Obama’s disappointing new war

Obama’s disappointing new war


You have to give the bloodthirsty jihadists of Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS) credit: They may be savages, but they know us well. They used well-produced, high-quality videos of their grisly murders of American journalists to provoke the United States into a bi-partisan frenzy of retribution.
It worked too well. Not only have Democrats and Republicans alike insisted that Obama do something, anything, to stop ISIS, but surveys indicate that support for military action against the jihadists has soared among average voters since the beheadings of journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 47 percent of Americans believe the country is less safe than it was before the attacks that came 13 years ago, a post-9/11 high.
But if there is evidence that ISIS has the ability to attack us on American soil, President Obama failed to share that in his televised address to the nation last week. In fact, several foreign policy experts have voiced doubts that ISIS has that capacity.
Still, the president will go forward with a strategy that includes sending “advisers” back into Iraq — a troubled nation Obama once believed we should be done with — to “train” Iraqi forces to rout ISIS there. He also pledged air strikes against their forces, in Iraq and Syria, too. This may not be a recipe for disaster, but several key ingredients for mission creep are mixed right in.
It seems that ISIS has adopted Osama bin-Laden’s PR tactics, since he also understood how easily the U.S. could be inflamed. As bin-Laden famously said in 2004: “[It is] easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there and cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses.”
Yes, yes, the jihadists of Islamic State are dangerous. They represent a threat that might — might — eventually acquire the means to attack the homeland. But Obama could pursue them as he has pursued terrorists from Pakistan to Somalia to Yemen — with drone strikes aimed at key leaders.
(By the way, let’s not forget that Obama’s drone war has become increasingly unpopular among civil libertarians, including, until quite recently, a Republican Senator from Kentucky named Rand Paul. But now that Paul is ramping up for an apparent presidential bid, he has become more hawkish, reading the polls of GOP voters who want the US to show its military might. It will be interesting to see whether Paul — indeed, members of Congress, in general — have the political courage to authorize the president to take the military action that so many have insisted upon.)
But U.S. airstrikes cannot kill off ISIS, which draws its strength from the chaos and sectarian oppression in Iraq and Syria. A committed group of Sunni fighters who view martyrdom as the path to eternal glory, ISIS has picked up reluctant support from Iraqi Sunnis who have been treated poorly by the government of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shia.
While Maliki resigned under pressure from Obama, he has been replaced by Haider al-Abadi, a man with a similar political background who might not do much more than Maliki to incorporate Sunnis and Kurds into the government. If he doesn’t, he will face the same sectarian divisions from which ISIS draws strength.
Then there’s the matter of sending advisors into Iraq to train its military. Didn’t the U.S. just spend years and hundreds of millions of dollars doing just that? Yet, when Iraqi soldiers have faced the vastly out-numbered ISIS, they’ve shed their uniforms and beat a hasty retreat, leaving behind high-powered weapons, paid for with US dollars, for ISIS to use. The terrorist group has also seized weapons from the same Syrian moderates that we will continue to arm.
Obama pledged that the US will not be drawn into another ground war in the Middle East, but it’s now unlikely he will go down in history as the president who ended two wars. It’s a stain on his legacy — a genuine failure of leadership.

One Response

  1. Cliff Russell says:

    I agree with you 100%. But I wonder if the president is not so much responding to ISIS as he is responding to congress and the polls. That would explain the brief delay of his response. He has said previously that he wants the American people to push him into action on other issues. Unfortunately, the American people are letting their emotions be manipulated by the beheadings. We shouldn’t send in any troops. As you said the Iraqi army has not been effective after the years of training we’ve already given them. Off on a slight tangent, I believe we should should be heavily investing more in alternative energy. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the world didn’t need oil and we could leave this region to work out its problem for themselves?

Comments are closed.