• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Jessica Tuchman Mathews"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Iraq"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie China

Obama's Plan for Iraq

No matter how long U.S. troops stay in Iraq, a stable power-sharing agreement will emerge only after all factions have tested each other’s strength and exhausted their desire to fight. Leaving Iraq is the right thing to do, for the U.S. and for Iraq.

Link Copied
By Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Published on Mar 1, 2009
Program mobile hero image

Program

Middle East

The Middle East Program in Washington combines in-depth regional knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to provide deeply informed recommendations. With expertise in the Gulf, North Africa, Iran, and Israel/Palestine, we examine crosscutting themes of political, economic, and social change in both English and Arabic.

Learn More

Source: Washington Post

Obama's Plan for IraqPresident Obama's willingness to take on enormous political risks is already almost commonplace. Ending the war, while unequivocally the right thing, is another one. After six years, it makes no difference whether U.S. troops leave in 16 months or 18. The risk for Obama and the challenge for the country lie in what we will do if -- some would say when -- serious violence erupts as U.S. troops depart.

The U.S. presence interrupted a struggle for political power that always follows removal of a government and eventually forced it into nonviolent channels. But the struggle is far from over. Recent political accommodations are extremely fragile, and it is likely that many angry groups have chosen to lie low until the Americans are gone.

Stable agreements to share power emerge only after the parties have tested each other's strength and will and their desire to fight has burned out. History shows that this takes many years, especially when all sides are heavily armed.

So the United States may face a departure in 2011 in the face of great instability. President Obama understands that could happen even if our troops were to stay five more years. There is no substitute for Iraqis sorting out their own political future. But after so much sacrifice and bloodshed, it may not feel much like a victory.

This article first appeared in the Washington Post.

About the Author

Jessica Tuchman Mathews

Distinguished Fellow

Mathews is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She served as Carnegie’s president for 18 years.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    Washington Already Knows How to Deal with North Korea

      Jessica Tuchman Mathews

  • Commentary
    Trump Wins—and Now?

      Jessica Tuchman Mathews

Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Distinguished Fellow
Jessica Tuchman Mathews
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesIraq

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Who Does Azerbaijan Want to See Win Armenia’s Elections?

    By fueling the arguments of both supporters and opponents of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Azerbaijan wants to ensure he is re-elected with a weaker mandate.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Elite Conflict Over Internet Restrictions Does Not Herald Regime Collapse

    A much-discussed disagreement over internet restrictions in Russia was never an existential threat for Putin: It was about elite groups protecting their interests.  

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Israel’s Security Means Insecurity in the Middle East

    As negotiations with Iran and Lebanon continue, chaos is at the heart of the Netanyahu government’s calculations.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Are Western Democracies Failing Free Speech?

    The battle over free speech has taken center stage since U.S. Vice President JD Vance accused Europe of censorship. From travel bans to social media regulation, especially around the Israel-Palestine conflict, are liberal democratic governments weaponizing free speech?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.