. Our foresight and actions now will illustrate the future consequences and these decisions are of the utmost importance. We cannot and must not make hasty decisions to save American lives at the expense of thousands of Iraqi lives. Rather, we must accept our past decisions, prepare for the worst and hope for the best. After December 31, 2011, the torch of reconstruction should be ready to pass from the Americans to the Iraqi people. Should all things go according to plan, I'm sure the majority of the American military along with the American public will be truthfully and joyfully saying "Happy New Year" when the ball drops in 2011.
