WASHINGTON: In sending warplanes back into the skies over Iraq, US President Obama on Thursday night found himself exactly where he did not want to be. Hoping to end the war in Iraq, Obama became the fourth president in a row to order military action in that graveyard of American ambition.
The mandate he gave to the armed forces was more limited than that of his predecessors, focused mainly on dropping food and water. But he also authorized targeted airstrikes "if necessary" against Islamic radicals advancing on the Kurdish capital of Erbil and others threatening to wipe out thousands of non-Muslims stranded on a remote mountaintop.
As he explained himself to a national television audience, Mr. Obama made a point of reassuring a war-weary public that the president who pulled American forces out of Iraq at the end of 2011 had no intention of fighting another full-scale war there. Yet his presence in the State Dining Room testified to the bleak reality that the tide of events in that ancient land have defied his predictions and aspirations before.
"I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these," he said. "I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that's what we've done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq."
Mr. Obama has spent months resisting just that. Even after the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, seized Falluja and other territory in the western part of the country at the beginning of the year and marched through Mosul and toward Baghdad by summer, the president expressed no enthusiasm for American military action.
In June, he sent in 300 special forces troops not to fight but to assess the situation, an assessment that has yet to be completed, and he increased surveillance passes over Iraq. But Mr. Obama rebuffed calls, including those from within his administration, to quickly send in air power to hit ISIS forces.
Aides said his hand was not forced until ISIS won a series of swift and stunning victories last weekend and Wednesday night against the Kurds in the north, who have been a loyal and reliable American ally, especially compared to the Baghdad government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. ISIS threats to wipe out Yazidis and other religious minorities trapped on Mount Sinjar, they said, added to the urgency.
"You don't have to have a ton of insight to know he feels reluctant," said Douglas Ollivant, a former Iraq adviser in the White House under Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush. "He wants the Iraq problem not to exist. And that's exactly what the American people sent him to the White House to do." But "all these factors may kind of drag him kicking and screaming into some kind of decision."
To longtime opponents of the Iraq war, the president's decision represented a step back down a dangerous path, one that may once again entangle the United States in a bloody and destructive venture. Far better, in their view, to find alternatives like urging the United Nations to help the Iraqis conduct their own humanitarian airdrop mission.
"This is a slippery slope if I ever saw one," said Phyllis Bennis, a scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a research organization for peace activists. "Whatever else we may have learned from the president's 'dumb war,' it should be eminently clear that we cannot bomb Islamist extremists into submission or disappearance. Every bomb recruits more supporters."
Others disagreed. "I don't think this is a slippery slope; this is an isolated circumstance," said Representative Adam Smith of Washington State, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, saying he supported intervening on behalf of the Kurds, as opposed to the unpopular Baghdad government. "The Kurds are worth helping and defending."
To some, this is a crisis Mr. Obama brought on himself by not trying harder to leave a residual force behind at the end of 2011 and neglecting to recognize the growing threat as the civil war in Syria next door increasingly spilled over into Iraq. Some argued that a virtual state under ISIS control posed more than the humanitarian threat Mr. Obama seemed to be focused on.
"This is about America's national security," said Ryan Crocker, who was ambassador to Iraq under Mr. Bush and to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama. "We don't understand real evil, organized evil, very well. This is evil incarnate. People like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi," the ISIS leader, "have been in a fight for a decade. They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop."
But if not, then the question arises: How far is Mr. Obama willing to go? He said on Thursday that there is "no American military solution" to the Iraqi insurgency, pointing again to the need for a new politically inclusive government in Baghdad. What he might do if that fails he did not say. And while aides stressed this is a narrow mission, they acknowledged scenarios in which it could expand.
Mr. Obama likewise strived to explain why this humanitarian emergency demands American military intervention when others elsewhere have not. Just a week ago, at a news conference, he made the point that the United States cannot intervene everywhere there is a crisis.
"Nobody has the sense about why in some cases and not in others," said James B. Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state under Mr. Obama and now dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. "His last news conference just leaves you scratching your head. Yeah, we can't do everything. But what matters to us?"
Iraq, of course, offers a special case, given the amount of American blood spilled since Mr. Bush's invasion in 2003. Beyond that, Mr. Obama said that this was an instance where there was a genuine calamity in the making; the government of the country requested help, and the United States had the capacity to step in and make a difference.
