In the latest version out of Washington of "Obama's History of the Middle East", America is being told that we ought not look backwards at how things in Iraq reached their current situation but only forward so as to consider what, if anything, ought to be done now. Of course, the next sentence is usually that everything happening now is the fault of George Bush because of the invasion of Iraq.
The truth (sorry to use that word in a piece that also mentions Obama) is, however, that we need to look back to see how we got to this point. Otherwise, we will never understand how to deal with the present situation and also how to avoid a similar mess developing elsewhere. We can do our look back in two different ways.
Let's start with a short term review of history. Here are a few key facts from the recent past that have to be kept in mind:
1. In 2009, president Obama made clear that America would be withdrawing all its troops from Iraq in a little over two years.
2. As the American presence in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq dwindled, Obama went through the motions to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqis which would have allowed us to keep a force of between twenty and thirty thousand troops in the country. Obama, however, never used the leverage that the USA clearly had with the Iraqis to force such an agreement; Obama wanted all Americans out of Iraq and the lack of an agreement guaranteed that outcome.
3. When the last American troops left Iraq, so did much of the American influence with the Iraqi government. In face, American efforts towards keeping the Iraqi government non-sectarian were basically ended at that time.
4. Prime minister Maliki of Iraq used the last few years to purge all high ranking Sunnis from his government, from the army and from all positions of power. This led to great anger from the Sunnis who predominate in the northern section of Iraq.
5. Meanwhile in Syria, the rebellion against Assad received no help from America and the West, so the factions which had outside support (ISIS and the other terrorists) were able to take control of most of the rebels.
6. Over the last six months, ISIS has been moving into Iraq. First the actions were confined to the more rural sections of the northwest areas of Iraq. Over a month ago, ISIS took the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah. These are large Sunni cities for which American troops had fought and died. In response to this major victory for the terrorists which threatened the stability of all of Iraq, Obama and the USA government did nothing. The taking of these two cities was a wake up call that was ignored by America and Obama.
7. In the last week, ISIS has taken much more territory across the northern half of Iraq and it now threatens Baghdad itself. Obama's response has been to announce that he is considering what, if anything, to do.
There are some important conclusions and questions that come from these facts. First of all, everyone pretty much agrees that it would be bad for the world and for America to have an Iraq ruled by ISIS. Indeed, it is bad to have a terrorist sanctuary in part of Iraq with ISIS in charge. Second, why did Obama wait until the loss of Mosul and other large cities to begin considering how to respond to the Iraq situation? Why didn't the conquest by ISIS of Ramadi and Fallujah lead to such consideration? Indeed, one wonders if Obama has a policy for the Middle East or if he just reacts to situations as they arise.
There is much more, but let's look at the longer term history of Iraq. Here are a few key facts to remember in that bit of history:
1. Iraq was created after World War I by the European powers (mostly Britain). The country ignored tribal and religious differences of the people and lumped disparate groups together. As a result, there was no Iraqi identity.
2. Iraq was ruled by a Sunni king for a while. Eventually, it ended up with Sunni dictators with Saddam Hussein being the last. Saddam Hussein used Iraq's oil wealth to fight wars with his neighbors, to repress his population and to support terrorism around the world.
3. The invasion of Iraq during the Bush presidency was a well planned military campaign, but a debacle when it came to planning and execution for the post conquest period. Removal of the repressive Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein led to a rebirth of the sectarian split between the Shiites and the Sunnis.
4. By the time that Bush left office and Obama came into the Oval Office, the fighting in Iraq had pretty much come to an end. America was victorious on the battlefield. We were even finally at a point where there was a democratic government that was inclusive of all ethnic groups in power in Baghdad.
Was the Iraq War worth it from America's perspective as of the end of the Bush presidency? That is doubtful to say the least. There surely could have been better, less costly (in both lives and money) ways of achieving our goals. Hopefully, we have learned that we cannot control all situations and that we have to recognize the problems that come with involvement in many areas of the world.
