Save 75% - Only $49.99 for 1 full year! digitalPLUS subscription offer ends 12/1
NewsOpinionEditorial

Obama's Iraq mistake [Editorial]

SyriaIraqIranBarack ObamaDemocracyNouri MalikiIslamic State

Under intense pressure to do something about the collapsing Iraqi state, President Barack Obama announced that he will send up to 300 special operations forces there to assess the situation and provide training and support to Iraq's armed forces. Meanwhile, he has positioned warships in the area and left open the possibility of air strikes in a battle zone that straddles the Iraq-Syria border. We worry that even this degree of involvement is a mistake.

The conflict is transnational and sectarian, with Sunni Muslim groups that had been fighting the murderous Bashar Assad regime in Syria spilling into Iraq to fight the Shiite-dominated forces of President Nouri al-Maliki, whose policies have been oppressive toward the Sunni minority there. Mr. Obama insists that his aim is to help the Iraqi people and not the Maliki regime. That may sound good, but in practice it's hard to see the distinction.

Even if Mr. Maliki is replaced as the head of state, certainly a possibility if the newly-elected Iraqi parliament can convene and select the nation's leaders, there's little chance that the resulting government would heal all wounds. The reason that Iraq's security forces collapsed so quickly in the face of advances from the group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, though sometimes also known by the acronym ISIL) was not a lack of training or materiel but a lack of will on the part of many fighters, particularly Sunnis, who deserted rather than fighting for the cause of the Iraqi state. What is tearing the country apart at the moment appears much stronger than what's holding it together, and ultimately no amount of American military engagement can change that. There is no multi-ethnic, non-sectarian side on whose behalf we can intervene.

And even the tepid step Mr. Obama is taking is not without risk. It's not exactly unheard of for the involvement of a relative handful of military advisers to turn into something bigger, and as the central government in Iraq becomes further and further diminished, the pressure both from our ostensible allies there and from hawkish members of Congress for a bigger role will be intense. But not only would a greater military presence in Iraq be perilous in its own right, it would have much broader consequences in the tangled politics of the Middle East.

Propping up the Shiite-led government in Baghdad would greatly benefit Iran, which is Mr. Maliki's chief benefactor. Diminishing ISIS would also have the side effect of bolstering the Assad regime in Syria, again to Iran's benefit. Extending our intervention into Syria through greater assistance for more moderate rebel groups there or perhaps even establishing a no-fly zone, as some insist is necessary, would put us untenably on both sides of the region's geopolitical conflict, all at a time when our focus needs to be on the real threat to America's allies and possibly to America itself, which is Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon.

America's invasion of Iraq 11 years ago did not lead to the flowering of pluralistic democracies in the Middle East, and there's no reason to think intervention now would produce a better result. We need to confront the very real possibility that the present conflict across the Syria-Iraq border will result in a rescrambling of the national boundaries imposed on the region by colonial powers a century ago, and that the result will be any number of regimes we may not like.

President Obama is right that the only possible resolution to the conflict in the region is a political one. But voicing that observation does not create any will among the combatants in Iraq and beyond to produce one. The presence of American advisers isn't going to change that fact and may even make Iraq's sectarian leaders more intransigent out of a hope that the U.S. will quash their political problems through military force. In making a show of doing something about Iraq, President Obama may have only succeeded in making matters worse.

To respond to this editorial, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
SyriaIraqIranBarack ObamaDemocracyNouri MalikiIslamic State
  • U.S. should attack ISIS now
    U.S. should attack ISIS now

    I write as a 93-year-old retired educator who worked in a classroom for 35 years, 32 of which were as the principal of an independent middle school and before that as a Naval Reserve Officer for eight years of active duty including five during World War II, two of which were aboard the aircraft...

  • Why must media use the term ISIS?
    Why must media use the term ISIS?

    I was elated to see the article, "U.S.: Airstrikes in Syria, Iraq change Islamic State tactics" (Oct. 18), use the same terminology as President Barack Obama when referring to the Islamic State that we are currently combating. I wish I could say the same for the media. Prominent anchors and...

  • Iraq was lost by Obama [Letter]
    Iraq was lost by Obama [Letter]

    As a 93-year-old retired educator who also had spent eight years as a U.S. Naval Officer on active duty (five during World War II in the Pacific and more than two aboard the USS Enterprise) and later was recalled for three more years during the Korean Conflict, I'd like to comment on Leon...

  • Could ISIS pull off another 9/11?
    Could ISIS pull off another 9/11?

    I remember 9/11 as if it were yesterday, when the U.S. was struck in New York and Washington by well-laid plans hatched in Afghanistan.

  • Treason is treason
    Treason is treason

    There is only one word to describe the behavior of an American citizen who provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy — it's treason ("Girls' alleged attempt to go to Syria worries some," Oct. 23). I've no idea what the federal statutes are today, but in the past the penalty was a death....

  • U.S. had role in Iraq's chemical weapons
    U.S. had role in Iraq's chemical weapons

    I want my local newspaper to be fearless and to report the unvarnished truth. I am aware that opinion writers have a different role from reporters. However, in expressing an opinion, one must place everything on the table. This came to mind when I read Jules Witcover's commentary, "Chemical...

  • Iraq is a mess and we should get out now
    Iraq is a mess and we should get out now

    As a pacifist, I am unqualified to articulate a military strategy. But I am aware of the potentially disastrous consequences of sending U.S. "advisers" into combat zones ("1,500 more troops to Iraq," Nov. 8).

  • Obama should attack ISIS
    Obama should attack ISIS

    As a veteran of World War II who served five years in the Pacific almost three of which were aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and later recalled for three more years during the Korean War, in my opinion President Barack Obama is absolutely not defending the safety of our citizens...

Comments
Loading