Prudent president

Barack Obama's main intention with his statements on Iraq on Thursday (20.06.2014) was not to try to convince hawks like John McCain that he could be tough. The US president was rather trying to convince the American people that there would be no "mission creep" - that is, a gradual expansion of the military operation in Iraq. A large section of the population is concerned that American combat troops will follow the 300 military advisers that Obama has now sent to Iraq.

Obama is cautious when it comes to getting involved in the Middle East. Clear shows of determination, such as the famous "red line" that he drew for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons were often followed by hesitant actions. But in contrast to his predecessor, he has recognized that it is much easier for him to worsen the situation on the ground than improve it. He knows that any decision in favor of any of the several religious and political groups in Syria or Iraq can have fatal consequences.

What happens if he does answer the call of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and supports Iraqi forces with air strikes? That would raise the country's Sunnis against the US. It would also undermine America's declared aim, which is to help establish a government in Iraq that includes all religious and political factions. The US has the same problem with all of the region's groups and sub-groups.

Obama can only lose. There is no classic "good" and "evil," which Americans instinctively seek, in this situation. Why should he now launch air strikes, without having an exact knowledge of different positions and potential aims? When US troops left Iraq at the end of 2011, they left behind access to the military intelligence. As Obama reiterated on Thursday, the US did not abandon Iraq willingly. He had offered Maliki a contingent of troops on the same conditions that US troops are stationed all over the world.

Many Republicans are now not above blaming Obama for the chaos in Iraq, even though it was clearly a president from their party who was behind US intervention in the country. No amount of historical falsification can change that. Calling Obama weak, or even a "fool," as former Vice President Dick Cheney did recently, is no more than political opportunism. Because in answer to the question of what the US should actually do now to improve the situation in Iraq, the president's critics can offer only hollow phrases. Obama is not a fool, and the chaos in Iraq is not his fault. He is one thing above all: prudent.