Analysis: The Two Vital Words on Obama's Iraq Withdrawal "Intend To"

Related Post: Withdrawal from Iraq? The Escape Clauses Begin

Update: Jeremy Scahill offers a related, pessimistic analysis on AlterNet. Marc Lynch is much more hopeful.


"Intend to" as in "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011"....

With that statement, President Obama apparently went beyond my immediate concern that some in the US Government were planning on the long-term stay of 50,000 American soldiers in the country. With those two words, however, he left himself room for manoeuvre. Less positively, it is also room for the US military and its supporters to maintain its pressure for permanent bases in the area. That is the space that leading Democrats in Congress were trying to shut down last night; as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi framed it, "The remaining missions given to our remaining forces must be clearly defined and narrowly focused so that the number of troops needed to perform them is as small as possible."

In that context, the headline of "the historic announcement" of an 18-month timetable for withdrawal of US combat troops is peripheral. Whether it was 16 months (Obama's original plan), 23 months (the US military's counter), or 18 months (the political compromise) is tangential to the larger questions of the American political and military intentions.

Far more important is a passage in the speech that has received less media attention, except from The Washington Post:

We must work with our friends and partners to establish a new framework that advances Iraq’s security and the region’s....Going forward, the United States will pursue principled and sustained engagement with all of the nations in the region, and that will include Iran and Syria.

As I've noted before, that was a formula put forward by the Iraq Study Group in 2006 but rejected by the Bush Administration in favour of the military-first "surge": "The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors."

Obama's Iraq strategy is thus part of the wider engagement strategy his Administration has been pushing from Inauguration Day. On the one hand, that raises optimism that the discussions with Syria and Iran are not just token displays and could lead to the most productive American strategy in the "wider Middle East" in at least 30 years. On the other, the failure of that engagement now has serious consequences: if talks with Tehran and/or Damascus collapse, then Obama's "intention to" withdraw completely by the end of 2001 is in jeopardy.

Which brings up back to those 50,000 troops. The Iraq Study Group was clear: "The United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq." That recommendation, however, ran up against an earlier Bush Administration strategy of maintaining an indefinite presence in the country, not primarily for Iraqi stability, but to maintain a "preponderance of power" over rivals such as Syria and Iran and to ensure control of energy resources. Some in the US military, and their supporters outside Government, are still wedded to that vision.

That, of course, is a prospect which is not welcomed by many folks in Tehran or Damascus, let alone the political elite in Baghdad. So the irony is that the frontline of Obama's Iraq plan is not in Iraq but in the wider region. Watch the manoeuvres of those who are hostile to any engagement not only because they don't like "rogue states" (and, in some cases, are committed to an Israel-first approach) but because they want to maintain a platform for US permanent bases in Iraq. And watch for the response of the Obama Administration --- the longer it sustains a serious commitment to the regional dialogue advocated in 2006, the more likely it is that the President's "intend to" becomes a reality.

President Obama's State of the Nation: The Overseas Dimension

Related Post: President Obama's State of the Nation - As Good as The West Wing?
Related Post: Curing Cancer, Eating Baconnaise, and Slapping Down Bobby Jindal 
Related Post: Transcript - President Obama’s “State of the Nation” Speech

Almost all of President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress last night was devoted to the US economy; however, there was a small but significant section reiterating the main points of his foreign policy.

Let it be clear: Mr Obama is going to war: "For seven years, we've been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."

On Iraq, the President gave the standard signal for withdrawal of US combat troops while backing up the media chatter that he is on the verge of announcing a timetable: "I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."

The big call, however, was for the "Afpak" march, and the rhetoric could have been taken straight from George W. Bush: "We will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it."

Obama did return to the Inaugural theme of no choice between safety and ideals: "To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America." He then repeated that the US "does not torture" and that he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, although he added the assurance that his Administration would "seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists".

And for cases like Iran and Syria, Obama's "engagement" was present, even if he did not name those countries: "We cannot shun the negotiating table nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand."

All in all, no surprises in substance. Make no mistake, however: symbolically, Obama just make it known that Afghanistan and Pakistan will take the symbolic place in his Administration that Iraq did for his predecessor. And, just as George W. Bush reduced the issues of the Iraqi people to "Saddam", so a much better-spoken President has set aside the issues of Afghan and Pakistani populations for his attention to "terrorists".

Twisting the Syria Tale: The Suspected Missile Facility

Hours after we posted an analysis of Washington's engagement with Syria, the story started fluttering across the Internet that Damascus had built a missile facility on the site of the alleged nuclear plant bombed by Israel in October 2007.

According to sources, Syrian representative Ibrahim Othman (pictured) told members of the International Atomic Energy Agency about the facility. He was responding to a question if there was a nuclear operation, but he did not disclose if the missile facility was operational or when it had been constructed.

Motive? It could be that Othman was simply responding to the call in the IAEA's report for Syria to be more forthcoming about its plans and activities. He could have been throwing up a screen to cover any resumption of a nuclear programme. Damascus may have been striking a tough pose in advance of any talks with Israel or the US.

