According to The New York Times, six weeks of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have barely budged Islamic State (also known as ISIS and ISIL) forces from the areas they control in Iraq, which include over 25% of the country. While Islamic State forces have been forced from the towns of Barwana and Haditha by a combination of the Iraqi army, certain Sunni tribes and U.S. airstrikes and were also pushed away from the Mosul Dam by Kurdish forces and U.S. airstrikes, Islamic State forces just this week captured the Iraqi town of Sichar.
As to why this is happening, the article goes on:
“Behind the [Iraqi] government’s struggles on the battlefield is the absence or resistance of many of the Sunni Muslim tribes that officials in Baghdad and Washington hope will play the decisive role in the course of the fight – a slow start for the centerpiece of President Obama’s plan to drive out the militants.
The Sunni tribes of Anbar and other areas drove Qaeda-linked militants out of the area seven years ago with American military help, in what became known as the Sunni Awakening. But the tribes’ alienation from the subsequent authoritarian and Shiite-led government in Baghdad opened the door for the extremists of the Islamic State to return this year.
The foundation of the Obama administration’s plan to defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is the installation of a new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, who has pledge to build a more responsible government and rebuild Sunni support. But, though at least some Sunni Arabs are fighting alongside the army in places like Haditha, influential Sunni sheiks who helped lead the Awakening say they remain unconvinced. …
[An] American official [, speaking anonymously,] acknowledged that many of the Sunni sheikhs were slow to trust the new government. ‘They have been disenfranchised, and they have been lied to’ under the previous one, the official said. ‘They want to be part of the solution, they want to be included, but it is going to take some time.’”
In 2007, the Sunni sheikhs trusted us. President Bush sent more troops to Iraq and promised to stay to get the job done. Generals Petraeus, et al., were there and on the ground. Americans weren’t just dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air. American soldiers left their bases to live among the Sunnis and other Iraqis and fight with them against al Qaeda. And American diplomats in Baghdad were working with Prime Minister Maliki to, inter alia, restrain his sectarian tendencies.
But when President Obama took office, things changed. President Bush’s hands-on management of the war effort ended. President Obama talked more about leaving Iraq than winning. If President Bush prematurely claimed “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq in 2003, President Obama proceeded on the basis that, by 2011, it had occurred. By the end of 2011, the United States was gone, totally. (As to whether that was necessary, see here.) And then, with the U.S. gone, there was nobody left to train the Iraqi army or restrain Prime Minister Maliki.*
So now we are back, at least from 30,000 feet. Is anybody surprised that at least some of the Sunni sheikhs are hesitant to trust us again? Is anybody surprised that they are wondering if the U.S. going to stay this time, when we didn’t stay last time? Why should they trust Prime Minister al-Abadi to run a more responsive, non-sectarian government when Prime Minister Maliki didn’t do that over the last five and one-half years, and we didn’t stay around to try to rein him in? In other words, why should they trust us on almost anything?
The problem is that credibility and trustworthiness are hard to gain, easy to lose, and even harder to regain. As the United States is finding out.
---------------
* Maybe we shouldn’t have had to stay around to restrain President Maliki. It was his job, and he should have known what to do. However, sometimes there are things that countries, and people, need to do, even though they shouldn’t have to, because things turn out better if they do.
Comments