Obama Engages America in a Long Struggle against the Islamic State
The change in tone is sudden. On August 7, Barack Obama announced “limited airstrikes” against the Islamic State in order to protect American troops in Iraq, Erbil and Baghdad, and to prevent a “genocide” (to which the Yazidi community would have fallen victim). A month later, on September 10, the president officially entered the United States into what will be, without doubt, a long-lasting conflict whose ambitious aim is to destroy the jihadi movement.
Elected in 2008 on the promise of putting an end to all American involvement in Iraq, six years later Obama is forced to go back on his word. He must now resign himself to engaging America in the political/religious free-for-all in Iraq, whose outcome is nothing less than certain, and to sending troops onto the battlefield (on Wednesday evening he announced 475 extra men will be sent to Iraq), even if these men are not to be fighting in the front line, but supervising and reinforcing troops in Baghdad and Iraqi Kurdistan. And finally, he must resign himself to involving America above and beyond the Iraqi example.
Turnaround in Syria
“We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are (…) I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq,” reinforced the president, explaining that the jihadi would not be able to rely on any “safe haven.”
Obama ruled out all cooperation with Bashar al-Assad in Syria (“an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people — a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost”), and announced his aim to reinforce the opposition against the jihadi, while “pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all.” This is yet another U-turn from the American president, who had formerly expressed, on multiple occasions, his doubts on the ability of the moderate opposition to impose itself while caught between the Assad regime and the Islamic State.
The Basis of a Bipartisan Agreement
Obama has distanced himself as much as possible from Bush’s “war on terror,” although on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, the threat is perceived in a similar light by American public opinion, which explains the support behind the airstrikes (said to be 150 on Wednesday) that have been carried out up until now in Iraq. The strategy we have pursued is similar to “one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years,” he explained, in spite of questions about what exactly can be said to support these claims of success.
Criticized for “leading from behind,” notably during the 2011 attacks on the Gadhafi regime, Obama described what American “leadership” in this conflict looked like: standing by those who are fighting for their freedom and uniting other nations on the basis of security and shared human values.
Whilst the White House has been spending the last few days preparing itself for a long-term struggle that could last years, the president noted that he has already laid the foundations for a bipartisan agreement with the Republicans “in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.” He also added that there was no use in waiting two years for the end of his presidency for a turnaround in strategy.
Elected in 2008 on the promise of putting an end to all American involvement in Iraq, six years later Obama is forced to go back on his word. He must now resign himself to engaging America in the political/religious free-for-all in Iraq, whose outcome is nothing less than certain, and to sending troops onto the battlefield (on Wednesday evening he announced 475 extra men will be sent to Iraq), even if these men are not to be fighting in the front line, but supervising and reinforcing troops in Baghdad and Iraqi Kurdistan. And finally, he must resign himself to involving America above and beyond the Iraqi example.
Turnaround in Syria
“We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are (…) I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq,” reinforced the president, explaining that the jihadi would not be able to rely on any “safe haven.”
Obama ruled out all cooperation with Bashar al-Assad in Syria (“an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people — a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost”), and announced his aim to reinforce the opposition against the jihadi, while “pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all.” This is yet another U-turn from the American president, who had formerly expressed, on multiple occasions, his doubts on the ability of the moderate opposition to impose itself while caught between the Assad regime and the Islamic State.
The Basis of a Bipartisan Agreement
Obama has distanced himself as much as possible from Bush’s “war on terror,” although on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, the threat is perceived in a similar light by American public opinion, which explains the support behind the airstrikes (said to be 150 on Wednesday) that have been carried out up until now in Iraq. The strategy we have pursued is similar to “one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years,” he explained, in spite of questions about what exactly can be said to support these claims of success.
Criticized for “leading from behind,” notably during the 2011 attacks on the Gadhafi regime, Obama described what American “leadership” in this conflict looked like: standing by those who are fighting for their freedom and uniting other nations on the basis of security and shared human values.
Whilst the White House has been spending the last few days preparing itself for a long-term struggle that could last years, the president noted that he has already laid the foundations for a bipartisan agreement with the Republicans “in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.” He also added that there was no use in waiting two years for the end of his presidency for a turnaround in strategy.