« A Wild New Three Wheeled Motorcycle | Main | Obama Approval Rating Rebounds »

Obama's Iraq Plan Not Likely To Satisfy The Left, But Is Pragmatic

President Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. forces in Iraq over a 19 month period down to a residual force of 50,000 U.S. forces in permanent bases in Iraq isn't very likely to satisfy the American left, including many Democrats that oppose this war, however it may be a realistic, if not overly cautious plan.Iraqwar.jpg

The reality is that whenever the U.S. has engaged in a war somewhere, it has usually left U.S. forces behind in permanent bases such as Japan and Germany after WWII, and in Korea after that conflict, so realistically the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is not much different than previous U.S. military experiences in many ways. Another reality is that Iran would like to expand it's role in Iraq, and would only further step pressure up to more heavily influence the Shiite dominated government of Iraq. Without some strong continued U.S. presence in Iraq, Iran is only very likely to pick up the pieces of the fractured and uneasy peace in Iraq.

The continued U.S. role in Iraq in the future might be satisfactory to many voters as long as U.S. combat deaths remain very low. However, any spikes in U.S. combat deaths could lead to more opposition to such a future role for U.S. forces. But many Americans might just accept that the U.S. cannot really completely leave Iraq due to the uneasy peace there.

On another hand, the government of Iraq could feel more stable with a continued U.S. role to some extent, but this could also lead to more Iraqi resentment about a continued U.S. role in their nation that has caused the deaths of more than one million Iraqi civilians in a nation with just 28.2 million residents. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has brought deaths to many families in Iraq, which is no doubt very unpopular.

Yesterday on CNN, David Gergen commented that for a president so boldly acting on the economy, President Obama is very cautious on foreign policy matters and is acting very carefully so as not to upset critical balances or allow a new crisis to emerge. Mr. Obama has no plans to go down in history as a president that lost Iraq, so he's carefully compromising his policy both there and in Afghanistan as well where he might only add just 17,000 more troops, while many in the Pentagon ask for as many as 30,000 more troops.

Caution and moderation might be the best words to describe the Obama foreign policy so far. Mr. Obama doesn't need an international crisis to contend with right now when he's attempting to make some progress dealing with the serious economic crisis. If anything, Mr. Obama is proving himself to be a wise and pragmatic sort of liberal, much in the mode of John Kennedy, who was a trustworthy defender of the U.S. interests around the world. Perhaps that might well be the best path to take.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)

Comments (4)


The war was lost the day Bush invaded Iraq. I realize people will argue that fact, but read the history of that area.

They have been fighting amongst themselves for over 1300 years. And if you think we can bring peace to that area, well dream on. And we don't need bases there, as we have one in Kuwait, and could have one in Israel if we so desired.

This country screwed up big time by invading Iraq. Yes we did dispose of the dictator, and what a price we paid for that. I don't think there is an answer for weather we lost or won.

Obama's plan is far from pragmatic. He is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a war of aggression and genocide in Iraq while our economy is on the verge of collapse. The pragmatic approach would be to withdraw all US troops in a matter of weeks, and shift the money over to boosting the US economy.

Obama's decision could push us into a depression.


You two realize that demobilizing 100,000+ troops and bringing them home ASAP means most of them looking for jobs in a stagnant economy with rising unemployment, right? The bulk of our overseas forces are not full-time military. They're activated from various places, and when they come home they'll be deactivated. And then what?

Iraq is stable, generally, and so few are needed there beyond training / advising. Afghanistan needs some serious attention - time to finish what was started.

Lee Ward:

Reservists are entitled to return to their old jobs, I believe. That in turn might push someone out onto the unemployment line... or it might not.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.