The Obama Tactic
American aircraft are once again waging war over the skies of Iraq. President Obama, as many have pointed out, is now the fourth United States president in a row to order some form of military offensive in Iraq. As always, plenty of critics immediately popped up to loudly explain what the president was doing wrong. The usual characters on the right demanded a much more intensive military action, the ones on the left warned darkly about slippery slopes and possible blowback, and the American people seemed to heave a sigh of resignation, in a "here we go again" moment.
One big complaint about Obama's action (or lack thereof) was that it failed to fit into some unifying overall Middle East strategy. This can be summed up in the form of a question: "What is the Obama Doctrine?" Where is the logical, rational explanation of what American stands for in this volatile region of the world? Why can't Obama just go on television and soothe the nerves of the country by putting it all into some sort of comforting narrative?
What this largely ignores is that the United States has never had much of an overall cohesive strategy when it comes to the region. Or, to be more accurate, we've never had an all-encompassing realpolitik plan that ever goes much beyond the crassest and most self-serving of goals. But the American people don't really want to hear that our country only stands foursquare behind an ideal that (to put it mildly) is not very idealistic at all. America's Middle East policy is actually quite simple, and can be expressed in a very short statement: "Whatever it takes to keep the oil smoothly flowing." And that "whatever" encompasses a whole lot of things we don't exactly proudly teach schoolchildren in history class.
As I said, this is not the sort of thing Americans want to hear in presidential addresses, but that doesn't make it any less true. America stands for democracy in the Middle East... when it is convenient to keeping the oil reliably flowing. America stands for Sunnis... unless the Shi'ites control the oil. America stands for freedom of religion... except when those who control the oil are ruthless theocrats. America stands against dictators, strongmen, and monarchies... except when they're our friends, who control the oil. America stands for human rights... except where it isn't convenient, and would embarrass our friends. America stands against genocide... except where we have to look the other way in order to keep the crude flowing. We stand strongly against funding terrorism... unless it is our so-called friends who are doing so, in which case we completely ignore it.
This can be seen as a very cynical way to put things -- I realize that. But, again, it doesn't make any of it any less true. Consider just two examples, if you will. The first is Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In the 1980s, we were quite friendly towards Hussein, and sold him weapons to use against the Iranians. In the 1990s, we fought against Hussein after he attempted a land grab in Kuwait. In the 2000s, we fought Hussein again, for no good reason other than the president didn't like Hussein very much. Throughout it all, it was the same Saddam Hussein, with the same basic governing policies and the same basic government structure. He didn't change -- we did. Or, for those who are still skeptical, consider the fact that we like to pat ourselves on the back for standing up "for democracy" and "against Islamist regimes," but our oldest and strongest friend in the region is actually one of the most theocratic governments ever seen. Is Saudi Arabia, after all, any sort of poster child for democracy and human rights? Ask any modern Saudi woman, if you need more proof.
Those are just two easy examples. Our policy in the Middle East has never been one of logic or high-minded idealism. For a good chunk of the twentieth century, our policy towards the Middle East was the same as our policy everywhere else in the world: you were either with us, or you were with the dirty communists. Countries were either seen as "pro-America" or "pro-Russia," and the entire planet's chessboard of countries were assigned one color or the other. But again, this had little to do with supporting anything in the Middle East other than our own self-interest. Our self-interest back then expanded from "keep the oil flowing to our markets" to also include "don't become communists," but that was all. Since the fall of communism, our policy has returned to its original pure state: as long as the oil flows, we are happy. Everything else is a minor consideration, really.
That's not something that any American president is ever going to publicly admit, however. It sounds far too cynical and far too selfish to be called any sort of proud American foreign policy, after all. To put this another way: those now calling for an explicit "Obama Doctrine" are going to be disappointed. Obama doesn't really have a doctrine for the Middle East, but then no previous president has ever really had one either (at least not with any sort of internal logical consistency, other than keeping the oil flowing), so it's not quite as bad as some are now making it sound.