"The United States cannot and should not intervene every time there is a crisis in the world," he said. But in this case, he added, "I believe the United States cannot turn a blind eye."
The mandate he gave to the armed forces was more limited than that of his predecessors, focused mainly on dropping food and water. But he also authorized targeted airstrikes "if necessary" against Islamic radicals advancing on the Kurdish capital of Erbil and others threatening to wipe out thousands of non-Muslims stranded on a remote mountaintop.
As he explained himself to a national television audience, Mr. Obama made a point of reassuring a war-weary public that the president who pulled American forces out of Iraq at the end of 2011 had no intention of fighting another full-scale war there. Yet his presence in the State Dining Room testified to the bleak reality that the tide of events in that ancient land have defied his predictions and aspirations before.
"I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these," he said. "I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that's what we've done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq."
Mr. Obama has spent months resisting just that. Even after the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, seized Falluja and other territory in the western part of the country at the beginning of the year and marched through Mosul and toward Baghdad by summer, the president expressed no enthusiasm for American military action.
In June, he sent in 300 special forces troops not to fight but to assess the situation, an assessment that has yet to be completed, and he increased surveillance passes over Iraq. But Mr. Obama rebuffed calls, including those from within his administration, to quickly send in air power to hit ISIS forces.
Aides said his hand was not forced until ISIS won a series of swift and stunning victories last weekend and Wednesday night against the Kurds in the north, who have been a loyal and reliable American ally, especially compared to the Baghdad government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. ISIS threats to wipe out Yazidis and other religious minorities trapped on Mount Sinjar, they said, added to the urgency.
"You don't have to have a ton of insight to know he feels reluctant," said Douglas Ollivant, a former Iraq adviser in the White House under Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush. "He wants the Iraq problem not to exist. And that's exactly what the American people sent him to the White House to do." But "all these factors may kind of drag him kicking and screaming into some kind of decision."
To longtime opponents of the Iraq war, the president's decision represented a step back down a dangerous path, one that may once again entangle the United States in a bloody and destructive venture. Far better, in their view, to find alternatives like urging the United Nations to help the Iraqis conduct their own humanitarian airdrop mission.
"This is a slippery slope if I ever saw one," said Phyllis Bennis, a scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a research organization for peace activists. "Whatever else we may have learned from the president's 'dumb war,' it should be eminently clear that we cannot bomb Islamist extremists into submission or disappearance. Every bomb recruits more supporters."
Others disagreed. "I don't think this is a slippery slope; this is an isolated circumstance," said Representative Adam Smith of Washington State, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, saying he supported intervening on behalf of the Kurds, as opposed to the unpopular Baghdad government. "The Kurds are worth helping and defending."
To some, this is a crisis Mr. Obama brought on himself by not trying harder to leave a residual force behind at the end of 2011 and neglecting to recognize the growing threat as the civil war in Syria next door increasingly spilled over into Iraq. Some argued that a virtual state under ISIS control posed more than the humanitarian threat Mr. Obama seemed to be focused on.
"This is about America's national security," said Ryan Crocker, who was ambassador to Iraq under Mr. Bush and to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama. "We don't understand real evil, organized evil, very well. This is evil incarnate. People like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi," the ISIS leader, "have been in a fight for a decade. They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop."
But if not, then the question arises: How far is Mr. Obama willing to go? He said on Thursday that there is "no American military solution" to the Iraqi insurgency, pointing again to the need for a new politically inclusive government in Baghdad. What he might do if that fails he did not say. And while aides stressed this is a narrow mission, they acknowledged scenarios in which it could expand.
Mr. Obama likewise strived to explain why this humanitarian emergency demands American military intervention when others elsewhere have not. Just a week ago, at a news conference, he made the point that the United States cannot intervene everywhere there is a crisis.
"Nobody has the sense about why in some cases and not in others," said James B. Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state under Mr. Obama and now dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. "His last news conference just leaves you scratching your head. Yeah, we can't do everything. But what matters to us?"
Iraq, of course, offers a special case, given the amount of American blood spilled since Mr. Bush's invasion in 2003. Beyond that, Mr. Obama said that this was an instance where there was a genuine calamity in the making; the government of the country requested help, and the United States had the capacity to step in and make a difference.
"The United States cannot and should not intervene every time there is a crisis in the world," he said. But in this case, he added, "I believe the United States cannot turn a blind eye."
No comments:
Post a Comment