Another Casualty of the Obama Foreign Policy

by Pete Hegseth

In light of recent violence in Iraq — and al-Qaeda’s resurgence there – the New York Times editorial board finally stated the obvious yesterday:

Iraq is a sovereign country, responsible for its own security. But Iraq might have been better able to repel Al Qaeda if Mr. Maliki and the Americans had worked harder on a deal to keep a token number of troops in the country to continue helping with training and intelligence-gathering. Not surprising, Mr. Maliki’s interest in such an arrangement has grown; Army Special Operations and the C.I.A. reportedly have small units in the country to assist in counterterrorism activities.

If “Americans” — meaning President Obama and his administration — had earnestly attempted to forge a lasting, residual relationship with Iraq, the situation on the ground there would be much different today. As the Times piece notes, even a token number of troops would have done the trick. Instead, the situation has slowly unraveled (for many reasons) and America is left without a seat at the table to influence it. As bad as it is for the people of Iraq, the chaos is just as bad for America’s long-term security interests. Instead of following through on our commitment there and truly preventing al-Qaeda’s ability to return, we’ve squandering a heavy investment for the sake of a campaign promise.

When America behaves like this, it’s no wonder our influence dwindles in the Middle East. Yet another casualty of Obama’s foreign policy, or lack thereof.

The Corner

The one and only.