Obama dodges Iraq debate as troops leave

2011-12-15 09:26

North Carolina - The presidency of Barack Obama was nurtured by the political firestorm whipped up by the Iraq war - but in ending the conflict, he is leaving recriminations to history.

Obama, honouring a promise to end the war, is remembering America's dead and turning a political page as the last US troops come home this month.

He must delicately reconcile praise for troops who sacrificed for their nation with his own early dismissal of a "dumb" war, while avoiding a fresh wade through the bitterness and misadventures of a divisive conflict.

What Obama is leaving unsaid, suggests that the scars of war remain raw.

"I think history will judge the original decision to go into Iraq," Obama said, refusing to thrash again through arguments about the case for war he made as a state lawmaker in 2002, as he met Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday.

‘A self-reliant Iraq’

But the president said it was "absolutely clear" that Iraq could now chart its own destiny owing to nine years of sacrifices by US soldiers and civilians and its own people.

As he greeted American troops on Wednesday who have just returned home, Obama went further, hailing an "extraordinary achievement" and honouring the nearly 4 500 US troops who died.

"We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people," Obama said, despite some fears Iraq remains volatile and prey to interference by Iran.

The White House explained Obama decided not to revive old debates about the war because he had no control over the decision by the previous administration of George W Bush to launch it in 2003.

"The president's position on how we got into the war hasn't changed," said White House spokesperson Jay Carney.

"His responsibility was to make sure that his policies created the best possible environment for Iraq going forward, which would thereby make the extraordinary sacrifices of the men and women in uniform, as well as the broader American public, validated."

Obama's early opposition to a war that turned sour, and votes cast in favour of it by other key Democratic politicians including Hillary Clinton, provided an opening for his White House run in 2008.

Avoiding criticism for Bush

In speeches and appearances marking the end of the war, Obama has not brought up Bush, who went to war over never-found weapons of mass destruction in what the Republican's critics proclaim as a foreign policy disaster.

But he did say on Wednesday, in what some ultra-sensitive observers might see as a mild swipe at his predecessor: "It is harder to end a war than to begin one."

Acting as national consoler, Obama also skipped lightly over the question of whether the war should ever have been fought.

"It was a source of great controversy here at home, with patriots on both sides of the debate," Obama said.

The president also avoided giving Bush direct credit for his lonely decision to launch a troop surge in the dark days of 2007 when it seemed America might lose the war, a decision then senator Obama opposed.

"We remember the surge and the Awakening - when the abyss of chaos turned toward the promise of reconciliation," Obama told troops in North Carolina.

The future

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney panned Obama for not giving Bush credit for the operation, though he also avoided retrying the case for war against Saddam Hussein.

"This is a president who opposed the surge," Romney said on the Sean Hannity radio show.

"Him doing a victory lap on president Bush's wisdom in this regard is an embarrassment."

Obama would later mount a troop surge of his own, in Afghanistan, and the success of Bush's Iraq escalation may have been crucial in allowing him to plot his own gradual drawdown in Iraq.

The president has also avoided other controversies from the war in recent days, including abuse at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison, the incompetence of America's post-war effort, and the plight of troops who died in barely protected Humvees.

Some of his critics in Washington also balk at his upbeat assessment of the future.

Republican Senator John McCain has lamented the failure of US and Iraqi negotiators to agree a future US training mission in Iraq.

"All of the progress that both Iraqis and Americans have made, at such painful and substantial cost, has now been put at greater risk. I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am not," McCain said this week.

  • Jono - 2011-12-15 09:38

    And now they send in the US building contractors to rebuiled the place they destroyed to recover some of the money they spent on the war. War is n money making scheme!

      Sterling - 2011-12-15 10:41

      Ron Paul has gone on record by saying the US should have not gone to Iraq, all the troops should be brought home from Europe and Asia, all foreign aid should be cut out and if one country attack another country it's none of our business. That means if China or India want to take over the minerals in SA it's none of the US business. When mass starvation in Africa occur we should not give aid to these people. So many of you commenting should be careful what you ash for because many American agreed with you for different reasons. I know many you don't want to see the return of the world before ww2 where strong countries went in and annexed weak countries.

  • J-Man - 2011-12-15 09:45

    4500 troops. Dead. In a foreign country. And for what?

      Fidel - 2011-12-15 09:58

      To line the pockets of the Corporatocracy. Bechtel, General Electrical, Boeing, Lockhhed Martin, Black Water, etc all have contracts worth billions in that country, not forgetting the oil contracts and those in the financial service and including arms suppliers. It's all about trade when it comes down to it and ensuring rules are in place so that resources and markets can be accessed under the most favourable terms possible. Just like your local gangsters and protection rackets but in the big leagues.

      Ibhubesi - 2011-12-15 10:12

      @Fidel. You said it all Brother. Never believe anything an American tells you! "But the president said it was "absolutely clear" that Iraq could now chart its own destiny owing to nine years of sacrifices by US soldiers and civilians and its own people" They will sacrifice their own people for their greed. Soon we will find them finding another reason to go make war somewhere else. They live for war. Ask Lloyds of London how coincidental it was that the insurance on the Twin Towers were amended 2 months before 9/11.

      Fidel - 2011-12-15 10:23

      Iran is the next bogeyman. The US and other elites in the ME clealy see an opportunity within the Iran banking and energy sectors - its obvious that any intervention in Iran will be case of present day neo-colonialism against a national government which refuses to become a supplicant of western multinationals, backed by Western and Arab corporate interests.

      goyougoodthing - 2011-12-15 12:15

      Fidel, they are already training insugents to take over Syria, watch this space.

      Fidel - 2011-12-15 14:46

      You can bet your bottom dollar that some US alphabet-agency outfit has their hand somewhere, festering around the inside of the backside, of this "spontaneous" revolution.

  • Kobus - 2011-12-15 11:00

    Say what??? "We are leaving behind a sovereign,STABLE (???) , and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people," Obama said, despite some fears Iraq remains volatile and prey to interference by Iran." Just give it a few months and we will see just how "stable" this lot are. As stable as the Pakistani's no doubt.

      Fidel - 2011-12-15 14:50

      The line of Tacitus about a Roman campaign in the century following the Third Punic War: Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. (They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.)

  • Grant - 2011-12-18 09:06

    The yanks should have finished the first war in 1991. Countless lives would have been saved. The war over suspected weapons of mass destruction has proved to be a farce costing 4500 yankee lives (never mind how many iraqies as they don't count) and a trillion dollars. I don't think it will take long to find out if it was all worth it all. My take is that the shiak and sunni muslims are going to go for each others throats.

  • pages:
  • 1