Learning From Our Losses
An Examination of the Middle Eastern Policy of the Obama Administration
Donald Trump recently claimed that Obama is the “founder of ISIS,” drawing massive criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike. Once again, Trump has wasted an opportunity to critically, but realistically, evaluate policy. This time specifically, Obama’s efforts in the Middle East. Instead, he has blatantly lied and avoided a serious discussion on his ideas for our Middle Eastern Policy. Even though President Obama is by no means the founder of ISIS, many of his actions in Middle East have allowed the terrorist organization to gain a foothold in the region and continue to destabilize Iraq and Syria. However, his actions have not all been negative, spearheading effective policies in counter-terrorism and avoided nuclear proliferation in the Middle East with the landmark Iran Deal. With the end of the Obama administration fast-approaching, it is time to do something Donald Trump hasn’t: evaluate Obama’s actions in the Middle East- learning from his successes and failures alike to create a policy towards fighting terrorism in the region.
Obama’s first serious mistake was a lack of commitment to stability in Iraq. Under pressure from then-Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, as well as the American population, President Obama pulled the vast majority of American forces out of the country in 2011. While President Obama was following through on a plan created by President Bush in 2008, the Obama Administration should have foreseen the consequences. At the time, Iraq was bitterly divided between the majority Shiite government and the Sunni tribes, with the United States’s presence maintaining a stable peace between them. In fact, the United States was successfully arming and working with Sunni tribes in order to combat terrorism. Sunni tribes, in combination with the American military, were one of the key reasons that the United States was able to reduce Al-Qaeda’s influence in the region. Once the United States left Iraq, the fragile peace between the Shiite majority and the Sunni tribes shattered. The Prime Minister cracked down on Sunni protesters and began to restrict the rights of Sunnis. In hindsight, it seems fairly obvious that when the United States is the major force uniting different factions, leaving removes the principal incentive to collaborate. Historically in the Middle East, when the majority has continued to oppress the minority, the minority has fought back, often joining radical organizations. Disenfranchised Palestinians, for example, have supported Hezbollah, and oppressed Iraqi Sunnis joined the ranks of ISIS. These sectarian tensions also compound the problems with the Iraqi military.
When President Obama decided to pull all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, he said that he was leaving behind a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government”. At the time, Iraq was relatively stable, but this was not because of the power of the Iraqi military, but rather the presence of the United States uniting Iraqi minorities and propping up the struggling forces. Before the United States military left Iraq, it provided vital intelligence and counter terrorism information directly to the Iraqis. In the words of General Lloyd J. Austin III, who now heads U.S. Central Command, “In 2011…the Iraqis [had] a significant amount of intelligence on what was taking place, and then the screen just went blank”. Once the United States left Iraq, the military was unable to effectively combat terrorists and maintain control. Furthermore, the military was not effectively trained. In the battle against the Islamic State in Mosul, the Iraqi foot soldiers dropped their weapons and fled the city after officers abandoned them. The United States needs to both train powerful leaders on the battlefield, all while giving them practical battlefield experience in order to allow them to be prepared for war. In addition, the United States should train young foreign officers in the United States, giving them a strong education in leadership so that they can bring stability to their countries. So that when an organized opposition begins fighting against the military, it does not simply implode.
The lessons to be learned here are relatively simple. If the United States military commits to stabilizing a region, it first must commit to gradually phasing out of the region, slowly giving the country’s military more responsibility. Additionally, the United States need to make sure that native officers are given more opportunities to lead- at first under the eye of the US. Furthermore, the United States needs to continue to supply allies with vital intelligence as well as maintain a strong intelligence network in the country. Without comprehensive intelligence, the United States has seen foreign militaries begin to fall apart, unable to handle complex combat situations. In addition, putting a strong executive in power is not enough to keep a country afloat. It is necessary to make sure that strong leaders are present throughout the government, including competent military officers. Without strong leaders on the battlefield, troops will not be as effective, even if they have advanced weaponry supplied by the United States. Troops with powerful weapons and without strong battlefield commanders are a liability and not an asset. When the Islamic State gained control of Mosul, they gained access to machine guns, rocket launchers, armored Humvees, and a helicopter which we supplied to the Iraqi troops. Giving weapons to untrained allies is the same as putting those weapons into enemy hands. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the United States must help minority groups throughout the country by standing up for their rights, even after leaving the county. Sunni-Shiite infighting crippled the Iraqi government’s response to ISIS- something the United States cannot afford to let happen again.