Many have criticized Obama's handling of the "Arab Spring," mostly because it was so inconsistent. But what previous president could have reacted to events on the ground with any sort of moral clarity? All the other options America had at the time would have either put us squarely in the corner of protecting some very unpopular dictatorships, or supporting the people of a country who then turned around and elected people we didn't approve of. The situation was so messy (like many are in the region) that there was no clear path that didn't make it obvious that what America really stood for wasn't human rights or democracy or any other high-flown ideal, but instead stability. Valuing stability over all else leads us to prop up dictatorships, in other words. Which we've never really had a problem doing, but then we've never really had to face the wrath of the people in countries who value a few things more than just "cheap gas for American drivers."
The inside-the-Beltway chattering classes love to speak about presidential "doctrines." This hearkens back to the granddaddy of all foreign policy pronouncements, the Monroe Doctrine. Boy, those were the days, eh? "The Western Hemisphere is our playground, and Europe can just back the heck off!" Now that was a doctrine for the ages! All the way from the early 1800s to the Cuban Missile Crisis, this was a cornerstone of American foreign policy. Nobody asked the peoples of Central America what they thought about it, of course, but it did set a singleminded direction for the United States and the European powers for a long time to come.
Barack Obama may end his presidency with no clear doctrine attached to his name. Many have attempted to define what the "Obama Doctrine" actually is (myself included), but Obama's ultimate doctrine may be that he is not actually all that doctrinaire about American intervention, especially military intervention. He's much more situational than doctrinal, in other words. This is actually what the American voters wanted, and is one of the big reasons why Obama was twice elected to lead us. By the time George W. Bush departed office, America was war-weary and disillusioned about the ease of warmaking in the Middle East. We wanted to get out of Iraq, and we didn't support starting or participating in any other war in the region, either.
We still don't. Polls show it. The American public isn't exactly strongly supportive of Obama's foreign policy right now, but one thing the public really doesn't support is getting involved with any of the various conflicts raging over there. We are still -- again, according to the polls -- a pretty war-weary nation.
President Obama knew this when he first took office, and he knew it when the Arab Spring erupted. When, all of a sudden, multiple countries saw uprisings of their own people against their own governments, the United States was presented with numerous conflicts we could have entered. We didn't, though (except for one, which I'll get to in a moment). We allowed some governments to brutally crack down on their own popular uprisings, while we allowed some dictatorships to be overthrown -- all of whom were nominally our "friends" in the region (compare the difference between what happened in Bahrain with what happened in Egypt, for instance). As long as the oil tankers kept reliably and safely sailing, we were generally permissive of the outcome, whatever it turned out to be.
There is one big exception: Libya. In Libya, we did actively participate in an armed revolution. The hawks complained that we "led from behind," and the doves complained we shouldn't have done anything, but President Obama did send American warplanes to back one side of an armed conflict. This is when I wondered if the Libyan intervention would become the "Obama Doctrine," personally (although in my own defense, after the war was over, I did back off from this definition).
Libya was a pretty spectacular success for the American military. If that sounds strange, I'll even take it a step further -- George W. Bush's initial invasion of Iraq was also a pretty spectacular success for the American military. When given a clear mission, the military in both cases responded well and delivered the desired result. Within a very few weeks, Baghdad had been pacified and Saddam was on the run, in hiding. The Iraqi military had collapsed. Americans were in complete control of the country.
In Libya, the American military succeeded in doing something which had long been held to be impossible: they won a war solely by using air power. Now, that is a gross overstatement for a couple of reasons, but it will still likely go down in military history books as an example of one particular way America can wage war. It took months instead of weeks, but ultimately it was successful. But it's overstating the case to call it the "Obama Doctrine."
In Iraq, things immediately fell apart after our stunning military success. Most of this can be laid at the feet of L. Paul Bremer, and his two disastrous decisions in post-war Iraq: disbanding the Iraqi army, and completely "de-Ba'athifying" the government. If different policies had been announced immediately after the conquest of Baghdad, a very different outcome might have happened, and a lot of American soldiers might not have died in the years to follow. But then hindsight is always 20-20, isn't it?
