Obama's Iraq conundrum

The recent declaration by Barak Obama that the US was ceasing military operations on 31 August and was on schedule for a full withdrawal by July 2011 came as a mild surprise to many. Although the announcement was expected the decision smacks of political and not military considerations. Iraq remains a mess and is on the verge of civil war. Sunni extremist attacks continue across much of the country on a daily basis and while the Iraqi security forces have been equipped and ‘trained’, they pose more of a risk to the country’s cash flow and civilian wallets than to the insurgents and militias. The country is in essence a dry stack of grass ready to explode. Added to the woe is Iran, a nuclear ambitious theocracy hell bent on pursuing nuclear technology and weapons (yes weapons, even though they proclaim they only want nuclear power for the cold huddled masses). If the US and EU continue to pressure Iran as expected Iran’s influence over Iraqi affairs will be clearly shown. The country’s government has already been implicated in weapons smuggling to its allies in Iraq and pursuing a policy of interference and establishing proxy militias to destabilise the country is a fairly simple matter. Yet what other options does this US currently have stymied as they are by an administration that is keen on retreat? Not many. To be fair Obama is in a tough position. The Iraqis don’t want the Americans, the Iranian don’t want them, the Americans don’t want to be there. But like any parent knows, sometimes you need to make unpopular decisions. Leadership is about taking bold steps even if it means sacrifice. A draw down of troops does not seem to be a logical military solution; however, like Vietnam in an era past there doesn’t seem to be any good options available.