advertisement

Presidential campaigns pay scant attention to Middle East

So the latest battle for Fallujah is under way. It was, in fact, in its 17th day last weekend. This time, it looked considerably better for America's "interests" in the region, as Iraqi counterterrorism troops paired with Shiite militias (some Iranian), advised by U.S. special forces.

Tellingly, most Americans know little about the attack. But we can say for sure that it is in Iraq. It is only 43 miles from Baghdad, the legendary city of Mesopotamia, the Gardens of Babylon and the great caliphs of yore.

Fallujah once had a population of 300,000 people, but today an estimated 500, perhaps 700, fighters aligned with the murderous Islamic State or ISIS are holed up there. It is believed that 50,000 non-ISIS civilians are still trapped inside the city, hopelessness their only banner.

Fallujah "is like the Kaaba" for ISIS, Gen. Saad Harbiya, head of Fallujah operations for the Iraqi army, told The Associated Press. In effect, in ISIS' minds, the city is as spiritually valuable as the sacred mosque of Mecca and will be fanatically defended.

Thus we see the next - and, President Obama certainly hopes, the beginning of the last - phase of the president's seven-year struggle with the Middle East. If Fallujah is taken, then Mosul, a huge city by comparison and also held by ISIS, will be next. In time.

Meanwhile, Kurdish and Syrian troops are nervously stretching their lines around Raqqa, the ISIS "capital" inside Syria. Thus, the circle will be closed around the Islamic State, but even more, President Obama will have completed his pre-presidential promises to pull America back from the wars the George W. administration so stupidly got us into. At least for the moment.

As I ponder all of this today, I find my attention focusing on two questions: (1) Why are these wars, which underlie many of the problems our nation faces today, almost never mentioned in the candidates' speeches? (2) What would have likely happened had we NOT invaded Iraq in 2004?

First, the wars - we are still losing in Afghanistan, remember, and we're champing at the bit to hit Libya and Somalia again - are seldom mentioned perhaps because they're simply too dangerous. What possible benefit would there be?

The problem is, without a serious discussion of America's propensity after World War II to fight in foreign lands whose names we barely know, there will be nothing to hold the next president back from repeating Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria (did I forget any?) and still others.

The next president may see an opportunity to test his or her power and say, "Hell, why not? Nobody even spoke about it during the campaign."

We'll have to wait, of course, to see what the actual campaigns show us (that is, supposing anyone can stay awake through them). But I'll bet you, even the two real candidates will avoid the most important subject facing our nation today:

Will America continue to seek to become an empire, with half-baked but bloody interventions all over the world, or can we bear the "boredom" of being an inspirational example to the rest of the world? Empire or example: That's it, really.

Second, where would this misbegotten "country" of Iraq be if we had stayed home and dealt with the 9/11 attacks by individually hunting down the attackers instead of blundering in with tanks and bombs against a historic city that was a treasure house for both the Judaic and Christian faiths?

My mind goes back to 1978, on one of my eight trips to Iraq, during which I was the first Western journalist to interview Saddam Hussein. The '70s are still called "the Golden Years" by Iraqis. Yes, even though mass-murderer Saddam was in charge.

I was interviewing the minister of development, a handsome middle-aged man, and he was pointing to a huge map on his wall filled with drawings of roads being built. I studied it with some care, then said with a disarming smile:

"If I'm not mistaken, all the roads are going west."

The minister himself smiled, too. Indeed, they were. Iraq was moving, both driving and shifting, west - toward Europe. Iraq was leaving Iran and Central Asia and all its ancient hatreds behind as it modernized itself. Under a dictator, yes, but most probably, within our lifetimes, the Iraqis themselves would have changed that.

Then the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979, sowed Shiite Islam everywhere and the "golden" age was over.

So now we have American special forces advising the Iraqis one more time. One hopes they take Fallujah again, as they did temporarily in 2004, but meanwhile, I keep thinking about the past because I'm trying to learn from it.

Are any of our would-be leaders?

Email Georgie Anne Geyer at gigi_geyer@juno.com.

© 2016, Universal

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.