Despite his earlier aspiration to go down in US history as the President who ended foreign military operations, Obama has unveiled “degrade and ultimately destroy” strategy against the ISIS for thumbing its nose at the sole superpower
Who says history does not repeat itselfIJ The third Iraq war of the United States has, of course, begun. Unlike President George Bush’s usage of the term “Global War Terrorism”, President Barack Obama did not prefer to use the word “war” in his decision to take effective military measures against the now-dreaded Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He has announced set of “counter-terrorism” measures to “degrade and destroy” the ISIS.
But who can deny that the deployment of massive military power to counter a terrorist network, which has announced creation of a new State and the Caliphate, would not be confined to the ISIS and is anything but war. However, President Obama has plainly spelt out how this war would be different from the previous US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Training, equipping, providing intelligence, and guiding the foreign forces to fight the ground war with the help US air support define this new war strategy.
The reasons as to why President Obama has launched this war, contrary to his earlier aspiration to go down in US history as the President who ended foreign military operations, are many. First of all, the enemy — ISIS — has declared a war against the United States and its allies. Second, the enemy thumbed its nose at the US by cruelly beheading two American journalists and allegedly circulating the video on the internet. Americans are by tradition averse to casualties; and mindless violence by the ISIS has enraged the common people in the US who now demand stern action against Islamic radicals. Third, the ISIS has repeatedly attacked and inflicted brutal force on US allies, such as the Kurdish and Yezhidi minorities. The al-Maliki regime in Baghdad, which fell from Washington’s favour partly due to his sectarian politics and partly because of his closeness with Tehran, was less affected by the ISIS military advances than the Kurds and Christians. Fourth, the speedy territorial expansion of the ISIS, their extreme version of Sunni ideology and consolidation of their power in multiple cities have posed an impending threat to stability in countries friendly to the US, particularly the Gulf monarchies.
To top it all, President Barack Obama himself has faced considerable criticism at home from the public, the strategic community and the Republican leaders for his lack of leadership in world affairs. His decision to withdraw troops from Iraq in 2011 was judged hasty and bereft of foresight or even insight. He received brickbats for not resolutely taking action against the use of chemical weapons in Syria despite proclamation of a “Red line.” And there were critics who could not accept the idea publicising a deadline for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan that has emboldened the opponents and disheartened some friendly countries.
The sudden rise of the ISIS in a way appears to have created an opportunity for President Obama to display his global leadership ability during the next two years of his administration. The elephant in the room, however, is whether his latest strategy to “degrade and destroy” ISIS will ever succeed. The history of US experiences in Vietnam during the Cold War and in Iraq and Afghanistan under a unipolar world order makes the goal of “degrading and destroying” the ISIS look like little other than grandstanding. When the US left Vietnam, the country was unified under a communist leadership. When President Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq in 2011, the country receded into chaos and disorder. As the US prepares to leave Afghanistan, the Taliban does not look besmirched and rather appears more hardy.
Significantly, President Obama’s speech to the nation on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary daringly declared the goal of degrading and destroying the ISIS. But it was silent on the desirable goal of restitution of national harmony and integrity of Iraq! President George Bush had committed US troops in 2003 with a stated goal to “liberate” the Iraqi people from the Saddam regime. But even after Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki stepped down under US pressure, the Obama Administration has not spoken about re-establishment of Iraqi territorial integrity.
Very ingeniously President Obama refused to recognise the ISIS as a State and described it as a mere terrorist outfit, but by refraining from referring to Iraqi territorial integrity, he perhaps has kept open-ended the possibility of creation of a Kurdish State.
Moreover, Obama is aware that by extending war into Syria to “degrade” the ISIS, he would be circuitously bolstering the status of the Assad regime. But by promising training and equipping the anti-Assad resistant groups, he made it clear that part of his strategy would as well aimed at the ejection of Assad from power. In other words, President Obama’s resolve to “hunt down” America’s enemies would lead to skirmishing on two fronts — one against ISIS and the other against the Assad regime.
The actual quandary lies here. While some NATO allies and the Arab league members have extended their cooperation to the Obama Administration’s war against ISIS, it is not apparent whether they would join hands in backing anti-Assad forces in Syria.
Furthermore, Russia for long has backed the Assad regime. Since a new Cold War of short has erupted in Ukraine and the resurgent Russia is unflinchingly taking steps to ward off the Western pressure, taking Russia on board in Syria may be arduous. Indeed, opening another front of Cold War type confrontation with Russia may bring unforeseen hurdles.
China and India, both victims of terrorism to varying degrees, are yet to be co-opted by the Obama Administration. Washington cannot expect the kind of near universal support it received in the wake of the 9/11 incident to its current endeavour to “degrade and destroy” ISIS.
However, India, more than China, is apprehensive about Al Qaeda pivoting to the Indian subcontinent, resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan on the eve of the US departure, spread of radical Islam in Pakistan and the uncertainties surrounding consequences of “foreign fighters” joining ISIS or combating it. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi holds his summit meeting with President Obama in September, these issues in the proposed discussion should get the priority it deserves.
(The writer is Chairperson, Centre for Canadian, US and latin American Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)