No matter what Obama now says, let's keep all of this in mind as we consider what to do next.
The truth (sorry to use that word in a piece that also mentions Obama) is, however, that we need to look back to see how we got to this point. Otherwise, we will never understand how to deal with the present situation and also how to avoid a similar mess developing elsewhere. We can do our look back in two different ways.
Let's start with a short term review of history. Here are a few key facts from the recent past that have to be kept in mind:
1. In 2009, president Obama made clear that America would be withdrawing all its troops from Iraq in a little over two years.
2. As the American presence in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq dwindled, Obama went through the motions to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqis which would have allowed us to keep a force of between twenty and thirty thousand troops in the country. Obama, however, never used the leverage that the USA clearly had with the Iraqis to force such an agreement; Obama wanted all Americans out of Iraq and the lack of an agreement guaranteed that outcome.
3. When the last American troops left Iraq, so did much of the American influence with the Iraqi government. In face, American efforts towards keeping the Iraqi government non-sectarian were basically ended at that time.
4. Prime minister Maliki of Iraq used the last few years to purge all high ranking Sunnis from his government, from the army and from all positions of power. This led to great anger from the Sunnis who predominate in the northern section of Iraq.
5. Meanwhile in Syria, the rebellion against Assad received no help from America and the West, so the factions which had outside support (ISIS and the other terrorists) were able to take control of most of the rebels.
6. Over the last six months, ISIS has been moving into Iraq. First the actions were confined to the more rural sections of the northwest areas of Iraq. Over a month ago, ISIS took the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah. These are large Sunni cities for which American troops had fought and died. In response to this major victory for the terrorists which threatened the stability of all of Iraq, Obama and the USA government did nothing. The taking of these two cities was a wake up call that was ignored by America and Obama.
7. In the last week, ISIS has taken much more territory across the northern half of Iraq and it now threatens Baghdad itself. Obama's response has been to announce that he is considering what, if anything, to do.
There are some important conclusions and questions that come from these facts. First of all, everyone pretty much agrees that it would be bad for the world and for America to have an Iraq ruled by ISIS. Indeed, it is bad to have a terrorist sanctuary in part of Iraq with ISIS in charge. Second, why did Obama wait until the loss of Mosul and other large cities to begin considering how to respond to the Iraq situation? Why didn't the conquest by ISIS of Ramadi and Fallujah lead to such consideration? Indeed, one wonders if Obama has a policy for the Middle East or if he just reacts to situations as they arise.
There is much more, but let's look at the longer term history of Iraq. Here are a few key facts to remember in that bit of history:
1. Iraq was created after World War I by the European powers (mostly Britain). The country ignored tribal and religious differences of the people and lumped disparate groups together. As a result, there was no Iraqi identity.
2. Iraq was ruled by a Sunni king for a while. Eventually, it ended up with Sunni dictators with Saddam Hussein being the last. Saddam Hussein used Iraq's oil wealth to fight wars with his neighbors, to repress his population and to support terrorism around the world.
3. The invasion of Iraq during the Bush presidency was a well planned military campaign, but a debacle when it came to planning and execution for the post conquest period. Removal of the repressive Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein led to a rebirth of the sectarian split between the Shiites and the Sunnis.
4. By the time that Bush left office and Obama came into the Oval Office, the fighting in Iraq had pretty much come to an end. America was victorious on the battlefield. We were even finally at a point where there was a democratic government that was inclusive of all ethnic groups in power in Baghdad.
Was the Iraq War worth it from America's perspective as of the end of the Bush presidency? That is doubtful to say the least. There surely could have been better, less costly (in both lives and money) ways of achieving our goals. Hopefully, we have learned that we cannot control all situations and that we have to recognize the problems that come with involvement in many areas of the world.
No matter what Obama now says, let's keep all of this in mind as we consider what to do next.
No comments:
Post a Comment