Obama Should Study Korean History For Iraqi Future

I've just finished reading ’Rethinking the Korean War' by William Stueck and the timing has coincided with the US troop withdrawal from Iraq thus giving me an opportunity to make some comparisons and observations between the two conflicts.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II the Korean peninsular was a vital location for both western powers and communist forces. It offered the US and its allies a strategic staging post right on the doorstep of China as well as the south eastern tip of the USSR.

In 1949 the peninsular was divided along the thirty-eighth parallel roughly as it is today. Because the US viewed Europe as their priority as well as having heavy troop numbers in Japan, the forces withdrew from post war South Korea and as a result, the following year saw Kim Il-sung lead an invasion which forced South Korean troops to the southern tip of the peninsular. Forced to intervein, huge numbers of US and UN personnel managed, with the South Koreans, to push North Korean and Chinese forces back over and beyond the parallel. When in 1953 an armistice was finally signed, the US kept a large number of troops in the country, keen not to repeat its earlier mistake.

Even today, South Korea remains a strategically vital US and western ally. Becasue of the need for South Korea to remain stable, US and UN troops have remained there. Post war South Korea was far from perfect but the alternative was a lot worse.
And now Iraq faces a similarly uncertain future. Although the build up of the war in Iraq was different, the official end of US combat missions sees the state of the country in a precarious position, as was South Korea in 1953.

Iraq is strategically important within the Middle East and a stable Iraq will mean a much safer region especially with a belligerent Iran - trying for nuclear armament - looking over the border. Iran can not be allowed to destabilise the whole of the region and so a strong Iraq is key. Many Iraqi voices - from Sunnis to Shias, from politicians to generals - have expressed concern that the country is not yet ready to stand alone.

Even after last month's withdrawal, 50,000 conventional US troops plus 4,500 special forces remain to 'advise and assist' the Iraqis. These troops are going to be needed in the months ahead and unless an unforeseen change occurs, it is going to be very difficult for President Obama to pull out completely as he insists will happen in 2011.

The reports coming out of Iraq daily are cause for concern but we can also take positives out of what has happened in an otherwise awful seven year post invasion period. The country is no longer ruled by a brutal dictator; democracy is working all-be-it at a frustratingly slow pace and Iraq is now more democratic than any other Middle Eastern country - excluding Lebanon (it was more than thirty years after the war before South Korea became democratic). Iraq has the 12th fastest growing economy for 2010 and oil and gas contracts have been signed with international companies. This should enable a sharp rise in production very soon which could eventually put levels second only to Saudi Arabia.

After all of the pain and suffering Iraq has gone through since 2003 and for decades before that, we can not allow the country to slip further into chaos. The biggest mistake made by the US Department of Defence, supported by Iraq Administrator Paul Bremer, made to disband the Iraqi army. It is impossible to expect today's infant military machine to stand alone so soon after its formation. Complete troop withdrawal should happen when the country is ready and not to make political gains prior to the 2012 election campaign.

Ecrivain Man