"TOPIC A: Obama's Plan for Iraq"

Op-Ed, Washington Post

March 1, 2009

Author: Meghan O'Sullivan, Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

The Post asked foreign policy experts for their impressions of President Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune on Friday.

President Obama's declared shift of the primary mission of U.S. forces from "population security" to a more focused set of counterterrorism, training and force-protection tasks by August 2010 is both welcome and reasonable. This evolution was originally advocated by the Baker-Hamilton commission in 2006 and is actually already well underway. And just as the population security mission required more forces to execute (hence the "surge"), a narrower mission set will require fewer.

But two key issues remain unclear: First, does the Obama administration view Iraq's stability as fundamental to U.S. interests? Iraq's positive trajectories seem to absolve policymakers from answering this question. Unfortunately, though, it is unlikely that Iraq's progress will be linear. What should be done if the security situation deteriorates in 2009 or 2010? What is more important, adherence to the 18-month timetable or safeguarding Iraqi and regional stability?

Second, what is the U.S. political strategy, and how does it connect to the military strategy the president outlined? Earlier statements suggest the administration thinks a more definitive timeline for withdrawal would give it greater leverage to orchestrate political compromises. This could lead American officials to push for a "grand bargain" in which all outstanding political issues are resolved by Iraqi leaders simultaneously.

For more information about this publication please contact the Belfer Center Communications Office at 617-495-9858.

Full text of this publication is available at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702644.
html

For Academic Citation: