Without a Strategy?
Published in Excelsior
(Mexico) on 1 September 2014
by Ana Paula Ordorica (link to original)
(Mexico) on 1 September 2014
by Ana Paula Ordorica (link to original)
Translated from
by Courtney Cadenhead.
Edited by Emily France.
The world is complicated. Crisis, crisis, crisis everywhere, caused by political, ideological, religious, economic and inheritance issues — and the list goes on. In each crisis, the world turns to the United States to see what the great power will do to resolve it.
In this context and in the face of the Islamic State inciting radical extremism along the Syrian border in eastern Iraq, Barack Obama gave a press conference at the end of last week, in which he pronounced that his government, the United States, does not yet have a strategy to respond to this crisis. (That part of the speech can be seen here).
That declaration has created a quagmire for Obama. The difficulty concerns the rejection of a president that was seen as weak, hesitant and lax in his strategies toward global problems and that now, with this statement, confirms the vision of his critics.
Many U.S. citizens and political analysts want Obama to do something to fix the international situation. However, it seems to me that the fact that his opponents are constantly accusing Obama of not doing anything reflects just the opposite of what they are criticizing; in other words, Obama does have strength. Only his strength is more closely focused on the strategy of being deliberate and restrictive than of acting quickly and forcefully in the face of international crisis.
The current crisis involving the Islamic State was provoked by America’s invasion of Iraq in attempts to avenge its wounded pride from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Without Saddam Hussein’s iron fist in Iraq, the country is divided into sects, producing a situation in which Muslims are killing other Muslims. And the probability of another terrorist attack in the West has risen, precisely because of the bellicose tactics and strategies of the Islamic State under the command of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
To pretend that the United States alone can resolve the crisis in that zone is to plead ignorance. However, for the United States to work toward a resolution, one of the first people it must sit down with is no one else but Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president-dictator. Bashar al-Assad was, until a few days ago, the number one enemy to defeat on the international stage. Today, he is another victim of al-Baghdadi’s strategy to form a caliphate in the lands along the Iraqi border.
The United States and the West must develop a strategy for that region that includes an understanding of the visions of the other actors: Qatar, Egypt and Lebanon — actors that aren’t always easy to read or trustworthy. Perhaps, then, it’s better to have a little bit of a cool head and a little time for deliberation before asking Obama to send troops — now, now, now — to confront the problems that currently grip the international community. It was already made clear that George W. Bush’s haste to demonstrate the strength of the United States did not create a safer world.
In this context and in the face of the Islamic State inciting radical extremism along the Syrian border in eastern Iraq, Barack Obama gave a press conference at the end of last week, in which he pronounced that his government, the United States, does not yet have a strategy to respond to this crisis. (That part of the speech can be seen here).
That declaration has created a quagmire for Obama. The difficulty concerns the rejection of a president that was seen as weak, hesitant and lax in his strategies toward global problems and that now, with this statement, confirms the vision of his critics.
Many U.S. citizens and political analysts want Obama to do something to fix the international situation. However, it seems to me that the fact that his opponents are constantly accusing Obama of not doing anything reflects just the opposite of what they are criticizing; in other words, Obama does have strength. Only his strength is more closely focused on the strategy of being deliberate and restrictive than of acting quickly and forcefully in the face of international crisis.
The current crisis involving the Islamic State was provoked by America’s invasion of Iraq in attempts to avenge its wounded pride from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Without Saddam Hussein’s iron fist in Iraq, the country is divided into sects, producing a situation in which Muslims are killing other Muslims. And the probability of another terrorist attack in the West has risen, precisely because of the bellicose tactics and strategies of the Islamic State under the command of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
To pretend that the United States alone can resolve the crisis in that zone is to plead ignorance. However, for the United States to work toward a resolution, one of the first people it must sit down with is no one else but Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president-dictator. Bashar al-Assad was, until a few days ago, the number one enemy to defeat on the international stage. Today, he is another victim of al-Baghdadi’s strategy to form a caliphate in the lands along the Iraqi border.
The United States and the West must develop a strategy for that region that includes an understanding of the visions of the other actors: Qatar, Egypt and Lebanon — actors that aren’t always easy to read or trustworthy. Perhaps, then, it’s better to have a little bit of a cool head and a little time for deliberation before asking Obama to send troops — now, now, now — to confront the problems that currently grip the international community. It was already made clear that George W. Bush’s haste to demonstrate the strength of the United States did not create a safer world.