Obama, Bush and Iraq

American responsibility in the Iranian debacle is crushing; it gives rise to contradictory analyses. All the blame is placed on George W. Bush for having wanted, in 2003, to impose democracy on Saddam Hussein’s country while imagining that his soldiers would be “greeted as liberators.” Those close to the former president and those who had supported his anti-terrorist crusade reckon that, on the contrary, the turn of events proves them right. It was the total retreat put into effect by Barack Obama at the end of 2011, and the unquestioning support given by Washington to the political sector of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that brought about the triumphal push of jihadis into Sunni land that we are witnessing today.

In this wholesale massacre, which received heavy coverage by United States media, the two camps reopened an old battle that risks being prolonged during the campaigns for the election of the future Mr. or Mrs. president. Iraq was the cemetery of the 43rd American president’s interventionist politic. For his successor, elected largely because he was one of the few who opposed this “dumb war,” this same country is currently revealing, in an equally cruel fashion, the dangers of a rushed strategic reply.

Bush’s opponents base themselves on the precedence of military intervention. Iraq’s descent into hell did indeed ensue from this fatal decision. But it is impossible to deny that the situation was much better than it is today when, before pulling out, the American troops had succeeded in imposing a truce in the civil war.

The chaos that was allowed to develop in Syria was inevitably going to extend into neighboring countries. The neo-conservatives that knew their hour of glory during George W. Bush’s presidency are back. They see in Barack Obama’s passivity toward Bashar al-Assad the fundamental cause of Iraq’s break up. By refusing to militarily support the moderate Syrian opposition when it was still the right time, Washington has favored creating a void that the jihadis soon filled with the support of the monarchies of the Gulf and Turkey.

The American refusal to intervene out of fear of being drawn into new conflicts, and Obama’s incapacity to make others respect the “red lines” that he himself proclaimed, encourage the adversaries of the United States and their allies to test how far they can go. “America is not the world’s policeman,” Obama explained last September to justify his about-turn on Syria and his refusal to bomb al-Assad’s positions after resorting to chemical weapons. If the United States withdraws, other powers will fatally occupy the space that opens up for them. China takes advantage of this to assert its maritime demands, Russia to annex Crimea.

Barack Obama is only expressing the immense lassitude of Americans after two costly and fruitless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What good is it to fight to impose peace on countries that don’t want it? Are American national interests really at stake in Syria and Iraq? Isn’t it more urgent to re-establish the power of the American economy? Posed in this way, these questions justify the isolationist trend that is dominant in the United States.

With crises accumulating, it is not clear that the current tone will last very long. Hillary Clinton is launching her campaign for the 2016 presidential election by setting herself apart from Barack Obama to propose a more defined foreign policy. The former secretary of state recognizes the error committed when she approved of the war in Iraq, but remains very cautious on the subject and claims that she would have acted much earlier to help the Syrian insurrection. A certain number of neo-conservatives would be ready to rally to her side, above all if the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and John McCain chose the very isolationist Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky for their candidate …