Devising a U.S. strategy for simultaneously dealing with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s refugees, al-Qaida, the Islamic State and the Russians is an international version of a very dangerous game of pick-up sticks.
In the game, you dump a pile of sticks on the table and then take turns trying to remove one stick at a time without moving its neighbors.
In real life, the U.S. needs a successful strategy not to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS) or overthrow Assad, but to forge some sort of peace in the region.
Dominic Tierney, a contributing editor at The Atlantic and an associate professor of political science at Swarthmore College, writes this week that “The Obama administration has neglected the end game.”
“In theory, the U.S. plan is to ‘degrade and destroy’ ISIS through air strikes and aid to local troops on the ground. But the White House hasn’t mapped out what the path to strategic success might look like, or even the desired end game. Instead, to a large degree, President (Barack) Obama has been improvising.”
One of the most consistent critics of the U.S. wartime foreign policy is not one of the bombastic Republican candidates for president, but Hawaii’s own Democratic U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the 34-year-old, two-term congresswoman and Iraq War vet.
This week, Gabbard, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is on a congressional tour, meeting first in Paris with leaders in the wake of the terror killings and now in Cairo discussing the threats of ISIS.
She says that the U.S. must stand with Egyptian leaders to “fight against ISIS, al-Qaida, Boko Haram and other Islamic extremists who are our common enemy.”
The key points for Gabbard are “common enemy” and “Islamic extremists.”
Shortly after winning election to the U.S. House, Gabbard was saying “no” to U.S. military intervention in Syria, urging instead that Obama embrace a foreign policy that regards “Islamic extremists” as a threat.
“Syria does not present a direct security threat to the United States. Military action will undermine our national defense, as even a limited strike could easily escalate into a regional conflict. …
“The United States should not involve itself in the midst of this civil war, which is rooted in sectarian hatred and animosity among various warring religious groups,” said Gabbard in 2013.
Last week, Gabbard co-sponsored a resolution calling for an end of U.S. efforts to overthrow Assad.
“The war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria — which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis and pose a greater threat to the world,” Gabbard said in last week’s release.
Hawaii’s U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz is also traveling this week: he is in Jordan and Germany for discussions regarding refugees from the Middle East.
Gabbard, meanwhile, is shaping up not so much as the consensus-builder on a congressional foreign policy, but certainly the point of the spear pointed at Obama’s policy.
———
Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.
