|
U.S. Watches ISIS Advance Toward Baghdad
by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700
Copyright
October 12, 2014
All Rights Reserved.
Advancing toward Baghdad, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
[ISIS] pushes closer to its ultimate goal of conquering Iraq. When
President Barack Obama authorized air strikes in Iraq and then Syria, the
Pentagon hoped it would slow ISIS’s blitzkrieg capturing 30% of Iraq and Syria
since the first of the year. Reluctant to get embroiled in another Mideast
War, Obama faces tough choices as ISIS reacts to U.S. air strikes by redoubling
efforts to push toward Baghdad. Bogged down in the Syrian border town of
Kobane, the Pentagon finds itself flailing trying to halt what looks like a
relentless attack on key Syrian and Iraqi areas. With the Iraqi military
trying to regroup and the Kurd’s Peshmerga battered, Obama faces the very real
prospect to putting in U.S. ground troops or risk losing Iraq to ISIS.
Appealing to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for ground troops, the White
House got a cold shoulder, realizing the burden falls on the U.S.
Obama has objected in the
past to the fact the U.S. does the heavy lifting, including bearing the
financial and human toll in the crisis. With Obama finally receiving
bipartisan support in Congress for actions against ISIS, he faces renewed
criticism unless he can show progress in Iraq and Syria. Ranking Senate
Armed Services Committee member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has urged Obama for
over two years to get involved in Syria’s civil war, blaming the president to
acting too slowly to reverse the ISIS advance. Before Hillary
Clinton retired as Secretary of State Feb. 1, 2013, she agreed with McCain and
other conservatives on Capitol Hill that Obama should get involved in Syria.
Recent criticism by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that Obama should have
bombed Syria for using chemical weapons in 2013 shows the president’s dilemma.
Attacking Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not have stopped the ISIS
blitzkrieg in Iraq and Syria.
Getting U.S. policy right
hasn’t been easy for Obama listening to Democrats or Republicans insisting on
deposing Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Obama has correctly read the problem in
Iraq and Syria that helping various Sunni groups topple al-Assad would, as
Russian President Vladimir Putin insists, cause more instability in the region
Recent history in Iraq proves that toppling dictators like Saddam Hussein comes
with a price. Much of the chaos in the region, including the ISIS takeover
of Iraq and Syria, directly relates to a weak post-Iraq War government in
Baghdad. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri-al-Maliki, who insisted the
U.S. get out of Iraq in 2011, couldn’t develop an adequate security force,
despite billions poured into Iraq by the U.S. Now in shambles, the Iraqi
military is in no position to defend Iraq’s hinterlands, let alone advancing
troops on Baghdad. Obama must come to the realization quickly that unless
he commits U.S. grounds troops, Baghdad will likely fall to ISIS.
Eight miles out of Baghdad
airport in Abu Ghraib, ISIS militants prepare for the final assault on Baghdad,
urgently acting before the White House orders in ground troops. If Baghdad
falls, Obama’s Democratic Party will have hell to pay in the polls, with most
Americans blaming Democrats for squandering post-Saddam gains in Iraq.
Most political experts expect the 2016 presidential race to hinge on U.S.
foreign policy. Watching Baghdad fall—regardless of whom runs as
president, including Hillary, will .make Democrats chances of retaining the
White House more difficult. With the U.S. Senate potentially tilting
Republican in November, a foreign policy disaster would hurt Democrats’ chances
in 2016. Faced with the prospects of Baghdad falling, Obama will be forced
to put U.S. boots on the ground to stop the ISIS advance. All ready
capturing Fallujah in January, only 40 miles West of Baghdad, ISIS has the
manpower and resources to sack Baghdad.
With time running out to
save Baghdad, the White House will have to put in ground troops or face a
political disaster of immense proportions. No other coalition partner
figures to fight the U.S. battle, started when former President George W. Bush
decided to topple Saddam Hussein April 10, 2003. Despite agreeing in
principle to help the U.S. battle ISIS, most European and Mideast countries
believe it’s the U.S. responsibility, since they caused the mess in the first
place. Obama’s promise to end U.S. involvement in Mideast wars is
complicated by ISIS’s advance on Baghdad. Nothing could be more
politically disastrous to Democrats than watching Baghdad fall to ISIS.
Mobilizing U.S. ground forces takes time, putting pressure on Obama to get off
the fence. Most experts believe that ISIS cannot be stopped without ground
forces. Because Obama stated the U.S. mission to “destroy” ISIS, he knows
what must be done to finish the job.
About the Author
|
