Why Obama's Iraq War will turn out no better
- By Mitchell Blatt and Sumantra Maitra
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, October 3, 2014
There is also no crystal clear intelligence on any of the rebel groups, among which fighters have been moving easily and often. For many militias in the Middle East, moderate is a relative term. Moreover, there is no way to keep track of weapons once they are handed over to such groups. After the U.S. and NATO helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi's regime in Libya, many of the weapons from that conflict were trafficked into the hands of rebels in Syria, so it is reasonable to assume that the weapons the U.S. gives the FSA will end up in the Middle East's next war zone.
Obama's expressed goals leave no frame of reference for when the mission will be over or how success will be determined. In his speech on Sept. 10, he said that the goal is to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS. He didn't give any specifics on what "destroy" means (though in another line, he also said the U.S. would "eradicate" ISIS), but he and his advisors cannot possibly believe that a terrorist group can ever be fully and completely wiped out. Though it has been thirteen years since America started aggressively pursuing al-Qaeda, Obama just authorized U.S. bombings of al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria a less than a few weeks ago.
It may be perfectly justifiable and relevant to the goal of thwarting terrorism for the U.S. to also bomb the al-Nusra Front and the Khorasan Group in its first strikes in Syria. Both these groups are labeled as al-Qaeda affiliates, although neither group was announced as a target and though Khorasan was not even known to the public. The U.S. may as well go ahead, since there is not a Congressional warrant for war against ISIS either, aside from the broad powers of the president and the authorizations of force passed in 2001 and 2003 (the ones Obama spoke out against), which Obama has cited as his warrant.
But these additional strikes just show how quickly the scope of the war could expand. In August, the U.S. was providing aid to the Yazidis while insisting they would not bomb ISIS targets. After Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stepped down, the U.S. began striking military targets in Iraq. Now the campaign has spread to Syria. All the while, Obama has said he will not put "boots on the ground," but there are already 1,700 American troops in Iraq in "training" and "advisory" roles, and Gen. Martin Dempsey says that these "advisors" should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks.
What about regime change in Syria? The Free Syrian Army complains that the U.S. isn't doing enough to fight Assad, even though overthrowing Assad has not been part of the justification for war. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has written an op-ed in the Daily Beast calling for America to help overthrow Assad. The fact remains that a country with no governance which has militia fighters flowing in and out of it over a long-term period will keep the entire region completely off balance. It is hard to see a scenario in which America won't eventually intervene to help the rebels accomplish their goal.
Americans are also confused about how they feel about the war. Multiple polls have put U.S. support for air strikes at well above 60 percent. A CNN poll even found 76 percent support it, while CNN also found that Americans opposed sending ground troops by about a two-to-one margin. Yet according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 68 percent of Americans also said that they lacked confidence in the strategy Obama is pursuing, the same strategy which the American public generally supports.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)