War to 'Stop' War: Why the Obama Doctrine is Ravaging the Middle East
Published on
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
by
Common Dreams
War to 'Stop' War: Why the Obama Doctrine is Ravaging the Middle East
On 'Operation Odyssey Lightning' in Libya and beyond
by
Ramzy Baroud
Graffiti denouncing strikes by US drones in Yemen. (Photo: Khaled
Abdullah/Reuters)
Everyone seems to have a theory on how to obliterate ISIS, or 'Daesh'.
However, two points are rarely raised: one, concerning the origins of the
group and the second, on whether there are genuine intentions to defeat it,
in the first place.
We must boldly address the first to unravel the enigma behind the rise and
growth of 'Daesh' - otherwise, how else can the group be dismantled.
We must contend with the second point before engaging in superfluous
discussions about the most appropriate war strategy - that if war is, at
all, the answer.
The questions are quite urgent yet, somehow, they are frequently overlooked,
glossed over through some disingenuous logic or the blame is always placed
somewhere else.
"Americans have, sadly, swallowed the serum of perpetual war, to the extent
that they rarely mobilize in any serious way against it." Now that the
Americans have launched yet another aerial war against Libya, purportedly to
target 'Daesh' positions there, the discussion is being carefully geared
towards how far the US must go to defeat the militant group?
In fact, "can airstrikes alone win a war without 'boots on the ground'?" has
morphed, somehow, to become the crux of the matter, which has engaged a
large number of intellectuals on both sides of the debate.
US media gurus, split between two equally war-mongering parties, love to
jump at such opportunities to discredit one another, as if waging wars in
other countries is an exclusively local American affair.
Days are long gone when the US labored to establish coalitions to wage war,
as it did in Kuwait and Iraq in 1990-91 and, to a lesser extent, again, in
Iraq in 2003. Now, wars are carried out as a matter of course. Many
Americans seen to be unware, or oblivious to the fact, that their country is
actually fighting wars on several fronts, and is circuitously involved in
others.
With multiple war fronts and conflicts fermenting all around, many are
becoming desensitized. Americans particularly have, sadly, swallowed the
serum of perpetual war, to the extent that they rarely mobilize in any
serious way against it.
In other words, a state of war has become the status quo.
Although the US Administration of President Barack Obama has killed
thousands, the majority of whom were civilians, there is no uproar nor mass
protests. Aside from the fact that the Obama brand was fashioned to appear
as the peaceable contrast to warmongering George W. Bush, there has been no
serious change in US foreign policies in the Middle East in any way that
could suggest that one president is 'better' than the other.
"Aside from the fact that the Obama brand was fashioned to appear as the
peaceable contrast to warmongering George W. Bush, there has been no serious
change in US foreign policies in the Middle East in any way that could
suggest that one president is 'better' than the other."
Obama has simply continued the legacy of his predecessor, unhindered. The
primary change that has occurred is tactical: instead of resorting to
massive troops' buildup on the ground with an assignment to topple
governments, Obama has used airstrikes to target whoever is perceived to be
the enemy, while investing in whoever he deemed 'moderate' enough to finish
the job.
Like Bush's preemptive 'war on terror', Obama's doctrine has been equally
disastrous.
Obama's wars were designed to produce little or no American casualties,
since they were almost entirely conducted from the air and via unmanned
drones operated by remote control, sometimes thousands of miles way. That
approach proved less taxing, politically. However, it worsened the situation
on the ground, and instead of ending war, it expanded it.
While Bush's invasion of Iraq revived al-Qaeda and brought it to the heart
of the region, Obama's aerial wars forced al-Qaeda to regroup, employing a
different strategy. It rebranded itself, from militant cells to a 'state',
sought swift territorial expansion, used guerrilla warfare when facing an
organized army or is bombed from the sky, and carried out suicide bombings
throughout the world to break the morale of its enemies and to serve its
propaganda efforts aimed at keeping the recruits coming.
Considering that enemies of 'Daesh' are themselves enemies of one another,
the group is assured that its existence, at least for the foreseeable
future, is tenable.
"Instead of ending war, [Obama's drones] expanded it."
The truth is that 'Daesh' thrives on military intervention because it was
born from previous military interventions. It is expanding because its
enemies are not in unison, as each is serving agendas that are rarely
concerned with ending war, but rather seeing war as an opportunity to
realize political gains.
With this logic in mind, one cannot expect the US 'Operation Odyssey
Lightning', which officially began on August 1 in Libya, to achieve any
results that could end up in stabilizing the country.