In Libya, we never really tried to set up an occupation government, since our military strategy had been so hands-off in the first place. The rebels on the ground were the ones who did the actual fighting -- there were zero American "boots on the ground" in the conflict, and as a direct result there were also zero American deaths during the war. This also left it to the rebels on the ground to create a new government -- a project which has, so far, failed spectacularly.
In both countries, things fell apart. One doctrine which might have prevented this was articulated by Dennis Kucinich when he ran for president. Instead of (Kucinich proposed) America always doing "nation-building" as an ad hoc exercise, why not create a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"? Get some experts together who have studied what has worked before, put them together with people knowledgeable about countries we go to war with, and plan ahead for what happens after the war is won. The State Department is not really up to the task, so create a separate department devoted to the creation of new governments in other countries, so that we can offer any advice necessary should we be called upon to help set up new governments around the world. But the Kucinich Doctrine has never really been seriously considered by anyone in power, so this also falls into the Monday-morning quarterbacking category.
Getting back to the current problem and the current American military situation, though, few have so far realized that Obama is trying to do in Iraq exactly what he successfully accomplished in Libya -- turning the tide of a low-grade war through the introduction of American air power to the battlefield. Let those who have the biggest vested interest fight the war on the ground -- and not American troops -- but help out those we deem worthy by dropping precision bombs on those we deem unworthy. It's putting our thumb on the scale, in the hopes that it will be enough to tip the balance.
In some ways, this military philosophy is the antithesis of the "Powell Doctrine," which was usually stated as: "If America enters a war, we should do so with overwhelming strength -- something on the order of 10-to-1 in America's favor." Obama waging limited air war in concert with troops on the ground (be they Libyan rebels or Kurds) is diametrically opposed to the "overwhelming strength" ideology. Limited strength can achieve limited military results -- which is about all the American public has an appetite for, these days.
But again, it is overstating the case to call this a "doctrine." Even in military terms, it would be a stretch to call this the "Obama Strategy," since the word "strategy" connotes a wider view than just limited airstrikes. It is not a doctrine -- because Obama is awfully leery of applying it in every situation. It is not even really a strategy -- because any realistic strategy for combating the I.S.I.S. (or I.S.I.L., or I.S.) forces would also have to include airstrikes within Syria. The only thing to call what the president has now announced in Iraq (and what he successfully achieved in Libya) might just be the "Obama Tactic."
As with any tactic, it might achieve limited gains (especially in the military sphere). But it also is only tactical -- it's not going to solve all of Iraq's problems, just like it didn't solve Libya's problems. Even if Obama is persistent and manages to push the jihadists back into Syria, the Iraqis are still going to have a whole lot of intractable political problems to figure out on their own. Whether they manage to do so or not is not one of the goals the Obama Tactic can solve -- nor, really, should it be. Unless we're ready to occupy the country again, which the American people most definitely would not support.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Note:
A quick timeline note. While this article was being written, obviously, events on the ground in Iraq (Baghdad in particular) were developing rapidly. So please view this article as a commentary specifically limited to the American military strategy. I will have more to say about the political developments within Iraq in future columns, no doubt.
Just wanted to be clear, in case anyone was wondering why I am seemingly ignoring recent news in this particular column.
-CW
CW - A very insightful post, you are way ahead of the corporate news outlets! A few supplementary, and perhaps useful comments from me.
"Keeping the oil flowing" is still the dominant factor driving US policy in the Middle East, but back in the late 20th century the US was (as you noted) worried about oil flowing into US markets. In the new century, the US doesn't import much oil from the Middle East....we still want to keep Middle Eastern oil flowing, but to the World Markets of the globalized economy. That said, the Middle East is a much less important energy player in the early 21st century than it was in the late 20th. That's a big strategic shift that's affecting US force structure and it's bound to alter regional diplomatic policies.
The concept of "turning the tide of a low-grade war through the introduction of American air power to the battlefield" is a pretty good approximation of United States war fighting doctrine at present. This trend has been underway for some time, with considerable practice and refinement from combat in the Balkans to Iraq to "proof of concept" over Libya. The US Navy supplies a lot of this air power, and not just through carrier aviation.
