Editorial: Obama right to turn the page on Iraq

Opinion

President Barack Obama had his reasons for making only his second prime-time television address from the Oval Office to declare an end to the United States' combat mission in Iraq.

The ringing down of the curtain on the seven-year conflict honoured a pledge delivered soon after he took office.

This was a point the President was particularly keen to highlight before November's mid-term Congressional elections. With his popularity sliding and the Democrats facing a pounding, it was an opportunity to shine a positive light on his administration.

It was also the chance to say that it was "time to turn the page" and that he would henceforth focus on the desultory American economy.

It was not, however, a time to pronounce in any detail on the state of Iraq as the last of the American combat troops departed. But the country is in turmoil.

The optimism that sprang from national elections held in March has largely evaporated. The poll left no clear winner and six months later, a new government has yet to be formed.

A similar paralysis occurred in 2005, and as also happened then, there has been an upsurge in violence. It is a far from ideal scenario for the Iraqi forces who must now take charge of security.

The 50,000 American troops remaining in the country - down from 170,000 during the "surge" initiated by President George W. Bush - will have a training role and take part in combat only at their host's request.

The deadlocked election was also a blow to the chances of easing the sectarian tensions unleashed by the invasion. The Sunni minority nurse a continuing fear that they will be denied a role in the new Iraq befitting, at least to some degree, their previous dominance.

This grievance catapulted them into an alliance with al Qaeda. While that has ended, they are extremely wary of the Shiite majority. And al Qaeda, another factor introduced by the invasion, also remains as a constant threat to stability.

The doleful consequences do not end there. The invasion of Iraq and the introduction of President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive force prompted an understandable international antipathy towards the US.

President Obama has worked hard, and with some success, to turn this around. He has also had to place a far greater emphasis on the war in Afghanistan and the Middle East peace process, both of which were shoved into the background by the escalating conflict in Iraq.

Only now are direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians resuming, and the inattention in Afghanistan opened a door for the Taleban that is proving extremely hard to shut.

On the plus side, the people of Iraq now enjoy greater freedom. But most probably regard that as of limited immediate benefit because of the turbulence around them and the shattered infrastructure that is a further legacy of President Bush's war "to defend the world from grave danger".

His successor never bought that, and once, quite accurately, described the conflict as "dumb". But President Obama has, out of necessity, had to strive for a reason to justify the death of more than 4400 US soldiers. Their sacrifice had not been in vain, he said, because "America is more secure".

That is about as credible as President Bush's reason for going to war. Equally, President Obama may be overly optimistic to believe he can keep to a schedule that will see all American troops withdrawn by the end of next year.

It is difficult to see Iraqi forces achieving stability in that period, and a full American withdrawal would leave a dangerous security vacuum. Looming chaos could well occasion a rethink. The page may not be so easily turned. And that would be the bitterest of pills for the American people, who want only to put Iraq behind them.