The Reluctant Warrior

Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted strikes against the jihadi militias in Iraq is in keeping with the seriousness of the Iraqi conflict, the political situation in Washington, and the weakened strategic position of the United States in the Middle East. On the one hand, Obama is committed to protecting the enclaves in the Kurdish zone of Erbil where America has interests, especially oil. On the other hand, he displays a willingness to bring an end to the genocide by the jihadi militia that threatens minority groups such as the Christians.

The intervention has no direct link to George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, given that it seeks to respond to the advance of the Islamic State group, a radical organization that has declared a caliphate in the zones it controls in Iraq and Syria, and which is destabilizing the borders of Turkey, Jordan and Israel. In terms of American politics, the perception is very different. Obama knows that a significant sector of public opinion, especially core supporters, is opposed to military intervention by the United States in any part of the world — specifically in Iraq after eight years of a war that was badly planned and cost 4,486 American soldiers their lives. On the right, Republican leaders like Sen. John McCain are demanding that Obama acts with greater force, especially in the conflict zone, which is becoming increasingly devastated as a result of sectarian violence among branches of Islam, and which is aimed against minority groups like the Christians and the Druze.

The tension felt by opposing forces has turned Obama into a reluctant warrior. He is being forced to intervene, and the crisis in Iraq justifies taking action, but he is doing it through targeted airstrikes — without ground troops — and is prudently insisting that the Iraqis take on the weight of the conflict. The intervention also reveals the weakness of Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East. It became clear last year when he drew a very clear red line for Bashar Assad: He should not use chemical weapons against his people. The Syrian dictator disregarded that warning, and Obama announced he would attack military targets of the Damascus regime. Later, he reached a compromise with that regime: If Assad was to get rid of his toxic arsenal, [Obama] would avoid airstrikes. This happened, and Assad continues to preside over a broken country with more than 170,000 dead as a result of the conflict, in which the Islamic State group is rampant and from which it is making its crossing into Iraq.

The Middle East has been a real test of the president’s foreign policy. His conduct in the zone has been presented as an exercise in realism (the U.S. cannot, and should not, change the world), and is starting to be interpreted as a test in which the country has ceased to play a decisive role in the military conflicts of the region. America is no longer the essential nation in all peace negotiations; its diplomatic presence does not bring about the final solution, even among its allies. Foreign policy is certainly not going to be the most impressive feature of Obama’s term in office.

Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted strikes against the jihadi militias in Iraq is in keeping with the seriousness of the Iraqi conflict, the political situation in Washington, and the weakened strategic position of the United States in the Middle East. On the one hand, Obama is committed to protecting the enclaves in the Kurdish zone of Erbil where America has interests, especially oil. On the other hand, he displays a willingness to bring an end to the genocide by the jihadi militia that threatens minority groups such as the Christians.