When President Barack Obama’s made a remark
that the United Staes was no longer the world policeman, hardly any people around
the world welcomed that. Even those who vehemently opposed the “arrogance” of
the Iraq War were puzzled to hear his so abrupt announcement. The vital problem
is, if the United States really were to step down from the world policeman, it
needs to nominate some partners to share some portions of responsibility. In
history, once America expressed withdrawal from global commitment after the
Vietnam War. Like today, Americans were annoyed with a long war. But the post
Vietnam America under Richard Nixon acted more responsibly than Barack Obama
does today.
To begin with, let me review the
Nixon doctrine, which was announced in 1969 when President Nixon to Vietnamize the
war. In those days, opinion leaders around the world talked about American
decline, and even cast doubts whether the United States would continue to be
the anchor of global stability. As Obama does today, Nixon delivered a message
to placate anxiety of the post-American
world among the allies that the United
States would keep treaty commitments and help allies when vital its security interests
were threatened. On the other hand, Nixon stressed that the United States
simply helps countries facing enemy threats from behind, and they assume the
primary responsibility of defense. These points are somewhat similar to Obama’s
foreign policy directions. However, when the superpower steps down or cedes
responsibility to others, it is necessary to help the partner grow capable of
sharing burdens. So far as this aspect is concerned, Obama is far poorer than
Nixon. Stark differences are shown in their Middle East policies.
Shortly after Nixon announced his doctrine,
he assisted the Shah’s Iran to ascend to the Guard of the Gulf. This is
typically illustrated in his generous and prompt support to build up the
Imperial Iranian Air Force. In the early 1970s, Iran was plagued by the Soviet
invasion to its airspace. Particularly, MiG-25s flew so fast that even IIAF
F-4s were unable to intercept them, and Iran was at the mercy of Soviet air reconnaissance
those days. Iran was desperately in need of advanced fighters to shut out the Soviet
Air Force from its sovereign territory. Therefore Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
met President Nixon at Andrews Air Force base near Washington DC in July 1973.
Nixon invited the Shah to see the flight demonstration there to select either
F-14 or F-15 for Iranian air defense, whichever he preferred. The Shah chose
F-14 without hesitation, as soon as the show ended (“Thirty minutes to choose your fighter jet: how the Shah of Iranchose the F-14 Tomcat over the F-15 Eagle”; Aviationist; February 11, 2013).
After returning home, the Shah ordered 30
F-14s in January next year, and subsequent 50 of them in June, along with
AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. The Nixon administration acted so promptly that Iran received
the first F-14s in January 1976, while the United States provided intensive
trainings for Iranian pilots (
“Grumman F-14 Tomcat#Iran”; Wikipedia). The
result of this was spectacular. IIAF F-14 shot down a drone in a test firing of
Phoenix missile in August 1977 to demonstrate Iran’s air defense capability
against Soviet intrusion. Since then, formidable MiG-25s stopped flying over
Iranian territory (
“Aircraft/Jet fighters/F-14”; IIAF.net). Nixon kept his
words as he succeeded in helping the Shah build up military power, capable
enough to defend his own homeland, and even act on behalf of America as the Guard
of the Gulf. We must learn a critical lesson from this story that the United
States can cut back its military commitment only when there is a staunch and
reliable strategic partner in the region.
In view of the above historical comparison,
Obama’s remark to step down from the world policeman is extremely imprudent.
Unlike Nixon, Obama has no reliable partner in the Middle East to cede America’s
responsibility for regional security. Particularly, his poorly devised policy
on Iraq deepens regional instability furthermore, as typically seen in the rise
of ISIS. While Nixon helped the Shah’s Iran grow strong enough to police the
region, Obama withdrew from Iraq without reconstructing its security forces. The
Iraqi Air Force was virtually nonexistent as Saddam Hussein let his flight
squadrons fled to Iran when the Gulf War broke out to avoid war damages, and
the rest of them were destroyed in the Iraq War. Therefore, it was a prerequisite
to rebuild Iraq’s air strike capability to conclude
the security agreementbetween Iraq and the United States, and thereby driving out terrorists on the
ground (
“Iraq to Have Some Air Strike Capability, U.S. Says”; AssyrianInternational News Agency; December 6, 2007).
