Al-Baghdadi's death good day for war on terror, U.S. still polarized - experts
While the public as a whole is expected to see the US mission in Syria as one that has been accomplished, experts are still troubled from the decision to withdraw.
By OMRI NAHMIASA man purported to be the reclusive leader of the militant Islamic State Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has made what would be his first public appearance at a mosque in the centre of Iraq's second city, Mosul, according to a video recording posted on the Internet on July 5, 2014, in this still image taken fr(photo credit: REUTERS FILE PHOTOS)
WASHINGTON – US President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw from Syria took a significant turn yesterday with the killing of notorious terrorist and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – a major operational achievement for the US military and its commander-in-chief.Experts from all sides of the political spectrum agreed on Sunday that it is a good day for the war on terror and that the public would appreciate the move. However, they also assessed that the American public would continue to be polarized around other issues related to the president’s leadership.“The president is going to get political capital for going after Baghdadi – it’s just the reality of the world we live in, of this political climate,” Mike Pregent, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and a former intelligence officer, told The Jerusalem Post. “Democrats should be very cautious in criticizing the president because Americans, at the end of the day, are happy that this evil man is dead.”According to Pregent, while the public as a whole is expected to see the US mission in Syria as one that has been accomplished, experts are still troubled from the recent decision to withdraw US troops from the country.“Those of us that look at the foreign policy and national security arena [are] still very concerned about the US position on northern Syria,” he said. “[But] for the general public, mission accomplished. We were in Syria to defeat ISIS. If anything, this will give the president more energy to leave Syria because Baghdadi is dead.”Dennis Ross, a distinguished fellow at The Washington Institute, and former US point-man on the peace process for both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations, said Sunday was “a good day in the fight against ISIS for sure.”“That’s just a fact, and no one should try to deny it,” Ross said. “It will not be a game-changer. It will give him a short-term bump, but it’s not going to change the reality of what’s going on Capitol Hill in terms of the House inquiry. Given everything else that’s going on, I wouldn’t exaggerate how significant it will be.”The operation will also serve as a reminder to the Middle East of the “hard power” the US has, according to Ross.“It will also be a reminder that the US seems to be willing to engage in these kinds of special operations but is not necessarily that interested in being in the region,” he said.Ross added that now Trump “is making the case that we’ve defeated ISIS and now that we’ve killed the head of ISIS, that will fortify his claim, that we don’t need to be there.”
He told the Post that the US sent “a mixed message” to the region in the past few weeks.“There’s no question right now that throughout the region, there is basic doubt about America’s reliability because there is a lack of a sense that you can count on what this president will do,” he said.“President Trump, like President Obama before him, deserves credit for making the tough decision to take down a notorious terrorist leader,” said Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based think tank.“The killing of Baghdadi by Syria-based US Special Forces underscores what critics of Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria have said: the US needs a military presence in the country to combat both ISIS and Iranian threats,” Dubowitz said.“It’s heartening that the president seems to realize this now and has agreed to keep some troops in eastern Syria, but Trump could have avoided the political backlash and the chaos from his impetuous decision if he had been more deliberative in how he made his decision and how he explained it,” he continued. “National security by tweet without consultation with his military and national security advisers, key allies and congressional leaders is not the way to run a superpower.”