ISIS/ISIL/IS movement north towards Kurdish Iraq provided Obama with a strong incentive and good opportunities to leverage unopposed US air power, Libya Campaign style. The Kurdish Peshmerga are lightly armed infantry, but battle trained, motivated and are fighting on their own turf. Turkey is not far away, a potential secure base for US tactical aircraft, but perhaps more importantly, safe airspace for US battlefield management/electronic intelligence aircraft. The ones that most effectively direct high flying tactical aircraft that truck in the smart weapons that can interdict ISIS supply and neutralize modest ISIS advantages in artillery and armor. Obama is signaling his intent of a sustained air campaign with comments to the effect of "this will take time." It will take time, it will burn a lot of money, but it has good prospects for success. If you consider success to be stabilizing a fractured Iraq, with a de facto independent Kurdish state and Sunni regions in sullen rebellion and/or ISIS occupation. Given the potential alternatives, I'd say that's success. ISIS has signaled that the US threat is credible by furling the black flags that proudly marked their vehicles.
The US Congress is going to have a lot to digest while on extended vacation and into full campaign mode.
Obama needs to do *something*. Republican patron saint Ronald Reagan had an effective strategy to get the Middle East under control - invade Grenada and run away in Lebanon. BHO should try something like that, but only after checking with his astrologist.
There is one sure fire way to get rid of the MidEast's strangle hold on this country.
Exploit our own oil and gas resources...
But the same group that opposes US intervention in the Middle East is the same group that stops us from not HAVING to intervene in the Middle East..
Ya gotta say one thing for the Left. They epitomize and define irony... :D
Kudos to the commentary, CW.. Fair, balanced and so dead on ballz accurate, it's scary...
Michale
Teddy Roosevelt famously said, "Talk softly but carry a big stick."
Obama's problem is that he has done away with the big stick and has emphatically stated that he won't USE a big stick, yet he still talks softly and expects that the bad guys will still listen to him...
Obama just doesn't get that it is the BIG STICK and the threat that it represents is what forces the bad guys to listen...
Obama would have been a great leader of a minor country with no international obligations. Liechtenstein or San Marino or Tuvala..
But the leader of the free world???
Obama makes CARTER look good..
And THAT says a lot...
Michale
M-
I agree with your assessment: "Fair, balanced and so dead on ballz accurate, it's scary..."
But then I read the rest of your comment and wonder if we're referencing the same story. Could this be some form of web quantum mechanics.... :-)
PS, If this shows up I'll know I'm not banned...an earlier comment of mine has not shown up.
PS, If this shows up I'll know I'm not banned...an earlier comment of mine has not shown up.
I had that happen to me over the weekend.. Sometimes comments get swept away to NNL... Try mentioning "Taylor Marsh" and see what happens?? :D
I agree with your assessment: "Fair, balanced and so dead on ballz accurate, it's scary..."
Thanx ya... :D
But then I read the rest of your comment and wonder if we're referencing the same story. Could this be some form of web quantum mechanics.... :-)
What, exactly, confuses you about my comment??
Granted the last line was a bit o' tortured syntax...
Kinda a double negative with a 1 1/5 twist, Degree Of Difficulty 3.4 :D
Michale
“That entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.”
-President Obama speaking of the analysis that had he left troops in Iraq, the current Iraq difficulties wouldn't be happening..
It seems to me that Obama himself is positing an analysis to defend policies that HE HIMSELF made....
So, why is it OK for Obama do that but not others??
Michale
Whew, I'm not banished!
M-
The Middle East is not the petro energy giant it once was. The US still imports significant amounts of oil, but Mid East oil is a small fraction. The US economy is much more globalized than it was 25 years ago. US foreign policy is responding to these changes. So is the grand US military mission, and the force structure of the US military. The latter is basically the "transition" military (small, high tech, agile) that was envisioned before Dubya entered the White House. A force that is more like a lever, and less like a hammer. Obama is squarely on the evolutionary path that was envisioned way back then. There is really no other choice.
