Obama knows Mideast war is Kryptonite for US superpower

If Obama had been more decisive, they argue, the so-called Islamic State (IS) would never have risen to threaten the security of whole countries and challenge US policy in the Middle East.   

Obama’s latest critic is former US president Jimmy Carter, who supported Obama’s candidacy for president over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries.

But in an interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram published on Wednesday, Carter said Obama had failed to respond to the threat of the IS. “First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” Carter said. “President Obama, it’s been hard to figure out exactly what his policy is. It changes from time to time. He’s been delayed. Sometimes he draws red lines in the sand on the Mideast and then when the time comes, he doesn’t go through with it.”

Former US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta is also critical of Obama’s handling of IS, arguing in his just-published memoir “Worthy Fights” that Obama should not have pulled US troops out of Iraq in 2011. By doing so, Obama created a political vacuum in Iraq, making the country vulnerable to factional conflict and rivalry, writes Panetta. He adds that the US was far too slow in funding and arming the Syrian rebels. In late 2013 Obama decided against a move to send troops to Syria to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. Panetta calls those failures to act “missed opportunities”. He goes on to say that Obama’s recent U-turn in deciding to bomb IS forces both in Iraq and Syria was taken to repair the damage in the wake of those missed opportunities. He predicted that the US war against IS jihadists could last 30 years and spill over into other nations across the world, including Nigeria, Somalia and Libya.

US Vice President Joe Biden has come to his boss’s defence, saying that Panetta should have waited for Obama’s term in office to end before launching his criticism.

Obama has so far insisted that he will not send ground troops into Syria. But a chorus of voices is applying pressure for him to do so. Robert Gates, Panetta’s predecessor at the Pentagon, is leading the choir, saying “boots on the ground” are necessary to defeat the IS. “I think that by continuing to repeat that [the US won’t send in ground troops], the president, in effect, traps himself,” Gates said.

Finally, both former president Bill Clinton and ex-secretary of state Hillary Clinton have come out and publicly stated that Obama’s failure to send troops into Syria created the opportunity for IS to rise and fill the power vacuum.

Obama has been portrayed as timid and indecisive by his fellow Democrats, who are sounding even more hawkish than the Republicans. But, in fact, 2009 Nobel Peace laureate Obama has bombed seven countries during his presidency – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Syria. Obama knows full well that once he has committed to a war against Syria, it is going to be a long one, because Russia, Iran and China lurk and will be forced to get involved to defend Syria one way or another. Panetta’s assessment of a 30-year war reflects the wider scenario of open-ended battle for the Middle East. This has become an unending war, which started soon after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. After 13 years fighting in the Middle East, the US is about to shift the campaign into high gear again.

The war drums reflect the desperate attempt by the US to maintain its dominance over the affairs of the Middle East and the wider world amid a growing challenge from Russia, China and other so-called emerging nations. Bombing Syria and Iraq is the first act in this drama. 

The US and its allies will soon be tempted to send in ground troops for a protracted war for control of resources and energy. A glance at his war records reveals Obama is far from dovish. His initial delay in going to war against Syria, using the IS as a pretext, likely stemmed from his realisation that the US no longer reigns supreme on the military front. The war in the Middle East will further drain the US and its allies’ resources while Russia and its Eastern allies look on, waiting for the right time to strike back. Somewhere down the line, a clash between the superpowers looks inevitable.