Obama's Troubled Legacy in the Muslim World
Source: Lincoln Agnew/Politico
Soon after his inauguration in 2009, Barack Obama delivered his now infamous speech in Cairo entitled “A New Beginning”, in which he emphasised that America would pursue a more productive relationship with the Muslim world. Yet Obama’s record of interventions and support for authoritarian regimes has only served to cement his reputation as an unremarkable president who continued the tradition of his predecessors. He maintained strong ties with corporate backers in the defence and oil industries, used humanitarian rhetoric as a cover for purely political interests, and emboldened extremism, thereby deepening the rift between America and the Muslim world. Despite his sentiments, it is clear that the Middle East has become more volatile and that, as a whole, we have seen more of the same, to the point that the situation has become almost intractable.
Dissatisfaction with Obama’s presidency remained apparent amongst Muslims globally. In 2012, Pew Research conducted a study of Obama’s international standing following his first term. Part of the survey involved polling Muslim majority countries, namely Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey, “among others”. From 2009-2012, overall confidence in Obama dropped from 33%-24%, whilst approval of his international policies declined from 34%-15%. Moreover, the United States experienced a 25%-15% drop in overall favourability.
Further research from 2015 showed that majorities continued to express disapproval of Obama, with 56% in Pakistan, 64% in Lebanon, 82% in Palestinian Territories, and 83% in Jordan expressing no confidence in his handling of world affairs. In Turkey, a slight majority of 46% expressed disapproval, whilst 45% approved. It should be mentioned that majorities expressed favourable views elsewhere, with 61% in Malaysia, 64% in Indonesia, 65% in Burkina Faso, and 77% in Senegal expressing confidence. However, these findings are subject to further qualifications. It is worth noting the lesser degree of US interference in these countries, in addition to the significant minorities of non-Muslims in Malaysia and Burkina Faso. Similar views persisted regarding the US in general, with 62% in Pakistan, 60% in Lebanon, 58% in Turkey, 70% in Palestine, 83% in Jordan expressing unfavorability.
Obama’s commitment to belligerency has contributed to negative Muslim perceptions in no small part. He continued the American government’s profitable association with the defence industry, which no doubt informed his aggressive foreign policy decisions. During his presidency, arms manufacturers encountered a boom not seen since World War II, with $200 billion worth of arms deals. It comes as little surprise that such an association went under reported in mainstream media. Interestingly, Obama’s associations with the defence industry date back to his first campaign in 2008, when he managed to out-do John McCain in defence contributions. We must place Obama’s favouring intervention in this context, particularly those against ISIS. As an anonymous arms manufacturing executive told Reuters: “Everyone in the region is talking about building up supplies for 5 to 10 years. This is going to be a long fight.” The executive further commented: “It's a huge growth area for us,". Yet the despite the business prospects, this ongoing association has led to serious ramifications for various Muslim countries.
Perhaps the most dramatic theatre in which this was demonstrated is the Syrian Civil War. In an interview with Vanity Fair, Obama claimed the conflict “haunts” him, further stating that it gave him the greatest cause for pensiveness of all events during his presidency. Yet there was no consideration of how the policies he pursued emboldened extremism by driving the local population to IS and Jabhat al-Nusra. In a press conference following the G20 Summit last September, Obama lamented Assad’s bombing of civilians, whilst rightly acknowledging this was: “...strengthening the capacity of Nusra to recruit people who might not have initially been sympathetic to terrorism but now view anyone who’s fighting against Assad as legitimized.” He continued “That is a very dangerous dynamic.”