M-
Things are moving rapidly down at the ol' Pottery Barn, but it looks to me Obama is about to tilt to de facto Kurdish independence and abandon the notion of a unified Iraq. The ISIS offensive into Kurdish regions has forced his hand. There is no time to remake a greater Iraqi government yet again.
Obama is poised to try and stabilize the chaos by means of a Libya style, sustained air campaign backing up Peshmerga light infantry. Air power may be needed to back up Shiite militia as well. The opening shots have been fired, the next move will be determined by ISIS behavior....which tends strongly towards the bad.
And yet, look at the world around is...
Pissant dictators and terrorist groups are flipping off the US and doing whatever the hell they want...
You may be right that the world is changing and is going to need a small agile high tech force in the future.....
But we're in the here and now... And, in the here and now a hammer is needed, not a lever...
Granted, in 50-100 years, future American historians might marvel of Obama prescient decision to create a small agile high tech force...
Of course, this assumes that there IS an America 50-100 years from now. That it wasn't overrun or destroyed because a HAMMER was needed, not a lever...
It goes to EXACTLY what I was saying in FTP comment #23.. Obama and Democrats govern as if the world is what they would LIKE it to be, not as it really is..
Obama's mindset is that the world is a "lever military" type world, so that's what he is going to create...
But anyone with more than passing military experience can tell you that it is definitely a "hammer military" type world...
Did Obama's "lever" save the Crimea??
Did Obama's "lever" save Iraq??
Did Obama's "lever" save Libya???
How many failures must this country endure before someone thinks, "OK... This new stuff isn't working..."
Fear is an important part, perhaps the MOST important part, of deterrence...
No one fears Obama's America....
THAT is why the world is the way it is...
Michale
The ISIS offensive into Kurdish regions has forced his hand.
DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!!
We have a winner!!!!
THAT is *EXACTLY* the problem with Obama..
Everything "forces his hand"..
He is ALWAYS reactive, NEVER pro-active...
He is dancing to the bad guy's tune....
"It is better to attack at your convenience than to defend at your enemy's convenience"
-Sun Tzu
Obama is ALWAYS playing defense. ALWAYS playing catch-up.. ALWAYS leading from behind...
Like I said.. Obama would be a great President. In The Maldives or Barbados or any other small pissant country that doesn't have any global obligations...
But as a REAL leader???
"Failed.. Failed.. IMPRESSIVELY failed.."
-Doctor, ARMAGEDDON
The President suffers from two fundamental flaws. The first is that he is unwilling to make decisions. He much prefers to play the role of a disinterested observer who comments on a set of adverse events that he regards himself as powerless to shape, of which Assad’s carnage in Syria is the prime example. The second is that he fundamentally misunderstands the use of force in international affairs. He handicaps himself fatally by imposing unwise limitations on the use of American force, such as his repeated declarations that he will not send ground troops back into Iraq.
http://www.hoover.org/research/pax-americana-dead
10 The here and now is the small agile force. Army brigades, not divisions. The Cold War ended. The only hammer (wrecking ball) we have is the nuclear force, which keeps other owner operators from using their nukes willy-nilly. That's what any commander in chief has to operate with in the foreseeable future. Magic wands don't come with the office.
11 Like the Bible, Sun Tzu articulates a lot of conflicting wisdom. A lot which has to do with leveraging your forces. Sun Tzu is held in high regard by the folks that gave us the modern small, mobile, high tech armed forces. The Cold War referenced Clauswitz.
Seriously, what military option was available to save Crimea? It's outside of our military sphere of influence. Not worth the trouble. He who defends everything defends nothing. (I went to Fredrick the Great for that one).
Iraq 2 revealed that yes, we don't have the right hammer or the stomach for a long occupation. Why repeat the lesson?
The US air lever allowed Libyan insurgents to defeat Kadafi's military. Is the principle applicable to ISIS? I think so.
12) Oh yes, the sucking up sound of the Hoover Institute. They would ever so much love to see the Democrats get entangled in a long and futile Dubyaesque ground quagmire. Might even gain the Republicans a Presidency in '16. Exxxcelllent!
