Applying the Obama doctrine to the Muslim world
When laid before the public in the form of an address, it seemed like a workable way of handling Washington’s relations with the outside world. It was also a very different approach compared with the adventurism and impetuous behaviour in foreign policy adopted by his predecessor, George W Bush. Then Washington walked into Iraq in March 2003 without reason. America and the world were to pay a heavy price for that adventure. That said, many in the world and in the United States disagreed with the substance of the Obama doctrine.
The Obama doctrine was put to the test with the sudden and unexpected arrival of the Islamic State (IS) on the world stage. What shook the president, many in America and most people across the world was the barbarity practised by the followers of the movement that was behind the establishment of the new political entity. By displaying the beheading of two American journalists and two British aid workers on social media outlets, the IS was not only inviting attention to its arrival, it also seemed to be making the case for the spread of the conflict of which it was a part. Did these acts pose a threat to American society? Will the IS in some way attract Muslims from the many diasporas to join its cause?
The rise of the IS had raised a number of other questions that were equally relevant for addressing the rapidly developing situation. Why were policymakers and policy analysts in Washington and other Western capitals caught by surprise by the rise of this phenomenon and what gave it such enormous military muscle? Had the circumstances that led to the development of the IS been anticipated, could measures have been adopted and actions taken in time to bring it under control? The first question was answered in some form but the second one remained on the table. James Clapper, the director of intelligence in the Obama Administration, thought that he and his colleagues overestimated the capacity of the Iraqi forces to handle an insurgency, such as the one that led to the creation of the IS. He said that the intelligence community should have drawn some lessons from the experience in Vietnam in the 1960s when all the investments made by the United States to develop a Vietnamese army did not prevent the advance of the communist force, Vietcong. This explanation was repeated by President Obama in a television news show a few days later.
However, both President Obama and his officials need not have gone as far back as the American fiasco in Vietnam to explain the rise of the IS. They should look at the developing situations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan to draw some important policy and operational lessons. These two countries are better laboratories for they, like those in the Middle East, are also Muslim societies engaged in momentous change. America has been involved in both and for the reason that it regards them as possible threats to its national security. For Barack Obama, the presidential candidate, America’s war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity but that in Iraq was a war of choice. Pakistan was linked to the latter since Washington held Islamabad responsible for its lack of success in Afghanistan. What lessons can be learnt from the AfPak region? This is a question for next week.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 13th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (8)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732503274-0/Untitled-design-(43)1732503274-0-405x300.webp "article")
1732501636-0/Untitled-design-(42)1732501636-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732498967-0/Outer-Banks--(1)1732498967-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732086766-0/BeFunky-collage-(74)1732086766-0-165x106.webp "article")
@Solomon2: Dear Soloman2 Hamas did not attack anyone prior to the Israeli massacre, and at least Hamas are living in their own country.
"It is strange that more than 3,000 Palestinians were killed and 1,700 homes were destroyed by Israel’s brutality -"
@Naeem Khan: Not at all. The Israelis were attacked by Hamas which vows to exterminate all Jews from the Middle East. Israel defended itself in accord with international law. By contrast, every Pakistani seems to ignore that Hamas is a terrorist outfit that kills its domestic opponents as well as rocketing Israeli civilians. The Israelis have moral and just cause (the stuff about Israel being "a terrorist state" existing on "stolen Palestinian land" and lying propaganda) whereas Hamas and its mentality are the true evil culprits, utilizing civilians as shields and U.N. aid and facilities to attempt genocide.
If Pakistanis had true human feelings for Arabs and Israelis they would openly reject the propaganda and delegitimize Hamas and its brutal methods and sinister goals. As long as Pakistanis don't do this it is evident that a kernel of evil remains in their hearts that is sure to erupt in other ways: terror attacks, corruption, domestic violence, etc.
@Naeem Khan: Dear Naeem, You are right on the button. Keep up the good work.
@Naeem Khan:
Pardon me Sir, your comment although laudable, is based on only half baked knowledge.
I suggest you go to https://courses.edx.org and look for "Terrorism and Counter Terrorism". Just register and join this free course. It has started already but you can still join it. This is where you will get all information about the latest advancement and research on the subject in easily understandable video lectures. After that, I am sure you will thank me for this. Cheers!
