<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
March 19, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Terror Fight Needs Leader

Obama must be engaged, forceful if U.S. to form coalition to stop Islamic State

The Columbian
Published:

In addition to the stated goal of dismantling the forces of the Islamic State, U.S.-led efforts against the terrorist organization might provide long-term byproducts that benefit American interests in the Middle East.

Not that any of this will be easy or predictable. As the Washington Post wrote, “In common with their fear of the Islamic State, however, the region’s leaders also share a deep mistrust of the Obama administration, rooted in the past three years of increasing disengagement from the Middle East.”

Last week, in the wake of a growing threat from the Islamic State, which has overrun portions of Iraq and Syria and has posted online videos of multiple beheadings, Obama detailed a strategy for combating the insurgents. In the process, he signaled a change in U.S. policy, which under his leadership has been one of aloofness and inaction.

The re-engagement of the Arab states, many of whom have stated a willingness to join the United States in the cause of battling a common enemy, likely will ultimately determine the success of the mission against the Islamic State. And it likely will require a tightrope walk by American diplomats to keep allies involved in the process. “We have reached a low point of trust in this administration,” said Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. “We think in a time of crisis Mr. Obama will walk away from everyone if it means saving his own skin.”

Such is the conundrum Obama has created for himself and for his administration, largely through a failure to take action after drawing a metaphorical red line regarding the use of chemical weapons by the regime in Syria. Such is the conundrum that could define U.S. engagement for years to come.

It can be debated, with reasonable arguments to be found on both sides of the question, whether or not the United States should play the role of the world’s police force. American policy long has been to try and determine outcomes in all regions of the globe, employing a military that is by far the world’s most heavily armed in a belief that we can control history through sheer force. But the Middle East, defined by centuries of religious and tribal differences, has challenged those beliefs. Conventional warfare and conventional weapons are mitigated by the modern realities of ill-defined guerilla fighting forces. They also are mitigated by the barbarism already demonstrated by Islamic State forces; if rebels are fighting for what they believe is martyrdom, no logic or reason can effectively appease them.

That level of fanaticism is chilling even for leaders of Arab nations in the region. After meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last week, 10 Middle East allies agreed to “do their share” to help defeat the Islamic State, creating a coalition that is crucial yet tenuous. “The devastating consequences of extremist hate remain fresh in the minds of all Americans, and to so many of our friends and allies around the world,” Kerry said on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. “Those consequences are felt every day here in the Middle East.”

But while leaders in the Middle East are wary of the potential of terrorism, they also are wary of America’s resolve and its willingness to keep promises. As the United States embarks upon airstrikes designed to dismantle the Islamic State, it is dependent upon cooperation from numerous countries to stem the flow of recruits and money that support the terrorists. The war against Islamic State will require much more than a coalition of the willing; it will require a coalition of the engaged. Maintaining that will call for integrity and commitment from the Obama administration.

Loading...