Bush the Third

Political and military reality has forced Obama, against his own instincts, to follow in the example of Bush II. (Let’s not forget, however, that he began his presidency fervently criticizing the military intervention employed during Bush’s War on Terror).

It’s not hard to understand why Obama is becoming increasingly like George Bush II. As did his predecessor, Obama has announced the creation of a coalition of nations against terror, this time targeting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, a follow-up from Bush II’s biggest enemy, al-Qaida.

However, a difference became apparent when Obama affirmed that American troops would not be setting foot on enemy soil. But this still remains uncertain, considering that 1,600 soldiers have been sent to participate in military action, fighting alongside local troops, along with the fact that Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced in Congress that if he believed the situation merited such action, he would recommend that the President initiate land strikes.

Political and military reality has forced Obama, against his own instincts, to follow in the example of Bush II. (Let’s not forget, however, that he began his presidency fervently criticizing the military intervention employed during Bush’s War on Terror). This political reality has a lot to do with the alarming rate at which Obama’s internal leadership seems to be weakening, and the ever-growing perception among voters that his external leadership is also done for. According to the results of the most recent survey, 80 percent of Republicans, 56 percent of independent voters and 40 percent of Democrats believe that Obama is not doing enough to combat the enemy. These figures have clearly been affected by the psychological impact of the macabre videos diffused by the Islamic State. Al-Baghdadi, leader of the enemy, aimed to do just this, having correctly analyzed the psychological profile of the North American citizenry.

In terms of the military, Obama has announced, as did Bush, that in this time of crisis a large coalition headed by the United States will be symbolic. But Turkey has already confirmed that it will only provide humanitarian aid and will not allow the use of its military bases, 10 Arabic countries have talked about only participating in air strikes, Egypt has agreed to help on condition of attacking the Muslim Brotherhood (the country’s internal struggle) and Spain has said that it does not wish to become directly involved. And so Obama is left to fight back alone with a certain amount of support from Great Britain, as is tradition. Although he’s still keeping up appearances in order to give the impression that everyone is on board.

Can Obama come out of this a winner? In the short term, yes; in the medium term, probably not. In the immediate future, airstrikes, reinforcement of Iraqi and Kurdish troops, undermining of enemy funds (including the trafficking of oil on the Turkish border) and provision of weapons to troops fighting against Assad in Syria could slow down, and perhaps in some ways reverse the advances of the Islamic State. But the price of doing so is doomed to be very high, taking into account the blessing that this will mean for Assad and his allies, Iran and Hezbollah, and the postponement of political and institutional reconstruction in Iraq. And this is just the best outcome. The worst is that over the course of the next few months we will continue seeing videos published by the Islamic State, and other terrorist organizations will continue growing larger and larger with the arrival of jihadi militants from all over the world, ready to fight against this new invader and his army of Iraqi puppets (or at least this is how they’ll be seen).

If there’s anybody who’s aware of all this, it’s Obama. In fact, he’s fought tooth and nail to avoid playing such a role. However, as president of the United States, a free country, he has little freedom to act.

On his Texas ranch, a man in cowboy boots who’s spent the last six years getting away from it all is smiling.