Obama must explain why Iraq still matters

When President Obama went on TV last week to outline his response to terrorist advances in Iraq, he missed a chance to do something essential: Convey how serious the threat is to the Mideast — and to us.

The practical steps he proposed made sense in the short run (although they should have been taken at least a year earlier). But Obama failed to make clear to skeptical Americans why they should care about Iraq’s current troubles, or why this crisis is so terrifying to those who know the region.

So here goes:

The current crisis was sparked this month when an al Qaida offshoot known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took control of Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul. As the Iraqi army collapsed, ISIS forces moved rapidly toward Baghdad.

The group was well known to U.S. officials. Born in Iraq, then decimated by U.S. troops in the 2000s, it reconstituted itself in war-torn Syria last year and conquered the northeastern part of that country. It moved into Fallujah in western Iraq early this year.

But its seizure of one-third of Iraq this month marks the first time a radical jihadi group has taken control of a nation-sized swath of territory, erasing borders that had existed since the early 20th century. ISIS has pledged to restore the Islamic caliphate that ended with the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1924. In areas of Syria it controls, ISIS has set up courts and schools and taken control of other government services.

Not only does the group control land, it also has the financial and military resources of a state.

Once reliant on cash from private donations from rich gulf sheikhs, it increased its wealth through taking control of Syrian oil fields, illegally selling valuable antiquities, and extortion. Now it has added about $400 million seized from Iraqi banks in Mosul. And it has an arsenal of heavy U.S. weaponry taken from Iraqi army depots it captured this month.

“This is the biggest challenge to the United States since 9/11,” says Jim Jeffrey, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, in comments typical of those I’ve heard from many experts. “This is the largest concentration of al Qaida anywhere, and they are the nastiest.” In fact, ISIS was so extraordinarily violent in Syria that core al Qaida disavowed the group, worried it would alienate the locals.

Some experts argue that the ISIS threat is overrated because it has only 7,000 to 10,000 members and because its advance on Baghdad has stalled.

They also say ISIS gains in Iraq depend on cooperation from Sunni tribes that have been alienated by the avidly sectarian rule of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They predict these tribes will ultimately evict the jihadis. Thus, they claim, no American focus on Iraq is necessary.

Such arguments gloss over the depth of the ISIS threat to U.S. interests, and to Iraq.

Only intense, U.S.-led regional diplomacy offers a slight chance of averting this grim scenario, by persuading Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraqi factions that sectarianism threatens them all (Iranian officials appear split on this issue). Only U.S. diplomacy, led by Obama, might lead to an Iraqi government of national unity. Only then might there be a chance to roll back ISIS inside Iraq.

And if U.S. diplomacy fails, the White House must be positioned to prevent ISIS from threatening U.S. interests, using drones if necessary. But long before then, Obama needs to explain to Americans why Iraq still matters to them.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

©2014 Trudy Rubin