While the economy remains Obama’s weakness going into the 2012 presidential race, his foreign policies have not only measured up to his campaign promises, they’ve exceeded them.
Examples of this include Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, Col. Muammar Qaddafi just last week (turns out Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy was more brilliant than his detractors asserted), the long awaited withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and a planned withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.
These military successes, paired with a renewed emphasis on intelligence and drone warfare, have characterized Obama’s war doctrine as subtle yet brutally effective on the world stage. Ironic, considering that the Republican Party’s favorite criticism of Obama in 2008 was for his lack of foreign policy chops.
That eight-year quagmire of Iraq will officially be drawing to a close no later than the end of December, to the Pentagon’s dismay and the weary relief of the American military.
But even though this scheduled withdrawal was inevitable, the Pentagon and members of the intelligence community have put forward a response plan: installation of a new troop presence in the Persian Gulf. This new alternative measure to sustained troop presence in Iraq is Washington’s answer to an increasingly unstable Islamic Republic of Iran, which has not only increased its nuclear program, but also the aggressiveness of its rhetoric against the United States and the West.
The plans have been fiercely debated in Washington for the past few months, and have taken on a new urgency since the announcement of troop withdrawal from Iraq. As part of the Pentagon’s alternative, combat troops will be stationed in Kuwait and station American warships in international waters in the Persian Gulf.
Another important element of this new strategy is to form closer military ties to the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. The size of this new troop presence is likely to be announced in the coming days; though military officials in Washington have indicated that this new military presence in the Persian Gulf will be in accordance with the current trend in Obama’s foreign politics.
“We are kind of thinking of going back to the way it was before we had a big ‘boots on the ground’ presence,” Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst told The New York Times on Saturday. “I think it is healthy. I think it is efficient. I think it is practical.”
This reshuffling of U.S. military forces will have to be done with an acute awareness of cuts in defense budgeting and continuing economic woes at home, but the importance of commitment to the region, and the promise of a closer alliance with the GCC outweigh those concerns.
For Iran, a power that has grown more aggressive since the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the pullout of American troops from that country will be seen as a strategic opportunity. The Iranian nuclear program has been accelerating in spite of the imposition of numerous U.N. sanctions, and regional powers have grown nervous in an already dangerous region.
While Republicans are critical over the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the move was necessary and long overdue. Continuing the policies of the last eight years cannot be sustained. This new alliance in the Persian Gulf has the potential to be a strong player in the region and an indispensable asset to American security interests without risking American lives and treasure with a large military boot print.
