Last week, fellow columnist Jesse Berman criticized the Obama administration for failing to “offer tangible solidarity” to its European allies following last month’s ISIS attack on Brussels. In particular, Berman attacked the president for refusing to alter his trip through Latin America to accommodate a visit to Belgium. Such a trip, according to Berman, would reaffirm the United States’ support for its ally in the ongoing War on Terror. While Berman is not alone in his criticism, I disagree with him on two major points. First, Berman portrays the “cool and detached” manner in which Obama responded to the crisis as a liability. I argue Obama’s response is indicative of the levelheaded foreign policy approach that sets him apart from the impulsivity that characterized his predecessor’s administration. Second, Berman claims defeating ISIS is “our nation’s top foreign policy objective.” While defeating ISIS should remain a priority, the United States’ central focus in the region should be on addressing the underlying issues that allow extremist groups such as ISIS to thrive.
Obama’s calm demeanor following the Brussels attacks is not surprising. One would expect no less from an individual who ran on a promise to implement a “smart and principled national security strategy” during the 2008 presidential election. Such a statement was intended to denote a thorough deviation from the Bush administration, whose impulsive responses to terrorism led to a misguided war in Iraq that undermined regional stability and trust in U.S. global leadership. Furthermore, while Berman states that Obama failed to uphold his responsibility and visit Belgium, I question how such an action would make a noticeable difference on the ongoing situation. Such an action does not resolve the intelligence failures that allowed one of the suspected terrorists to return to Belgium unhindered by authorities, despite being deported from Turkey due to suspicions of intending to join extremist fighters in Syria.
Additionally, Berman insinuates Obama is not sufficiently concerned with the threat posed by ISIS, juxtaposing the president’s historic trip to Cuba with a Europe reeling after a deadly terrorist attack. However, such an insinuation ignores the multitude of actions the Obama administration has taken to combat ISIS. Since the start of Operation Inherent Resolve in June 2014, the U.S. military has executed over 8,800 airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, three days after the Brussels attacks, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that Special Operation forces had launched an operation resulting in the death of ISIS finance minister and suspected second-in-command Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli. Although the administration had initially underestimated ISIS’s capabilities — once infamously comparing the organization to a “JV team” — Obama has since developed a dynamic strategy that has halted the group’s advances and limited the U.S. military’s ground presence. At a point where ISIS has lost 22 percent of its territory and faces a coalition of Sunni and Shia forces against it, the United States should begin shifting its focus to address the needs of a region post-ISIS.
While the threat posed by ISIS has encouraged the region’s historical adversaries to put aside their differences to combat a common threat, there is no guarantee such an arrangement will endure over the long term. At present, the most obvious concern is the resumption of sectarian violence between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias. While Shia militias have been instrumental in the campaign against ISIS, many Sunnis believe such armed groups pose a direct threat to their wellbeing. It is not hard to understand why. Shortly after “liberating” the majority Sunni city of Tikrit, residents accused Shia militiamen of kidnapping local residents and burning their houses. Some residents have gone as far as to say that ISIS and Shia militias are “as bad as each other.” This, in addition to ongoing tensions between Baghdad and the autonomous Kurdish provinces, suggests that international mediation may be necessary to promote regional peace and stability. In practice, this will require the United States to work with the Iraqi government as well as other regional powers to disarm the Sunni and Shia militias, promote an inclusive government in Baghdad and reach a final determination regarding the status of Iraqi Kurdistan.
Obama’s response to the Brussels attack was exactly what one should want from a head of state — calm and collected. Anything short of this would support ISIS’s goals of evoking public panic and reversing the notion that its power is in fact declining. Moving forward, the U.S.’s Middle East foreign policy should facilitate efforts to mend the Sunni-Shia split and build a more inclusive government in Baghdad. A failure to do this will only increase the appeal of other extremist organizations vying to replace ISIS.
Brandon Brooks is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.brooks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | May 16, 2024Retirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | May 16, 2024My time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | May 15, 2024My time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
