Political commentator Jon Stewart mocked recent comments by former Vice-President Dick Cheney on the crisis in Iraq which he finds hypocritical. At issue is that Cheney is saying that Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq without securing a permanent US military base in the nation has left the nation exposed to Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).
This is a group heavily supported by Al-Qaida which hopes to take control of Iraq and convert the nation into a terror safe haven from which to launch attacks on other nations. Stewart called out Cheney because he presided over Iraqi negotiations for US troop withdrawals back in 2009 which he stated were evidence of significant success.
However, does Stewart mean to imply that Cheney did not intend for the United States to negotiate for a permanent base of military operations in Iraq? If so then why did the United States continue negotiating for such a base? Lost in the Stewart’s criticism is the historical context. Iraq was wanting to assert its independence and accepting a US military base would fuel the perception they were merely a puppet regime. This is likely why the initial framework left the military base for further negotiations.
It was the expectation that the final date of US troop withdrawals would not occur until after a deal had been reached regarding the military base. President Obama undercut our nation’s own negotiating position by announcing a unilateral troop withdrawal date. At that point, the US had no leverage in subsequent negotiations. With the Iraqi government now collapsing before ISIS, Obama’s foreign policy skills are proving to be immature and naive.