Iraq: Why the US Won’t Involve Itself Anymore
Published in Le Nouvel Observateur
(France) on 9 January 2014
by Sarah Diffalah (link to original)
(France) on 9 January 2014
by Sarah Diffalah (link to original)
Translated from
by Marcela Schaefer.
Edited by Kyrstie Lane.
After the capture of Fallujah by jihadi groups, can the United States remain a mere spectator at the risk of letting a new terrorist hotbed install itself?
Two years after the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, the capture of Fallujah, 60 kilometers west of Baghdad, by jihadi combatants from the ranks of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant revives unpleasant memories overseas. After a first attempt in the spring of 2004, it took three weeks for the United States to recapture the city, a bastion of resistance against the U.S. presence in 2004. Sealing off the city, aerial bombardment, heavy artillery, use of white phosphorus — that was the most violent and most deadly battle in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003.
On Sept. 12, 2007, Barack Obama promised that he would continue the war on terrorism in Iraq when the “boys” were gone. Asked in 2008 during a debate for the Democratic primary about the eventual return of the soldiers in the event of an al-Qaida resurgence, he still replied, “If al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”
The United States now faces this reality. Washington attentively follows the situation on the ground. But contrary to a moral commitment, Secretary of State John Kerry assured that it was out of the question to send ground forces. All while lending his support to Baghdad. “We will help them in their fight, but this fight, in the end, they will have to win.” If the United States has largely abandoned the region, can it remain a mere spectator at the risk of letting a new terrorist hotbed install itself? Or will it involve itself … at a minimum?
A Minimum of Support
Military Aid
As the principal partner of Iraq in matters of security and defense, to which it has provided more than $14 billion of weapons since 2005, the United States decided to accelerate its deliveries of missiles and surveillance drones earlier in the week. One hundred air-to-surface Hellfire missiles that can be fired from helicopters and 10 ScanEagle observation drones will be delivered in the spring.
This equipment is added to the 75 Hellfire missiles already sent in mid-December. On site, hundreds of U.S. military stationed at the embassy in the capital advise ministers, and the U.S. bases can serve as logistics resources for the Iraqi army. On the other hand, Congress has refused to sell F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters for fear of seeing the power used against its domestic opponents. Or even find them in the hands of terrorists.
Support for a Political Solution
The political dimension also gives the United States leverage. The legislative election in April 2014 will be crucial. In its Dec. 31 editorial entitled “More Guns Will Not Save Iraq,” The New York Times emphasizes, “As it doles out weapons, intelligence and advice, the Obama administration needs to press Mr. Maliki [current Prime Minister of Iraq] and other Iraqi leaders to do those things, to ensure that the election in April is free and fair and to commit finally to adopting laws that will address Sunni grievances. It also needs to be prepared to halt or withhold deliveries of weapons if they are misused or if Mr. Maliki continues to put his own interests over his country’s.”
A member of the Shiite community, the prime minister has marginalized the Sunni minority, notably in the al-Anbar province, where Fallujah is situated. This is a population that has ended up antagonizing itself by demonstrating violently and, for some, by entering into agreements with extremist jihadi groups who expect nothing more than popular support. The regime therefore needs to regain their confidence: “If Nouri al-Maliki does not have the Bedouin [Sunnis] of al-Anbar with him, the recapturing of Fallujah risks being very difficult,” judged François Géré several days ago.
But Not More
Can Barack Obama involve himself more in a region where the United States has lost all of its credibility? Possibilities exist: Send more military advisers, unblock the weapons deliveries requested by Baghdad or wage an outright drone war, as is the case in Yemen and Pakistan. The U.S. president has not made any public comment on the developments in the al-Anbar province. Without a doubt, he has very little leeway, for various reasons.
Priority on the Afghan Withdrawal
The Afghan withdrawal is the priority of the White House and already largely occupies the military agenda.
An Unfavorable Opinion
Most of all, the U.S. public opinion does not wish it. In Jan. 2013, an NBC/WSJ survey revealed that 59 percent of Americans believed that the Iraq war was not worth the trouble — a proportion already reached in 2008. The president of the United States, who must confront several issues at home and notably prove the merits of his health care reform that came into force at the beginning of the year, will not take the risk of antagonizing Americans even more with a more explicit commitment in Iraq.
The Day of Reckoning
It is clear that nobody wants to re-commit themselves to Iraq. But ISIL flags floating over Fallujah have revived the debate on the consequences of this war. “In my unit, we lost 50-something guys, and some that I was very close with,” recalls former Marine Robert Reynolds, interviewed Tuesday, Jan. 7 by the Washington Times. “It sucks to think they went over there to give these people a second chance … and now what we’ve done is null and void because [the extremists] were let back in there, because Iraqi National Guard guys or police couldn’t hold it, couldn’t do their jobs … [it’s] super disheartening … was I shot for nothing?” The testimonies of veterans have thus succeeded in the media of telling the disappointment and sense of waste in the face of the sacrifices they feel they have made.
Several Republican politicians have stepped into the hole to criticize the foreign policy of Barack Obama, who decided to withdraw American troops in Iraq. On Fox News, Senator John McCain again stated that the Obama administration had withdrawn much too quickly and had not done enough to help the Iraqi army to maintain security. He reproached him for not having maintained a residual force, even if the current President Nouri al-Maliki didn’t want it, and for having instead left a power vacuum.
For now then, the White House keeps its distance, further accentuating the uncertainty that surrounds Obama’s politics in the Middle East. Until when? Not only Iraq, but also Syria and Lebanon are today plagued by new troubles to which the United States can hardly remain indifferent. “The fall of Fallujah signifies much more than simply another terrorist victory. It signifies a failed U.S. effort to rehabilitate an oppressed nation from a totalitarian regime … It also has greater implications for the conflict in Syria and continued efforts in Afghanistan,” writes the political site The Hill.
