About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Monday, September 15, 2014
Oded Eran: The United States Returns to Iraq

Air strikes may not be the equivalent of the military presence on the ground
that US administration leaders are so careful to rule out, but they are a
signal to all skeptics that it is still too early to eulogize the United
States as the leader of the free world.
The United States Returns to Iraq
INSS Insight No. 607, September 15, 2014
Oded Eran
http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=7663

SUMMARY: President Obama's September 10, 2014 address to the American nation
presented the new US strategy against ISIS. Since being elected president,
Obama has been criticized at home and by US allies in Europe and the Middle
East for skirting responsibility in various regions of tension. The United
States' mobilization for the struggle against ISIS will thus improve its
standing among the moderate pro-American countries of the Middle East, which
were fear-stricken by what their leaders regarded as the American retreat
and abandonment of its allies. Air strikes may not be the equivalent of the
military presence on the ground that US administration leaders are so
careful to rule out, but they are a signal to all skeptics that it is still
too early to eulogize the United States as the leader of the free world.
.

President Obama's September 10, 2014 address to the American nation
regarding the new US strategy against ISIS leaves many issues unclear, chief
among them, what underlies the change in US policy regarding the extremist
organization. Both Obama's speech and public statements by senior American
officials offer a variety of reasons for this shift in posture. In an
address delivered on August 28, 2014 at the White House, the President
stressed his commitment “to protect the American people and defend against
evolving threats to [the] homeland.” He asserted that ISIS poses a danger to
the peoples of the region, and therefore, “military action in Iraq has to be
part of a broader, comprehensive strategy” to protect the American people
and United States partners in the struggle against ISIS. In his September 10
address, Obama reiterated that ISIS poses a threat to the United States and
its allies (although he acknowledged having no knowledge of specific
impending attacks). According to the President, thousands of foreign
citizens who have joined the organization are gaining experience in their
current combat activity and may try to carry out deadly attacks after
returning to their home countries. In a statement in Baghdad on September
10, 2014, Secretary of State Kerry stressed the need to deny ISIS physical
space and preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq. The different
statements also make mention of the threat posed to US citizens and
installations in Iraq itself. Still, the question remains: What happened in
August 2014 that caused this change in American policy, beginning with the
airstrikes and followed by the creation of a strategy revolving around the
mobilization of a broad coalition against ISIS?

President Barack Obama delivers an address on the US strategy to combat
ISIS, September 10, 2014; Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy
The two major events apparently responsible for this change are first,
ISIS's conquest of territory close to Baghdad and to Mosul, the major city
of northern Iraq and the capital of a region that is rich in deposits of
energy sources, and second, and perhaps most importantly, the removal of
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki from office. A Shiite openly friendly
toward Iran, al-Maliki served as Prime Minister of Iraq from 2006, and as
Iraqi interior minister since 2010. His relations with the United States and
Saudi Arabia were tense due in part to his ties with Iran. On August 14,
2014, under substantial domestic and international pressure, al-Maliki
stepped down and was replaced by Haider al-Abadi. Both Obama and Kerry have
repeatedly stated that for more than a year, they had emphasized to
al-Maliki the threat posed by ISIS, but that “he was not as responsive
perhaps as we would have liked.” Al-Maliki's removal from office now enables
the United States and the coalition emerging under its leadership to help
Iraq build, train, and outfit a military force – the National Guard.

Obama and other senior American officials have made use of a number of key
points to describe the aims of the military operation, most commonly the
erosion and destruction of ISIS capabilities. Indeed, President Obama stated
recently that the goal is not the containment of ISIS, as stated by Kerry,
but rather its destruction. The President acknowledged that it is impossible
to eliminate all ISIS operatives, but he has stressed repeatedly that the
United States will continue to "hunt them down."

The following list of US goals regarding ISIS emerges from statements by
senior American officials:
a. To inflict damage on ISIS capabilities, primarily in Iraq, but also in
Syria.
b. To reduce ISIS's area of operations and the territory under its
control.
c. To provide assistance to the Iraqi National Guard in the form of
training and equipment; 475 additional American advisors were recently sent
to Iraq for this purpose.
d. To provide Iraq with intelligence support.
e. To block sources of funding to ISIS.
f. To obstruct the flow of foreign volunteers seeking to join the
organization.
g. To provide humanitarian aid.

