On Sept. 18 the U.S. Senate passed a bill 78 to 22 which approved President Obama to go ahead and strike against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Now the bill moves to the White House for signature after approval from both houses.
Apart from an alleged multi-billion dollar funding for the military operation, the bill also states a key point about helping and arming the rebel fighters in Syria. President Obama’s repeated assurance there will be no boots on the ground could only work if the above mentioned strategy is successful. Syrian rebel fighters call themselves the free Syrian army and have been fighting a civil war in Syria since 2011.
A report on NBC News said, “It’s a constantly changing network of thousands of armed groups. From that network, the Americans hope to train and equip 5,000 rebel Syrian fighters within a year.” The training could take place in Turkey among other places, the report said.
If you look at any of our past military combats in the Middle East, we have always managed to garner support and allies to fight the enemy, a task which looks seemingly uphill for the current Obama administration. A Washington Post report titled, “The U.S. strategy to defeat the Islamic State is underpowered” says, “In Paris on Monday, two dozen governments pledged to help fight the extremists by any means necessary, including military assistance. But only a handful—not yet including Britain—have so far agreed to participate in air combat missions in Iraq, and none has yet signed on to support prospective U.S. air strikes in Syria. Nor has any in sending combat troops.”
This is a tough period for Obama’s presidency. His administration has come under severe scrutiny for the recent decisions; a man who ran a relentless anti-war campaign to become president has been forced to run multiple military engagements— this may have been stressful for him too.
If you recall, during the presidential media address on ISIS earlier this month, Obama was forced to speak on domestic issues like energy independence, education, job creation, etc. Was this to re-affirm faith in his presidency? A Sept. 16 New York Times report said, “President Obama’s approval ratings are similar to those of President George W. Bush in 2006 when Democrats swept both houses of Congress in the midterm elections.”
Let us look at one other alternative. What if we do ignore ISIS completely and do not indulge in any kind of combat activities against them? Are we better off? The answer is no. ISIS is growing in strength every day with its territorial expansion and anti-humanitarian activities. A cancer only grows and does not recede if left untreated. What Obama is doing may be the right thing to do right now even if it is unpopular, and the Senate and the House both understand the threat, causing many Republicans to say yes to a military engagement, which with the full might of the U.S. military would surely end rapidly.
I want to reiterate what I have said repeatedly in my articles earlier, that our defense budget, which is at a solid $550 billion, is more than all other countries put together. With or without allies we will always be successful in any military operation we conduct, but the international community will appreciate it if we seek their consent.
Recently, a news anchor on one of the major news networks blasted Obama for being afraid and basically called him a weak leader. This is one thing none of us should accept. Sally Kohn, in an article on Obama’s foreign policy on CNN, wrote, “It’s ridiculous to suggest the President is a weak leader. Just ask Osama bin Laden. Or consider that Obama is bombing ISIS, pressing Iraq to fix its broken government, working with NATO to force Russian President Vladimir Putin to back down and making real progress in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And then there are the drone strikes, including one that killed the leader of the militant Islamist group Al-Shabaab in Somalia. Feckless? Hardly.”
As much as we discuss and debate the current scenario, someone who is permanently close to the White House must reflect and analyze what we have been doing in the Middle East. Is this one region where America has never gotten it right? It is high time we come up with a solid bi-partisan approved foreign policy and try as much as possible to stick to it.
