Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:48:39 +0200
Obama on the World-President Obama Talks to Thomas L. Friedman About Iraq,
Putin and Israel
By
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/tho
maslfriedman/index.html> THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
28.09.2014
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman
-iraq-and-world-affairs.html#story-continues-1> Continue reading the main
story Video edited on AUG. 8, 2014
Play Video-Exclusive Interview: Obama on the World
http://nyti.ms/1vsiDPg
President Obama's hair is definitely grayer these days, and no doubt trying
to manage foreign policy in a world of increasing disorder accounts for at
least half of those gray hairs. (The Tea Party can claim the other half.)
But having had a chance to spend an hour touring the horizon with him in the
White House Map Room late Friday afternoon, it's clear that the president
has a take on the world, born of many lessons over the last six years, and
he has feisty answers for all his foreign policy critics.
Obama made clear that he is only going to involve America more deeply in
places like the Middle East to the extent that the different communities
there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished. The United
States is not going to be the air force of Iraqi Shiites or any other
faction. Despite Western sanctions, he cautioned, President Vladimir Putin
of Russia "could invade" Ukraine at any time, and, if he does, "trying to
find our way back to a cooperative functioning relationship with Russia
during the remainder of my term will be much more difficult." Intervening in
Libya to prevent a massacre was the right thing to do, Obama argued, but
doing it without sufficient follow-up on the ground to manage Libya's
transition to more democratic politics is probably his biggest foreign
policy regret.
Lessons From Libya
At the end of the day, the president mused, the biggest threat to America -
the only force that can really weaken us - is us. We have so many things
going for us right now as a country - from new energy resources to
innovation to a growing economy - but, he said, we will never realize our
full potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook that we're
asking of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor,
no vanquished and work together.
Obama on America's Place in the World
"Our politics are dysfunctional," said the president, and we should heed the
terrible divisions in the Middle East as a "warning to us: societies don't
work if political factions take maximalist positions. And the more diverse
the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions."
While he blamed the rise of the Republican far right for extinguishing so
many potential compromises, Obama also acknowledged that gerrymandering, the
Balkanization of the news media and uncontrolled money in politics - the
guts of our political system today - are sapping our ability to face big
challenges together, more than any foreign enemy. "Increasingly politicians
are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions," he said,
"and sooner or later, that catches up with you."
I began by asking whether if former Secretary of State Dean Acheson was
"present at the creation" of the post-World War II order, as he once wrote,
did Obama feel present at the "disintegration?"
"First of all, I think you can't generalize across the globe because there
are a bunch of places where good news keeps coming." Look at Asia, he said,
countries like Indonesia, and many countries in Latin America, like Chile.
"But I do believe," he added, "that what we're seeing in the Middle East and
parts of North Africa is an order that dates back to World War I starting to
buckle."
But wouldn't things be better had we armed the secular Syrian rebels early
or kept U.S. troops in Iraq? The fact is, said the president, in Iraq a
residual U.S. troop presence would never have been needed had the Shiite
majority there not "squandered an opportunity" to share power with Sunnis
and Kurds. "Had the Shia majority seized the opportunity to reach out to the
Sunnis and the Kurds in a more effective way, [and not] passed legislation
like de-Baathification," no outside troops would have been necessary. Absent
their will to do that, our troops sooner or later would have been caught in
the crossfire, he argued.
Iraqis' Squandered Opportunities
With "respect to Syria," said the president, the notion that arming the
rebels would have made a difference has "always been a fantasy. This idea
that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to
what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers,
pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not
only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed
by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards."
Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding,
training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: "There's
not as much capacity as you would hope."
The "broader point we need to stay focused on," he added, "is what we have
is a disaffected Sunni minority in the case of Iraq, a majority in the case
of Syria, stretching from essentially Baghdad to Damascus. ... Unless we can
give them a formula that speaks to the aspirations of that population, we
are inevitably going to have problems. ... Unfortunately, there was a period
of time where the Shia majority in Iraq didn't fully understand that.
They're starting to understand it now. Unfortunately, we still have ISIL
[the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant], which has, I think, very little
appeal to ordinary Sunnis." But "they're filling a vacuum, and the question
for us has to be not simply how we counteract them militarily but how are we
going to speak to a Sunni majority in that area ... that, right now, is
detached from the global economy."
Is Iran being helpful? "I think what the Iranians have done," said the
president, "is to finally realize that a maximalist position by the Shias
inside of Iraq is, over the long term, going to fail. And that's, by the
way, a broader lesson for every country: You want 100 percent, and the
notion that the winner really does take all, all the spoils. Sooner or later
that government's going to break down."
The only states doing well, like Tunisia, I've argued, have done so because
their factions adopted the principle of no victor, no vanquished. Once they
did, they didn't need outside help.
China as a Free Rider
"We cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves," said
the president of the factions in Iraq. "Our military is so capable, that if
we put everything we have into it, we can keep a lid on a problem for a
time. But for a society to function long term, the people themselves have to
make decisions about how they are going to live together, how they are going
to accommodate each other's interests, how they are going to compromise.
When it comes to things like corruption, the people and their leaders have
to hold themselves accountable for changing those cultures.... ... We can
help them and partner with them every step of the way. But we can't do it
for them."
