Paris attack is a direct result of American disengagement from the region

On November 14, the world woke up to a tragedy that was reminiscent of September 11: eight terrorists in a basic but coordinated mode conducted an attack in the heart of Paris. The attack, which left 129 people dead and more than 350 injured, is also a wake-up call to remind the West that it will be directly affected by events in the Middle East. The turbulence the region has witnessed has, to a large extent, been caused by American disengagement, following its failure in Iraq.

It is not a coincidence that the Paris attacks happened after Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) was driven out of Sinjar Mountain in northwestern Iraq. Every time Daesh loses on the ground it flexes its muscle in the West in order to keep its prestige among the extremist base. The Charlie Hebdo attack came two days after the coalition intensified its airstrikes against Daesh in Syria and Iraq.

This sends two clear messages to the US and the West: what happens in the Middle East will affect you, and you cannot fight Daesh merely by conducting airstrikes. You have to work with your allies on the ground to eradicate extremism.

A large part of the problems we face is a direct result of US mistakes in the region. The de-Baathification and establishment of a sectarian government has alienated the Sunni population. This gave Al Qaida fertile ground in which to recruit operatives. Following the surge in violence, the US tried to rectify its mistakes when it launched the Awakening movement in Iraq and the national reconciliation campaign. It was a success: Iraq was stabilised and Al Qaida found itself alienated from it environment. The outcomes of the Awakening were shortly reversed when the Obama administration decided to withdraw prematurely from Iraq while keeping the sectarian Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki in place.

Al Malki conducted a second round of de-Baathification, and this further radicalised the Sunni community, which became receptive to extremist callings.

On the Syrian front, Obama’s indecisiveness led to the continuation of the war. Actually, the fake promises given to the Free Syrian Army by the US drove many members who had defected from the regime to join the ranks of extremists after they found themselves betrayed.

Daesh saw in Syria a country shattered by war and in the embittered Sunnis a fertile soil in which to start its endeavour. In March, 2013, the Syrian city of Raqqa was the first provincial capital to fall under the control of the extremist group.

Many believe the US has a grand plan to control the region. Actually, it is more logical to say that the US’ lack of a grand plan contributed to turbulence in Iraq. A high-ranking US military officer who served in Iraq, once told me: “The US went to Iraq with an optimistic perspective instead of a pragmatic one, Bush and his neo-con entourage thought they could change the structure of Iraq and establish a Jeffersonian state. This was an unrealistic vision. Following their failure, they adopted a racist excuse by blaming problems on the sectarian nature of Iraqi people. Then they moved to defeatism, whereby they felt they were the part of the problem and the situation would improve if they withdrew.”

The problems we witness today are partly due to the fact that the US had no plan on how to fill the power vacuum following the removal of Saddam Hussain. Similarly, they had no plan on how to fill the vacuum in post-Soviet Afghanistan, which ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban regime.

On the other hand, the Obama administration, instead of assuming responsibility for US mistakes and working actively to correct them, has rather adopted a passive policy towards the region, while laying the blame on America’s allies there.

Some intellectuals, such as American journalist Fareed Zakaria, claim that extremism is an Arab problem. Other liberals such as Patrick Cockburn claim that the West should have not taken any role in the wake of the Arab Spring.

Seasoned politicians such as George Mitchell have said sarcastically that, in the Middle East, they need a hundred years to solve their problems, after that let them give the US a call.

However, today’s realities prove them wrong. Extremism resulting from regional conflicts is likely to cross the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. With the advances of technology, Daesh can recruit operatives and conduct attacks in any Western city. Enforcing security in European cities and airports is not enough to prevent another terrorist attack. There is a need to eradicate the source of extremism, and this cannot be done unless the US takes a close look at the regional dynamics driving radicalisation.

The region needs a long-term strategy for stabilisation and the US needs to work closely with its allies to achieve that.

The US administration as well as the American public should be aware that they cannot leave the region to solve its problems on its own, because it will not.

Dr Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab Gulf relations and the effect of lobbying on foreign policy in the US. She is the author of “The Arab lobby and the US: Factor for success and failure” by Routledge.