Obama Drove Sunnis into ISIS’s Arms

 
shutterstock_199995380

Iraqi demonstrators protest against ISIS in front of the White House, June 21, 2014. Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com

Throughout the last third of George W. Bush’s presidency, opinion leaders were obsessed with the question of mistakes. Among most members of the press and among Democratic office holders (even, or perhaps especially, those who voted to approve the Iraq War), the appetite was strong to hold President Bush in a half nelson until he admitted that the war had been a terrible mistake. When Jeb Bush entered the presidential race, he was quickly charged with fraternal guilt in the matter.

It isn’t unfair to ask policymakers to reflect on their misjudgments – or their predecessors’—but there is a studied lack of interest in mistakes made by this President.

Republicans have all been asked: “Knowing what we know now, was it a mistake to go into Iraq?” That’s an unserious way of putting the question. No decision is made with benefit of hindsight. (“Knowing what you know now, Mrs. Lincoln, would you have attended the theater on April 14?”)

Perhaps President Bush was wrong to topple Saddam Hussein. I don’t think the verdict is clear. But excepting the original decision to invade, Mr. Bush’s errors were recognized and corrected before he left office. Barack Obama’s mistakes, by contrast, have been far more consequential and far more threatening to world order and American security than George W. Bush’s were. There is zero evidence that Mr. Obama even recognizes them, far less that he plans to correct them. Nor have the Democratic candidates been asked about them.

The Iraq that President Obama inherited was, by his own reckoning, “sovereign, stable and self-reliant.” Obama used those words when announcing the complete American withdrawal of forces in 2011. He went on to say that Iraq had “a representative government that was elected by its people.”

Not quite. There was a free and fair election in 2010, in which a moderate Sunni alliance led by a secular Shiite received a plurality. But the loser, Nouri al-Maliki, hijacked the election and took power. President Obama looked the other way, perhaps because he wasn’t interested in Iraq’s fate, or more likely because Maliki was Tehran’s man, and President Obama has consistently leaned toward Iran’s interests in the Middle East.

Mr. Obama stuck to his determination to withdraw every American from Iraq, thereby radically diminishing US influence in the most explosive part of the globe. He also failed on the diplomatic front. He and Secretary of State Clinton, who had boasted so often that they would use “smart power” and “soft power” and wouldn’t do “stupid ‘stuff,’” were guilty of something that looks a lot like stupidity in their handling of Maliki. As the Brookings Institution’s Kenneth Pollack told The Atlantic: “The message sent to Iraq’s people and politicians alike was that the United States under the new Obama administration was no longer going to enforce the rules of the democratic road…. [This] undermined the reform of Iraqi politics and resurrected the specter of the failed state and the civil war.”

What came next was even worse. Acquiescing in the stolen election, Obama then backed Maliki even as Maliki brutalized Iraq’s Sunni minority. Jobs and salaries promised to Sunni groups who had cooperated against Al Qaeda when Bush was in office were never paid by Maliki. Dozens of Sunni leaders, many of them moderates, were driven from office, others were arrested, and some, including the staff of Iraq’s vice president, were tortured. Shiite militias were permitted free rein in Sunni regions of Iraq, committing rapes, murders, and arson. As one Sunni activist told the New York Times, he didn’t like ISIS, but “ISIS will be the only Sunni militia who can fight against the Shiites.”

All the while, President Obama could not bestir himself to utter a word of condemnation or warning to Maliki. On the contrary, he praised “Prime Minister Maliki’s commitment to … ensuring a strong, prosperous, inclusive, and democratic Iraq.”

Nor would Mr. Obama consider steps that would unseat Syria’s Bashar Assad, again, probably because Assad is Tehran’s man. And so ISIS has metastasized – a direct outgrowth of Obama’s decisions.