The here and now is the small agile force. Army brigades, not divisions. The Cold War ended. The only hammer (wrecking ball) we have is the nuclear force, which keeps other owner operators from using their nukes willy-nilly. That's what any commander in chief has to operate with in the foreseeable future. Magic wands don't come with the office.
The here and now needs more than a small agile force.. As current events have proven..
We probably don't need the sledgehammer of WWII or Vietnam..
But we surely need more than we have.. Maybe a ballpeen hammer...
11 Like the Bible, Sun Tzu articulates a lot of conflicting wisdom. A lot which has to do with leveraging your forces. Sun Tzu is held in high regard by the folks that gave us the modern small, mobile, high tech armed forces. The Cold War referenced Clauswitz.
But, as with most things, people cheery pick the parts that suit their agendas and ignore the rest...
Never quite understood that.. But that's just me, I spose...
Seriously, what military option was available to save Crimea? It's outside of our military sphere of influence. Not worth the trouble. He who defends everything defends nothing. (I went to Fredrick the Great for that one).
Follow thru with the red line on Syria...
The *ONLY* reason Putin went into the Crimea was because Obama didn't go into Syria..
Any first year butter-bar leader will tell you.. Do NOT give an ultimatum and then do nothing...
Such action asks... no.. BEGS for further trouble...
Iraq 2 revealed that yes, we don't have the right hammer or the stomach for a long occupation. Why repeat the lesson?
Again, past bone head moves invites actions contrary to our interests...
2) Oh yes, the sucking up sound of the Hoover Institute. They would ever so much love to see the Democrats get entangled in a long and futile Dubyaesque ground quagmire. Might even gain the Republicans a Presidency in '16. Exxxcelllent!
Considering how badly Obama is frakin' up this country and it's place in the world order, there ain't much Democrats can do to prevent a Republican POTUS in 2016...
The only thing that leaving Iraq to the (Oh Mighty) ISIS wolves is please the Americans who are already enslaved by political Party dogma and will vote Democrat anyways...
It's us Independents and NPAs that your Democrats have to impress..
Guess what???
"That don't impress me much..."
-Shania Twain
:D
Michale
Follow thru with the red line on Syria...
The *ONLY* reason Putin went into the Crimea was because Obama didn't go into Syria..
Any first year butter-bar leader will tell you.. Do NOT give an ultimatum and then do nothing...
Such action asks... no.. BEGS for further trouble...
Not to toot my own horn... :D
.... But I basically said this exact same thing when Obama let Assad off the hook...
You draw a firm and unequivocal line in the sand???
You better stomp on the guy who steps over it..
Else you just invite more and more grief...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that ya'all "inevitable" Democrat Candidate for POTUS in 2016 agrees with me...
Michale
Exclusive: Obama Told Lawmakers Criticism of His Syria Policy is 'MOOSE POOP'!!!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/11/exclusive-obama-told-lawmakers-criticism-of-his-syria-policy-is-horsesh-t.html
A little title editing... :D
But just another instance of Obama not accepting criticism very well... :^/
Michale
TheStig [5] -
Apologies... my spam filter's kind of set on overdrive right now.
I'll try to dig the auto-banned comment out and revive it...
-CW
TheStig -
There we go!
:-)
Sorry again for the inconvenience... it was automated, and no banning was intended....
-CW
To everyone else -
Since TheStig's comment was resurrected as [2], everyone else's numbers have shifted down one.
Again, apologies for the inconvenience, and please, everyone go back and take a look at comment [2], now that it lives again...
-CW
One last thing -
If this happens to anyone else in the near future, PLEASE post another comment saying "why didn't my comment appear?" as that's the easiest way I have of noticing something is haywire. And apologies in advance if it happens to you (Michale, I found one of your comments in the spam list a few days ago, I should mention, and also approved it).
-CW
Michale [7] -
See above. Your comment was (eventually) approved. Sorry for the delay.