For this objective, Iraq decided to
purchase F-16 fighters and Apache attack helicopters. The Maliki administration
began to consider purchasing F-16s at the end of the Bush era (“Iraq Seeks F-16 Fighters”;Wall Street Journal; September 5, 2008). They made a decision a few months
after the Obama administration started (“Procurement: Iraqis Put Up The BucksFor F-16s”; Strategy Page; April 9, 2009). Iraq finally reached an agreement with
the United States to order first 36 of them in 2011, but according to UPI, that
is still far from sufficient to cover the whole area (“Iraq F-16 Order Finally Confirmed”;Iraq Business News; December 7, 2011). The problem was that Iraq had not had
jet fighters since the fall of Saddam Hussein, and few pilots were skilled
enough to fly such advanced machines (“Iraq Has Brand New F-16s, But Can't UseThem Against ISIS Yet”; International Business Times; June 12, 2014). Moreover,
for the safety of instructors and Iraqi pilots from ISIS attacks, the F-16
training site was changed from Balad air base in northern Iraq to Tucson
Arizona. In addition, Iraqi pilots need
long and intensive training. Therefore, F-16 fighters will be handed to Iraq in
2017 (“Islamic State threatdelays delivery of F-16s to Iraq”; Military Times; November 10, 2014 & “IraqiF-16 pilots need years more training in U.S.”; Military Times; December 11,2014). The Iraqi parliament is infuriated with further delay in F-16 delivery (“Iraq urges US to explain delay in F-16 jets delivery”; IslamTimes; 25 December, 2014).
AH-64 Apache helicopter
is another air strike arsenal that Iraq asked the United States to sell.
However, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Democratic Senator Bob
Menendez raised critical concerns with human rights that Shiite Maliki administration
might use them to repress Sunni minorities rather than to fight against ISIS
and other insurgents, when the Obama administration reached the agreement with
Iraq (“Agreement Reached toSell Apache Helicopters to Iraq”; Defense News; January 27, 2014). Though the
deal was made, the Iraqi government demanded a lease of further 6 Apaches in
addition to mutually agreed 24. Finally, Iraq cancelled the deal (“Iraq passes on Apache buy”; Jane Defence Weekly; 25 September, 2014).
As in the case of F-16, the Obama administration failed to meet the demand of
the Iraqi government to deliver the requested quantity quickly.
Those failures have made Iraq vulnerable
not only against ISIS, but also against Iran. The Obama administration solicits
Iran to work together to fight against ISIS, while holding tough negotiations
on nuclear disarmament. Moreover, Iran has been a troublesome actor in Iraq as
its influence penetrates there through Shiites in the south. Now,
the Iraqi government is increasingly dependent on Shiite militia. Obama may think
anti-ISIS partnership with Iran temporary, but that poses long term negative effect
to Iraqi security. Iran still supports the Assad administration in Syria. Also,
Shiite militias want to displace Sunni people. The only way to overcome such
sectarian chasm is founding a solid security force of the central government
incorporating all ethnic and religious backgrounds (
“The U.S. and Iran arealigned in Iraq against the Islamic State — for now”; Washington Post; December27, 2014).
As a key ally to the United States in Iraq,
the Kurdish Regional Government sees ISIS threats were relatively contained as
a result of coalition air raid, but critically alarmed with Iranian penetration
through Shiite militias. Among those militias, Asaib Ahl Haq and the Badr militias are
vital threats to the Kurds as they are closely connected with the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard. Shias are most active in Diyala Governorate that borders
the Kurdish region and Iran, and they are moving further north to Kirkuk (“Forget ISIS: Shia Militias Are the RealThreat to Kurdistan”; National Interest; January 7, 2015). Despite such a
problem, the Obama administration is easing sanctions on Iran for nuclear talk.
That provoked anger on the Hill at his State of the Union Speech, and legislators cast
doubt whether Obama understands the threat of Iran (Unanimity at last: Obama isdelusional on foreign policy”; Washington Post; January 21, 2015). I agree to
their vehement criticism, and it seems as if Obama were consigning Middle East
security to Iran. I wonder if Obama really has long term visions to stabilize
Iraq and manage Iran.
Ever since America took over the hegemony
from Britain, its preeminence repeats upturns and downturns. Historical
backgrounds of Nixon and Obama are quite similar, but policy responses are so
starkly different. Obama is throwing away the responsibility of the world policeman
and pivoting to Asia without any preparation. So many commentators talk about a
superficial decline of the United States, but what really matters is the
quality of leadership. Unlike Nixon, Obama has no vision of foreign policy.
While the Shah had mutual trust with Nixon and Ford, neither Maliki nor Abadi
trusts Obama so much. Nixon had Henry Kissinger, but Obama has no reliable
foreign policy advisors. I believe that historical comparison between both
presidents will be of much implication to American foreign policy today.
