mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Putin and the Middle East
Russians in the Air over Iraq

As President Barack Obama and President Vladimir Putin traded veiled (and not-so-veiled) barbs during their speeches to the UN General Assembly yesterday, before retiring to a tense but supposedly “frank” and “productive” meeting to discuss the future of Syria, details were emerging as to what exactly Russia would be doing elsewhere in the Middle East: For one, they will be flying spy planes over Iraq. WSJ:

An Iraqi defense ministry spokesman said Monday that his country would be open to Russian intelligence gathering in Iraqi airspace […]

“If Russia needs to participate in aircraft reconnaissance flights, it can make a formal request to the Iraqi government and there will be no objection in my opinion,” said the spokesman, Brig. Gen. Tahseen Ibrahim.

Iraqi authorities surprised the United States this weekend by announcing that they had entered into an intelligence-sharing agreement with Russia, Iran, and Syria in a bid to fight Islamic State militants across the region. And now, comes this Iraqi statement that Russian surveillance flights would be OK.

Washington is now reconsidering what intelligence it can share with Baghdad, given that any information is likely to make it to Russia, and, more importantly, to Syria. However, given that the kind of intelligence being shared with Iraq currently is not that sensitive, Pentagon officials said that the fight will go on, and that the U.S. will continue bombing ISIS: “It does add a degree of complexity to our operations, but it doesn’t cause us to have to stop”, said a military spokesman.

But the bigger problem is that yet again, the U.S. appears to have been caught flatfooted, while Russia is taking the strategic initiative. Administration and military officials are professing complete puzzlement about Russia’s general intentions in the Middle East to the press—either because they genuinely don’t know what the Russians are doing or because the administration doesn’t how to respond. Writing in Foreign Policy today, David Rothkopf identifies the larger pattern at work here:

We have gone from the victory-at-any-cost mindset of World War II to the exit-at-any-cost mindset of the Obama years.

While self-described “realists” may hail the restraint and President Eeyore’s unrivaled mastery of focusing on the downside to any possible U.S. action, and while the president’s defenders will no doubt also revert to the always legitimate argument that the disastrous invasion of Iraq played a big role in getting us to where we are today, they neglect a critical fact. What’s done is done. We are where we are.[..]

When an American president is left with a lousy situation and no good options, then there is still the necessity of figuring out how to best advance U.S. interests going forward. (The specter of foreign fighters, the stream of refugees into Europe, and the strategic consequences of long-term control of the Middle East all underscore that we actually do have long-term interests and the “it’s not our problem argument” is just naive and shortsighted.) “It’s too hard” and “I don’t want to play” are not acceptable answers because what they produce is precisely what we have gotten: adversaries seizing the initiative and setting in motion a potential permanent redistribution of power and influence in a strategically important region of the world.

Whether this Administration wants to play or not, it has fifteen months left when it’s supposed to be in the game. Worrying, to say the least. Meanwhile, it’s well worth reading Rothkopf’s whole piece.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • CapitalHawk

    Take pretty much any strategically important world event for the last six years and you could easily say “The U.S. appeared to be caught flat footed”.

    • f1b0nacc1

      But surely there must be some common factor behind all of this? What could that be…..?

  • FriendlyGoat

    Congress is to declare the wars. Get those folks on record. If the war is declared, Obama would delegate to the generals. This is not a mystery or enigma. You get the people’s elected representatives to send those “boots” to foreign lands. That’s our constitution.

    • Government Drone

      If there’s one constant in all this, it’s that Obama has always insisted that he was elected to “end” these wars, & in that light he is succeeding superbly. Winning or losing doesn’t even enter into it; going home is in itself a “victory” for him. He doesn’t want any Congressional authorization, either; he might see that as an obligation to continue fighting, which goes against every inclination of his.
      On the one hand I could at least understand this impulse; Afghanistan & even Iraq have little attraction for outsiders (except for the oil in Iraq), & you can make a solid realist case that we’d all be better off letting the more rabid of the locals free to kill each other. But Obama has always combined this impulse with some weird rhetorical need to pretend to care about these places. And so now we have a 7-year record of him mouthing concerns over the locals’ suffering while steadfastly doing as little as possible about it.
      For what it’s worth, I’d prefer that we had stayed in strength in both those places, since trouble in that part of the world has a nasty tendency to make its way here. A forthright policy of getting out & staying out, though I wouldn’t like it, would have the advantages of honesty & a good deal of sense (given certain assumptions about the world & the US’s proper role in it). But, as WRM has often pointed out, Obama has a weird talent of finding exactly the worst combination of aspirational declarations & incompetent non-action, so that he gets the advantage of no policy alternative & the drawbacks of all of them.

      • FriendlyGoat

        It’s rather difficult to get the elected representatives in Congress to declare a war. That’s why the Constitution stipulates that Congress is THE entity with the power to do it. Demanding that Congress do the “declaring” can serve to keep a hawk president from engaging in all sorts of ill-advised actions, AND, it could serve to prod a reluctant CIC like Obama into motion. The reason our GOP Congress is not declaring a war (with or without Obama’s request) is that the representatives know their constituents don’t want one. This point often seems to be missing from the criticism of Obama’s foreign policy.

  • Fat_Man

    15 months. Well it will be interesting to see how much more this gang can screw things up in that amount of time. Of course, they have had 7 years to build up a head of steam. Woohoo. Good Times.

  • Pete

    Hey, you elect a local community organizer who weaseled his way in to one term in the Senate and then elect him to the presidency, what do you expect?

  • Boritz

    ” flatfooted” seems like a non sequitur when leading from behind. Differently-well-informed would be a more reasonable term when operating under the LFB doctrine.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service