So, I asked, explain your decision to use military force to protect the
refugees from ISIL (which is also known as ISIS) and Kurdistan, which is an
island of real decency in Iraq?
"When you have a unique circumstance in which genocide is threatened, and a
country is willing to have us in there, you have a strong international
consensus that these people need to be protected and we have a capacity to
do so, then we have an obligation to do so," said the president. But given
the island of decency the Kurds have built, we also have to ask, he added,
not just "how do we push back on ISIL, but also how do we preserve the space
for the best impulses inside of Iraq, that very much is on my mind, that has
been on my mind throughout.
"I do think the Kurds used that time that was given by our troop sacrifices
in Iraq," Obama added. "They used that time well, and the Kurdish region is
functional the way we would like to see. It is tolerant of other sects and
other religions in a way that we would like to see elsewhere. So we do think
it's important to make sure that that space is protected, but, more broadly,
what I've indicated is that I don't want to be in the business of being the
Iraqi air force. I don't want to get in the business for that matter of
being the Kurdish air force, in the absence of a commitment of the people on
the ground to get their act together and do what's necessary politically to
start protecting themselves and to push back against ISIL."
The reason, the president added, "that we did not just start taking a bunch
of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would
have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki." That
only would have encouraged, he said, Maliki and other Shiites to think: "
'We don't actually have to make compromises. We don't have to make any
decisions. We don't have to go through the difficult process of figuring out
what we've done wrong in the past. All we have to do is let the Americans
bail us out again. And we can go about business as usual.' "
The president said that what he is telling every faction in Iraq is: "We
will be your partners, but we are not going to do it for you. We're not
sending a bunch of U.S. troops back on the ground to keep a lid on things.
You're going to have to show us that you are willing and ready to try and
maintain a unified Iraqi government that is based on compromise. That you
are willing to continue to build a nonsectarian, functional security force
that is answerable to a civilian government. ... We do have a strategic
interest in pushing back ISIL. We're not going to let them create some
caliphate through Syria and Iraq, but we can only do that if we know that
we've got partners on the ground who are capable of filling the void. So if
we're going to reach out to Sunni tribes, if we're going to reach out to
local governors and leaders, they've got to have some sense that they're
fighting for something." Otherwise, Obama said, "We can run [ISIL] off for a
certain period of time, but as soon as our planes are gone, they're coming
right back in."
I asked the president whether he was worried about Israel.
Obama on Israel
"It is amazing to see what Israel has become over the last several decades,"
he answered. "To have scratched out of rock this incredibly vibrant,
incredibly successful, wealthy and powerful country is a testament to the
ingenuity, energy and vision of the Jewish people. And because Israel is so
capable militarily, I don't worry about Israel's survival. ... I think the
question really is how does Israel survive. And how can you create a State
of Israel that maintains its democratic and civic traditions. How can you
preserve a Jewish state that is also reflective of the best values of those
who founded Israel. And, in order to do that, it has consistently been my
belief that you have to find a way to live side by side in peace with
Palestinians. ... You have to recognize that they have legitimate claims,
and this is their land and neighborhood as well."
Asked whether he should be more vigorous in pressing Israel's prime
minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Palestinian Authority's president,
Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, to reach a land-for-peace deal, the
president said, it has to start with them. Prime Minister Netanyahu's "poll
numbers are a lot higher than mine" and "were greatly boosted by the war in
Gaza," Obama said. "And so if he doesn't feel some internal pressure, then
it's hard to see him being able to make some very difficult compromises,
including taking on the settler movement. That's a tough thing to do. With
respect to Abu Mazen, it's a slightly different problem. In some ways, Bibi
is too strong [and] in some ways Abu Mazen is too weak to bring them
together and make the kinds of bold decisions that Sadat or Begin or Rabin
were willing to make. It's going to require leadership among both the
Palestinians and the Israelis to look beyond tomorrow. ... And that's the
hardest thing for politicians to do is to take the long view on things."
Clearly, a lot of the president's attitudes on Iraq grow out the turmoil
unleashed in Libya by NATO's decision to topple Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, but
not organize any sufficient international follow-on assistance on the ground
to help them build institutions. Whether it is getting back into Iraq or
newly into Syria, the question that Obama keeps coming back to is: Do I have
the partners - local and/or international - to make any improvements we
engineer self-sustaining?
"I'll give you an example of a lesson I had to learn that still has
ramifications to this day," said Obama. "And that is our participation in
the coalition that overthrew Qaddafi in Libya. I absolutely believed that it
was the right thing to do. ... Had we not intervened, it's likely that Libya
would be Syria. ... And so there would be more death, more disruption, more
destruction. But what is also true is that I think we [and] our European
partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you're going to do
this. Then it's the day after Qaddafi is gone, when everybody is feeling
good and everybody is holding up posters saying, 'Thank you, America.' At
that moment, there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild
societies that didn't have any civic traditions. ... So that's a lesson that
I now apply every time I ask the question, 'Should we intervene, militarily?
Do we have an answer [for] the day after?' "
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/08/09/multimedia/obama-friedman-full/oba
ma-friedman-full-videoSixteenByNine540.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)