If anyone believed that Obama would give America's national security the same priority that George W. Bush did after September 11, 2001, the events of Obama's first 24 or so hours in office would have to give them pause.
Almost immediately upon taking the oath of office (twice), Obama has already asked the Pentagon to provide him with plans for a "responsible" military drawdown in Iraq, has asked for all trials of Guantanamo detainees to be put on hold for the next 120 days, and has said that he will shut down Guantanamo within one year.
Of course, closing Guantanamo has become a rallying cry of the left, but it's one of those positions that will come back to bite Obama and America. You have only four choices with September 11 "mastermind" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- you continue to detain him, you try him successfully and put him to death, you transfer him to another country, thereby passing the buck and allowing a September 11 planner to escape justice, or you try him unsuccessfuly and let him be freed. The left, or at least its most vocal spokespersons on this issue, support none of these choices, with the possible exception of releasing every Guantanamo detainee. Of course, this would mean freeing murderous enemy combatants to plot and kill again.
While working out the details of his plans that will almost certainly result in the release of at least some enemy terrorsts to kill innocents again, Obama also wants the Pentagon to present him with plans for a "responsible" drawdown in Iraq. That sounds -- well, "responsible" -- but every fiber of my being screams that the word "responsible" is just there to counterbalance the obvious irresponsibility of the request.
True, Obama is keeping a campaign promise. Obama's stated plan has always been for America to leave Iraq at the earliest opportunity, even at the risk of leaving Iraqis to genocide -- an astonishingly harsh and irresponsible position. It is one of the potential consequences of Obama's stated goals that, we can safely assume, most Obama voters have given little thought to, if any.
When America has prevailed in wartime, it has historically been customary -- if not downright essential -- to leave American troops stationed in far-flung locations like Germany and Japan for decades after hostilities have ended. Germany and Japan remain American friends and allies today. Could the fact that we did not "responsibly" withdraw from either nation as soon as the presidency changed hands have something to do with that fact?
What ever happened to, "you break it, you own it?" Having removed a deeply evil tyrant from power in Iraq and having helped the Iraqi people to establish a fledgling democracy in a Muslim hotspot -- an astonishing achievement with the potential to help transform hearts and minds all across the Middle East -- it would seem foolish for America to abandon Iraq militarily now.
The left is fond of its hope that "diplomacy" will take care of any litle problems that might crop up around the world. Sure, diplomacy can help, but without military might ready to back it up, it is nothing more than talk. Just as American courts, laws, and even the Constitution itself would be empty words without police and soldiers to enforce them, so to, Iraq's new constitution, its laws, and its democracy are only as strong as the military might available to back them up. Given what a juicy target Iraq is for hostile regimes all across the Middle East, it will continue to need serious military might indeed to deter aggression. So why is it a good idea to pull a leg or two out from under Iraq right now to see whether the new democracy can stand or fall?
So Iraq needs the U.S. to help it continue to deter aggression, and Iraq can continue to be a beacon of freedom to other Muslim nations, and thereby a boon to America's national security. None of these facts seem to have any weight in Obama's decision-making. Why?
Let's face it: America's success in Iraq is a political thorn in Obama's side. He opposed the Iraq war, then claimed that the surge would not succeed. The fact that some 25 million Iraqis have been freed and that the surge has indeed worked under President Bush are continued silent rebukes to Obama's judgment.
Now that it is within Obama's power to throw Iraq to the wolves, and to quietly let slip all the success of the surge, must he and his advisers not be sorely tempted to do just that -- as long as, in the words of Barack Obama in the Blagojevich scandal tapes, there are not too many of Obama's own "fingerprints" on it?
Obama's demand that the Pentagon draw up plans for a "responsible drawdown" of troops from Iraq of course assumes a specific certain conclusion -- that a drawdown sometime in the near future would be "responsible."
The Pentagon will play along, as it must, and will draw up plans. Obama is of course free to set Iraq policy within the limits of his authority as Commander in Chief. But what if his assumption that America can responsibly draw down troops from Iraq at this time is false? What if the responsible thing to do now is to maintain America's troop presence in Iraq for the indefinite future in order to deter further covert and overt incitement of violence by nations such as Syria and Iran and terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda that are extremely hostile to Iraq's democracy and eager to plunge the nation back into chaos?
We already know the answer to the "what if." Obama will withdraw from Iraq, period. If the nation falls into chaos, terrorism, or tyranny, he will blame it on Bush.
On a practical level, Gateway Pundit raises the question of whether an existing agreement between the U.S. and Iraq may put a crimp in Obama's plans to exit Iraq rapidly:
The Iraqi government told Obama today-- Not so fast on that cut-& running...
Legally Obama cannot withdraw US troops for one year after notification and only after Iraqi officials agree to the withdrawal.
Aswat al-Iraq reported:
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Legal expert Tareq Harb on Wednesday said that new U.S. President Barack Obama can not withdraw his troops from Iraq before one year from notifying the Iraqi side, noting that he can withdraw the forces only if the Iraqi government agrees.
Commenting on Obama’s speech upon taking office, Harb said “the president vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq but he did not mention the articles of the agreement in this respect.”
“The agreement stipulates the withdrawal of troops in one year after notifying the Iraqi side,” he said, noting that the agreement does not allow the withdrawal before this period unless the Iraqi government agrees.
New U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that the United States will leave Iraq to Iraqis.
In a speech upon taking office, Obama echoed key promises from his historic election campaign by saying: “we will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people.”
One would hope that Obama will give Iraq at least a year's notice before troop withdrawals begin. That would seem to be America's minimal ethical obligation in this situation even in the absence of an agreement with Iraq. But as for the agreement itself, such international agreements generally have no enforcement mechanism. To put it bluntly, a treaty is no more than a piece of paper. It is not as if Iraq can complain to a higher authority if Barack Obama decides to disregard the promises of his predecessor, and it is unlikely that any nation would have the courage and willingness to heed Iraq's cry if it did.
So here we are, barely two days into Obama's administration, and when it comes to national security he is indeed living up to his mantra of "hope" and "change." He is starting the process of changing everything, and hoping it works.
Final food for thought: Is Obama trying to redefine national security as mere "expedience" in order to make it easier to put U.S. national security in the back seat?
Comments