Conclusion of US Combat Mission in Iraq: Beginning of the End, or End of the Beginning?

By Mina Al-Oraibi for RUSI.org

The past month has witnessed intense public engagement on the part of the US government in regards to its policy on Iraq, more than at any other time since Barak Obama entered the White House. And the message from Washington is clear: America's war in Iraq is ending. Under the low key title of 'ending the war responsibly', the Obama administration has overseen the withdrawal of nearly 90,000 American troops from Iraq. Moreover, 31 August 2010 will witness the 'ending of US combat mission in Iraq', concluding 89 months of combat operations in Iraq. While 50,000 troops will remain in over a hundred bases all over Iraq, they will no longer be in combat and will be looking to have minimal footprint in a country that has witnessed the heaviest American presence since the Vietnam War.

Changing targets

While the Obama administration has been very careful not to declare 'victory' in Iraq, the ending of American combat operations there is a milestone. This could be the 'beginning of the end' of the American role in Iraq, concluding fully at the end of 2011 with the promised withdrawal of all US troops. Alternatively, this deadline could be the 'end of the beginning' - a rocky start to modern relations between Iraq and the United States that launched with the 2003 war, the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime and the installation of a system of US-designed system of government. This phase is now reaching its conclusion. The potential now exists for a new era, in which the United States can help to reshape Iraq after years of chaos and violence, laying the foundations for a long-term partnership throughout the twenty-first century.

'The end of the beginning' is certainly how the Obama administration appear to be viewing the current period. 'Operation New Dawn' will be the banner under which 50,000 US troops remain in Iraq to aid Iraqi security forces, protect US and international missions and conduct counter-terrorism operations. This last function remains unclearly defined, especially in terms of which operations are considered 'counter-terrorism' and who will lead such missions and authorise them. The 'new dawn' in the American military presence in Iraq will be crucial in building Iraqi trust in the United States. While Iraqi and American officials insist that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri AlMaliki and former US President George Bush means that Iraqi security forces take the lead on security, American commanders will still be the ones giving directives to their troops.

US-Iraqi relations

This is one of many points of possible contention that may arise in the coming months. While US and Iraqi officials insist that all decisions regulating relations between the two countries have complied with SOFA and the Strategic Framework Agreement, the implementation of these agreements will be heavily scrutinised after September. This is especially true on the part of the Iraqi parliament, where only 50 out of its 325 representatives were members at the time of the original endorsement of SOFA.

While SOFA states that all American troops will be removed from Iraq by the end of 2011, American officials have already started laying public relations ground-work to prepare the public for a future presence in Iraq. Most recently, Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to US Vice President Joe Biden, said that 'some small number of military personnel', potentially hundreds, will remain in Iraq post-2011. The one constant statement from US officials has been that any future military presence will have to come at the request of the Iraqis.  However, no Iraqi official dares to discuss this during the delicate government formation period, when all public statements must be about strengthening Iraqi sovereignty. When speaking off the record, officials from both sides indicate to a general consensus that a new agreement could be reached to maintain the US military presence in Iraq, even if it is skeletal in comparison to peak troop numbers over the last few years.

Is Iraq ready?

However, there is an even more pertinent issue at stake here: that of Iraq's political future. US officials, from former US ambassador to Iraq Ambassador Christopher Hill to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Colin Kahl, have been speaking to journalists and opinion-formers, in order to present a narrative of an Iraq ready to take care of itself. While it would be impossible to refute the argument that Iraqis must bear the responsibility of government over their country, the US cannot simply shed responsibility, as it has put in place a political system that is now paralysed. While US Vice President Joe Biden likes to suggest that the political deadlock in Baghdad is a sign of 'politics breaking out' in the country, the reality is far from that.

Five months after Iraq's 7 March elections, different factions continue to fight to gain power and influence, regardless of the number votes they received. Iraqis are increasingly expressing dismay and despair at the delay in government formation; a delay that is largely based on personal interests rather than an open discussion on the sort of state they wish to see emerge.

The five year plan

In an interview with CBS, General Odierno said: "I would say to determine whether we've won the war or not, we can see that in three to five years as we see how Iraq turns out". In effect, the five year timeline will be crucial for Iraq; by the end of that time, the Iraqis will be holding the next parliamentary elections. While it may be difficult to predict how these elections will turn out, particularly given that the most recent ones have still not been fully implemented, Iraq is nevertheless continuing along the (albeit bumpy) path whereby power transitions are carried out by ballot boxes rather than by violence. It is difficult to imagine that the current political operators will willingly cede power in the next round of elections, especially as American and UN pressure at that point would have scaled back significantly.

Building the future

Obama's new Ambassador to Iraq, the highly knowledgeable James Jeffrey, along with other US and Iraqi officials, will therefore be required to focus on building civilian capacity to bolster Baghdad's political system and safeguard the process of representation. It is at this point that the Obama administration will either oversee the 'beginning of the end' of democratic aspirations in Iraq, or initiate the 'end of the beginning' of a flawed implementation of democracy; salvaging what it can to create a new stage of preparations for Iraq's future, based on equality, sovereignty and freedom.

 

Mina al-Oraibi is the Washington bureau chief for Asharq Al-Awsat, the international pan-Arab daily.

The views expressed above are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RUSI.