Opinion

No clear US ‘victory’

Expecting US to fix Iraq is akin to expecting a teenager who crashes family car to be able to piece it back together

Sabina Khan June 14, 2015

The writer has a Master’s degree in conflict-resolution from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California and blogs at http://coffeeshopdiplomat.wordpress.com

Despite US air strikes and a training force of over 3,000 on the ground, IS took control of another key city in Iraq last month. US President Barack Obama just authorised the deployment of another 450 training personnel to the country, but it is unclear if that will be enough to retake Ramadi or any other city from the IS.

Critics of the president claim that he is to blame for all the chaos and rising death toll in Iraq because the American troop withdrawal happened under his watch. The Obama supporters, on the other hand, are quick to point out that it was the previous Bush Administration that fabricated stories of WMDs and al Qaeda ties in order to bring war to the region in the first place. We now know for a fact that there were no nuclear weapons within Saddam’s grasp and that any ties to extremists groups were stretches of the imagination.

The truth of the matter is that mistakes have been made by Obama’s camp as well as the previous collection of George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Yet, to be truthful, you can sum up all their blunders and still only have a couple of chapters of the whole story. President Obama campaigned on ending wars created by his predecessor. He made that point unquestionably clear and he was elected by the American people with that knowledge out in the forefront. Even then, he originally wanted to keep a significantly larger US training team on the ground to help build local forces and stabilise the newly empowered Iraqi government. He was prevented from doing so, when the Iraq parliament made it clear that they preferred an end of perceived foreign occupation.

Conflict to the north in Syria has played a part in the IS story as well. The group is composed of former Iraqi soldiers, as well as extremists that have spent time on both sides of the border with Syria. When civil unrest was at its peak and Bashar al Assad was reported to have used chemical weapons, Obama asked for support from the US Congress to enter the fray with missile strikes. What resulted was an overwhelmingly lopsided response from the American people reaching out by phone, email and fax to demand that their representative vote against engaging in any new wars in the Middle East. Congress had their hands tied because the political pressure to represent their electorate worked just as democracy intended. The end result was that the US government was unable to take initial strides that may or may not have weakened IS early on.

There is also the issue of other foreign countries that are involved in supporting and funding the IS. The US deserves blame for the current state of affairs in Iraq, as do those who fund extremists for ideological or geopolitical reasons. That doesn’t mean that they are equipped to somehow provide stability in the aftermath. The most productive option for Obama may be to simply concede that the US is unable to impose their will across the globe and the bombardment of Iraq was a terrible action with lasting disastrous consequences. Expecting the US to fix Iraq is akin to expecting a teenager who crashes the family car to be able to piece it back together again.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 15^th, 2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (8)

Reality. | 9 years ago | Reply As long as the Arabs are fighting fellow Arab and Muslims. Americans call it Victory. It is as simple as that, the rest is all hot air.

khizr | 9 years ago | Reply @Javaid Bashir: Its not criticism, its stating the facts. You want to eliminate IS without knowing anything about the back ground or why the IS are there?

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

terry | 9 years ago | Reply @cautious: Victory is related to objectives and not casualities. Besides how can the US have casualities when they have volunteerily abdicted the battle ground? I suppose one could argue that the US have obtained their objective. What was it by the way?

Javaid Bashir | 9 years ago | Reply Well what sort of clear victory did sh want from US. Bush Senior an Bush Junior imposed the war on iraq. Its excuse was that it possessed weapons of Mass Destruction. Contrary to the belief Iraq did not possess any nuclear assets. Thousands of Iraqis were killed in the war. Finally Bush admitted blunder and hostilities were seized. Obama was elected on the promise to end the war and pull out all the troops. IS has wreaked havoc in the middle eastern region. But the Congress did not allow Air Strikes against it, thus Is has become stronger every day. we must think of eliminate this terrorist out fit instead criticizing or casting aspersions on US and its present administration.

Parvez | 9 years ago | Reply That was an interesting read..........and your ending was realistic.

Rex Minor | 9 years ago | Reply It is ironic to associate victory with a country which is gradualy loosing its hegemony over the weakers who are developing faster than in th past.Boots or no boots on the ground, the current administration has lost its credibility in the international arena. Rex Minor

harkol | 9 years ago | Reply Victory is to achieve the objective. After 2001, US stated objective was to safeguard homeland. It's been 14yrs and not a single credible terror attack has happened on US homeland from the Islamic Terrorists it is fighting. Thus US has achieved its objective so far. To think victory is in bringing democracy to places like Afghanistan or Iran is to live in fools paradise. These are Muslim nations, and Democracy doesn't work well in majority of Muslim nations. So, best thing USA can do is to ensure it's own security, without bothering too much about enforcing its own values on these nations. Obama had stated that and that objective has been achieved.

cautious | 9 years ago | Reply Clear Victory? May depend on how you define victory. Hezbollah, Iran, Islamic extremist and Assad's forces have all taken significant casualties ... American's have had zero casualties. Suspect some in USA would say things are going OK.

Replying to X