Decoding Obama's speech on Islamic State: Back to waging remote controlled wars

Barack Obama’s address to his country and the world on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary had the usual high-sounding freedom rhetoric, flag-waving and bluster that accompanies such high-profile US presidential statements. Obama pledged to “degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).” (ISIL is also called ISIS, of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Sure, the horrendously brutal ISIL needs to be contained and eliminated, but Obama’s speech appeared to be more like a justification of America’s policy of steady disengagement from the world’s problems after the excessive involvement US forces in West Asia during the George W Bush years than anything else. The core parts of his speech were more of a defence of his policies of bringing American troops back home than about starting a robust fresh engagement with the world. [caption id=“attachment_1707321” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  US President Barack Obama.[/caption] Reading into and between the lines, Obama is actually articulating a defensive Fortress America strategy, not one of widening America’s military involvement abroad, and especially in the hot warzones of West Asia. American actions will not involve troops anymore, but only aerial bombings and assassinations. America has no stomach for fighting any more wars with its own soldiers. The speech is a response to widespread criticism that he has no policy on West Asia or ISIL. This is why there was more chest-thumping than new thinking about American leadership of the world. Obama said: “We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al-Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.”(Italics mine) Under Obama, the US has followed a policy of engaging terrorists only from the air (bombings, drone attacks), and by following a policy of selective assassinations of those whom the US considers a threat. It maintains a Kill List of those it wants eliminated. The CIA, far from being a spy agency, has become an assassination squad which kills the “enemies of America” – a fact documented by Mark Mazzetti’s book, The Way of the Knife. The book charts the shift in the CIA’s brief from being “a traditional spying shop into more of a man-hunting paramilitary - custodian of lethal drones, sponsor of dark ops, employer of secret armies and shady contractors.” And the reason why “America is safer” has actually little to do with the CIA’s killing programme or any of Obama’s other anti-terrorist actions. America was always safer than other nations for the simple reason that it has two friendly neighbours across its land borders and two vast oceans on the other two sides. There is no easy way for terrorists to get to America – unlike India or Israel, which live in fundamentally unfriendly neighbourhoods. America has always been a fortress, and Obama is merely taking credit for what is its geographical advantage. In fact, the “America is safer” claim is partially contradicted by Obama’s own subsequent statement, where he said: “We continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today.” In short, America is no safer today than it was before 9/11. Bumping off an Osama here or a Anwar al-Awlaki does not make America any safer. The second point – which has been very obvious for years now – is Obama’s no-boots-on-the-ground strategy, which is one of a piece with Fortress America. America will not fight wars elsewhere anymore. So, despite promising American leadership to combat ISIL, Obama will provide no forces anywhere now or in the future. Obama made this more than explicit in his speech. “I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground.” And then again: “But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region….We will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission – we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” We will give moral support and maybe bomb a few targets, but otherwise leave us alone. The reason why America no longer needs to fight wars elsewhere is explained by its increasing independence from West Asia oil – and Obama reckons that the world needs America more than it needs the world. He said: “Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades.” So West Asia can stew in its own juice, for all America cares. Obama talked a lot about ISIL and other terror groups, but beyond words he had little to offer. He said: “At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL – which calls itself the “Islamic State.” Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organisation, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” All this may be true, but several questions emerge: on what basis does Obama claim that ISIL is not Islamic when Islam is its explicit calling card? Moreover, having claimed earlier that he has degraded al-Qaeda all over, how is it that this degradation has led to the growth of more terror groups rather than less? The truth is America has contributed as much to the rise of new terrorist groups as it has to their elimination. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia to Libya and Syria, US actions have led to more chaos and strife, creating conditions in which radical groups can fish for recruits. America’s war against Saddam Hussain’s Iraq activated the al-Qaeda in an area where it never existed. America’s war in Afghanistan has not defeated the Taliban; instead it has made the Taliban even stronger in neighbouring Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan outside the government’s control. America’s actions in Syria – of opposing President Assad’s brutal regime – have given rise to ISIL. Earlier, America’s closeness to the authoritarian regimes of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and the Shah of Iran ended up strengthening radical Islamists more than moderates. Libya is hardly the model democracy after the exit of the Gadhafi regime. Boko Haram is threatening large swathes of Africa. Even today, America is best friends with Saudi Arabia, whose extreme version of Wahabi Islam is the ideological progenitor of almost all Sunni fundamentalist regimes and terror organisations in the world. So when Obama says that “America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat (of ISIL)” it means not only that he won’t fight other people’s wars, but that he will not examine the underlying reasons why America’s actions have brought more misery to the rest of the world than anyone else. But then, Obama did not make his speech to utter a mea culpa. He was trying to convince his own people – and the world - he is on the right track. That is doubtful.