The public statements do not disclose the understandings between the United
States and the new government in Baghdad regarding the duration of the
military operations and the coordination between the National Guard and
other forces, such as Kurdish military forces and various members of the
coalition. Approximately ten days ago, President Obama stated that the
United States still had no strategy, and even following the September 10
speech, the strategy appears to still be under construction.

In the war against ISIS, President Obama will need to contend with a number
of political questions on the domestic and the international level. Trends
in US public opinion are quite clear. According to a survey carried out in
early September by the NBC television network and the Wall Street Journal,
two-thirds of respondents gave Obama a negative approval rating, and almost
half expressed the belief that the United States is less safe now than it
was on the eve of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks – highly
unflattering results, to the say the least. The percentage of respondents
who were aware of the recent beheadings of the two US citizens stood at 95
percent, surpassing the level of awareness of any other news event covered
by the two media outlets in recent years. The survey also revealed that 40
percent of respondents supported US air strikes in Iraq, and that 34 percent
expressed support for combined air and ground strikes (taken together, then,
74 percent were in favor of air strikes in Iraq). Obama can thus be seen as
attempting to rehabilitate his popularity ratings, as American public
opinion is currently in support of at least air strikes against ISIS.

Since these statistics are clear indicators of United States public opinion,
Democratic and Republic Congressional leaders will find it difficult to
mount any serious legislative obstacles, especially if the President
continues to keep them apprised of developments. Future problems may arise
if the air strikes and other military operations fail to produce clear
outcomes and ISIS is not weakened, let alone if it expands its operations to
elsewhere in the Middle East or other arenas.

The subject of ISIS was also broached during the NATO Summit Meeting in
Wales on September 4-5, 2014, documented at length in the Summit's
concluding statement. However, whereas with regard to the second issue
concerning European leaders today – Russia's invasion of Ukraine – the NATO
leaders decided on the establishment of a "rapid response force" (although
nowhere is it stated explicitly that this force is meant to operate against
Russia), no operative resolution was passed with regard to ISIS. Several
European countries harbor definite concerns regarding the return of hundreds
and perhaps even thousands of their own citizens with experience in warfare
and the use of weaponry, which might be put into action at home. At the same
time, and despite Obama's reference to the potential threat to "the
homeland," the NATO Summit decisions made no mention of Section 5 of the
NATO Charter, which obligates mobilization for the defense of a NATO member
under attack. Likewise, only a small number of the leading NATO members were
quick to join the coalition the United States is forming. Especially
important to the United States is the participation of Turkey, particularly
due to the deep Sunni character of Turkish society and its current governing
regime. However, Turkey’s refusal to permit use of its space for attacks in
Syria and Iraq (similar to its behavior in 2003) raises many questions
regarding its value as a US ally.

Another open question concerns US policy toward Syria and Iran, despite
clear statements made by senior US government officials. President Obama
mentioned the possibility of air strikes against targets related to ISIS in
Syria, and while he has expressed unequivocal opposition to Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad, he clearly regards neither Assad nor the forces loyal to
the Syrian President as a target of American military action. Obama and
others have not addressed the issue of ISIS operations in Lebanon, where the
group and associated groups are being fought by Hizbollah. The possibility
of cooperation with Iran has been ruled out explicitly, but Iran's deep
involvement in developments in Iraq makes it questionable whether the United
States will be able to continue to disregard Iran in the long term. The new
Iraqi government, courted by the United States, is primarily Shiite and will
also continue looking toward Tehran.

President Obama concluded his September 10 address with the idea of United
States leadership in the international arena. Since being elected president,
Obama has been criticized at home and by US allies in Europe and the Middle
East for skirting responsibility in various regions of tension. America's
"leadership from behind" against Qaddafi in Libya failed to convince anyone
otherwise, and the nearly 200,000 civilians killed in Syria without the
United States attempting to stop Assad with even minimal use of military
force is a subject raised in many of Obama's encounters with the media. The
decision to take action in Iraq – to save the lives of minorities, among
other reasons, as explained by the President and senior administration
officials – can be expected to sharpen the question of how the blood of
these minorities differs from the blood of the Syrians that have been
butchered or turned into refugees. Still, the United States' mobilization
for the struggle against ISIS will improve its standing among the moderate
pro-American countries of the Middle East, which were fear-stricken by what
their leaders regarded as the American retreat and abandonment of its
allies. Air strikes may not be the equivalent of the military presence on
the ground that US administration leaders are so careful to rule out, but
they are a signal to all skeptics that it is still too early to eulogize the
United States as the leader of the free world.

Search For An Article

....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)