But what about the other side of the equation --- who leaked the story and why? Again, no answers here, only a range of possibilities. Those seeking engagement with Syria may have putting Damascus on notice that this would far from a no-cost process; President Bashir al-Assad would have to recognise that his country and its military plans were still under scrutiny.

Or, of course, those opposed to any rapprochement with Syria --- for all the political calculations that point towards the value of that course --- may have ensured that Othman's disclosure was circulated.

Watch this space.

Damascene Conversions: The Engagement of Syria

Joshua Landis has a complementary (and complimentary) perspective on Tisdall's analysis on Syria Comment.

Simon Tisdall, writing in The Guardian of London on Monday, offered a valuable analysis of the recent dynamics surrounding US-Syrian relations and events in the Middle East. Tisdall noted (rightly, in my opinion) the "realist" outlook of Obama and Co. and suggested that "improved US relations with Syria could hold the key" three vital issues: avoidance of military confrontation with Iran, management of the Iraq withdrawal, "and some kind of half-credible peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbours". He supported this reading with the signals of engagement: Syrian President Bashir al-Assad's interviews welcoming a US "re-entry" into the Middle East peace process, Senator John Kerry's visit to Damascus last week, and conciliatory words from Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.

What can and should be added to Tisdall's analysis are the recent events that have not only promoted this engagement but strengthened Syria's position in negotiations. In December 2008, the foundations for direct Israel-Syria talks had been laid but the wider context for the diplomacy was still the call for Damascus to end its support of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas and to limit, if not cut, its ties with Iran.

Then the Olmert Government decided to gamble with the invasion of Gaza. The direct talks with Syria were suspended of course, alienating Turkey in the process, as Tel Aviv effectively hand-in-hand with Egypt and probably Saudi Arabia on the challenge to Hamas.

The significance was not only that this challenge failed but that it spurred a re-alignment which put Syria in the Middle Eastern ascendancy. By giving vocal and visible support to Hamas, Assad set himself up as the defender of Arab resistance to Israeli aggression, a position buttressed by the damage to Egypt's reputation. With Turkey and Iran recognising that position, as they quickly sent representatives to Damascus, and with platforms such as the Qatar Summit, the Syrians could look to a reconfigured diplomatic scene in the aftermath of Gaza.

Few have noted, for example, that there is no more talk of bringing Syrian leaders to account for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. It is also notable that no one, especially the US, is making a fuss about the alleged Syrian nuclear facility destroyed by Israel in October 2007, even though an International Atomic Energy Agency report last week pointed to the presence of uranium.

Instead, renewed Israeli-Syrian talks are being pursued so vigorously that Uzi Mahnaimi, who should be considered more a conduit for the Israeli military and intelligence services than a journalist for The Sunday Times, is writing: "Reports compiled by Mossad, the overseas spy agency, and by military intelligence, that strongly advocate opening negotiations with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria."

Which brings us back to the wider of the Damascene conversion of Gaza into a re-aligned position not only on its direct relations with Tel Aviv but on relations with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Tehran. Tisdall sees a trade-off: a new Israeli Government will have to engage in meaningful talks with Syria to maintain its isolation of Hamas: "If, as seems likely, [Benjamin Netanyahu] obstructs the Palestinian track, the Likud leader may have to give ground elsewhere, literally."

That might have been possible up to December, but no longer. Syria now has the cards for its territorial aims vis-a-vis Israel but for an inclusion of Hamas in the discussions on Palestine. The attempt to curb Hezbollah through talks with Damascus, which always was a curious exercise mssing the complexities of Lebanese politics and society, will now be kicked into touch. And the breaking of a supposed Syria-Iran axis is now less likelu than a dynamic in which engagement with both Damascus and Tehran takes place.

In 2003, chatter in Washington was "Baghdad, Then Turn Left". That thought of rolliing regime change can now be consigned to the dustbin of George W. Bush's history. It's envoys, not tanks, that are the talismen of this New Middle East Order.

Mr Obama's World: Latest Updates on US Foreign Policy (21 February)

Latest Post: Atoms of Fear - Reality Check on That Iranian Nuclear Programme
Latest Post: Obama Administration to Detainees in Afghanistan - You Have No Rights
Latest Post: Secret Britain-Iran Talks in 2005 on Iraq, Tehran Nuclear Programme?



Evening Update: Pakistani Government officials say militants in Pakistan's Swat Valley have agreed to a "permanent cease-fire".

Afternoon Update: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has met Chinese leaders in Beijing, stating, ""It is essential that the United States and China have a positive, cooperative relationship." Clinton also put priorities in order: while she had discussed human rights matters with President Hu Jintao, "Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises."

Morning Update (8:30 a.m. GMT; 3:30 a.m. Washington): In a step that was foreshadowed by Syrian President Bashir al-Assad (pictured) in his interview with The Guardian of London, the US will resume direct talks with Damascus this week. The State Department's Acting Assistant Secretary for the Near East, Jeffrey Feltman, has requested a meeting with the Syrian Ambassador to the US, Imad Moustapha.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said, "The meeting is an opportunity for dialogue to discuss our concerns with the Syrians," Duguid said. "There remain key differences between our governments."

Three NATO coalition soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device on Friday in Uruzgan province in Afghanistan.