Robert Gates, U.S. Defense Secretary, said today that the U.S. combat role in Iraq should "narrow" in the coming months. It's about time, I say. Gates says that the country has stabilized to the point that Iraqi security forces can begin assuming the primary role in combat operations. The question is, are the Iraqis actually able to step up to the plate this time? Things didn't go too well back in 2007 when we tried to pass the baton. In fact, that little experiment was the time when the insurgency was spiralling toward civil war.

 

Over the past year, things have calmed down considerably. The much lauded American troop surge has knocked a lot of wind out of the insurgency, but there are still plenty of trouble makers to contend with. While the success of the surge illustrates why I'm in favor of an aggressive combat strategy, as long as we're there, I don't think it's our duty to remain on point indefinitely. We're there and we have to deal with that fact, but occupying Iraq isn't a legacy we want to pass to our children. The only way to know if the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet and handle their security problems is to let them have a go at it. I hope they can, because it will lessen the potential excuses for prolonging our presence in their country.

 

If the Iraqis have a tough time keeping a lid on their pot of boiling schisms it will only make our departure more complicated. If they can't hack it, I have little faith that we'll exercise the type of strong willed policy that would allow us to bring our troops home in the forseeable future without further besmirching our character. Actually, I guess I am misspeaking, because our troops aren't likely to come home, per se. They're more likely to jump into a beefed up deployment rotation to Afghanistan. While we've seen a decrease in action in Iraq, the fighting has escalated in Central Asia.

 

It is unfortunate that we must have this discussion at this time. When President Bush pronounced "mission accomplished", the clock should have started ticking on our withdrawal. We did have victory in our hands. To those that say we created a power vacuum, so we must stay to stabilize things and ensure the "wrong" people do not fill that vacuum, I say - no we mustn't. It was not preordained that the Iraqi people spiral into sectional, ethnic and religous infighting the moment they came out from under the heel of a dictator. They could have breathed a sigh of relief and gone about the orderly business of establishing a functioning and freer society. We could have assisted them without employing occupation levels of troops. The fact that they chose the path that they did is not our fault. We have no obligation to indefinitely prop them up. Our obligation, at this point, is to our troops and to ourselves. We deserve a withdrawal scenario that will not make a mockery of the sacrifices made by our military. 

 

Will the Iraqis step up to the plate this time as we transition them into accepting responsibility for their own security? I remain hopeful, but not expectant. I wish them peace and a better future, as I do all my fellow man. I also wish that we would recognize that we're really not responsible for guaranteeing them those things. At some point, they will have to succeed or fail on their own merits.