Hindsight should be 20/20

Photograph: Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images

As the topic of the post suggests, the U.S. isn’t blameless in the current situation of the middle-east. Since the end of the 2ndworld war we have seen interventions, propped up regimes and sale of arms, often in the name of diplomacy and democracy. Even today we see U.S. support of rebels and splinter groups who are hoped to be able to shift the tide of war against ISIS (Daesh). So what perspective drives the U.S. government’s intervention? Just as importantly - where does the popular opinion of the U.S. citizenry fall?

The timeline of interventionist policies and rhetoric of the 2000’s could use the 9/11 attacks of 2001 as a starting point. From then on Iran, Iraq, and any regions with Al Qaeda/ its supporters were referred to as the ‘Axis of Evil’. The ensuing Iraq war and drone strikes on Al Qaeda locations in Yemen saw the foreign policy become very invasive. When documents were ousted about the secret airstrikes, civilian casualties, and atrocities such as the Abu Ghraib torture zones, public opinion shifted heavily against more interventions in the region. By 2011, the U.S. had pulled out more than half of its standing army in Iraq, but much of the damage had been done. The mounting Syrian conflict blossomed into a civil war in the same year. The U.S. deemed it necessary to return to Syria via airstrikes when they began using chemical weapons on the citizenry. Though many still agree with this was a necessary move, decades of regime flips and sectarian movements created enough fodder to create extremist movements and groups like ISIS.

This decade long history is painted with many forms of interaction with the region, and leaves one to wonder what it looks like now to the public and the U.S.’s foreign policy officials. To begin, the public distaste for ISIS, now that we know what it is, is at an all-time high. Especially during the U.S. election season and the San Bernardino incident, it’s a hot topic not only for internationally minded individuals, but now the general populace. The U.S. strategy hasn’t changed much in implementation either, just in numbers. The goal remains to take over ISIS strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa using more weaponry and more ground troops from both the U.S. and U.S. backed rebels. U.S. officials agree that they would have preferred the more diplomatic route but have been pushed to respond to the rising conflicts in the region attempts at politically based resolutions have failed. Countless calls for the resignation of Bashar al-Assad, dead-ended peace talks and the love-hate triangle between Russia, the U.S. and the Assad regime have helped none. As it stands it seems like the U.S. will continue to support rebels, Kurds and other groups openly in opposition to ISIS until its defeat. Hopefully this isn’t just another peg in the cycle of damaging intervention in the region and defeat of a group disliked by Russia, The West, and its Muslims neighbors will herald a new era of peace.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/us-policy-syria-refugees-assad-rebels

http://i2.wp.com/www.theendofhistory.net/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/USMiddleEastPolicyTimeline1.jpg

https://news.vice.com/article/the-un-says-us-drone-strikes-in-yemen-have-killed-more-civilians-than-al-qaeda

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/war-on-is/2016/01/14/pentagon-strategy-islamic-state-iraq-syria/78269180/