Obama makes a bad decision

Enlarge Image

U.S. President Barack Obama

TEL AVIV -- Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, there has never been such a succession of dramatic events in the Middle East as we have witnessed in the last few days.

The end of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, the first free democratic elections in Tunisia, the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit after more than five years of captivity, a new reform-oriented government in Jordan, and -- finally -- a decision by U.S. President Barack Obama that, by year's end, there will no longer be an American military presence in Iraq.

Of all these events, the most important and the one with the greatest long-range strategic considerations is the American withdrawal from Iraq.

With a faltering economy and with growing difficulty in financing the war, the situation on the ground became almost untenable for the United States. The U.S. spent close to $1 trillion on the war. Close to 4,500 American soldiers were killed.

Nevertheless, the Iraqi army is still unable to enforce its authority throughout the country. The loyalty of the various security forces is to the various ethnic groups and not to the central government. As a result, the hope of building a credible U.S. ally in a functioning Iraqi democracy to serve as a buffer against Iran's hegemonic ambitions appears to have failed.

Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq borders on irresponsibility. Saudi Arabia calls Obama's move an "abandonment" of Iraq, leaving it open to Iranian manipulation.

Despite the fact the Americans have not left yet, Iran already is the most influential player in Iraq.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad convinced the Iraqi regime to provide Syria's Bashar Assad with economic and political support. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Jawad al-Maliki has strengthened his nation's economic ties with Iran and sided with Iran in OPEC in its struggle with Saudi Arabia regarding oil quotas and prices.

The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will further weaken its image in the entire region. For some time now, the U.S. has been silently concerned by what is perceived as a constant Iranian effort to build a new regional axis, together with Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

It took the U.S. too long to conclude that in the subtle competition between Iran and Turkey over Syria, President Bashar Assad opted for Iran and against Turkey.

Obama tried to reverse the course in Iraq. Since January 2009, Obama has reduced the number of U.S. personnel in Iraq to 40,000 from 140,000. Despite previous statements that he wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, Obama wanted to leave about 12,000 soldiers in Iraq "to help train" the Iraqi army.

But what a humiliation.

Prime Minister al-Maliki agreed, but on condition that this American contingent be subjected to Iraqi law and not enjoy the legal immunity U.S. troops have enjoyed since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

In practical terms it meant that in the event of any offence, an American soldier would be brought before an Iraqi court and, if convicted, would go to an Iraqi prison.

No American president could accept such a condition. Obama therefore rejected al-Maliki's condition and decided to totally withdraw from Iraq.

Not everyone in Obama's administration is happy with this decision.

Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and some of the high brass are of the opinion Obama should have left the door open for further negotiations. They believe it is in the U.S.'s best interests to keep even a "symbolic force" in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf zone.

Already, the U.S. has decided to strengthen its military presence in Kuwait, next door to Iraq. The U.S. also hopes Egypt will enhance its military co-operation with Saudi Arabia. As part of this new perception, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will participate jointly next month in Persian Gulf naval manoeuvres.

It does not stop there. Washington is said to be working tirelessly to consolidate a strong Western presence on the southern shores of the Mediterranean -- Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel and Turkey.

The problem with this strategy is that its implementation needs money, especially in Egypt. And the U.S. does not now have the funds to finance its strategic goals.

Samuel Segev is the Free Press Middle East correspondent.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 25, 2011 A10