“American abdication”

A piece argues that America under President Obama has left the Middle East to burn. This Obama style isolationism has been commented many times before now the consequences are being discussed.

Traub opens “In the speech on counterterrorism policy that he delivered last year at West Point, President Barack Obama made clear that the United States would no longer try to fight the terrorist threat abroad on its own, but rather would aim to “more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.” Last month, the Arab League answered that call by pledging to establish a joint Arab military force to respond to the growing chaos in the region”.

He adds “The actual details of this proposed army, including its members, force structure, and location, are to be worked out over the next several months. And as Arab unity — political or military — has often proved to be a mirage, there is good reason to be skeptical that the force will ever come into being. Even if it did, fundamental divisions among Arab states would ensure that a joint force would look more like a shifting coalition of the willing than a collective body like NATO, or even like the African Union’s Peace and Security Council. Nevertheless, a sense of real danger, combined with a fear of abandonment by the United States, has propelled the idea onto the Arab agenda. Egypt, which has pushed hardest for the joint force, worries that extremist violence in Libya will spill across the border between the two countries. After Islamic State fighters in Libya beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called for a U.N.-backed intervention force, or, failing that, the lifting of the arms embargo on the internationally recognized Libyan government in Tobruk. When the United States and Britain opposed both measures, Sisi apparently concluded that he would have to rely on his fellow Arabs, and began sounding the tocsin for a joint force”.

Worse still the Obama administration is locked in an alternate reality, “The administration defends the Saudis’ resort to force to stem the tide of the takeover of Yemen: The Houthis had placed Scud missiles on the border, while Iran had begun regular flights to Saada, the Houthi stronghold. But the State Department official I spoke to added that the hostilities would have to end soon in order to limit death and destruction, and to bring the Houthis to a political settlement. There is, unfortunately, no sign that Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz agrees with that proposition. His apparent plan is to bomb the Houthis into submission”.

Traub continues, “The United States has learned the hard way that it cannot simply prop up governments seen as illegitimate by their own people; that’s why Obama has tried to condition military assistance to Iraq on political reform that offers a significant role to Sunnis. Arab autocrats do not accept this principle. Saudi Arabia reacted to political dissent among the Shiite majority in Bahrain by sending in a military force to help the Sunni monarchy in Manama crush the peaceful movement. The Sisi regime treats domestic dissent as a threat to national security; from Cairo’s point of view, members of the Muslim Brotherhood are “terrorists” — a fifth-column version of the Islamic State”.

He ends the piece “the United States also has a very serious interest in rolling back the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and suppressing al Qaeda and curbing the Houthis in Yemen. Here U.S. and Arab interests converge. The West cannot solve the problem of Islamic extremism; only the Islamic world itself can do that. Obama has said that the United States will henceforward work through partners when it comes to counterterrorism. As one Arab diplomat said to me about the proposed force, “If Obama’s policy is to get the region to take care of its own problems, I think this is a good place to be.” Indeed, from the Arab point of view, it is precisely the American abdication that has necessitated the new Arab activism”.

He concludes tellingly, “When you’re the hegemon, you can tell your partners how to behave; when you’re not, you can’t. The United States can no longer afford to play that role, and in any case doesn’t want to. It must rely on, rather than simply conscript, its partners. And that means it must adapt, more than it has in the past, to its partners’ views. Washington is thus in no position either to oppose the Arab joint strike force or to tell it how and where to act. It really is a lamentable state of affairs. But it’s where we are”.

 

Advertisements

9 Responses to ““American abdication””

  1. Order and Tradition Says:

    […] the leaders of the GCC to believe President Obama. Much scorn has rightly been pored on his foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. Now with Iran emboldend due to a possible deal and the […]

  2. Order and Tradition Says:

    […] do nothing attitude of the Obama administration has led to “Saudi Arabia’s stance on Yemen has emboldened many […]

  3. Order and Tradition Says:

    […] Kaplan argues that though imperialism has a bad reputation it is needed now more than ever, “Though imperialism is now held in disrepute, empire has been the default means of […]

  4. Order and Tradition Says:

    […] Feaver writes that Obama has chosen to be defeated by ISIS, “Barack Obama became president by campaigning against wars of choice. […]

  5. Order and Tradition Says:

    […] policy nuance, “There is one thing every Republican candidate for president agrees on: The foreign policy of Barack Obama has been deeply damaging to our country. Each excels at describing the devastation […]

  6. The disintegration of Saudi Arabia? | Order and Tradition Says:

    […] ends “The question now is whether the Obama administration is even capable of recovering from the geopolitical mess it has triggered. Does it even have a clue about […]

  7. Putin forces Obama’s hand | Order and Tradition Says:

    […] move to send U.S. Special Forces into Syria helps the president address the perception of American inaction that was seen to have contributed to the Russian intervention while also helping to address concerns […]

  8. Needing a new Mid East policy? | Order and Tradition Says:

    […] that would lead them to take military action without US permission. This would only further weaken American abdication in the region that has taken place under President Obama with disastrous […]

  9. “Seeking new ways to respond to a highly uncertain environment” | Order and Tradition Says:

    […] the state itself will continue to exist in its 20th century borders. The perception that the US is withdrawing from the region is compelling enough to have encouraged Russia to ramp up its military role there. And Iran’s […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: