Obama Proposes a Residual Force in Iraq

President-elect Barack Obama ran for the highest office in the U.S. on a platform of ending the war in Iraq by withdrawing the troops. On Meet the Press yesterday, Obama claimed that he now advocates a draw down of U.S. soldiers from Iraq, leaving a residual force of 35,000-50,000 troops to protect American civilians still stationed in the country.

While Obama has already changed his plan for Iraq, his new plan is much less practical. Leaving a residual force in Iraq is a more dangerous plan than adding troops or withdrawing them all. This will serve to keep an American military occupation of Iraq while failing to stabilize the country. The residual force is one third the number of troops used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Leaving that many troops in the country is nothing short of an occupation.

There should not be any U.S. troops or civilians in Iraq. The U.S. invaded the country. America's continued presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency. The insurgency is not upset because the U.S. has too many troops in Iraq, they are distraught because the U.S. has any troops there in the first place. The war did not fail because the U.S. had too many troops during the invasion; it failed because the U.S. invaded in the first place. The subsequent reconstruction of Iraq did not fail because the U.S. has had too many troops in the country; it has failed because the presence of American troops is responsible for the insurgency's existence. These civilians that this residual force is supposed to protect will include the same corrupt corporations that have stolen tax payer money since the outset of the war.

For the sake of Iraq's stabilization and future ethno-sectarian reconciliation, the U.S. must withdraw all U.S. troops and civilians from Iraq. Obama needs to keep his campaign promises.