Who are these people in ISIS, it seems ISIS is one of the branches of that Tree which was planted by the CIA, ISI and Saudi Arabia during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Let us not forget that these over zealous freaks including Osama were invited from all over to world to congregate in Peshawar and to declare Jihad on those Russian infidels. It is strange that more than 3,000 Palestinians were killed and 1,700 homes were destroyed by Israel’s brutality but Obama or western press was not moved but when 4 journalist were beheaded which of course is very brutal act, US and the West went berserk. Americans could not fathom the brutality of ISIS but at the same time neglect to see that their satraps in Saudi Arabia has been beheading people for decades, punishment for what ever crimes the criminals has committed, they also chop off hands of petty thieves. Some how their conscious does not move unless it is their own people who should not be there in the first place but the State require them to be there, Davis is one example of Lahore murders. In regard to Iraq's security services, Americans saw to it that their standing Army was purged and the new Security Services will be in their image while ignoring that those people were going no where and will settle the score with their appointed satrap Maliki. They have done the same in Afghanistan by eliminating the Pukhtun population from entering the security services although Pukhtuns are in majority in Afghanistan ,and, we will see the same scenario in Afghanistan what we saw in Iraq and parts of Syria. Some how they have failed to study the history of middle and near eastern countries, throwing money at these countries will not solve the problems for US security. That Texan used to shoot from the hip and this social worker from Chicago is so very conscious of taking any bold initiatives which could culminate in lasting peace in the long run to these unfortunate people. Some how they see every ills of the world to be remedied through their military and economic power. Unfortunately it did not work before and it will not work now.
Until recently I did not overly admire some of the ET political writers and Pakistan political leaders, but now I like to think I am starting to understand their subtle approach. As most people know the US is developing Imperial Pax Americana, and it is halfway towards its objectives. It has a large, economy, which is in trouble, but has an extremely large military, which can cause a lot of damage and win any battle it likes against relatively low grade targets. Unfortunately, these wars are extremely expensive, and the damaged countries usually experience a resurgence some several years later. What appears to be happening now is that the US is cutting costs both internally and externally. For example, it is much cheaper for the US to cut its domestic space program and sub-contract out to foreign space programs such as the one in Russia. Similarly with the US war program. boots on the ground are expensive and the expenses continue for maybe 50 years due to pensions and medical expenses. For example, up-front costs of the Afghan war have been about 7 trillion dollars and are climbing. I will not go into full details of the current American war program, but it appear to have altered to one of creating chaos on a sub-contract basis rather than boots on the ground. For example, according to Victoria Newland of the US State Department it cost 5 billion dollars to start the chaos in the Ukraine. Currently, US created chaos has been started in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan, and several African countries, but America has very few boots on the ground and is smelling like a rose, whilst all the blame has shifted to Islamic groups. It is smart US policy called plausible deny-ability. As a result of their chaos plan the Americans have not improved the world, but are now saving dollars as their economy goes into decline, particularly at the domestic level. However, getting back to Pakistan. I have compared Pakistan to Australia in previous articles because they both kowtow to the US although I could just as easily have named Germany or several other countries who find it vital not to get on the wrong side of America. The Pakistan leadership, like the others, is following a divided and troubled path caring for Pakistan's own vital interests whilst placating the US as it implements its Imperial war agenda. The problem is that the chaos created improves profitability for a few, but lowers the living standards of almost everybody, including Americans, and certainly Pakistanis. Can Pakistan and the rest of the world continue to afford Imperial Pax Americana, and is it possible to do anything about it?
Looking fwd to next week. My own take is that Pakistan was delighted to pull a fast one on Uncle Sam by taking their money and then using that money to fund proxies - and for what its worth, served up a valuable lesson to their so-called ally. The problem is that Pakistan did not know what to do once the music stopped and everyone sat down, with the US still left standing. The US has left and now the game is now between Pakistan and its creation.
Lesson:
If there has to be peace in this world, every country must have two separate foreign policies; even doctrines. One for the Muslim World, and the second for the rest of humanity.