Chaos in Iraq

Since the presidential election of 2012, President Obama has repeated the moniker al-Qaeda is “decimated” and “on the path to defeat.”

Last May, speaking at the National Defense University, President Obama commented, “Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on the path to defeat.  Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us.”

The nature and structure of al-Qaeda is vastly different now then was the case when they launched terror attacks on September 11^th.  Al-Qaeda has transformed itself and now has affiliated cells in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, and Syria, plus as we now know of a resurgent al-Qaeda in Iraq.

It may be wishful thinking on the president’s part but we are now witnessing a rejuvenated al-Qaeda taking over in Fallujah, Iraq where in 2004, Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq War.

Once this report reached the media affiliates in the United States, the debate reignited the contentious nature on how we got involved in Iraq in the first place.  Instead of rehashing U.S. involvement in Iraq, history will be the ultimate judge; let’s look at it from when the president took office.

Yesterday’s on a Sunday morning talk show debate centered on al-Qaeda re-emerging and taking control of areas of Fallujah and Ramadi, it seems the political pundits were focusing on how the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in 2011, and the failure of the president to secure the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq.

Even U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on al-Qaeda having taken over in Fallujah and other parts of Iraq.

“While many Iraqis are responsible for this strategic disaster, the Administration cannot escape its share of the blame.  When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America’s enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests.”

What is missing from this narrative is not beginning with when we pulled out of Iraq but should begin with the President’s 2009 Inaugural Address.  During the address the president stated, “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”  This would be a vast departure from the confrontational approach by the Bush Administration with regard to U.S. foreign policy.

This might have played well to a domestic audience, but it validated weakness to our adversaries and signaled to our allies who have now become unsure of our commitment to the region.

President Obama repeatedly stated during the 2008 campaign that he would end the Iraq War.  At the time of his election the surge strategy which had begun in 2007, had proved to be successful in stabilizing the country.

Prior to leaving office President Bush had completed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq and needed the incoming president to finalize the details.  The unfortunate aspect is that President Obama wanted nothing to do with Iraq; as that was the problem from the previous administration.  His goal was to end the war!

The president began in dealing with Iraq by selecting retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, who was the former U.S. Central Commander in charge of all military operations for the Middle East, to be the next ambassador to Iraq.

This would have been an excellent choice as he could have brought credible authority on the region and be seen to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as a strong U.S. presence.  What the president failed to understand is that in this region, power and strength is what matters. Soft words are a sign of weakness.

Unfortunately, for reasons only the president knows, General Zinni’s name was removed and replaced with U.S. Diplomat Christopher Hill.  Christopher Hill was more known for his work on issues regarding North Korea and Eastern Europe, where he served as Ambassador to Poland.  He had no experience in the Middle East.

In a meeting with President Obama in 2011, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the White House wanted to size up the president and his commitment to Iraq.  He informed the president that he had evidence of corruption charges on a prominent Sunni political leader, Tariq al-Hashemi, and other key members of his Iraqi National Movement.

Not wanting to dealing with Iraq again, the President told the Prime Minister that this was an Iraqi internal matter, which signaled that he was done with Iraq.

The president and his administration disengagement from Iraq and this has expanded to other areas of the Middle East such has Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan.  The president needs to realize giving a speech doesn’t correlate into an effective foreign policy.

Even today, Secretary of State John Kerry is repeatedly trying to broker a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians all the while the Middle East is crumbling around them.

The real issue is the president consistently portrays a chaotic and dysfunctional foreign policy.  The president needs clarity and a strategic vision with regard to foreign policy but unfortunately we will not be seeing anything different as we move forward into 2014.