Obama Calls Loss Of Ramadi A
'Setback,' But Denies U.S.
Is Losing To ISIS
MAY 21, 2015 1:21 PM ET
KRISHNADEV CALAMUR
President Obama tells The
Atlantic that the loss of Ramadi to the self-declared Islamic State is a
"setback," but he denies the U.S. is losing to the group. Kathy Willens/AP
President Obama says that while
the loss of Ramadi to the self-declared Islamic State is a "setback,"
he doesn't think the U.S.
is losing to the militant group.
"No, I don't think we're
losing, and I just talked to our CENTCOM commanders and the folks on the
ground," Obama tells The Atlantic in a wide-ranging interview.
"There's no doubt there was a tactical setback, although Ramadi had been
vulnerable for a very long time, primarily because these are not Iraqi security
forces that we have trained or reinforced."
The U.S.
acknowledged this week that the Islamic State, which is also referred to as
ISIS or ISIL, seized the Iraqi city of Ramadi
after Iraqi government forces left their positions. Critics say the loss of the
city highlights a "fundamental failure" of U.S.
strategy in Iraq .
Obama acknowledged in the interview that the U.S. is going to "have to ramp
up not just training" of Iraqi forces in the country's Sunni areas,
"but also commitment."
The president also ruled out
sending ground troops once again into Iraq — a call made by some
Republicans.
"It is important to have a
clear idea of the past because we don't want to repeat mistakes. ... And one
lesson that I think is important to draw from what happened is that if the
Iraqis themselves are not willing or capable to arrive at the political
accommodations necessary to govern, if they are not willing to fight for the
security of their country, we cannot do that for them," he told The
Atlantic. "We can be effective allies."
He added: "Today the
question is: How do we find effective partners to govern in those parts of Iraq
that right now are ungovernable and effectively defeat ISIL, not just in Iraq
but in Syria?"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg
also asked Obama about the deal the U.S.
and world powers are trying to reach with Iran over its nuclear program.
Those talks have been criticized not only in Congress, but also by U.S. allies in the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia . At least one
influential Saudi has said his country would match whatever nuclear capability Iran is allowed
to maintain under a deal.
The president said he had assured
Arab leaders about the talks with Iran ,
but added their "covert — presumably — pursuit of a nuclear program would
greatly strain the relationship they've got with the United States ." And he
maintained that Iran ,
despite its anti-Israeli statements, is also keen to strike a deal.
"I think it is not at all
contradictory to say that there are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core
regime, but that they also are interested in maintaining power, having some
semblance of legitimacy inside their own country, which requires that they get
themselves out of what is a deep economic rut that we've put them in, and on
that basis they are then willing and prepared potentially to strike an
agreement on their nuclear program," he told The Atlantic.
And, he added: "Look. 20
years from now, I'm still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a
nuclear weapon, it's my name on this, I think it's fair to say that in addition
to our profound national security interest in locking this down."
The magazine also asked Obama
about his often-strained relationship with Israel 's political leadership.
Here's part of his reply:
"[Y]ou should be able to say
to Israel ,
we disagree with you on this particular policy. We disagree with you on
settlements. We think that checkpoints are a genuine problem. We disagree with
you on a Jewish-nationalist law that would potentially undermine the rights of Arab
citizens. And to me, that is entirely consistent with being supportive of the
State of Israel and the Jewish people. Now for someone in Israel ,
including the prime minister, to disagree with those policy positions — that's
OK too. And we can have a debate, and we can have an argument. But you can't
equate people of good will who are concerned about those issues with somebody
who is hostile towards Israel ."
No comments:
Post a Comment