This paper examines the political and strategic dilemma facing President Obama during the 2014 Iraq crisis, when the Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL) rapidly seized territory across northern Iraq and Syria following the U.S. military withdrawal. The paper argues that the U.S. bore an obligation to support Iraqi stability given its role in the region, yet faced significant domestic political constraints against redeploying ground troops. It outlines three key U.S. response strategies: targeted airstrikes against IS positions, building an international coalition to provide ground presence, and pressuring the Iraqi government to form a more inclusive political structure capable of mounting an effective defense.
The events unfolding in Iraq in 2014 represented a deeply challenging situation for the United States. Politically, President Obama had fostered domestic support by successfully removing all ground troops from Iraq. However, in the aftermath of that withdrawal, a counter-insurgency group arose that was able to conquer a vast swath of territory across northern Iraq and Syria. This development placed the United States in a difficult position. The insurgency was undoubtedly connected to the conditions created by the U.S. withdrawal, and thus the United States carried an obligation to the people of Iraq to support their stability. At the same time, sending ground troops back into Iraq would have been a political nightmare for the Obama administration, widely viewed as an admission that the early withdrawal had been a failure.
The group that rapidly expanded its power and territorial control became known by several names — IS, ISIS, or ISIL — depending on the source. The Islamic State, as it is broadly understood, exploited the power vacuum left in the region to establish control over significant populations and resources, posing a direct threat to the stability of both Iraq and neighboring Syria.
To combat this group, it became evident that President Obama would pursue every available option short of redeploying ground troops. For example, U.S. jets bombed IS targets in western Iraq for the first time as part of a direct military response (Muir, 2014). This use of targeted airstrikes represented one pillar of a broader strategy.
A second approach involved building an international coalition that could supply the ground presence needed to effectively slow IS's growing momentum, without requiring a unilateral American ground commitment. A third strategy focused on stabilizing the Iraqi government itself, strengthening its capacity to mount a credible defense against IS forces. The U.S. approach to countering ISIS was therefore multi-pronged, combining military, diplomatic, and political instruments.
The United States pressed the Iraqi government to form an inclusive governing coalition as quickly as possible, placing it in a stronger position to mount an immediate defense and, ultimately, an offense as its political infrastructure continued to develop. By pursuing airstrikes, coalition-building, and political stabilization simultaneously, the Obama administration sought to address the ISIS threat without repeating the large-scale ground intervention that had defined the earlier phase of U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Muir, J. (2014, September 7). Iraq crisis: Obama to set out 'US offensive against IS'. Retrieved from BBC Middle East: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29100285
You’re 94% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.