The Sunnis are key to defeating ISIS. They cooperated with the US under President Bush. It was called the Sunni Awakening. Now, they can read the signs – America is siding with the Shiites in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. That blunder has fed and nurtured ISIS to become something Al Qaeda could only dream about. If it weren’t for the Iran nuclear deal, we’d say it was Obama’s most catastrophic error.

Published in Foreign Policy, Islamist Terrorism
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 15 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Would be a shorter article if the issue were what Obama got right.

    Obama never accepted the role of Leader of the Free World and accepted the role of President with reservations.  He expected to declare a new era of American introspection and atonement that would cause the world to love us. Obama is a 21st century Mary Queen of Scots, pretty and desirous of adulation but utterly unsuited to governance and given to petty treachery instead of strategic thought.

    His petulance at the GOP, his gutlessness in the face of Iranian, Chinese and Russian aggression, his tiresome pseudo-sophistication to explain away the realities of crisis and to deny the global expectations of any POTUS are all consistent with the narcissism and childishly stubborn ideological fecklessless that is Barrack Obama.

    • #1
  2. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    Obama’s constant backing of Iranian interests throughout both terms has been something of a head scratcher. I understand he wants too diminish American influence throughout the world and he has been taught his entire life that America is not a force for good. Why however pick the country with the more American blood on its hands than any other? A country that supports terrorism around the globe, that tried to kill diplomats on American soil. Whatever the reason, I am sick of our first anti-American president.

    • #2
  3. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    I’ll accept your fairly detailed assessment of Iraq unless a certain Ricochet Iraq expert weighs in to the contrary.

    One sentence on Syria is not as persuasive:

    Mona Charen: Nor would Mr. Obama consider steps that would unseat Syria’s Bashar Assad, again, probably because Assad is Tehran’s man.

    Not to play Obama’s Advocate, but do you have a deeper analysis? At some time in the past,  I seem to recall that Obama was relatively interventionist in Syria (less than McCain, but more than most of both parties). That then fizzled with the Kerry “pin prick” episode. Am I confused?

    • #3
  4. Mona Charen Member
    Mona Charen
    @MonaCharen

    ctlaw:I’ll accept your fairly detailed assessment of Iraq unless a certain Ricochet Iraq expert weighs in to the contrary.

    One sentence on Syria is not as persuasive:

    Mona Charen: Nor would Mr. Obama consider steps that would unseat Syria’s Bashar Assad, again, probably because Assad is Tehran’s man.

    Not to play Obama’s Advocate, but do you have a deeper analysis? At some time in the past, I seem to recall that Obama was relatively interventionist in Syria (less than McCain, but more than most of both parties). That then fizzled with the Kerry “pin prick” episode. Am I confused?

    I recommend this analysis:http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/

    • #4
  5. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Not to veer off the larger point (which you’ve captured perfectly), but there’s something about the following point that bares elucidation:

    Republicans have all been asked: “Knowing what we know now, was it a mistake to go into Iraq?” That’s an unserious way of putting the question. No decision is made with benefit of hindsight.

    Yes, precisely . . . it’s unserious . . . its pointless, really.  I’m glad you made this observation, which seems to me was not made often enough or forcefully enough back when the question was in vogue last summer.  Megyn Kelly seemed so very proud of herself to have tripped up Jeb Bush with this question.  BTW I’m not a Jeb fan (putting it mildly), so that’s not why I’m raising the question.

    I’m just intrigued . . . why did Jeb and other seasoned politicians get tripped up by this question?  None that I recall simply pointed out “No one cares, Megyn!  If we knew now what we didn’t know then, we’d all have bought Microsoft and Apple stock . . . it was still a risky investment at the time!  So ask me about the future . . . what I’d do differently from current policies of Obama.”

    • #5
  6. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Ms. Charen,  how would you turn this into a question to be posed in a candidate debate?

    At Ricochet we are pretty much in agreement that Obama has wanted to take America down from superpower to mediocrity, in order to achieve  egalité  among nations.   I don’t think that the low-information voters care.   Is there a way to turn this indictment of our President into a political strategy to favor the GOP?

