How Obama Brings America Back Into Iraq

The president who vowed to withdraw sets limits on a return mission.

US President Barack Obama speaks about the situation in Iraq in the State Dining Room at the White House in Washington, DC, August 7, 2014. Obama said he authorized air strikes and relief supply drops in Iraq to prevent 'genocide' by Islamist extremists against minorities. 'We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide,' Obama said, in an address as he announced military action. 
National Journal
James Oliphant
Aug. 7, 2014, 7:11 p.m.

If he ab­so­lutely must, this is how Barack Obama goes back in­to Ir­aq.

With a toe in the wa­ter, with a clearly defined mis­sion””one that sounds more like an isol­ated act of mercy than the re­newed launch of hos­til­it­ies. One that can be pack­aged and sold, as Obama did Thursday even­ing, for a skep­tic­al and war-weary pub­lic that doesn’t want troops on the ground and is in­creas­ingly mis­trust­ful of the pres­id­ent’s for­eign policy. It was Obama, the ori­gin­al an­ti­war can­did­ate, jus­ti­fy­ing mil­it­ary en­gage­ment in, of all places, Ir­aq.

But make no mis­take, it might well mark the be­gin­ning of something this White House has been des­per­ate to avoid, a be­tray­al of sorts of politi­cian-Obama’s reas­on for ex­ist­ence, of the first pledge he ever made to pro­spect­ive voters. He was sup­posed to be tak­ing us out, not get­ting us back in. And still, even after the pres­id­ent’s re­marks, it was dif­fi­cult to dis­cern ex­actly which na­tion­al in­terest Obama was ad­van­cing in au­thor­iz­ing mil­it­ary strikes. What made this situ­ation, now, dif­fer­ent from all the crises both in Ir­aq and else­where around the world that had pre­ceded it?

Thus, the pres­id­ent was very, very care­ful Thursday to dis­tin­guish this mo­ment from say, Syr­ia, where a “dire hu­man­it­ari­an crisis”“”to use White House spokes­man Josh Earn­est’s words earli­er in the day—has raged for years, or from Ni­ger­ia, where in­no­cent young girls dis­ap­pear. The dif­fer­ence here, Obama said, was that Amer­ic­ans at the U.S. con­su­late in Er­bil are in danger.

Speak­ing from the White House din­ing room, the pres­id­ent was quick to men­tion that threat be­fore ever bring­ing up a sec­ond­ary mis­sion to pro­tect thou­sands of Ir­aqi Yazid­is and Chris­ti­ans stran­ded atop a moun­tain near the bor­der. An­oth­er key dis­tinc­tion, seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials noted, was that the U.S. was act­ing here on the be­hest of the Ir­aqi gov­ern­ment and Kur­d­ish se­cur­ity forces, giv­ing it a suf­fi­cient leg­al basis for a strike. Obama’s au­thor­iz­a­tion for force, they stressed, only ap­plies to Ir­aq and was not part of a wider strategy ex­tend­ing in­to, say, Syr­ia or Le­ban­on. The fo­cus, one aide said, “was ex­treme.” The idea was this is con­tain­able.

Yet, Thursday had brought a dif­fer­ent tone to this White House. This ad­min­is­tra­tion has sat and waited””waited as the con­flict in Syr­ia spilled across the bor­der in­to north­w­est Ir­aq, waited as Sunni mil­it­ants seized ter­rit­ory and money and drew close to Bagh­dad, waited for the al-Malaki gov­ern­ment to re­or­gan­ize it­self so as not to force the White House to ap­pear to take side in a bru­tal sec­tari­an con­flict. In June, Obama seemed re­luct­ant to com­mit even ad­visers to as­sist the em­battled Ir­aqi mil­it­ary. Crit­ics ac­cused him of be­ing half-hearted about the whole thing.

But what the pres­id­ent called a “po­ten­tial act of gen­o­cide” forced his hand. There was no by­passing his re­spons­ib­il­ity now. “They’re without food, without wa­ter. People are starving. And chil­dren of dy­ing of thirst,” Obama said, clearly ap­peal­ing to the bet­ter an­gels of his Demo­crat­ic base. In brief­ings, aides em­phas­ized the bru­tal­ity of the mil­it­ants, say­ing they wanted to “en­slave wo­men and kill men,” and sought to “eth­nic­ally cleanse” the re­gion, while clearly draw­ing a line con­nect­ing the Is­lam­ic State of Ir­aq and Syr­ia to its pro­gen­it­or, al-Qaeda in Ir­aq, so as to make ex­pli­cit just whom the U.S. was deal­ing with.

It re­mained un­clear late Thursday just what the next steps would be. Should IS­IS forces ad­vance on Er­bil, U.S. planes will strike to re­pel them. But of­fi­cials also sug­ges­ted that the Pentagon would not hes­it­ate to act to pro­tect Bagh­dad, as well, which would greatly es­cal­ate the con­flict and stir the echoes of the Ir­aq War. (Which was de­clared to be over in 2011.)

Still, no mat­ter the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ra­tionale, the takeaway will be that it took the des­per­ate straits of thou­sands trapped on a moun­tain­top to push the ad­min­is­tra­tion to act. In­no­cent Ir­aqis have been slaughtered and up­rooted by IS­IS for months, but this is the first time that Obama and his White House seemed fully en­gage in the prob­lem. And the pres­id­ent’s de­cision today may prompt oth­er en­dangered peoples, wheth­er they be in Syr­ia, Ni­ger­ia, Ukraine, or else­where to ask what they need to do to at­tract the United States’ at­ten­tion and as­sist­ance.

Aides stressed Thursday that the hope re­mains that it will be Ir­aq, with new lead­er­ship, that ul­ti­mately re­solves the crisis on the ground, not the Amer­ic­an mil­it­ary.

“Even as we sup­port Ir­aqis as they take the fight to these ter­ror­ists, Amer­ic­an com­bat troops will not be re­turn­ing to fight in Ir­aq, be­cause there’s no Amer­ic­an mil­it­ary solu­tion to the lar­ger crisis in Ir­aq,” the pres­id­ent told Amer­ic­ans.

But there was little doubt, after Obama’s ac­tions Thursday, that Ir­aq again falls squarely with­in Amer­ica’s na­tion­al in­terest. The ques­tion is now simply how long it stays that way.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×