Despite Obama's Iraq Decision, We Still Need a Strategy and Somebody's Boots on the Ground in Iraq

After years of resisting the pull of engaging the United States in more Middle East conflicts, President Barack Obama has reversed his position, returning the United States to military action in Iraq, the very country where he accused his predecessor of engaging in a "dumb war." Obama's action also again raises questions about whether his overriding desire to end the Iraq conflict made it impossible for him to make an objective assessment of the risks of fully withdrawing US troops, as well as his judgment about the threat posed by the Islamic extremists who have taken advantage of a vulnerable Iraq. President Obama insisted last night : "I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq," while also announcing that US military aircraft had already completed airdrops of humanitarian aid to Iraqi religious minorities, including Christians, under siege in a mountainous region in the north. The ancient Yazidi sect has been hounded by ISIL combatants to convert to the islamist form of Islam or be killed. The Yazidi fled to the hills, where they are trapped without food or water in temperatures above 40°C (100°F). American military have begun airdrops of food, water and essential medical supplies to them. Obama's expressed rationale for giving his authorization for military strikes in Iraq is to help Iraqi minorities being hounded to extermination by ISIL and to protect American forces serving in the northern city of Irbil - including some of the same forces the President deployed earlier this year to assess the situation on the ground and make recommendations about how the US can help. The Americans in Irbil are now only 25 miles away from ISIL jihadist fighters who are shelling the city. He argued yesterday that the US has a responsibility to take action to stop imminent massacres, echoing the rationale he used when the US joined the 2010 NATO bombing campaign in Libya. And today, the US military is also using airstrikes and drones to attack ISIL weapons and munitions caches and moving vrhicles. ~~~~~ Both liberal and conservative congressional and political interventionists have urged Obama to use his Libya logic to respond to Syria's civil war, in which more than 170,000 people have died, but so far, the President has resisted. But is was the rapidly disintegrating situation in Iraq that finally led Obama to act, bringing the US to the brink of renewed military action in Iraq. But, for Obama's many critics, the action may be too late, or at the least a last ditch effort to help Iraq save itself from an ISIL jihadist takeover. ~~~~~ Obama has long been publicly dismissive of the Islamic State (yet another name used by ISIL) group, which for some time was under the al-Qaida banner. In an interview with the New Yorker magazine last January, Obama said comparing the upstart group to the terror network established by Osama bin Laden was like comparing an amateur basketball team to an NBA squad, adding : "There is a distinction between a bin Laden and the capacity of al-Qaida to plan major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian. Even at the time, US intelligence and military were warning of the dangers posed by a strengthened ISIL, which had developed its military competence and financial resources during its participation in the bloody Syrian civil war. But Obama's January comments reflected his limited appetite for plunging back into Iraq or for starting a new military engagement in Syria, where he authorized an air assault last summer after a chemical weapons attack but never gave the order for a strike. Obama's critics compare that approach in Syria with his decision to totally withdraw from Iraq because Iraq's government refused to sign a security agreement providing US troops with immunity. White House opponents say the President should have pushed harder for a deal in order to avoid the type of situation now unfolding in Iraq. "We are already paying a very heavy price for our inaction, and if we do not change course, the costs of our inaction will only grow," Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement following Obama's remarks last night. For Obama, the threat of destroying his own legacy on Iraq comes at a time when his overall approval ratings have collapsed, as has the American public's opinion of his foreign policy. He has faced a barrage of questions about his ability to influence world events, from Russia's provocations in Ukraine to the latest round of clashes between Israel and Hamas. As an indication of his unwillingness to act decisively, Obama said that even if he did inject US airpower into Iraq, it would not solve that nation's myriad problems. He said the Iraqi government and people must solve its own problems and defest ISIL. ~~~~~ Here is the heart of the statement rekeased by Senators McCain and Graham last night, calling for a US strategic military plan and not just a humanitarian response in Iraq : "A policy of containment will not work against ISIS. It is inherently expansionist and must be stopped. The longer we wait to act, the worse this threat will become, as recent events clearly show. We need to get beyond a policy of half measures. The President needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS. This should include the provision of military and other assistance to our Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian partners who are fighting ISIS. It should include US air strikes against ISIS leaders, forces, and positions both in Iraq and Syria. It should include support to Sunni Iraqis who seek to resist ISIS. And none of this should be contingent of forming a new government in Iraq." ~~~~~ Somebody's boots have to be on the ground in Iraq if it is to be saved from an ISIL takeover. The Iraqi army, seldom paid and without resolve to fight ISIL, seems to be the unlikely candidate for the immediate job. Most US military experts advocate the use of the Kurdish Peshmerga military - the only army thus far to repel and defeat ISIL units. This will require supplying them with modern weapons and equipment to replace their old gear. It must be done "yesterday." There is no time for the usual Obama hand-wringing exhaustive review of all possible contingencies. Now means now. And it likely will require American advisors to train Kurdish military in the use of the new US equipment. Down the road, a US air support mission in northern Syria may also be needed to continue the destruction of ISIL military capabilities. ~~~~~ But, dear readers, for Americans, the strategic political question is what can be done to control Obama and put some strategic and practical sense into his shotgun approach to dealing with the world. Leaving aside the domestic US mess Obama has created for the moment, most discussion centers around the November mid-term House and Senate elections. A united GOP Congress that can withhold funds and reject programs unless President Obama follows Congress' advice will help. But, America has never had to contend with a US President in such disarray. His use of "my fellow Americans" last night and his leaning on praise for the military as a PR tool to bolster himself was actually disheartening in its seeming cynicism. Whatever happens in November, and a GOP victory is very likely, America will hold its collective breath until November 2016 -- when the Obama catastrophe ends.