|
Obama Faces Tough Choices in Iraq
by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700
Copyright
June 16, 2014
All Rights Reserved.
Pushed by conservatives on Capitol Hill to put
boots-on-ground in Iraq after ending the war Dec. 15, 2011, 52-year-old
President Barack Obama faces some tough choices. Reports of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant {ISIS]—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—seizing
more territory in Iraq demonstrate the abysmal failure of the U.S.-backed Shiite
government of Nouri al-Maliki to defends his own land. Al-Maliki railed against U.S.
involvement in Iraq, pushing the U.S. to make its unceremonious exit Dec. 15,
2011. Despite objections from
conservatives on Capitol Hill, especially Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.), Obama ended the U.S. war in Iraq nearly three years after
taking office. McCain and other
warned that al-Maliki’s government couldn’t stop the Saudi-funded Wahhabi Sunni
insurgency that seeks to topple Iraq’s Shiite government.
Before former President George W. Bush started the Iraq War March 20,
2003 against Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, there was virtually no Sunni
Islamic terrorism in Iraq. Former
Vice President Dick Cheney liked to talk about Saddam once harboring Achille
Lauro cruise-ship mastermind Abu Nidal as proof of al-Qaeda-like terrorism in
Iraq. During height of White House
propaganda wars on Iraq, some 60% of the American public believed Saddam Hussein
perpetrated Sept. 11. Bush and
Cheney justified the Iraq War to purge Iraq of dangerous biologic weapons that
threatened U.S. national security.
Once no WMD were found, Bush and Cheney shifted gears to build a new democracy
in Iraq. After spending over $1
trillion dollars and losing over 4,800 troops Americans grew tired to the Iraq
War, leaving Bush with the lowest approval ratings in modern history when he
left office.
Now Obama faces a critical moment in his presidency deciding whether or
not to put boots back on the ground in Iraq.
While it’s true that the al-Maliki government can’t stop the ISIS
insurgency that now threatens Baghdad, it’s also true that the U.S. lacks any
real threat to national security returning to Iraq. Pentagon officials had hoped that
Iraqis could manage their own security after enormous sacrifices to the Pentagon
and U.S. economy. Nobel
Prize-winning New York University Stern School Economist Joseph I. Stiglitz
linked the $1 trillion cost to the Iraq War to nearly bankrupting the U.S.
economy in 2007-08. Had Bush and
Cheney left Iraq alone in 2003, there would be no Wahbabi insurgency threatening
today’s U.S.-backed government.
While no one in the Sunni world liked Saddam, they respected his power and
Baathist regime that preserved law-and-order since seizing power July 16, 1979.
Toppling Saddam April 9, 2003 forced his anarchy-preserving Republican
Guard out of Baghdad, opening the floodgates for Sunni Islamic radicals. Today’s ISIS of Iraq derives from
the barbaric Wahhabi cult of Syrian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, mercifully killed
by U.S. forces June 7, 2006, after countless atrocities against U.S. forces and
Aug. 20, 2003 truck-bombing of U.N. headquarters at the Canal Hotel in Iraq,
killing U.N. envoy Sergio Veirra de Mello.
Zarqawi personally beheaded American civilian Nicholas Berg on video for
worldwide consumption. Led by the
murderous Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS follows closely in the al-Zarqawi tradition
with personal vendetta against the U.S. for terminating al-Zarqawi and his
successor Abu Omar al-Baghdadi April 18, 2010.
Putting U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq places U.S. squarely into the
middle of a virulent Sunni v. Shiite civil war.
Obama authorized today 100 additional troops to join about 160 already on
the ground in Iraq to protect the U.S. embassy.
Reports of ISIS taking over Iraq’s second largest city Mosul and Saddam’s
birthplace Tikrit, suggests that 100 U.S. forces can’t begin to stop the
onslaught. Secretary of State John
Kerry signaled that all options were on the table, including the unlikely
diplomatic move of consulting with Tehran to coordinate a strategy to stop ISIS. Kerry said “a very thorough vetting
of every option that is available” will go on, expressing concern that the
U.S.-backed al-Maliki government was in trouble. “I don’t believe that they will in the near term,” said Kerry, when asked whether or not
ISIS could topple Baghdad. Kerry offered no guarantees but now faces some tough choices of whether the Pentagon must
put more boots on the ground to save Baghdad.
Before Obama commits more U.S. troops a quagmire in Iraq, the White House
must figure out if ISIS threatens to U.S. national security. It’s not enough to put more U.S. forces in harm’s way to speculate how ISIS would like to
harm U.S. or European Union interests on the continent. After killing al-Zarqawi, ISIS has
double-the-incentive to topple al-Maliki’s U.S.-backed government. Not only does ISIS reject Shiite
rule they seek revenge against the U.S. to killing al-Zarqawin and his successor
al-Baghdadi. It’s foolhardy to
think that a hundred more U.S. troops can secure the U.S. embassy. Kerry says he’s “absolutely
convinced” the U.S. is safe—but for how long?
Before any escalation, Obama must convince the American public that the
U.S. must sacrifice more in Iraq to preserve U.S. national security. If not, Obama should follow Kerry’s
words: “It’s up to the Iraqi
people.”
|
