With obvious reluctance, the American president, elected on the promise of a military disengagement, launched attacks in Iraq against the "barbarism" of the jihadists.
The President of the United States, U.S.
He was elected on the promise of military disengagement and withdrew American troops launching attacks in Iraq to counter the "barbarism" of the jihadists, Barack Obama reopens with evident reluctance and without knowing how far he thought a chapter closed. One who has accepted the end of 2011 to leave after nearly nine years of occupation, "a sovereign, stable" is, in fact, the fourth consecutive American president to launch military action in Iraq after George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush .
In a solemn speech Thursday night at the White House, Bush has raised the specter of a "genocide" to explain his decision to help tens of thousands of Christians and Yazidis death threats from jihadists ultra-radicals of the Islamic State (EI).
According to an American official, the United States will not engage in a campaign of "prolonged". "As commander in chief (the armed forces), will not allow the United States to be involved in a new war in Iraq," he insisted Barack Obama.
A wide interpretation
But the first day of the strike, you can not predict the turning point events.
"Once the United States to engage in a transaction such as this, the situation can get worse and there will be increasing pressure for the Americans to do more to the extent that they admitted that there was a problem," said Julian Zelizer, professor of history at Princeton University. "It 's possible that the promise of a limited operation does not take."
Lines drawn from the White House - the protection of Americans, support for civilians trapped - leaving considerable room for interpretation impossible to predict the extent - and durability - of the bombing. The first strikes held Friday aiming an artillery piece mobile IE that had bombed the Kurdish forces in Erbil, and so threatened, according to the Pentagon, the United States personnel in the capital of the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan.
"Policy measures means"
Faced with a humanitarian disaster in the field, Republican opponents of President welcomed the announcement of military action targeted, but he immediately asked, almost in unison, to do much more. "We need a strategic approach, not only humanitarian," launched Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Hoping that Obama goes beyond "a policy of half-measures," they pleaded for attacks against the troops of EI and their leaders, both in Iraq and Syria. "None of these actions should not be subject to the formation of a new government in Baghdad," they suggested.
To his detractors, the advance of jihadists, who place on the streets tens of thousands of Iraqis who are now trying to join Kurdistan, shows the limits of Obama's strategy of military disengagement in the Middle East.
They accuse him mainly for not having negotiated an agreement to continue in the Iraqi territory residual presence. The White House disputes the idea that a small American force would be able to contain the tsunami extremist. It points out that such a choice could have a tremendous human cost. "Today, the American military would be involved in the fight against EI, in towns and villages throughout Iraq," he said Friday Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman. "The president did not think it would be in the interests of national security of the United States," he continued, saying that the vast majority of Americans were on the same line with him on this topic.
Of "wars impulsive"
Torn between his desire not to put American troops in the heart of the conflict and the many calls for increased efforts to address the meteoric rise of jihadists who took on Thursday of the largest dam in Iraq, north of Mosul, Barack Obama is located in an awkward position.
"I know that many of you are rightly concerned when they hear talk of military action in Iraq, even for limited strikes like this," he admitted Thursday night that he had vehemently opposed the decision of his predecessor to invade the country, denouncing the "dumb war" and "war impulsive." "There are no American military solution to the crisis in Iraq," he hammered as to convince himself that he has come to engage the country in a long-term war.
To Mr. Zelizer, The American President, "reluctant warrior" agrees "hesitant" in Iraq. "People interpret it as that and did not do much to hide."