-CW
TheStig [10] -
I suspect (with absolutely no proof, mind you) that the US used the threat of de facto recognition of Kurdistan as a big lever to get the Iraqi politicians to act (by tossing out Maliki). I suspect we told them "you've got x days to form a new non-Maliki government, after which we are going to give up on you and deal with Kurdistan as an independent state -- meaning we'll openly arm them, we'll allow them to sell oil on the world market, and we'll eventually recognize them diplomatically. This is a BIG lever within Iraq, and as I said, I suspect it had a lot to do with the news from the last 48 hours or so.
Just a hunch.
-CW
CW,
No worries.. I don't even remember it, so it's likely not TOO earth shattering of a comment. :D
Michale
CW-
I suspected that your spam filters might be a bit twitchy from the revenge of the chatbots incident...or that maybe Peshmerga was a vile obscenity I was unaware of - like B*lg**m, until I set straight by The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. God knows how many grandmothers I shocked innocently blurting out that one!
To add insult to injury, my tablet keeps auto correcting transformational into transitional for some reason. Spiteful little gizmo, as is the voice recognition.
CW-
"I suspect (with absolutely no proof, mind you) that the US used the threat of de facto recognition of Kurdistan as a big lever to get the Iraqi politicians to act (by tossing out Maliki)."
Unlike the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq, the semi-autonomous Kurdish region has actually shown a capacity for good governance. The Kurds seem genuinely friendly to the US, which is unusual in that vicinity.
Getting rid of Maliki doesn't do much to heal the Sunni/Shiite political divide because nearly all the Sunni populations centers are under the thumb, if not exactly under ISIS governance. As far as unproven suspicions go, I would posit the tribal leaders in the Sunni regions invited ISIS fighters into their towns, with the very active help of Saudi intelligence. Long before the black flags on the convoys appeared. The locals may planned for the US to throw the ISIS rabble out at a later date, much as it happened during the Anbar Awakening in 2007. If so, the local chiefs that are still in possession of their lives, property and influence probably regret the invitation. I think the Saudis are pretty nervous too.
At this point, Greater Iraq consists of two de facto failed states, one Sunni, one Shia, and one threatened, but actively resisting Kurdish state.
I suspect Obama regards the newly elected Iraqi leadership as a card to play at peace conference that may take place at a much later date. At present, depending upon the newly constituted (and mostly fictional)Iraqi Central Government simply dilutes the effectiveness of the Kurdish government and Kurdish military. The US, France and Britain are all acting like they realize this. If Turkey buys into an independent Kurdistan, I think its gong to be a done deal.
TheStig [27] -
Interesting take. I completely agree with your last sentence -- Turkey is indeed the key to Kurdistan ever becoming a recognized state. But I'm not so sure that'll happen any time soon...
-CW
The problem with the analysis is that it fails to take into account the elephant in the region...
Iran is not going to allow things to proceed that smoothly for the US....
No "done deal"...
Michale
M- 29
Good point about Iran. Like Turkey, they have large minority enclaves within their borders. They would not like to lose territory to an independent Kurdish state.
But, Iran has a lot interests in the Middle East (you might say they are overextended) and not all these interests completely mesh with each other. US and Iranian interests overlap substantially when it comes to containing/destroying ISIS. Keep in mind one of the other acronyms for ISIS:
ISIL, Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.
Iran is a major player in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Weapons supplier, military adviser, Quds Force muscle. Quds actively supported Kurdish forces fighting Saddam.
Iran and Iraq are regional rivals. They fought a long war with each other. Iran would not be unhappy with a severely truncated Iraq, so long as the Shiite regions and Shia holy places were secure.
As a practical matter, a state is independent when it has the power to act independently. When other states treat it as independent. Formal recognition from other states is helpful, so is UN recognition. If Iran doesn't lose any territory to an independent Kurdish state, it might well choose to just look the other way. Stranger things have happened in the world of diplomacy.
Iran and Iraq are regional rivals.
Iran and Iraq *were* regional rivals...
If Iran doesn't lose any territory to an independent Kurdish state, it might well choose to just look the other way. Stranger things have happened in the world of diplomacy.
Even though it would be in Iran's best interests to react as you lay out, the fact is when it comes to the US, Iran rarely acts in it's best interests..
