Political Science- Middle Eastern Politics - Essay Example

There are two main answers to this difficult question. The first is perhaps the best. If Iraq asks for U.S. combat troops beyond 2011, America should agree, creating several rapid reaction forces, not numbering more than 20,000 soldiers, to help with problems that may arise. The hard part of implementing this policy will be selling it to both the American and Iraqi public. The second option the U.S. could pursue is to create a staging ground for a rapid reaction force outside of Iraq, perhaps in Saudi Arabia, which could be used in cases of emergency.

Both potential strategies will be briefly discussed below. Many American lives have been lost in Iraq, and a great deal of money has been spent. It is tempting, now that violence has been dramatically reduced, to wash our hands of the issue. But the possibility remains that Iraq could revert to a chaotic situation and that we must not allow this to happen. The American Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently signalled that the Obama administration would be willing to continue keeping combat troops in Iraq after 2011 if asked by the Iraqi government.

The military commander in Iraq, General Austin agreed there may be a need for this: Speaking to a group of reporters travelling with Gates, Austin gave the strong impression that he thinks Iraq needs a U.S. military presence beyond December, but he said he had not yet been asked to provide a recommendation to Washington. He said Iraq faced the possibility of a "more violent environment" next year, given the absence of U.S. military force and the failure to resolve key political problems, like the Kurd-Arab tensions in Kirkuk and elsewhere in the north (NPR).

The willingness is there among policymakers, but the largest problem would be convincing the American public that this was necessary. Strategically, this is one of the more difficult parts of the plan. Americans are sick and tired of Iraq. They want nothing more to do with it. While Republicans would probably side with Obama, it will be politically difficult for him to convince anti-war Democrats to permit American combat troops to stay in Iraq. Obama has already alienated left-wing Democrats with a number of his policies; facing reelection 2012, he might be loath to further enrage them, potentially inviting a primary challenge from the left.

While the politics of this choice make it strategically difficult, it may be the only good option. Another strategy would involve refusing combat troops in Iraq, and creating a rapid reaction force nearby, in another country. There are problems with this idea, however. America is already committed to having a major diplomatic presence in Iraq after 2011. According to a recent Senate report: “The diplomatic mission that remains will be an initiative of unprecedented size and complexity, currently projected to consist of some 17,000 individuals on 15 different sites, including 3 air hubs, 3 police training centers, 2 consulates, 2 embassy branch offices, and 5 Office of Security Cooperation sites” (Senate Report, 2).

Without a security presence, it will be very difficult to sustain this kind of operation. It may be in America's own interest, as much as the Iraqi's, to have a combat force in Iraq. American diplomatic operations will certainly attract fire in the years ahead, and it will be hard to trust the Iraqi army to properly provide security. Having a