At the same time, Obama was leading a Coalition of nations whose own bombing campaigns had been responsible for a range of 5327-7189 alleged civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria as of 17/01/2017. Of these, an estimated minimum of 2301-3385 were reliably reported to have been killed. In addition, a further 2525 were reported to have been injured. The administration was even willing to ally with Russia in bombing al-Nusra positions in its final months, despite the fact that Russian bombings resulted in 2210-2984 reliably reported civilian casualties, and 3168 reported injured as of 30/04/2016. The move was rightly seen as irresponsible given the recruitment boon it provided to extremists. Robert Ford, a former US ambassador to Syria, stated: “If they are trying to destroy al-Qaeda in Syria, do they really think bombing them is the way to do it? F-16s do not solve recruitment problems with extremist groups.”
Rather than learn from the rise of extremism amidst sectarian tensions during the Iraq War, the administration kept the Syrian war going and insisted on Assad’s removal, despite this not being realistically possible. In his book The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution, Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn attributed the rise of ISIS to Obama asking Congress for $550 million with the intention to train and arm “appropriately vetted” rebels, despite Joe Biden later remarking there were none. This in turn led to arms falling into the hands of ISIS and others. As an intelligence officer from a neighbouring Arab country told Cockburn: “ISIS say they are always pleased when sophisticated weapons are sent to anti-Assad groups of any kind, because they can always get the arms off them by threats of force or cash payments.” In turn, the ongoing conflict and brutalization, be it from Assad, ISIS, Nusra, or anyone else, caused and intensified the Syrian refugee crisis.
ISIS was invigorated by the opportunity presented by the fighting to move into Syria and recruit. This new strength allowed them to move back into Iraq and gain territory. The administration's support for the sectarian regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made this all the easier. In their book ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, journalists Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan noted that Joe Biden, who Obama placed in charge of the administration’s Iraq policy, candidly admitted that: “Maliki hates the goddam Sunnis”, yet he supported his return as Prime Minister in 2010. Despite this, Obama stated: “...we are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people,”.
One would have thought the administration desired the destruction of Iraq in supporting such a leader. Maliki stifled dissent, and oppressed Sunnis in the same way that Saddam Hussein suppressed the Shi’a. Weiss and Hassan note the situation compelled Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq to go on CNN and say that Iraq was spiralling into dictatorship.” Rather than relate the flourishing of Iraqi democracy, Mutlaq stated: “It is a one-party show and one-man show. Yes, al-Maliki is the worst dictator we have ever seen in our history,”. In response, Maliki sent tanks to the home of Mutlaq, in addition to those of the finance minister and vice-president, who had also voiced opposition. The sectarian policies of al-Maliki’s government pushed Sunnis into the hands of ISIS recruiters, and widened the conflict in a way that could have been prevented. Clearly it would have been asking too much to expect that the administration support a more inclusive leader, but had it done so, the extremist situation would not have been so dire.
Some focus on blaming Obama for his early withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, as the residual force of 3500 troops with an additional 1500 on rotation was not enough to counter ISIS. Yet when debating the issue on PBS, Philip Gordon, who acted as former Assistant Secretary of State under Obama, doubted "...that even a residual U.S. force, 5,000, 10,000, would have been enough to stop the very powerful trends that were going on in Iraq in terms of sectarianism,”. Whilst the administration’s air strikes aided in reducing ISIS territory, the damage had already been done. It is likely that ISIS will morph into an underground network, not unlike al-Qaeda, should it lose its territory entirely. Moreover, it would have done so with the fresh recruits these strikes have provided. Debating whether or not the US should have withdrawn misses the point entirely. The situation had already become intractable with prior inability to conceive of a representative government that could have denied ISIS a recruitment drive. Similar things can be said of Afghanistan, where the Taliban control vast swathes of territory, and where the government is rampantly corrupt and incompetent.