To put it into a context ya'all can readily appreciate, think of the US as Obama and Iran as Republicans...
See my point now?? :D
Michale
M- 31
"Iran and Iraq *were* regional rivals..."
I take your point, but as I noted "Iran would not be unhappy with a severely truncated Iraq, so long as the Shiite regions and Shia holy places were secure."
The state run by the internationally recognized Iraqi government is a Shiite controlled rump propped up in part by Iran. A reunified Iraq under Sunni (ISIS) dominance would be a regional rival again, pretty much back to the old status quo save for Saddam.
"To put it into a context ya'all can readily appreciate, think of the US as Obama and Iran as Republicans...
See my point now?? :D"
No, but I think your analogy supports my point rather nicely. The US "Obama" acts unilaterally and treats the government in the Kurdish regions as independent. The Iranian "Republicans" publicly fume, make threats and harass, because that plays well at home. But, they don't act on the dire stuff because they aren't confident about winning and they see the down side risk as very high and severely compromises more important goals, such as containing ISIS. Iran is plenty rational, they just have very divergent interest than those of the US.
No, but I think your analogy supports my point rather nicely. The US "Obama" acts unilaterally and treats the government in the Kurdish regions as independent. The Iranian "Republicans" publicly fume, make threats and harass, because that plays well at home. But, they don't act on the dire stuff because they aren't confident about winning and they see the down side risk as very high and severely compromises more important goals, such as containing ISIS. Iran is plenty rational, they just have very divergent interest than those of the US.
Your analogy would be correct if Republicans had "publicly fume, make threats and harass," but not done anything to obstruct, interfere or stop dead, Obama's agenda...
But, as ya'all have pointed out, incessantly, Republicans have done just that...
Obstruct... Interfere... Stopped dead....
That's what Iran will do...
If it fraks over the US, then Iran will do it. Even though it's not in their best interests...
Further what you and I (logical and rational people that we are) know what is in Iran's best interests might not be what IRAN thinks is in it's best interests..
You have to realize that Iran is ruled by religious fanatics not reasonable and responsible leaders...
Iran's fanatical leadership would be ecstatic to turn the entire Middle East into an inferno of religious fanaticism...
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Iran was partially underwriting (Oh Mighty) ISIS's drive to tear apart Iraq...
Such is the fanatical nature of their hatred towards the west in general and the US in particular..
Michale
Iran is plenty rational, they just have very divergent interest than those of the US.
Iran is only "plenty rational" in pursuit of their fanatical and irrational goal...
Put it another way...
The likes of Ted Bundy and Charles Manson were "plenty rational" in how they pursued their goals..
It was the goals themselves that indicated their fanaticism, irrationality and psychotic nature....
So it is with Iran...
Michale
Michale -
If Iran is the Republicans, then who is their Supreme Leader?
Fairly boggles the mind, it does...
Heh.
-CW
If Iran is the Republicans, then who is their Supreme Leader?
Surely wouldn't be Boehner, eh? :D
Paul??? Palin?? :D
Michale
"If Iran is the Republicans, then who is their Supreme Leader?"
Mike Huckabee?
He's been the supreme leader of a state, and there was a genuine power struggle with a pretender before he could claim that position. He holds a B.A. in religious studies and his political positions closely mirror his religious convictions. That makes him pretty theocratic.
He's been the supreme leader of a state, and there was a genuine power struggle with a pretender before he could claim that position. He holds a B.A. in religious studies and his political positions closely mirror his religious convictions. That makes him pretty theocratic.
Good choice.. :D
Michale
"If Iran is the Republicans, then who is their Supreme Leader?"
Frothy Santorum
Blah, blah, blah.
Attention is focused elsewhere right now, but before this comment thread closes I'd like to point out that the retaking of the Mosul dam by Kurdish and Iraqi special forces is a perfect small scale example of the "Obama Doctrine of Land Operations" - "turning the tide of a low-grade war through the introduction of American air power to the battlefield." A rejection of the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.
This isn't really Obama's idea, it's a longstanding DOD initiative.
Diane Rehm had an interesting panel discussion on this yesterday:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=19760