|
|
 |
|
|
EXPLANATORY JOURNALISM: The TerryReport
|
|
News, commentary, opinion on politics, government, books, social trends, American life, travel, cycling, books, other stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not that surprising if a lot of people are confused about what the U.S. will do about the new war front in Iraq. As he left the White House for the weekend Friday, the President talked about options and deciding in the coming days. These are not the words of a President eager to take action to stop the Sunni forces trying to take over the country. Reluctance in going to war, especially back into a very bad experience, is a good thing, of course. Showing reluctance, giving the nation and the world the impression that we are going to study the issue is not so good.
It seems Obama wanted to send a mixed messaage. He wanted the Iraqis still in control of Baghdad and the southern part of the country to realize that they need to make changes, and fight back, without immediate help from the United States. That, indeed, might have been the most important part of his message for the President and his supporting staff, including the Pentagon. We are not riding in immediately to the rescue was the point. Further, he wanted to tell the president of Iraq, as he did directly, that he and the Shia Muslims generally have to open up their government and make efforts to accommodate the Sunni Muslims.
So far, so good. The problem is that Obama didnt come off as sounding strong and willing to use military power when needed. Language and tone matter. If he wanted to send a message to the rebel fighters dedicated to creating an Islamic caliphate across the nation of Iraq, he did: nothing to worry about right now, folks. The same with the American public: we are going to be studying what to do. What about being ready to take action, being prepared for unexpected or sudden developments and sounding presidential? Not so much.
It is sort like facing someone prepared to do battle and saying, I have this spear right here behind my back and if you force me to, I am going to use it. This is not a strong plan or policy. It is clear that the United States will take some sort of military action in the next few days, certainly within a week or two, probably sooner. Okay, say it. Part of using military force is projecting the attitude and certainty it requires. It seems Obama wants, still wants, to be the peace president even while he reluctantly prepares to go back to war. The hesitation to follow in the footsteps of G.W. Bush is understandable, but he has been handed this lousy hand and has all but no choice to play it. Sounding like he is unsure of what to do doesnt help.
Doug Terry, 6.14.14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Telegraph newspaper in London has a very harsh commentary on Obama and Iraq, most of which The TerryReport would not endorse. It generally falls under the heading damned if you do, damned if you dont whereby the British and Europeans criticize the United States for taking action around the world in earlier times and criticize now that military power is not so ever ready and omnipresent. The specific point of strongest disagreement is putting the blame on the Sunni insurgency in Iraq at Obamas feet for withdrawing American troops (the story of how and why that happened is complex). In any case, here is a clip from the commentary:
|
|
|
In the case of Iraq, so great has been the White House preoccupation with not being Bush-like that it has no other policy. Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State, famously invoked the Pottery Barn rule, You break it, you own it. Mr Obama thought that he did not break it himself (which was true), and drew the mistaken conclusion that therefore he did not own it. He did own it, simply because he is President of the United States. When he disowned it, in 2011, he ensured that it would break once more. No doubt his administration is right in all the hard things it lays at the door of the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. But that is no self-exculpation. America left the country to him, declaring it stable. Yesterday, Mr Obama described the current situation as a ''regional problem, which wrongly implies that its not much to do with him.
|
|
|
LINK TO THE TELEGRAPH COMMENTARY
|
|
|
|
This commentary seems of a type. The British are quite eager to goad the U.S. into acting as a permanent shield around the world (and having the U.S. pay the price in treasury and lives) and they seem to believe, as a group, that military power is the only important force keeping stability in most regions. This attitude might spring from their long experience as colonial rulers who, at one time, had about 1/3 of the worlds land mass under various states of British command. The United States does not want to be the 21st century substitute for colonial rule, nor have we signed on, as a people, to the idea that anywhere there is trouble, the American military will be ready, tout suite, to step in.
The cause of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq is quite obvious: once they held all of the power in the country, now they have none. Once, they were paid salaries to work in government, the military and police forces, now they get very little. The peace in Iraq was not secured by the long American intervention and occupation and it is not likely to be secure now by bombing and drone strikes.
The civil war in Syria provided the means and the organization to invade Iraq, so that is what happened. Instead of laying the blame at Obamas feet, this seems a cautionary tale about Americas getting involved in the first place in the never ending wars of the middle east. In that case, the warnings might be right: once you are in, you are in. You cant just wipe your hands clean and leave. Oops. Isnt that what the British themselves did so long ago? Because they had no other choice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
to go to recent posts, nearly 300 pages of news and comments filed during the first nine months of 2013 and during the critical election year of 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
to go back to prior years (500+ pages) of The TerryReport
|
|
|