How could such 'stability' be projected, if it were not the US and other
NATO members' war on Libya in 2011 that has largely dismembered a once rich
and relatively stable Arab country? Indeed, it was the vacuum left by
subsequent conflicts that invited 'Daesh' to Sirte and other areas. Now, the
US-and other western powers, led by the French-are applying unwinnable war
tactics to stave off a messy crisis they had created themselves when they
waged an earlier war.
Even if 'Daesh' is driven out of Sirte, it will find some other unstable
environment elsewhere where it will spawn and wreak havoc. Sirte, in turn,
will, likely, fall back into a state of bedlam where various militias, many
of whom were armed by NATO in the first place, turn their guns against each
other.
Without a whole new approach to the problem, the conflicts will certainly
keep multiplying.
According to airwars.org, which keeps track of the war on 'Daesh', 14,405
coalition airstrikes against the group have been carried out in Iraq and
Syria through 735 days of a relentless campaign. An estimated 52,300 bombs
and missiles were dropped, although the number must be much higher, since
there are numerous strikes that are never claimed by any party, thus are not
officially recorded, as such.
This, of course, does not take into account Russia's own aerial bombardment,
or any party that is not officially part of the Western coalition.
But what good did this do, aside from killing many civilians, destroying
massive infrastructure and spreading 'Daesh' further into the abyss of other
vulnerable Middle East and North African spots?
There are few voices in the US media and government that seem serious about
changing the perspective completely on the Bush-Obama war on terror.
Sensible calls by the likes of Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for
President, that the root causes of terror must be addressed to end
terrorism, rarely register in the halls of US government and Congress.
In January, the cost of the war on 'Daesh', as estimated by US Defense
Department data has jumped by $2 million dollars a day to a total of $11
million. "The air war has cost the US about $5.5 billion total since it
began in August 2014," Business Insider reported. The escalation in Libya is
likely to produce new, more staggering numbers soon.
Expectedly, this is a great time for business for those who benefit from
war. Concurrently, the cycle of war and violence is feeding on itself with
no end in sight.
"Hope in aerial bombardment as the prophylactic for peace is absurd," Vijay
Prashad, Professor of International Studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
wrote recently about the futility of airstrike wars.
"It has given us instability and chaos. Other roads have to be opened. Other
paths ceded."
I couldn't agree more.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Ramzy Baroud
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Our Revolution
. Bernie Sanders
. Hillary Clinton
. Jill Stein
. Donald Trump
War to 'Stop' War: Why the Obama Doctrine is Ravaging the Middle East
Published on
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
by
Common Dreams
War to 'Stop' War: Why the Obama Doctrine is Ravaging the Middle East
On 'Operation Odyssey Lightning' in Libya and beyond
by
Ramzy Baroud
. 22 Comments
.
. Graffiti denouncing strikes by US drones in Yemen. (Photo: Khaled
Abdullah/Reuters)
. Everyone seems to have a theory on how to obliterate ISIS, or
'Daesh'. However, two points are rarely raised: one, concerning the origins
of the group and the second, on whether there are genuine intentions to
defeat it, in the first place.
. We must boldly address the first to unravel the enigma behind the
rise and growth of 'Daesh' - otherwise, how else can the group be
dismantled.
. We must contend with the second point before engaging in superfluous
discussions about the most appropriate war strategy - that if war is, at
all, the answer.
. The questions are quite urgent yet, somehow, they are frequently
overlooked, glossed over through some disingenuous logic or the blame is
always placed somewhere else.
"Americans have, sadly, swallowed the serum of perpetual war, to the extent
that they rarely mobilize in any serious way against it." Now that the
Americans have launched yet another aerial war against Libya, purportedly to
target 'Daesh' positions there, the discussion is being carefully geared
towards how far the US must go to defeat the militant group?
In fact, "can airstrikes alone win a war without 'boots on the ground'?" has
morphed, somehow, to become the crux of the matter, which has engaged a
large number of intellectuals on both sides of the debate.
US media gurus, split between two equally war-mongering parties, love to
jump at such opportunities to discredit one another, as if waging wars in
other countries is an exclusively local American affair.
Days are long gone when the US labored to establish coalitions to wage war,
as it did in Kuwait and Iraq in 1990-91 and, to a lesser extent, again, in
Iraq in 2003. Now, wars are carried out as a matter of course. Many
Americans seen to be unware, or oblivious to the fact, that their country is
actually fighting wars on several fronts, and is circuitously involved in
others. http://commondreams.org/crossroadshttp://commondreams.org/crossroads
With multiple war fronts and conflicts fermenting all around, many are
becoming desensitized. Americans particularly have, sadly, swallowed the
serum of perpetual war, to the extent that they rarely mobilize in any
serious way against it.
