Obama’s Iraq exit a risky strategy

• Reprints

Updated: November 26, 2011 8:07AM

Like President George W. Bush before him, President Barack Obama is rolling the dice on Iraq. Bush gambled in 2007 that a big troop surge could turn around what then appeared to be almost certain defeat in the war. Now Obama is wagering that he can pull all U.S. troops out of the country by year’s end with no political or foreign policy costs.

He’s almost certainly right on the politics. Ending U.S. combat presence in Iraq fulfills a 2008 campaign promise. The left-wing Democratic base, largely anti-war in general and particularly opposed to the Iraq mission, cheers Obama’s decision. Among the larger public, Americans are weary of war after nearly nine years in Iraq and 10 in Afghanistan.

If any political cover was needed, the administration reminded the voters of the demise of Osama bin Laden and Libya madman Moammar Gadhaffi as evidence of Obama’s national security muscle.

And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that the withdrawal was in accordance with an agreement the Bush administration reached with Baghdad. Moreover, she said, Iraq is a sovereign nation and Washington must respect its wishes that all U.S. troops leave.

Reality is a little more complicated. It’s been long recognized that it would be wise to retain a strong U.S. force beyond the end of 2011 to protect the fragile successes achieved at such a high cost in U.S. lives and treasure. Iraq has no intelligence service or air force, its ability to manage the nation’s explosive sectarian rivalries is in doubt, and it has a trouble-making neighbor in Iran.

U.S. commanders wanted to keep a significant force in Iraq. But that prove unworkable when the administration couldn’t secure immunity for U.S. troops. Critics like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) say the Iraqis were ready to do a deal but the administration failed to press serious negotiations.

If the politics of withdrawal look safe, it’s on the foreign policy implications that Obama is throwing the dice. He’s gambling that “the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future” will keep Iraq from descending into the chaos of sectarian war.

Especially troubling is the likelihood Iran will seize the vacuum created by the U.S. pullout to try to turn Iraq, which like Iran is a Shiite majority nation, into some sort of client state. Clinton addressed that worry by saying, “Iran would be badly miscalculating if they did not look at the entire region and all of our presence in many countries in the region, both in bases, in training, with NATO allies, like Turkey.”

Yet, her warning had a hollow ring. Being America’s friend hasn’t always been an asset in the Middle East the last three years. Obama botched prospects for Israeli-Palestinian talks by trying to impose unrealistic demands on Israel, our strongest Mideast ally.

During the “Arab spring,” he was quick to call for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, long an ally, to step down but was slow to do the same for Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, long a U.S. foe. And Turkey no longer seems like a pro-Western bastion. Ankara has distanced itself from its once firm friend Israel and refused to facilitate the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

No one in the Middle East will fail to note that Obama’s pullout announcement came shortly after the disruption of an Iranian plot to kill a Saudi Arabian diplomat on U.S. soil. So a U.S. pullout now is hardly a signal of strength.

Perhaps Obama is also gambling that none of the possible negative pullout effects will come before he faces the voters in 2012.