Two years after the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, the capture of Fallujah, 60 kilometers west of Baghdad, by jihadi combatants from the ranks of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant revives unpleasant memories overseas. After a first attempt in the spring of 2004, it took three weeks for the United States to recapture the city, a bastion of resistance against the U.S. presence in 2004. Sealing off the city, aerial bombardment, heavy artillery, use of white phosphorus — that was the most violent and most deadly battle in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003.
On Sept. 12, 2007, Barack Obama promised that he would continue the war on terrorism in Iraq when the “boys” were gone. Asked in 2008 during a debate for the Democratic primary about the eventual return of the soldiers in the event of an al-Qaida resurgence, he still replied, “If al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”
The United States now faces this reality. Washington attentively follows the situation on the ground. But contrary to a moral commitment, Secretary of State John Kerry assured that it was out of the question to send ground forces. All while lending his support to Baghdad. “We will help them in their fight, but this fight, in the end, they will have to win.” If the United States has largely abandoned the region, can it remain a mere spectator at the risk of letting a new terrorist hotbed install itself? Or will it involve itself … at a minimum?
A Minimum of Support
Military Aid
As the principal partner of Iraq in matters of security and defense, to which it has provided more than $14 billion of weapons since 2005, the United States decided to accelerate its deliveries of missiles and surveillance drones earlier in the week. One hundred air-to-surface Hellfire missiles that can be fired from helicopters and 10 ScanEagle observation drones will be delivered in the spring.
This equipment is added to the 75 Hellfire missiles already sent in mid-December. On site, hundreds of U.S. military stationed at the embassy in the capital advise ministers, and the U.S. bases can serve as logistics resources for the Iraqi army. On the other hand, Congress has refused to sell F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters for fear of seeing the power used against its domestic opponents. Or even find them in the hands of terrorists.
Support for a Political Solution
The political dimension also gives the United States leverage. The legislative election in April 2014 will be crucial. In its Dec. 31 editorial entitled “More Guns Will Not Save Iraq,” The New York Times emphasizes, “As it doles out weapons, intelligence and advice, the Obama administration needs to press Mr. Maliki [current Prime Minister of Iraq] and other Iraqi leaders to do those things, to ensure that the election in April is free and fair and to commit finally to adopting laws that will address Sunni grievances. It also needs to be prepared to halt or withhold deliveries of weapons if they are misused or if Mr. Maliki continues to put his own interests over his country’s.”
A member of the Shiite community, the prime minister has marginalized the Sunni minority, notably in the al-Anbar province, where Fallujah is situated. This is a population that has ended up antagonizing itself by demonstrating violently and, for some, by entering into agreements with extremist jihadi groups who expect nothing more than popular support. The regime therefore needs to regain their confidence: “If Nouri al-Maliki does not have the Bedouin [Sunnis] of al-Anbar with him, the recapturing of Fallujah risks being very difficult,” judged François Géré several days ago.
But Not More
Can Barack Obama involve himself more in a region where the United States has lost all of its credibility? Possibilities exist: Send more military advisers, unblock the weapons deliveries requested by Baghdad or wage an outright drone war, as is the case in Yemen and Pakistan. The U.S. president has not made any public comment on the developments in the al-Anbar province. Without a doubt, he has very little leeway, for various reasons.
Priority on the Afghan Withdrawal
The Afghan withdrawal is the priority of the White House and already largely occupies the military agenda.
An Unfavorable Opinion
Most of all, the U.S. public opinion does not wish it. In Jan. 2013, an NBC/WSJ survey revealed that 59 percent of Americans believed that the Iraq war was not worth the trouble — a proportion already reached in 2008. The president of the United States, who must confront several issues at home and notably prove the merits of his health care reform that came into force at the beginning of the year, will not take the risk of antagonizing Americans even more with a more explicit commitment in Iraq.
The Day of Reckoning
It is clear that nobody wants to re-commit themselves to Iraq. But ISIL flags floating over Fallujah have revived the debate on the consequences of this war. “In my unit, we lost 50-something guys, and some that I was very close with,” recalls former Marine Robert Reynolds, interviewed Tuesday, Jan. 7 by the Washington Times. “It sucks to think they went over there to give these people a second chance … and now what we’ve done is null and void because [the extremists] were let back in there, because Iraqi National Guard guys or police couldn’t hold it, couldn’t do their jobs … [it’s] super disheartening … was I shot for nothing?” The testimonies of veterans have thus succeeded in the media of telling the disappointment and sense of waste in the face of the sacrifices they feel they have made.
Several Republican politicians have stepped into the hole to criticize the foreign policy of Barack Obama, who decided to withdraw American troops in Iraq. On Fox News, Senator John McCain again stated that the Obama administration had withdrawn much too quickly and had not done enough to help the Iraqi army to maintain security. He reproached him for not having maintained a residual force, even if the current President Nouri al-Maliki didn’t want it, and for having instead left a power vacuum.
For now then, the White House keeps its distance, further accentuating the uncertainty that surrounds Obama’s politics in the Middle East. Until when? Not only Iraq, but also Syria and Lebanon are today plagued by new troubles to which the United States can hardly remain indifferent. “The fall of Fallujah signifies much more than simply another terrorist victory. It signifies a failed U.S. effort to rehabilitate an oppressed nation from a totalitarian regime … It also has greater implications for the conflict in Syria and continued efforts in Afghanistan,” writes the political site The Hill.