In other words, a state of war has become the status quo.
Although the US Administration of President Barack Obama has killed
thousands, the majority of whom were civilians, there is no uproar nor mass
protests. Aside from the fact that the Obama brand was fashioned to appear
as the peaceable contrast to warmongering George W. Bush, there has been no
serious change in US foreign policies in the Middle East in any way that
could suggest that one president is 'better' than the other.
"Aside from the fact that the Obama brand was fashioned to appear as the
peaceable contrast to warmongering George W. Bush, there has been no serious
change in US foreign policies in the Middle East in any way that could
suggest that one president is 'better' than the other."
Obama has simply continued the legacy of his predecessor, unhindered. The
primary change that has occurred is tactical: instead of resorting to
massive troops' buildup on the ground with an assignment to topple
governments, Obama has used airstrikes to target whoever is perceived to be
the enemy, while investing in whoever he deemed 'moderate' enough to finish
the job.
Like Bush's preemptive 'war on terror', Obama's doctrine has been equally
disastrous.
Obama's wars were designed to produce little or no American casualties,
since they were almost entirely conducted from the air and via unmanned
drones operated by remote control, sometimes thousands of miles way. That
approach proved less taxing, politically. However, it worsened the situation
on the ground, and instead of ending war, it expanded it.
While Bush's invasion of Iraq revived al-Qaeda and brought it to the heart
of the region, Obama's aerial wars forced al-Qaeda to regroup, employing a
different strategy. It rebranded itself, from militant cells to a 'state',
sought swift territorial expansion, used guerrilla warfare when facing an
organized army or is bombed from the sky, and carried out suicide bombings
throughout the world to break the morale of its enemies and to serve its
propaganda efforts aimed at keeping the recruits coming.
Considering that enemies of 'Daesh' are themselves enemies of one another,
the group is assured that its existence, at least for the foreseeable
future, is tenable.
"Instead of ending war, [Obama's drones] expanded it."
The truth is that 'Daesh' thrives on military intervention because it was
born from previous military interventions. It is expanding because its
enemies are not in unison, as each is serving agendas that are rarely
concerned with ending war, but rather seeing war as an opportunity to
realize political gains.
With this logic in mind, one cannot expect the US 'Operation Odyssey
Lightning', which officially began on August 1 in Libya, to achieve any
results that could end up in stabilizing the country.
How could such 'stability' be projected, if it were not the US and other
NATO members' war on Libya in 2011 that has largely dismembered a once rich
and relatively stable Arab country? Indeed, it was the vacuum left by
subsequent conflicts that invited 'Daesh' to Sirte and other areas. Now, the
US-and other western powers, led by the French-are applying unwinnable war
tactics to stave off a messy crisis they had created themselves when they
waged an earlier war.
Even if 'Daesh' is driven out of Sirte, it will find some other unstable
environment elsewhere where it will spawn and wreak havoc. Sirte, in turn,
will, likely, fall back into a state of bedlam where various militias, many
of whom were armed by NATO in the first place, turn their guns against each
other.
Without a whole new approach to the problem, the conflicts will certainly
keep multiplying.
According to airwars.org, which keeps track of the war on 'Daesh', 14,405
coalition airstrikes against the group have been carried out in Iraq and
Syria through 735 days of a relentless campaign. An estimated 52,300 bombs
and missiles were dropped, although the number must be much higher, since
there are numerous strikes that are never claimed by any party, thus are not
officially recorded, as such.
This, of course, does not take into account Russia's own aerial bombardment,
or any party that is not officially part of the Western coalition.
But what good did this do, aside from killing many civilians, destroying
massive infrastructure and spreading 'Daesh' further into the abyss of other
vulnerable Middle East and North African spots?
There are few voices in the US media and government that seem serious about
changing the perspective completely on the Bush-Obama war on terror.
Sensible calls by the likes of Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for
President, that the root causes of terror must be addressed to end
terrorism, rarely register in the halls of US government and Congress.
In January, the cost of the war on 'Daesh', as estimated by US Defense
Department data has jumped by $2 million dollars a day to a total of $11
million. "The air war has cost the US about $5.5 billion total since it
began in August 2014," Business Insider reported. The escalation in Libya is
likely to produce new, more staggering numbers soon.
Expectedly, this is a great time for business for those who benefit from
war. Concurrently, the cycle of war and violence is feeding on itself with
no end in sight.
"Hope in aerial bombardment as the prophylactic for peace is absurd," Vijay
Prashad, Professor of International Studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
wrote recently about the futility of airstrike wars.
"It has given us instability and chaos. Other roads have to be opened. Other
paths ceded."
I couldn't agree more.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
