US President Barack Obama’s formal declaration of the end of US combat operations in Iraq on August 31 is a good a moment as any to reflect on the war, the United States’ global position, and Obama himself.

Iraq War: Have The Goals Been Achieved?

First, let me address the Iraq War itself. There were several publicly stated goals by President George W. Bush and/or British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the run-up to the US-led invasion:

• Removing Saddam Hussein and his sons from power
• Democratising Iraq
• Destroying Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
• Destroying the alleged nexus between Iraq and al-Qaeda

There were also several suspected goals which were never claimed by the Bush administration:

• Controlling Iraq’s oil reserves
• Democratising Iraq in the hope that it would democratise the rest of the Middle East
• Developing a permanent US military presence in Iraq from which to project power in the Middle East (especially against Iran, and potentially even Saudi Arabia)

Essentially, at the time of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, it seemed that the US was hoping to repeat in Iraq what it achieved in Japan during its post-war occupation there (1945-52). That is to say, overthrow the regime, democratise the polity, rebuild the country as the main regional ally, and keep a substantial military presence there. Never mind warnings that Iraq is not Japan.

So overall, were these goals achieved? To quote former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai with reference to the impact of the French Revolution on history, ‘it is too early to say’.

Saddam and his sons are dead, and Iraq has become a democracy of sorts, albeit a very shaky one. Those are certainly key victories for the US. However, the WMD threat appears to have been greatly exaggerated, raising questions about the necessity of the war. In addition, while it is impossible to verify links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda pre-2003, it is certainly the case that Iraq became a safe haven for Islamist militants after the fall of Saddam, as fighters flocked from around the region to wage insurgency there. Furthermore, the cost of bringing Iraq to where it is today has been very high – tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, 4,400 US troop fatalities (and a few hundred more from the other Coalition members), and considerable damage to Iraq as a nation. Then there is the damage to US prestige caused by the Iraq War.

As for the speculative goals, Iraq’s oil production has yet to return to 2000 levels, due to dilapidated infrastructure, an exodus of skilled personnel, and ongoing tensions between the Baghdad central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government over key oil fields.

Meanwhile, although Iraq has been democratised, the Eastern Europe c.1989-style democratic wave that some neo-conservatives in the US hoped would sweep the Middle East has failed to materialise, and is unlikely to for the foreseeable future.

As for a military permanent presence in Iraq, the US is to keep 50,000 troops there until the end of 2011, officially. As I mentioned recently, I believe that the US will have to keep a sizeable force well beyond 2011, given Iraq’s weak security situation. However, because those troops will have to help the Iraqi military keep the country stable, they will probably not be available for use against Iran (so much for the joke that the US would exit Iraq via Iran!). As for pressuring Saudi Arabia, this seems to have been more of an ideal by ultraconservative commentators in the US rather than an actual policy prescription.

Afghanistan Is The Main War Theatre

Even if Iraq manages to stay reasonably stable from now on, the US is still bogged down in Afghanistan (click here to listen to the BMI podcast on this subject), where it has more than 100,000 troops. In theory, Obama would like to start withdrawing them in 2011 too, but given that the war there is not necessarily developing to the US’ advantage (to paraphrase Japanese Emperor Hirohito at the end of World War II), I suspect that Washington will have to keep the bulk of its troops there for many years to come.

Where Stands The US, Post-Iraq, Post-Recession?

Overall, with the US winding down combat in Iraq, and still stuck in Afghanistan, there are good reasons to believe that it will be cautious about rushing into another war any time soon. That said, a US attack on Iran would differ from the Afghan and Iraq wars, because it would probably consist solely of an air campaign rather than a ground war. Even so, Tehran’s presumed ability to retaliate by making trouble for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq (and possibly elsewhere) is one factor that could restrain Washington for the time being.

The somewhat ambiguous situation in Iraq, the US’ quagmire in Afghanistan, the sharp recession in 2008-2009, and the long-term rise of China and India have all led to suggestions that the US is a declining superpower. ‘Wealth and power are shifting East’ (and to a lesser extent South) is the mantra of the day. Perhaps so, but I offer two counterpoints:

Firstly, we should be cautious about believing that the US is in decline. The US has a tremendous ability to reinvigorate itself.

Secondly, even if the US is indeed in decline, it will probably be the world’s single most-powerful country even 20 years from now. As my colleagues and I mentioned in an October 2008 special report, ‘Why The US Can Remain The World’s Superpower’, the US surpasses all potential peer competitors in most of the six ‘dimensions’ of global power. These are 1) absolute economic power; 2) military force projection capabilities; 3) diplomatic influence; 4) soft power appeal; 5) demographic outlook; and 6) willingness to act globally. China and India, which are the USA’s most plausible rivals, still have a long way to go to catch up with the US in these areas. In addition, China and India both have substantial internal weaknesses which could slow their economic ascent. Furthermore, even if China and India become ‘Great Powers’, they are unlikely to enjoy the kind of global dominance that the US has maintained since the collapse of the USSR. In short, we are moving towards a post-mono-superpower world.

Is Barack Obama The Next Jimmy Carter?

So where does all this leave Barack Obama? His popularity is in decline and many commentators are expecting a Republican victory in the November 2010 mid-term elections. Consequently, Obama is already being portrayed as a potential one-term president, following in the footsteps of George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. (Indeed, earlier this year, Foreign Policy Magazine carried a cover story likening Obama to Carter.) Yet I would caution against writing off Obama. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were at some stage in their first terms perceived as potential one-termers, only to gain re-election when election day came.

Ultimately though, Obama’s fate may not matter that much. The US is greater than any individual leader… but because of this, it will also take more than any single president to turn its fortunes around.