For the first time in six years, the end is in sight. On October 12, 2009—six and a half years after President George W. Bush invaded Iraq under the pretense of disabling the country's non-existent nuclear proliferation plants—military spokesman Brig. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza announced a definitive exit strategy for the 120,000 troops remaining in the country. By August 2010, there will be approximately 50,000 soldiers on the ground in Saddam Hussein's former country, training Iraqis to take over and overseeing peaceful operations.
In the midst of the discussion on the merit of President Barack Obama's Nobel Prize, this development in the administration's approach to foreign policy is indicative of a sharp change from the precedent set by the Bush administration and brings up an old discussion. The United States armed forces were seen as a tool with which the former president could shape the fabric of the whole world, rather than as an instrument of defense: despite rumors fabricating its connection to al-Qaeda, Iraq was never a direct threat to the United States.
Many allies and any sense of membership in a global society in which the United States was a respected contributor fell by the wayside, to be replaced by increasingly hawkish policies aimed at converting the developing world to the American gospel of democracy.
Essentially, diplomacy has become a forgotten relic on the far right, with a preference instead for more aggressive strategies, as evidenced in 2008 by John McCain's outrage that then-presidential candidate Obama would even consider diplomatic talks with Iran without preconditions.
Similarly, during the 2008 presidential election, McCain famously stated his support of a continued troop presence for the next 100 years. The man may be 73, but this isn't the Age of Imperialism. Just because America didn't get to be a globally expansive oppressor in 1500 doesn't give us that right now. Which is exactly why this new development in strategy towards Iraq is so key: by handing sovereignty to the Iraqis within the next year, Obama and his administration are supporting the notion of political independence and the distinct possibility that true democracy cannot be forced through military might.
In the United States, it is practically an unspoken tenet of American citizenship to believe democracy is the way of the enlightened, not only in this country but also around the world. Indeed, it is generally understood that this method of government theoretically encourages the most freedom. As one of the first modern exemplars of this political system, it became the unintended role of the American government to model the proper execution of ancient Greek democracy to those countries that adapted it soon thereafter, France being one of the most important.
It cannot be overstated, however, that the success of democracy in any given country necessarily depends upon the willing participation of its citizens. In every Western example, from the United States to Germany, the establishment of a democratic government relied upon the beliefs and direct actions of its citizens. Americans waged a war against their oppressors. The French deposed a king, then beheaded him and his wife. The Iraqis? They don't yet have a democracy. Due to the ill-conceived military actions of the previous administration, their country has been so destabilized that the evolution of a legitimate democracy is unlikely. In a recent example, homosexuals living in Baghdad have been viciously tortured and killed by men claiming to be agents of Islamic law. Educational opportunities, particularly for women, are sparse. Human rights are abused more readily and on a broader scale than under Saddam Hussein's rule.
Unfortunately, under American influence, Iraq is unlikely to establish the independence and infrastructure needed to sustain political development. Herein lies the significance of Obama's political doctrine. The generals responsible for furthering the American agenda are supportive of a coalition designed to train and support Iraqi forces while ignoring the precedent established by Bush, in which the Iraqi government would be controlled, as opposed to encouraged, by the presidential administration of United States.
The country may currently be focusing on the prematurity of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and what he has not yet accomplished, but the award only becomes an irrelevant symbol if, after four or eight years, he has failed to deliver on peacekeeping and humanitarian promises made during the campaign or during the early days of his presidency. In the meantime, however, the president's philosophy of preventing overly aggressive, premature use of military force has allowed for the United States' increased participation in world affairs as an equal contributor rather than as a tyrannical empire.
Caitlin Hurwit is a member of the Class of 2012.