    • #6
  7. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Mona Charen:

    ctlaw:I’ll accept your fairly detailed assessment of Iraq unless a certain Ricochet Iraq expert weighs in to the contrary.

    One sentence on Syria is not as persuasive:

    Mona Charen: Nor would Mr. Obama consider steps that would unseat Syria’s Bashar Assad, again, probably because Assad is Tehran’s man.

    Not to play Obama’s Advocate, but do you have a deeper analysis? At some time in the past, I seem to recall that Obama was relatively interventionist in Syria (less than McCain, but more than most of both parties). That then fizzled with the Kerry “pin prick” episode. Am I confused?

    I recommend this analysis:http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/

    That was interesting.  Thanks for posting the link.

    It explains the internal consistency of Obama’s actions, but I still have a hard time figuring out what’s going on in his head.  There’s got to be more that’s behind it all.

    • #7
  8. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    Concretevol:Obama’s constant backing of Iranian interests throughout both terms has been something of a head scratcher.

    I am just speculating, but I think the overthrow of Mosaddegh as Iran’s prime minister in 1953 by the CIA was a bone in Obama’s throat.  This was the classic example of the fact America did not do good deeds when it exercised its power.  Plus the left has always hated the Shah who followed Mosaddegh as Iran’s leader.  Obama mentioned this event repeatedly in his speeches.  That and the fact he had taken the Palestinian’s side against Israel, caused him to favor Iran.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Valerie Jarrett also played a part in this decision.

    • #8
  9. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Al Kennedy: … I think the overthrow of Mosaddegh as Iran’s prime minister in 1953 by the CIA was a bone in Obama’s throat. This was the classic example of the fact America did not do good deeds when it exercised its power. Plus the left has always hated the Shah who followed Mosaddegh as Iran’s leader. Obama mentioned this event repeatedly in his speeches. … I wouldn’t be surprised if Valerie Jarrett also played a part in this decision.

    I think you’re right.  Obama’s worldview is a pastiche of stale 1970s Leftist critiques of U.S. foreign and national security policies. He’s Carter-like, exemplified in the former President’s 1977 speech:

    For too many years, we’ve been willing to adopt the flawed and erroneous principles and tactics of our adversaries, sometimes abandoning our own values for theirs. We’ve fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is better quenched with water. This approach failed, with Vietnam the best example of its intellectual and moral poverty.

    Obama always comes back to an inchoate, Manichean moral high-mindedness which cannot absorb the untidiness of a world filled with psychotic murderers like ISIS. That’s why he is busy lecturing us (and GOP candidates) about religious tolerance while ISIS infiltrates killers into Paris, next New York.  Jarrett is an Iranian-American red diaper baby and Shah-hater, with unparalleled access to the President for two decades.

    • #9
  10. Grey Hare Inactive
    Grey Hare
    @greyhare

    He’s not making mistakes.

    • #10
  11. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    Al Kennedy:

    Concretevol:Obama’s constant backing of Iranian interests throughout both terms has been something of a head scratcher.

    I am just speculating, but I think the overthrow of Mosaddegh as Iran’s prime minister in 1953 by the CIA was a bone in Obama’s throat. This was the classic example of the fact America did not do good deeds when it exercised its power. Plus the left has always hated the Shah who followed Mosaddegh as Iran’s leader. Obama mentioned this event repeatedly in his speeches. That and the fact he had taken the Palestinian’s side against Israel, caused him to favor Iran. I wouldn’t be surprised if Valerie Jarrett also played a part in this decision.

    I think you make a good point about his motivations and Jarrett’s influence.

    • #11
  12. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Mona Charen: Not quite. There was a free and fair election in 2010, in which a moderate Sunni alliance led by a secular Shiite received a plurality. But the loser, Nouri al-Maliki, hijacked the election and took power. President Obama looked the other way, perhaps because he wasn’t interested in Iraq’s fate, or more likely because Maliki was Tehran’s man, and President Obama has consistently leaned toward Iran’s interests in the Middle East.