Whilst the Syrian conflict had the distinction of being his most haunting moment, Obama remarked that the Libyan conflict had the distinction of being his “worst mistake”, given the lack of thought regarding what a post-Gaddafi Libya would look like. In an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, he mentioned “...failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.” This comes despite the precedent of Iraq, which descended into chaos after the removal of Saddam. Whilst Obama still believed intervention was correct, he also conceded it “didn’t work”. Whilst Obama initially opposed military action, he was later persuaded by Hillary Clinton, who considered using the intervention against Gaddafi in her election campaign. This is now clear from her leaked emails. With the removal of Gaddafi, came thousands of additional deaths in Libya, the spread of ISIS, and continuing chaos, in addition to the intensification of the refugee crisis via the mass influx from North Africa.
Obama cooperated with Yemeni President ‘Ali Abdullah Saleh, who received more than $150 million after the uprisings against his government in 2011. The GCC transfer plan meant Saleh would be given refuge in Saudi Arabia, and Vice President ‘Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, a more popular figure, would become President. However, Saleh’s sons and nephews continued to control security forces, who were responsible for crackdowns on protesters. In 2015, came the outbreak of The Yemeni Civil War, which has also continued unabated. The administration supported the Saudi campaign in Yemen, and authorised $1.15 billion dollars in arms. Obama may have halted the sales of cluster bombs given their close association with civilian casualties, yet they should never have been sold at all. All of this has contributed to the current toll of 10,000 dead and 40,000 injured in 2017, in addition to allegations of war crimes.
The use of drones has featured prominently in Obama’s military endeavours. A recent US intelligence report alleged only 64-117 civilians killed, yet this is likely untrue. A higher range of 380-801 has been presented depending on different sources, including reports from Bureau of Investigative Journalism, local journalists, NGOs, and leaked government documents. It should also be noted that the administration has quelled those who have drawn attention to civilian casualties. One such case is Abdullah Haider Shaye, a Yemeni journalist who uncovered casualties from drone strikes, who is now in prison on Obama's intervention, despite his being pardoned even by the Yemeni government. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Yemen has sustained 65-101 civilian casualties over the course of Obama’s drone programme, in addition to 424-966 in Pakistan, 125-182 in Afghanistan, with additional casualties in Libya and Somalia. According to the Pew report from 2012, opposition to drone strikes is unsurprisingly widespread in the Muslim world, with 69% in Lebanon, 72% in Tunisia, 81% in Turkey, 85% in Jordan, and 89% in Egypt opposing.
In addition to Obama's belligerency, one should not forget his “business as usual” approach to authoritarian regimes, from monarchies like those of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to presidential dictatorships, like that of Egypt, which is perhaps the most damning example in this regard. Before the mass protests in 2009, he oddly remarked that Hosni Mubarak as a force for “stability”, further commenting that he was a source of “good in the region.” Whist Obama acknowledged an existing problem with Egyptian politics, he would not refer to him as authoritarian. Any doubt on this point was dispelled by the protests in 2011, yet Joe Biden persisted in defending Mubarak, stating: " I would not refer to him as a dictator.” It was said that Mubarak should not step down, despite the people’s demands.
With El-Sisi’s coup in 2013, came the reassertion of authoritarianism and crackdowns on protesters, including the killing of almost 1000 protesters on August 14th. In response, Obama publicly expressed his disdain for dictatorship when stating: "We can’t return to business as usual,” He expressed a commitment to democracy, stating the need "...to be very careful about being seen as aiding and abetting actions that we think run contrary to our values and ideals.” Initially, the administration halted military supplies, including harpoon missiles and F-16s, and cast doubt on the customary $1.3 billion in military aid. This commitment to democracy turned out to be temporary however, as the decision was soon made to continue supplying aid after an internal debate within the cabinet. As one senior administration official put it: “We caved.”
Obama’s inclination towards authoritarianism was not lost on members of his own administration. Dennis Ross, who served as Obama’s primary Middle East advisor during his first term, commented: “He’s never quite melded his rhetoric with his policies,”. Robert Ford, Obama’s former ambassador to Syria, elected to resign due to disagreements with Administration policy there, and further lamented Obama’s inclination toward authoritarianism, stating: “It seems like we are swinging back to the idea that we must make a choice between supporting dictators or being safe.”
