Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Despite Iraq Withdrawal, Greater Mideast Not Looking Good

While President Obama spins the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq as a sign of success of his policies in the region, the latest news from the Greater Middle East is far less encouraging.

Print Friendly

 

Inter Press Service

While President Barack Obama Monday touted the continuing U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq as a key marker in the success of his regional policies, the latest news from the Greater Middle East, as well as a new public opinion survey, is far less encouraging.

Not only was July the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster from power in late 2001, but the worst flooding in the critical frontier region of Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan in 80 years threatens to undo what progress the central government in Islamabad has had over the past year in regaining control of the area from the Pakistani Taliban and laying the groundwork for a U.S.-backed development plan.

At the same time, Obama has failed to persuade Iran to curb its nuclear programme despite his success in getting Russia and China to support a new round of sanctions at the U.N. Security Council and the European Union (EU) and other allies to impose much-stronger measures against Tehran.

Similarly, he has yet to make any discernible progress on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a top foreign policy priority from the first days of his administration.

On the contrary, his failure in that respect – manifested, in particular, by Israel's defiance of his demands to stop all settlement activity in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem – has, in the view of many experts, inflicted serious damage on his credibility throughout the region.

Even in Iraq, where he will have reduced the U.S. military presence from some 144,000 when he took office to 50,000 by the end of this month, the situation hardly looks promising.

Nearly five months after parliamentary elections there and despite pressure by the recent visits of top U.S. officials, including Vice President Joseph Biden and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, Iraqi political leaders have proved unable to form a new government.

The protracted impasse has clearly stoked political and ethnic tensions that have in turn translated into a worrisome increase in violence. While the U.S. military has insisted that the monthly death toll is half of what it was one year ago, the Associated Press, which has independently tracked government statistics for several years, reported 535 killings last month, the deadliest month in two years.

If political paralysis, increased violence, an already-weak economy made yet weaker by a lack of investment and electricity, and growing concerns about fate on the on the part of Iraq's more powerful neighbours persist, Obama may be forced to reconsider his commitment – which he repeated Monday in a speech to the convention of the Disabled American Veterans – to withdraw the last U.S. troops from the country by the end of next year.

In any event, a new Gallup/USA Today poll released Monday suggested that U.S. voters are losing confidence in Obama's handling of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Despite the fact that the Iraq withdrawal is taking place on schedule, only 41 percent of respondents said they approved of his performance there, the lowest percentage since he took office in January 2009.

His ratings on Afghanistan policy were even worse; only one-third of respondents voiced their approval, although a majority of 57 percent said they favoured a gradual withdrawal from that conflict. Obama has pledged to begin drawing down the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops deployed there currently in July next year.

"We will continue to face huge challenges in Afghanistan," Obama said in his speech to the veterans. "But it's important that the American people know that we are making progress, and we are focused on goals that are clear and achievable."

In recent days, senior administration officials have sought to reduce expectations for what Washington can achieve in Afghanistan. In a televised interview last Thursday, Biden declared that the U.S. did not intend to "nation-build" in Afghanistan, but only to defeat al Qaeda.

"We are in Afghanistan for one express purpose: &the al Qaeda that exists in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said.

In an interview on another network news show Sunday, Obama took much the same line. "What we're looking to do is difficult, very difficult, but it's a fairly modest goal, which is, don't allow terrorists to operate from this region; don't allow them to create big training camps and to plan attacks against the U.S. homeland with impunity."

Both statements followed a vote in the House of Representatives last week in which 102 Democrats opposed a bill to finance the war, which is currently costing the U.S. Treasury about 100 billion dollars a year. That was 70 more than voted against a similar measure last year and constituted nearly half of all Democrats in the lower chamber.

Wary of both the mounting death toll and the decline in public and Democratic support for the war, the administration appears to have decided to alter its strategy in Afghanistan from one based on classic counterinsurgency principles – to win the "hearts and minds" of Afghans by, among other things, protecting the population and providing it with better governance and public services – to counterterrorism, where the emphasis will be placed more on capturing or killing Taliban commanders while wooing local tribes and Taliban foot-soldiers with cash and other incentives.

The administration also appears increasingly open to possible power-sharing negotiations with the Taliban, as has been advocated by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Meanwhile, however, the situation across the border in Pakistan is spurring growing concern in light of last weekend's record flooding that has killed at least 1,500 people, displaced more than one million others, and devastated areas around the country's northwestern border with Afghanistan, including the Swat Valley.

With prodding from the Obama administration, the area was retaken by the Pakistani army from the Pakistani Taliban after bitter fighting last year. Islamabad's reconstruction efforts have been widely criticised as slow and ineffective, fuelling anti-government sentiment in a key strategic region and possibly boosting the militants' standing with the population.

Now, much of the government's efforts – along with the infrastructure – have been washed away, and the army, which has for the last year been focused on regaining and retaining control of the region, is now being diverted to rescue and recovery operations.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Congress approved a five-year, 7.5-billion-dollar aid package for Pakistan, much of which is to be spent in the border areas affected by the flooding.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share