Note: The opinions and comments stated in the following article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.
By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
For a president who came into office repudiating his predecessor’s foreign policy and vowing to end two wars, President Obama leaves office with the world in chaos and the U.S. military involved in three conflicts.
During his January 2014 State of the Union Address, President Obama stated, “When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq. More than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from Afghanistan. With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role. Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America’s longest war will finally be over.”
This bold pronouncement by the president was premature. Later that summer, ISIS boldly overran Iraqi forces in northern and western Iraq. ISIS seized a vast amount of territory and forced the president to send the U.S. military back into Iraq.
Obama Expands War in Middle East
In October 2015, NPR reported that overall, the U.S. military presence in the region is a small fraction of what it was when Obama entered office. But during Obama’s presidency, the U.S. bombed seven separate Muslim countries. He reluctantly launched an air campaign in Syria. Last month, Obama announced he would extend the presence of troops in Afghanistan.
With all the attention on Iraq and Syria, Afghanistan has faded from public consciousness. Obama characterized Afghanistan’s conflict as the “good war” he tried to end, but he simultaneously sent U.S. forces into the country.
Obama Dismisses Concerns of Experienced Foreign Policy Advisers
Twice this year, President Obama and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes ridiculed the U.S. foreign policy establishment as reactionary. Obama and Rhodes claim that others are incapable of understanding the depth of Obama’s intellectual insight and his ability to handle the challenges confronting the United States.
Far too often, the president and his close advisers in the White House are dismissive of advice from seasoned foreign policy hands. Last month, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates openly criticized the president for political “backflips” on whether U.S. forces are engaged in Iraqi and Syrian combats.
“I think that it is incredibly unfortunate not to speak openly about what’s going on,” Mr. Gates said on MSNBC. “American troops are in action; they are being killed; they are in combat. And these semantic backflips to avoid using the term “combat” is a disservice to those who are out there putting their lives on the line.”
President Obama’s Afghan Strategy in Disarray
Military analyst Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that the Obama administration accepted that its poorly planned and poorly executed efforts in Afghanistan have been a total failure. The U.S. attempted to increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2009 and withdraw them at the end of 2014. The administration also planned to eliminate a U.S. advisory mission by the end of 2016.
This withdrawal plan has never taken into account the real-world conditions on the ground or the limits of Afghan forces who were rushed into being ready for such a mission. These Afghani troops were forced into their mission only a decade after the United States first intervened in 2001, and they were only given the proper funds and trainers as recently as 2011-2012.
Obama has never fully understood or taken into account the complexities or the realities in Afghanistan. He has failed to appreciate the support Pakistan gave to the various terror organizations inside and outside of Afghanistan.
Obama Lacks Passion as Commander-in-Chief
Gates mentions in his memoirs, “Duty, Memoirs of a Secretary of State at War,” that the president lacked passion and resolve when dealing with international issues. As Commander-in-Chief, having these qualities is vital.
“Where this lack of passion mattered most for me was Afghanistan. When soldiers put their lives on the line, they need to know that the commander-in-chief who sent them in harm’s way believes in their mission. They need him to talk often to them and to the country, not just to express gratitude for their service and sacrifice but also to explain and affirm why that sacrifice is necessary, why their fight is noble, why their cause is just, and why they must prevail.”
President Obama never took these actions. He rarely spoke about the war in Afghanistan except when he made an announcement about troop increases, troop drawdowns or a change in strategy. White House references to “exit paths,” “drawdowns” and “responsibly ending wars” vastly outnumbered references to “success” or even “accomplishing the mission.”
Given his campaign rhetoric about Afghanistan, I think our commanders, our troops and I expected more commitment to the cause and more passion for it from him..…I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission.”
President Obama’s stated objective was to end the war in Afghanistan. He took a detour after witnessing the chaos that followed his precipitous withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq, even after his military commanders warned him against such action. He didn’t want what happened in Iraq to be duplicated in Afghanistan.
In January 2017, President Obama will hand over the reins of power to his successor. Obama will leave behind three conflicts: the unfinished war in Afghanistan, a new war in Libya and renewed conflict in Iraq, which has expanded to include Syria.
For a president who campaigned on “Ending the Wars” and won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace, leaving office with the U.S. engaged in more conflicts than when he entered is ironic. To successfully resolve these conflicts, Obama’s successor will require considerable diplomatic skills and the ability to listen to experienced advisors.
Comments are closed.