Obama’s New War

Barack Obama turned Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki’s problem into his own. With that he is experiencing pretty much the same as his predecessors: The U.S. can’t get rid of Iraq. Obama acts militarily in a minimalistic fashion. This is politically quite risky.

This has been a routing for three decades: Whoever becomes president of the United States will need to deal with the Iraq eventually — usually without success. Ronald Reagan sent the despot Saddam Hussein chemical weapons, George Bush drove him out of Kuwait, Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles and George W. Bush conquered Iraq completely. Eventually the Americans elected Barack Obama, hoping to be finally done with Iraq.

Now it’s Obama’s turn to send U.S. soldiers to Iraq. That is probably not a big move from the Middle East’s point of view, but it’s a big one for Obama. With one statement, he tied himself down for the rest of his presidency: An “all-out” civil war in Iraq impacts the national security interests of the U.S.

This statement allows for interpretation, like all of Obama’s foreign policy statements: When does a civil war turn into an all-out civil war? Obama in principle turned Iraq into his own battle. He changed from being the liquidator of George W. Bush’s foreign policy to the liquidator in charge of Nouri al-Maliki’s domestic policies. However this Iraqi civil war continues, it will from now on also be Obama’s war.

The US Feels Responsible

Why is the president getting involved in Iraq now when he has ignored Syria for years? Obama listed a few reasons, which are anything but convincing. He talks about humanitarian considerations and the risk that Iraq turns into a hotbed for terrorists, who at some point in the future might attack Europeans and Americans. The true reasons are very likely something else.

Firstly: The U.S. still feels responsible for Iraq because it conquered and seized it in 2003 and changed its balance of power since then. The veterans are not the only ones who wonder what they sacrificed thousands of people and billions of dollars for, if Islamists now take over the whole country. Secondly: Unlike Syria, parts of the country are still in an order that can be defended; there is an elected government which asks the U.S. for support. Thus Obama was really put on the spot. It would have hurt his presidency had he simply ignored the dramatic progress the rebels have made so far; he wouldn’t have only appeared careful, but stubborn.

The President Acts in his Own Way

But Obama responds to this pressure to act in his own way: being militarily minimalistic. He sends advisors, lets them observe and keeps options for targeted air strikes open. This option is — considering all the other bad ones — clearly the best choice. For now the president ignores all of the hawks shouting in Washington, requesting immediate air strikes, and relies on diplomacy.

For the first time since the withdrawal of the U.S. troops in 2011, Obama secures influence on Baghdad with his proclaimed willingness to intervene. He challenges the authoritarian separatist and head of government al-Maliki, encourages disagreement, and hopes that a new government without al-Maliki will be able to unify the country against the rebels and get it under control politically as well as militarily. If that were actually to occur, Obama would have achieved the greatest possible stability with the least amount of military effort.

However, the president should not count too much on such an outcome. Many disastrous U.S. interventions started with sending a few military advisors — for example, to Vietnam. Obama established a safeguard against such an escalation as he categorically eliminated sending any new U.S. troops to Iraq. However, if air strikes do not succeed against the rebels, who aim for urban warfare, he won’t have any alternatives left.

And why should it be easier for him than for his predecessors? Obama once promised to stop the rising of the sea levels. That very same hubris drove the idea that the Iraq could simply switched off.