The errors of the USA in the Middle East, China and Russia are likely to promote in other disputes with Washington

The American strategy to contain the advance of the army of the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant meets with skepticism by the majority of Americans, they think, in the proportion of 60%, that the United States should pay less attention and resources to issues international. The movements in this field for Obama are not easy, even for its popularity reduced to 40%. These factors indicate that lacks the support of American society policy in Iraq; Paradoxically, this lack of confidence is due to the fact that the majority of the American electorate identifies with values ​​closer to the Democratic Party, that of the president, who is forced by events to pursue a policy in the international arena, most of the right . Obama also pays no fault of his own: the mismanagement of the Iraq issue began long before his inauguration, however, the main tenant of the White House is in the midst of his second term and would have had ample time to fix at least the bulk of the errors of his predecessors. In the rush to leave Iraq, the American administration was not, in fact, quite effective in imposing a line that he knew divide power between the different social components of the country, with the result of penalizing the Sunnis, whose alliance is was decisive for the advance of the forces of the caliphate. These same forces have had their genesis in Syria, where they were left to grow, despite the warnings of the democratic part of the opposition to Assad. Obama, who had focused on the actions of the USA in South East Asia, trade and economic choice in optics, that could be fine if the Middle East had been pacified, he stalled too, basing his satisfaction with the resolution of the issue of chemical weapons, very restricted, within the framework of the Syrian crisis. The President of the USA has not realized that the choice was between the support agreement between the democratic rebellion in Syria with Assad himself running contrary to the fundamentalist Sunni. Certainly the most ambitious project would be to make Assad fall and deliver the country to democratic forces, but it was a task too ambitious, conditioned by reasons of political expediency and cost, although you could try to aggregate more Western forces for a transaction type that Libyan, which however has had highly negative consequences, even outside the UN. It certainly was not easy to foresee such a development of the situation, but, on the other hand, there were abundant signs that a person could fill the large emerging power vacuums present. Another aspect that has been overlooked were funding the forces that had declared explicitly that you want to recreate the caliphate; This funding came thanks to Allied countries of the United States, the White House has failed to deter political practice instrumental to their interests, but contrary to those of Americans. For more now are the same as the Gulf monarchies to fear an expansion of fundamentalist contagion, but now the degree of financial autonomy of the caliphate is so high that almost no longer need other contributions. The current state of the scenario therefore requires an intervention which could be saved with improved management of the situation and actions much more limited. The air raids of the only Americans can contain the danger but not destroy it: without a ground force that knows how to guard the territory of the Caliphate's army can not be defeated. The only Kurdish armed forces can, barely, defend their territory, however, with the support of aviation USA, while the Iraqi army has shown throughout his inadequacy and can not be a limit effective against the most determined, and also prepared , fundamentalist fighters. In this landscape is the deafening silence of Russia and China, who continue in their policy of non-interference, but which are liable in the same way the West. An Islamic state as it wants to be the caliphate could have a considerable influence on the Muslim populations of the two powers, who already have a difficult relationship with Moscow and Beijing. If the latter is true for the belief, however, totally wrong, to be convinced to govern this opposition, the Kremlin should be different approach to the long experience with Chechen rebels and other Muslim peoples of the Caucasus. Russia and China are not mentioned in the case, because they represent an obstacle for now unsurpassed within the UN Security Council in favor of a transaction under the banner of the United Nations. This solution represents the ideal condition to defeat the forces of the Islamic State, in a framework of cohesion policy, which would be a way out for Obama very favorable public opinion of his country. The suspicion is that Russia, China, do miss its consent to a UN intervention to weaken Obama and benefit for specific foreign policy issues in which they are interested. For Moscow, the Ukrainian question in the occupied just with the United States as an adversary, may be advantaged by a greater commitment of the United States in Iraq, which would be distracted from their support in Kiev. Equally China would see no more than the central region of Southeast Asia in American interests and could take advantage of it. It is far from impossible scenarios, which could alter the precarious balance of those areas to the detriment of Washington.