Even though President Obama made a serious mistake removing the military to quickly from Iraq, he has found tremendous success developing powerful tactics to help defeat terrorist groups. After over 2 years of bombing against ISIS, the group has lost huge swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. Drone strikes and bombings of key infrastructures and figures in the Islamic State have been successful, but the US cannot defeat ISIS with air power alone. The most successful tactic has been to use native militants and armed forces in combination with the deadly air power of the United States and other major Western powers. The Kurdish forces were able to retake the strategically important city of Sinjar and the Iraqi security forces were able to retake Ramadi in part because of the United States air support. By continuing to partner with the Sunni Kurds- a relatively stable and reliable group- the US can effectively leverage its air power advantage in Iraq. The United States’ best solution seems to be working with native groups on the ground and providing them the advanced intelligence and air power.
While this tactic has been extremely effective in Iraq, it has proven unreliable in Syria, where the United States has failed to find a reliable partner on the ground. For the past few years, the Obama Administration has been championing working with rebel democratic factions in Syria, and it has been remarkably ineffective. The United States has spent over 500 million dollars “training” Syrian rebels to fight against ISIS and Assad. These training programs have failed and it seems obvious why: the United States is backing a fractured force fighting a war on two fronts. Not only does any rebel group in Syria first have to organize itself — a difficult task in a country embroiled in conflict and without basic services — but it must also fight both the powerful Islamic State and Russian-backed dictator Bashar-al-Assad. Under these circumstances, it is impractical to support one of the Syrian rebel factions. Which leaves the United States with only a few reasonable alternatives.
The United States can create a safe zone in Syria, one in which refugees could survive, receive basic services, and escape the horrors of the civil war. Creating a safe zone would assuage the refugee crisis in Europe — helping to ensure European support. Furthermore, the area would be used as a place to allow Syrians to rebuild their lives in aftermath of brutal destruction. Traditionally, however there is a major problem with safe zones: they require massive manpower to maintain and defend. However, the United States can mitigate this problem by creating this safe zone in conjunction with the European Union or specific European countries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for the creation of a safe zone, and could certainly help the United States establish one. In addition, the United States has the opportunity to build closer ties with Turkey which has also called for the creation of a safe zone in Syria. Working with these countries would reduce the number of American soldiers at risk both through other countries using their individual military forces to defend the zone but also by having these countries share intelligence with our military. There is one major political problem: Russia. The United States would have to work with the dominant foreign power in Syria to create the zone and ensure that Russia did not violate it. The coalition would have to convince Russia, possibly by reducing sanctions put in place to stop its aggression into Ukraine, to support the safe zone. While certainly a difficult proposal, the immense benefits of a safe zone are worth the effort.
The United States has another potential partner as well, one whom President Obama has so far refused to work with: Bashar al-Assad. Not only does Assad have a powerful military force, he has been able to hold onto a surprising amount territory considering the massive opposition to him. While Assad is certainly a brutal dictator, one who has used chemical weapons against his own people, he is the only unified force in the area that has any chance of defeating the Islamic State without the creation of safe zone or a multi-national coalition. It is neither pretty nor politically appealing, but it seems to be a pragmatic option. Assad could be the partner on the group that the United States needs in the face of lacking international cohesion. Furthermore, if Assad does manage to regain control over Syria, the United States can provide humanitarian aid and infrastructure funding under a stable regime and pressure Assad to allow greater freedoms to his citizens. While it might not be the kind of regime the United States wants, at least the country will be stable enough to provide basic services to its population and the massive humanitarian crisis in the region can finally be addressed. In a crisis where there are truly no perfect solutions, perhaps it is of the utmost importance to first address the greatest grievance: the plight of the refugees. In spite of Assad’s questionable past, under the watchful eye of an American alliance, he would be forced to at very worst dilute his efforts. President Obama has taken a step back from becoming involved in Syria, and the (debatably) worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century has been allowed to continue. The United States needs to start taking serious actions in Syria, regardless of the allies it takes, in order to help its people.
While Obama is certainly not the “founder of ISIS,” his actions in the Middle East allowed the group to take hold in Iraq while expanding into Syria. The United States must learn from the blunders and successes of the Obama Administration, avoiding hasty retreats when negotiations get tough and combining allies on the ground with air support. Furthermore, the United States could create a safe zone, or work with Bashar Al-Assad, in order to help stabilize Syria. The Obama Administration and the future president cannot sit back and allow ISIS to run rampant in Syria while millions of people suffer- something has to be done. Peace in the Middle East is possible. It certainly will not be easy, but it is possible as long as the United States learns from its past policies.
