US still active in the Mideast, thanks to its diplomats
Halfway through the Trump presidency, the State Department and the influential class of experts known as the US foreign-policy establishment have risen to the challenge of a mercurial leadership. For proof that they are acquitting themselves admirably, one need look no further than the damage-control exercise launched by American diplomats in the wake of Donald Trump’s tactless remarks on the US military presence in Iraq.
The highlight of the latest initiative is a social video released by the US embassy in Baghdad featuring the outgoing ambassador and focusing on the role played by the US military in “supporting, advising, training and equipping” Iraqi security forces to “fully defeat remnants of Daesh and defend Iraq’s sovereignty”. The public-diplomacy push has come not a day too soon.
As if the problems of operating in an unstable country where Washington’s adversaries wield significant clout were not daunting enough, US diplomats posted in Iraq have to contend with the gaffes of a president indifferent to local sensibilities. To their credit, tempers have not boiled over in Iraq in response to Trump’s indiscretions although the country’s Iran-aligned parliamentary blocs have been making threatening noises.
The advantages of being officers of the foreign service of the world’s most powerful democracy obviously are many. However, Trump’s nontraditional presidential style and contradictory signals have been testing the resilience of an American institution long known for its professionalism, competence, codes of conduct and norms of behaviour.
The moment they got wind of the fact that the commander-in-chief was on his way to meet military personnel in Ayn Al Asad airbase, outside Baghdad, on Christmas night last year, US diplomats in Iraq must have guessed that their ordeal was only just beginning. Sure enough, it turned out that a planned meeting between Trump and Adel Abdul Mahdi, Iraq’s newly appointed prime minister, had been cancelled, apparently due to disagreements on how to conduct the meeting.
To be certain, the response of certain Iraqi legislators to the perceived slight of a surprise unofficial visit by the US president came off as nothing but political posturing. But there is no denying that Trump failed to consider the optics of his visit from the standpoint of Iraqi sovereignty, or that he compounded his mistake by saying in a recent interview to CBS: “We spent a fortune on building this incredible base, we might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran.”
That even a staunch friend of America, Iraq’s President Barham Salih, was compelled to scold Trump thus — “Don’t overburden Iraq with your own issues ... We are not part of the US battle with Iran” — gives a fair idea of how cringe-inducing Trump’s attitude seems to American diplomats in Baghdad. For, it is much more than religious and political ties that bind Iran and a weak Iraq: the two neighbours share a nearly 1,500kmlong border and annually do about $12 billion in lopsided trade.
But then again, it is not just Trump’s maladroit handling of Iraq that is giving American diplomats a headache. His shock announcement of December 19 of a military pullout from Syria reverberated throughout the Middle East and raised the spectre of a dramatic redrawing of the region’s geopolitical map, to the detriment of the security interests of the US and its genuine allies and partners, notably the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.
Given the pervasive presence of Iran’s “deep state” in Iraq and the key role of Iranian paramilitary groups and their allies in turning the tide of Syria’s civil war in favour of President Bashar Al Assad, Trump’s tweet threatened to swing abruptly the regional balance of power in favour of a mix of “malign actors and strategic competitors” — Turkey, Russia and Iran. Fortunately for America’s partners and allies, Republican legislators have all but put paid to Trump and leftwing Democrats’ hopes of withdrawing US troops from Syria and Afghanistan.
Last week US senators adopted an amendment to a bill that cautions against a “precipitous” military pullout from the two war-torn countries. The unanimous vote showed that no matter how enduring the appeal of American declinism, the collective wisdom of the country’s foreign-policy and national-security establishments remains a reliably effective countervailing force. From penning newspaper op-eds and appearing on TV interviews to holding meetings with Trump and taking potshots via Twitter at his decisions, the two groups of experts planned for everything and left nothing to chance.
Back in Iraq, Washington’s strategy may not be out of the woods yet if the backlash against Trump’s remarks is any guide. Also, there is no guarantee he is going to be any more cautious in holding forth on the US military presence in Iraq. Indeed, US diplomats in the Middle East may have to stay on their toes if they are to prevent Washington’s foes from capitalising on his loose tongue and impulsive actions. Still, on balance, they and the foreign-policy establishment have succeeded, against all odds, in advancing the interests of the US and its regional allies.
Indeed, US diplomats in the Middle East may have to stay on their toes if they are to prevent Washington’s foes from capitalising on his loose tongue and impulsive actions