‘Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end.’

President Barack Obama laid out his definitive plan for the statement above. Obama’s plan is to have ‘combat forces’ leave Iraq by August 2010 and for the remaining ‘residual force’ to leave by the end of 2011. I watched the entire speech and was mainly satisfied with his planned withdrawal as he emphasized the need to engage with the country as a strong ally and praised the surge, though not in name of course, and our soldiers for their hard fought gains. Obama, who is looking more and more like the most realist president the US has had since Nixon, stayed away from the ‘democracy’ word, but did voice his support and hope for a ‘just, representative, and accountable’ Iraqi government.

He stuck to his campaign rhetoric and policy pronouncements that Iraq’s government needed to take responsibility for the country’s future and described how this cannot be done with a US troops on the ground. This is the theory that Iraq’s government will be forever stagnant if US troops allow it to be by letting them maintain the status quo without making real political progress. But this is where things can get tricky, as the surge proved almost the opposite of this. Now we all hope that the newfound stability and strength of the Iraqi government is ready to handle itself, by itself, but major questions remain.

I believe the surge worked not just because we had more troops to patrol the land, but because it was a tangible sign that the US was in for the long haul and you better base your political moves accordingly. In consequence, the Sunni’s of Anbar made a political deal with the US, attacked Al Qaeda, and just recently participated in the provincial elections. There has to be some concern that this timetable will cause the sectarian groups to begin to dig their trenches again, getting ready for the ‘real fight.’ I hope, upon hope that this is not the case, but I don’t think anyone can know for sure. A great piece from Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack illustrates the importance of a slow, cautious withdrawal.

This being said, I feel that I can trust Obama and Gates to do this disengagement in a safe manner while showcasing that the US is still strongly engaged in not only Iraq’s future, but also the whole regions’. Obama stated:

‘Every nation and every group must know – whether you wish America good or ill – that the end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East. And that era has just begun.’

Besides the needless anti-bush rhetoric, I found this a positive sign asserting that the US will remain influential and will not retreat from the troubled, yet crucial region. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Giving the Iraqi people a chance at a future is worth something. Letting all citizens and autocrats around Middle East possibly see a stable, democratic country in their backyard is worth something. Though I have some concerns, I feel that Obama knows the worth of these things as well. What do you think?

*I just found this and thought it quite funny.

The United States has tens of thousands of troops in two faraway Middle Eastern and Central Asian states. These two states have never known democracy and have spent a great majority of the past 100 years living under the yolk of foreign and domestic tyranny. Today, each state is struggling to hold free and fair elections to decide on who runs the country, with varying results.

Looks like these guys voted five times each!

This Saturday, Iraqis ventured out of their homes to vote in the nation’s second round of provincial elections. In this endeavor, there were of course problems with fraud, confusion over where and when to caste a ballot, and required a tremendous amount of security to pull off. That being said, voter turnout was solid in almost all provinces, with Sunnis and Shia both participating fully, and there was no insurgent violence to speak of. Though the country has much to accomplish and a myriad of problems remaining, this is truly an extraordinary event. In the region of the middle east, filled and dominated by autocrats and meaningless elections, this is a blatant example of real liberty and personal choice. Iraq has parliamentary elections still to come and an efficient, secure, and open result will go a long way in cementing further democratic gains. Now can the Iraqis continue this progress without 140,000 US troops remains to be seen, but today brings hope.

The other regional state which had its authoritative government ‘replaced’ by the US military is of course Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Afghan Election Commission has decided to delay the upcoming presidential election until next August 20th. The election was expected to occur before May, as that was when it designates the end of President Karzai’s 1st term, but the commission deemed it best to install voting machines and methods, register more voters, and give Afghan and NATO troops more time to secure cities and regions beset by the Taliban insurgency. Karzai, NATO, and US officials seem to think this an unfortunate, but prudent move, but others are less happy. Opposition members of Afghan’s parliament have called for Karzai’s replacement during the interim period between his constitutional legitimacy and the August election, but this appears unlikely.

Iraq's Provinces

Calling Iraq and Afghanistan incipient liberal democracies would be a stretch, in fact, quite a stretch. Elections do not guarantee democracy and individual freedom, good governance that is accountable to the people does. But by looking at the neighbors of these states, particularly Iraq’s, the difference in rule and individual opportunity is stark. Iraq is still unstable, with religious, sectarian, and ethnic crevices still fresh, and no one knows what tomorrow holds, but I can’t help but think that the autocrats in Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. look at this election and feel that their days are numbered. Unfortunately, these dictators have shown that they know how to count rather high.