The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that President Obama is going to retain strict control of any bombing done in Syria as part of our efforts of “degrade and destroy” ISIS (also called the Islamic State or ISIL):
“The U.S. military campaign against Islamist militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential signoff for strikes in Syrian territory, officials said. …
Through tight control over airstrikes in Syria and limits on U.S. action in Iraq, Mr. Obama is closely managing the new war in the Middle East in a way he hasn't done with previous conflicts, such as the troop surge in Afghanistan announced in 2009 or the last years of the Iraq war before the 2011 U.S. pullout.”
As the article in the Journal says, this degree of involvement is different from how President Obama has proceeded in the past with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
David Rothkopf, CEO and editor of the FP Group, noted the difference between the way President Obama has handled Iraq and Afghanistan and how President George W. Bush proceeded in his second term:
“Noticeably, Bush changed course on key issues. Not only did he show courage on some of those changes – adding troops for the surge was hugely unpopular, for example – but he also showed a willingness to get personally involved to try to make things work. In some ways, this meant that he simply rolled up his sleeves and did the work of a manager. For example, he instituted weekly videoconferences with his team in Iraq, as well as regular exchanges with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
With benefit of hindsight, of course, the world now knows that the stabilization that occurred during the surge – and as a result of this period of attention – would not last and that Maliki was a slippery, dangerous character. But it is also clear that for the last two years of Bush's tenure, Iraq perhaps achieved its post-invasion high point. It is telling to note that when asked whether Obama would maintain regular interactions with Maliki, one of his aides reportedly suggested the president was disinclined to engage in that kind of ‘micromanagement’ of such situations.”
One wonders whether, if President Obama had given the attention to Iraq and Afghanistan that he is now giving to potential targets in Syria, things might be better in those countries.
But actually, probably not. President Bush got involved and started managing our war in Iraq on a hands-on basis because he wanted to win. He wanted the United States to succeed.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure that is the reason why President Obama is getting involved in the targeting of bombs in Syria. Back to The Wall Street Journal:
“By demanding the Pentagon gets his signoff on any strikes in Syria, Mr. Obama can better ensure the operation remain focused on his main goal for that part of the campaign: weakening the militants' hold on territory in neighboring Iraq.
Officials also said Mr. Obama wants to make sure the military actions in Syria are more like the counterterrorism operations in Somalia or Yemen.”
In other words, it almost seems that President Obama is getting involved, micro-managing so to speak, the targets we bomb in Syria not because he wants to make sure we win, but because he doesn’t trust our military to do what he wants. It is almost as if he is afraid that, if he does not approve the targets personally, the military will do more than he wants.
I hope I am wrong. Because otherwise: (1) the President has a degree of mistrust of our military that is not conducive to success in what we are trying to do in the Middle East; and (2) I don’t see how we will succeed in those efforts.
Comments