Obama between Iraq and a hard place

Who’d be president? I can imagine the temptation to just push that fabled red button must get really strong for Obama at times.

When he took over the Oval Office from gung-ho Dubya, the exit plan for the “War on Terror” seemed very simple. Shore up the existing Iraqi and Afghan governments, hand over more and more of the patrolling and security tasks to the local forces and slink off quietly and safe in the knowledge that a new era is under way where the Middle East fights and contains terror within its own ranks. What could go wrong?

Well how about a major debunking of some of the key assumptions in this picture. The Iraqi government is only such in name, Hamid Karzai’s leadership is as corrupt as it is fractious and ineffective, the local police and military forces are rife with Al Qaeda plants and the countryside remains as lawless and volatile as it has been at any point in history. Add to that the local sentiment is increasingly turning against what they increasingly see as the occupying forces and want them out as badly as America wants its boys back.

So Obama has to end this war, but to retreat with tails neatly cosied up between legs is not going to do the US any good. Besides the negative global perception (and domestic ones for Obama), leaving the Middle East even more unstable than what it was seven years ago doesn’t do much for US national security concerns. Terror thrives on hardships and instability and the US would seek to avoid being readily identified as the root cause of that. And then there is also the matter of Iran literally baiting the West to go to war. Now is NOT the time to appear weak to them.

So what to do then? End this and end it quickly. Which means (almost perversely) escalating and intensifying the conflict with, a huge “surge” and hopefully crushing the enemy in one go or, at least leaving them in a parlous enough condition for a managed exit to be feasible. Right. Exactly what the most unfortunate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was hoping not to have to do.

Predictably not all Democrats are happy, while the Republicans, who will never criticise an increase in troops, are instead nailing Obama on the issue of who will pay for all this. Amongst the allies, the UK, who have an even stronger anti-war clamour, are sending in a mere 500 troops to help with the surge while France, is not conclusively committing to anything yet. It is almost a lose-lose situation and with the hoped for quick victory nowhere near guaranteed, this will prove a defining moment for Obama’s first term.

Uneasy lies the head, as the saying goes.