    I’ve never really understood this argument. Who thinks that elections are decided by who has a plurality? Allawi’s party got 91 seats, Maliki’s 89. They each got nearly, but not quite, a quarter of the vote. They could each have become PM, but the other half of the vote was much closer to Maliki than to Allawi.

    The US played as light a touch as it could initially, coming down for Maliki only when it was clear that he’d won, and they really wanted to get a government up and running. They liked Allawi. More than Maliki,  even; Allawi was appointed PM by the Americans in 2004 before elections; he’s a fluent English speaker and, while pretty regrettably socialist, holds basically Western values. When the election ultimately went to Maliki, the US pushed to provide Allawi with power.

    Obama’s actions in Syria have been awful, but in Iraq, up to the point where Americans left and lost leverage, he was pretty fair on the Shia/ Sunni stuff, continuing Bush’s good work.

    He should have provided more civilian support when the military left, which would have left him with continued leverage, and he should have taken action in Syria, which would have stopped ISIS from developing, but I don’t believe that any American President would have acted particularly differently with regard to the 2010 Iraqi elections.

    • #12
  13. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Mona Charen: Nor would Mr. Obama consider steps that would unseat Syria’s Bashar Assad, again, probably because Assad is Tehran’s man. And so ISIS has metastasized – a direct outgrowth of Obama’s decisions.

    I agree with this, but I think it is worth remembering that when Obama proposed taking action, he was opposed in the strongest possible terms by Cruz and Paul, who made it clear that they would act despicably if America did the right thing. Obama had an internal split and does not appear to have had particularly strong views.

    If more Republicans had been willing either to work with him or to negotiate in good faith, taking the other route would have been the most politically convenient path and we would probably not have the crisis we have today. That doesn’t make them equally responsible; Assad is primarily responsible, followed by Obama, followed by Cruz and Paul, with substantial drops in responsibility at each stage.

    • #13
  14. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Mona Charen:

    ctlaw:I’ll accept your fairly detailed assessment of Iraq unless a certain Ricochet Iraq expert weighs in to the contrary.

    One sentence on Syria is not as persuasive:

    Mona Charen: Nor would Mr. Obama consider steps that would unseat Syria’s Bashar Assad, again, probably because Assad is Tehran’s man.

    Not to play Obama’s Advocate, but do you have a deeper analysis? At some time in the past, I seem to recall that Obama was relatively interventionist in Syria (less than McCain, but more than most of both parties). That then fizzled with the Kerry “pin prick” episode. Am I confused?

    I recommend this analysis:http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/

    This is a good article with a lot of sound arguments, but I think it overstates Obama’s active desire to do stuff to help Iran and understates his desire to do nothing in the region.

    Its efforts to provide context would have benefited from Al Kennedy’s point, and from a mention of the extensive Iranian ex-pat community; Obama is an incredible snob, and the Iranian American community is highly academic (Obama’s form of snobbery). If you read Hard Choices or interviews with the Obama State guys, a desire to work with Russia was also pretty important. It’s not just anti-Zionism or even just the pro-Persian sentiment of the end of the Bush era that draws him to the Persians, and I really don’t believe that he feels pro-Shia sentiment in a meaningful sense.

    • #14
  15. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    James Of England:

    If you read Hard Choices or interviews with the Obama State guys, a desire to work with Russia was also pretty important.

    James, you have identified a point that is frequently overlooked.  After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were many in State who had devoted their career to the Cold War.  They were fluent in Russian, and knew many of those who had influence.  They were suddenly out of demand, and the bureaucratic example of being laid off.  Since then they have been fighting for relevancy.  This is only possible when some relationship with Russia related to our national interests exists.  Personally, I can’t see any benefit to reintroducing Russian influence into the Middle East after its long absence, and believe that any Russian influence there is detrimental to the health of the region.

    • #15
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.