Iraq — past, present and future

The occupation of Iraq is over. President Obama formally concluded U.S. combat operations with a solemn Oval Office address Tuesday night, saying, “We have met our responsibility. Now it is time to turn the page.” Earlier in the day, he visited with combat veterans and awarded 11 Purple Hearts. In Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki marked the occasion by declaring his country “sovereign and independent” 7 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.

All of this is as it should be. And yet the official end of combat does not mean that the war has been won or that American involvement in Iraq is over. Fifty thousand U.S. troops remain through 2011 to advise the Iraqi military and police forces on security and counterinsurgency. As the military draws down, Obama said, diplomats are stepping up their work. The U.S. State Department is expanding its presence, opening new consulates in the cities of Basra and Irbil. More U.S. economic aid will be needed. In short, the U.S. government is shifting from military to civilian engagement in Iraq. And this too is as it should be.

The United States has a strategic interest in a stable and friendly Iraq, just as it does in the rest of the Persian Gulf countries and in countries such as Egypt, Israel and Turkey. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have weakened geopolitical checks on Iran’s power in the region. Now the U.S. must work hard to keep Baghdad as an ally, and to counter Iranian influence with a Shiite majority that is likely to remain in power in Iraq. It is also in the U.S. interest to help Iraq ensure that Al Qaeda does not expand its reach among the Sunni minority and once again serve as a magnet for jihadis.

The challenges ahead for Iraq are enormous. The country is still riven by a bloody sectarian conflict among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that will not end with the departure of U.S. troops. Its parliament has been hopelessly deadlocked, unable to select a new government since a national election last March failed to produce a clear majority for one party or coalition. Post-occupation, the Obama administration cannot control Iraq, but it is in the U.S. interest to continue mediating among factions and to encourage reconciliation rather than a return to civil war. This is key for regional peace and for the global economy, which needs Iraqi oil and healthy markets in the Middle East.

In the summer of 2002, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cautioned President George W. Bush on the consequences of military action in Iraq, invoking what he called the Pottery Barn rule: “You break it, you own it.” The U.S. doesn’t own Iraq, but it does still own responsibility for fixing that country torn by our war. And that likely means a continued, costly engagement there.