Despite his confusion between strategy and objectives, the scales are falling from Eugene Robinson’s eyes. I think he’s beginning to come around to the view that President Obama has no objectives in Iraq other than domestic political ones:
It is understandable that the president might feel pressed to do something in response to the Islamic State’s recent battlefield gains — including the rout of disorganized Iraqi forces in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. But Obama imposed such tight restrictions on the activities of U.S. soldiers that only the sunniest optimist would believe this increase can make a military difference.
U.S. troops will not be allowed near the front lines, where their presence, according to Obama’s critics, could stiffen the resolve of an Iraqi army that often chooses to flee rather than fight. There will be no American forward air controllers, who could direct U.S. airstrikes with far greater precision. There will be no use of deadly Apache attack helicopters in support of Iraqi ground operations.
In essence, sending the 450 new troops is less a military move than a political gesture. After the fall of Ramadi, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi desperately needed a signal of U.S. support. In that strictly limited sense, I suppose, mission accomplished. Sort of.
Now if he’d only recognize that pertains to domestic policy as well.
That’s my unified field theory of the Obama Administration. If you look for deeper thinking or meaning than domestic politics, you’ll be disappointed. If you find them, you’re imposing your own beliefs on actions that have no deeper thinking or meaning.
Is there domestic support for sending any troops to Iraq? I doubt it. You can point to McCain and Graham, but I don’t think they represent any significant constituency in the U.S.
I think the Administration is concerned that the Middle East blows up and his name will be forever associated with what happens next.
I agree. If the Middle East blows up on his watch, not only will his name be associated with it but it will affect the election prospects for the Democratic presidential candidate and down-ticket prospects as well. He doesn’t want to be another Jimmy Carter, persona non grata in his own party for a generation.
If the ME blows up? It’s been getting blown up since 2003. That horse left the barn, got shot, and was cooked & eaten some time back.
It’s been getting blown up (at least figuratively) since at least the 6th century but who’s counting?
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/03/08/iraq-opinion-polls/24276663/
Steve
I’m sympathetic to the “domestic politics” argument, especially since there is a lot of evidence that the President relies on his NSS more than his cabinet officers and his NSS is, reportedly, primarily concerned with ensuring that the President is on the “right side of history.” Unfortunately the NSS isn’t very good and their ability to see beyond immediate consequences also isn’t very good. See Egypt, Libya and Syrian gas attacks as three big examples.
But that’s not the only explanation, or at least a complete explanation. The problem with Iraq and Syria is the alternatives appear to be as bad or worse than our current, middling and incoherent position. The right wants a surge part deaux and the left is divided or silent because they don’t have a clue either. What is the policy alternative that would require some political courage and have decent chance at success without being riddled by moral compromises? I can’t think of anything, but admittedly my imagination grows smaller each year.
If there was a reasonable policy available that would make a difference I could probably buy into the “it’s all about domestic politics” argument, but I think we’ve been served up a shit sandwich and the President is trying to avoid the “meat” by nibbling on the crust.
The political solution is to do enough to keep it together until you can toss it to the next guy or gal, and you claim that you are keeping all options open for them. President Obama is in way over his head, and rather than follow his intuition, he will do something stupid. Why he does not toss this crap to the UN is beyond me.
As I see it, there are two options. They can kill each other, and whoever kills the most wins. It is harsh, but that is how humans solve problems. When the US had a problem with the Native Americans, they were packed up and shipped off, and it was a feature not a bug that a substantial number died on the route.
The other option is to invade and occupy the region for a few generations until the people forget that they hate each other. This will also give them time to establish the civic structures needed to sustain a self-governing society.
On the military side, the US needs to stop training the Iraqi military as a western military. They need to use the techniques of dictators and other crappy armies. Behind the frontline troops, you have loyal troops who will immediately execute any deserters. The troops have a choice. They can move forward to possible death, or they can retreat to certain death or torture. Problem solved.
I doubt that ISIS allows a suicide bomber to change their mind.
There was a better alternative but the president decided he’d rather be re-elected than take it. So he’s left with a poorer alternative. Now the only alternatives he has are to do something at best marginally effective or do nothing.
But here’s where I know I’m not a politician. I think that “doing something” is a very bad alternative indeed. The president obviously doesn’t see the downside risk but I do.