Take them home responsibly

America and Iraq
Take them home responsibly
Mar 5th 2009From The Economist print edition
President Obama is right to be flexible about the pace of America’s departure from Iraq
Reuters
IT IS six years ago this month since American forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, only to see their victory sour as the country descended into a hell of sectarian killing. Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and campaigned for the presidency on a promise to end it, has begun to fulfil his promise. In a speech last week he said the bulk of American troops would withdraw by September next year. But because that is a trifle later than his original promise of getting them out within 16 months of taking office, and because he says he may keep up to 50,000 soldiers in Iraq (for training but also for “counter-terrorism”) even longer, he is being accused by some of slithering away from his campaign pledge.
In fact the plan looks both shrewd and responsible. Under an agreement signed by Iraq’s government and George Bush, all American troops were anyway scheduled to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011, and from its towns by the end of June this year. Mr Obama will extract the bulk of American forces a shade faster, but by keeping on a residual force he is giving himself a bit of extra wiggle room in case things go bad again. He is entirely right to do so.
document.write('');

Iraq is in an incomparably better state than it was two years ago, when some 3,500 Iraqi civilians were being killed every month, mostly by Iraqis. Now the monthly death toll may be ten times smaller. A month ago, provincial elections were successfully held across the country, except in the Kurdish region and a disputed province, Kirkuk. The outcome in terms of winners and losers was messy, but the trend was hopeful.
A new alliance led by the authoritarian but canny prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, did well. Politicians and parties who argued for a more strongly centralised state, as Mr Maliki did, fared better than those who urged devolution for the regions. Religious parties and the hitherto leading Shia one, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, better known as ISCI, which many Iraqis think too close to Iran, did dreadfully, losing ground to more secular and nationalist rivals. The Kurds did badly in mixed areas where they had previously prospered. Iraq’s Sunnis turned out in greater numbers than before and recovered their clout in various provinces, including Nineveh, whose main city, Mosul, had previously been run by Kurds. Here and there, efficient former Baathists came back to the fore.
A problem shared
And yet politics in Iraq is still fraught. No politician successfully appeals to all Iraqis. That is why General David Petraeus, the architect of America’s successful military “surge” under Mr Bush, has always called the gains fragile. The Kurds, after enjoying almost untrammelled autonomy for nearly two decades, increasingly loathe Mr Maliki’s new establishment in Baghdad; their feeling is reciprocated. Rivalries within each of the three main communities—Shia, Sunni, Kurd—are bitter. A vital law to share out the country’s oil wealth still shows no sign of being passed. The next political watershed, a general election by the end of the year, will be a nerve-jangling event, and American troops will be needed to help oversee it.
Having campaigned against the war in Iraq while emphasising the need to do more in Afghanistan, Mr Obama will face a continuing temptation to end the former war while reinforcing the latter. And that may be possible, thanks to Mr Bush having supported the surge when many people, including Mr Obama, were urging America to cut and run. But America’s moral responsibility to the people of Iraq, and its own interest in maintaining stability in this strategic corner of the Middle East, have not disappeared with the departure of Mr Bush.
One way Mr Obama could lighten America’s burden would be to use the goodwill he has earned around the world to urge international bodies, especially the United Nations, to play an ever bigger part in helping the Iraqis to entrench their shaky democracy. For sure, his eyes will focus more keenly in the near future on Afghanistan-Pakistan, not to mention Israel, Palestine, Syria and Iran (see article). But he must be ready, just in case, to keep his troops in Iraq rather longer than he promised during his election, and perhaps even longer than called for in his new plan, if another bloodbath should appear to be in prospect. There would be no shame in doing so. The dishonour would come from abandoning Iraq’s long-suffering people for the sake of a deadline.