“Democratization” was the word used by John Kerry and others in defending El-Sisi, who remained busy making mass arrests of Muslim Brotherhood members and journalists, whilst also winning 96.1% of the vote in an election derided by political opponents and observers as an obvious fix. For Eric Bjornlund, president of prominent observer Democracy International: "Egypt's repressive political environment made a genuinely democratic presidential election impossible,". If a rigged election were not enough, a series of controversial leaks essentially proved El-Sisi’s co-opting of key institutions. The now infamous SisiLeaks provided proof of corruption, false charges against Muhammad Morsi, the acquittal of a policeman who gassed 37 inside a truck, and the co-opting of Egyptian media.
Some have praised the Iran nuclear deal, though it is doubtful there was ever a threat given the surprising consensus among intelligence agencies, that Iran was in fact a rational actor. As far back 2007, the CIA had concluded in its National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, that the Islamic Republic was: “...guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.” This was later reiterated in 2011 by James Clapper, who stated: “...we continue to judge Iran’s nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach.” Even the ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan conceded: "The regime in Iran is a very rational one,". These assessments are some amongst various others. Given the lack of concerns regarding nuclear weapons, one would have to ask just what kind of threat was deterred in the first place.
Despite his protestations on the rights of Palestinians, Obama was denied by Netanyahu on the issue of Israeli settlements. Some may hail the recent UN resolution as a positive development, but in truth it was ineffective, and simply restated the immorality of settlement expansion. An attempt to actually halt their construction would have been more preferable, yet no real attempt was made in this regard. It is also noteworthy that the US did not actively vote in favour of the resolution, but merely abstained. Moreover, the situation in the Palestinian Territories has only worsened during Obama’s presidency. The Israeli NGO Peace Now has recorded an increase in the settler population from 474,000-570,700 from 2008-2014. Netanyahu continued to approve further expansion, including the approval of 500 new homes in East Jerusalem, yet Obama made no meaningful reprimand.
Despite the antagonism between Obama and Netanyahu, it is still clear that defence ties between America and Israel remain significant. Last September saw an increase in military aid, with a new arms deal worth $38 billion, including sales of F-35 fighter squadrons, over the course of decade from 2019-2028. The State Department proudly claimed this was: “the single largest pledge of military assistance in U.S. history,”. Despite inflation possibly reducing the value of the assistance, it is apparent that Obama remained largely committed to Israel with this gesture, irrespective of its actions. The false premise with Iran means the only likelihood of future Israeli military action would be further bombings of Gaza.
A final and devastating example of Obama as a scourge would be Myanmar, which continues to bear witness to the ongoing persecution of Rohingya. Obama signed a trade deal with Myanmar, despite the prevailing influence of the military and weak civilian government, due to concerns about the targeting of US businesses. The administration also approved the lifting of sanctions against Myanmar, with Obama claiming it made “substantial progress in improving human rights,” despite the reported mass killings and rape of Muslims there. It is no coincidence that US oil companies like Chevron have an offshore presence, in addition to other companies, all of which act as doners to the two major US parties. As with many other cases, Obama was thinking more about American interests, and the electoral future of the Democratic Party, rather than ethical considerations.
In summation, Obama promised change, yet he only reinforced notions of America as an adversary in the eyes of Muslims around the world. His presidency has made various Muslim countries less secure and less politically open. If the Obama presidency proves anything, it is that Muslims should be distrustful of mainstream politicians, and the electoral processes in which they participate. Rather than rely upon elections within nations that have their own political interests, Muslims themselves should attempt political change within their countries in order to solve long-standing problems. The Obama presidency has also proved that the US needs to disengage from involvement in the Muslim should it seek to better its international standing. At present, many rightly criticize President Trump, and already reminisce about the Obama-era. However, if Trump does indeed turn out worse than Obama, he would have to be a true catastrophe.
