The Islamic State’s military victories are part of a war among Sunni Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula and Levant. They are not yet a direct threat to the US, Israel, Europe or even Shia Muslims in Iraq and Iran. [icopyright one button toolbar]
Therefore, its military defeat must be led by Sunnis, whether tribal militias or a coalition bringing Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates together with Iraq’s Sunnis and Jordan.
Giving a leading role to the Shia-led government in Baghdad and its regular army could convert the intra-Sunni war into a direct Sunni-Shia confrontation. That would force Iraq’s Sunni militias in the north and along the border with Syria to side with Islamic State warriors for sectarian reasons and because they are the best fighters so far.
Bringing about a new “Sunni Awakening” in Iraq against the IS requires extraordinarily deft military and foreign policy diplomacy by President Barack Obama. Even so, he may not be able to defeat the IS in Syria because that might enable President Bashar al Assad to reconquer all of Syria’s territory.
Bashar’s survival would open Obama to new storms of criticism in America. In a broad sense, he is already doing the right thing by trying to put the IS expansion within a wider context of challenges to the existing international order that governs post World War II national frontiers.
This is not an argument for letting Iraq and Syria stew in their own juices. However, more caution than in the past is necessary before stepping in too deeply. It is essential to ensure that Americans do not continue to become collateral damage in other people’s wars.
The Islamic State is leading a sectarian war among different kinds of Sunnis- It is a war of religion and, therefore, an extraordinary policy challenge for Obama since the principles driving it are very unfamiliar to the American way of thinking.
About the many urgent foreign crises challenging him, President Barack Obama said recently, ““What we are seeing is the old (world) order not working, but the new order not being born yet — and it is a rocky road through that process, and a dangerous time through that process.”
Underlining the relevance and need for continuing American leadership, he added, “…there’s really no competition out there for the ideas and the values that can create the sort of order that we need in this world.
He is right. Arguments rage among Americans who criticize him, support him or simply watch bemused. Yet, what Obama does and through him Americans do in the world is not just a matter for Americans.
Huge populations of non-Americans are at the receiving end of policies devised and implemented in the name of the American people by leaders it elects. Many events in the world look very different to them, than to Americans. Their perceptions, however erroneous or dangerous, are theirs to have.
Herein, lies the crux. Stubbornly and perplexingly, so many governments and people around the world refuse to see what is best for them through Washington’s eyes because they distrust American leaders. No US foreign policy, including against the IS, can be successful without some positive perception by those who are most affected by it.
Confronted by so many walls of distrust, both the American people and their President now seem to be at wit’s end. The time has come for a soul-searching rethink.
Since World War II, Americans are so used to thinking of their country as the greatest and most generous ever on earth, which it is in many ways, that they have trouble envisaging that any foreigner might wish to harm Americans, whether outside or inside it.
Obama’s real challenge is to let them down gently. The fact is that this US President, or any other President, is powerless to command foreign events in their favor or to protect them perfectly even in the US homeland, especially from terrorists.
There is no need to overthink to the point of passivity. But some of the assumptions of the past deserve review through current lenses for better results results.