Obama has promised a "responsible withdrawal of troops" from Iraq but stakes could be high if he has no coherent strategy, writes Salah Hemeid Fulfilling his campaign promises, Barack Obama summoned senior civilian and uniformed Pentagon officials to the White House, a day after he took oath as the 44th president, to discuss with them plans to pull combat forces out of Iraq in 16 months. "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq," Obama said in a written statement after the meeting. Pointing to another of his campaign promises, Obama said that he planned to "undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region." Neither Obama nor his military aides divulged details of the new plans or disclose a specific timetable, but the new president, who has said some troops will remain to fight terrorist cells, train Iraqi soldiers and provide security, seems to be accelerating his promised move to pull US troops out of Iraq. The United States has more than 140,000 troops in Iraq and some American military commanders say the US needs to be careful about withdrawing troops from Iraq too quickly, warning progress there is fragile and could be reversed. Baghdad officials immediately boasted that the Iraqi army can handle security in case the US forces leave prior to the 31 December 2011 date agreed in the Iraqi-US security agreement. Defence Minister Abdel-Qadir Al-Obeidi and Chief of Staff Babakr Zebari said the army has drawn up contingency plans for an earlier withdrawal. Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki has said he expects the United States to withdraw its troops faster than the three-year timeline laid down in the agreement that took effect 1 January. At a political rally Monday, Al-Maliki said Iraqi forces must be bolstered with that in mind. Yet, it seems that top Pentagon officers do not see eye to eye with their commander in chief. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was among those meeting with Obama, merely said his boss's plan to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq in 16 months is one of the options currently being studied at the Pentagon. US Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and principle military advisor to the president, said he and Obama discussed "a responsible withdrawal of troops from Iraq" adding "but there will need to be additional meetings and engagements to work our way through the fullness of both Iraq and Afghanistan." General David Petraeus, the top commander of American forces in the Middle East, who was also present at the meeting, did not comment on the discussions, but it is clear that when it comes to Iraq, Petraeus and Obama see things differently. The general is wary of drawing down US forces too quickly lest the fragile calm he built over the past two years be jeopardised. Other senior military officials, including the commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, have expressed similar concerns. Their early dealings with a new and untested president are sure to be touchy. One of the reasons Obama wants to pull out troops from Iraq is to send them to Afghanistan where the United States has some 33,000 ground forces. During the presidential race he repeatedly stated that he wants to focus on Afghanistan which he called the "central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism". One of Obama's ideas is to nearly double the number of US forces in Afghanistan, where violence has increased in recent months. Yet here also, his top officers seem not to agree with him and are pushing for concrete and realistic goals. They say that many of the proposals he seems to favour are already mired in controversy and confusion, particularly the plan to form local militias on the pattern of Iraq, where Petraeus armed Sunni groups against the Al-Qaeda-linked insurgency. While the military express doubts about Obama's ideas on grounds of possibly risking undoing recent progress in Iraq while his administration is unduly prepared to deal with Afghanistan, others question his political strategy. Observers noted that Obama's administration officials rarely discuss Iraq in public. New CIA Director Michael Hayden even told reporters in a briefing last week that Iraq is not on the top 10 list of things for Team Obama to "fret about". At first sight this looks like a logical decision by a president who opposed the 2003 Iraq war and campaigned on a popular anti-war platform, but key questions remain, mainly if that is part of an overall Middle East strategy or just an exit plan from Iraq's quagmire. In addition, his suggestion for refocussing on Afghanistan seems incomprehensible especially by the anti-war movement which is demanding that all troops should be removed from Afghanistan too and is resisting any attempt at their re-deployment from Iraq. So, does Obama have a coherent strategy to replace that of Bush, which has left the area in chaos, or is a weary American public being misled into thinking that he is taking a different course? Instead of bursting through the impasse Bush created in the Middle East, it looks more like he's putting old wine into new wine skins, making no real difference. For six years, US policy in the Middle East has been dominated by Iraq and many fear that a hasty departure from Iraq could jeopardise America's interests in the entire region. On top of this, a drawdown which is not executed carefully will put at risk the improved situation in Iraq and might have a destabilising effect on the entire region. Another question is how such developments will affect the new administration's intention to focus on Iran. As the Economist put it Obama must tackle two war fronts, a calamitous recession at home and the unexpected wars abroad. There is nowhere the unexpected looms large than the Middle East and especially in Iran where Obama has two options, either engaging Iran in an attempt to turn Tehran away from its nuclear ambitions, or lay the groundwork for tougher actions that could include either harsher sanctions or a military action. Whatever his next move will be on the Iranian chessboard, Iraq will be either on the negotiation table with Tehran or in the minds of his war strategists. Obama might think that he can now talk about a "beyond Iraq" era but he should be prepared to have some unwelcome surprises in store for him. Richard Haass and Martin Indyk, in their Foreign Affairs article, "A New US Strategy for the Middle East", provide the Council of Foreign Relations' view: "Only an integrated strategy -- one that anticipates the consequences of action in one arena for what the United States is trying to achieve in others." A piece of advice which Obama is sure to heed given his membership in that august body, whether or not he succeeds in carrying it out.
