Despite initially campaigning for the presidency with the promise of withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq, President Barack Obama now seems prepared to ignore the cautionary tale of the 2003 Iraq occupation. By doing so, he has succumbed to the uninformed right-wing’s calls for military engagement. Granted, the present circumstances differ from the mass hysteria caused by sensational reporting and perpetuation of Islamophobic stereotypes following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Rather than instinctively rushing into Iraq, Obama ostensibly contemplated the best course of action to deal with ISIS, the group that two American journalists and one British aid worker. However, Obama failed to think critically about the consequences of resuming militaristic activity in Iraq.

Even after former President George W. Bush’s claims of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction catalyzed Congress’s declaration of war and were then disproven, much of the American public still remains drastically uneducated about the true impact of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The stability and democracy that were promised as a result of U.S. involvement never took a firm hold. And yet, Obama still declared the campaign successful as he withdrew from Iraq, claiming the United States left “behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”

Considering the continued sectarian violence, Obama’s 2011 declaration seems anything but accurate. The United States certainly did not, despite the $1.7 trillion spent on Iraq, leave behind a foundationally solid structure of democracy.

Amid many theories about our rationale for attack lies a seemingly inescapable truth — nationalistic attempts that implicitly, if not explicitly, seek to Westernize the world clash with cultural values of Middle Eastern societies. In order for foreign intervention in the Middle East to exist with any possibility of ensuring lasting peace, the powers entering into a complicated and unfamiliar conflict must strive to understand the situation from a non-Western perspective. If truly striving for democracy, the United States must implement measures Iraqi and Syrian citizens will accept. Failure to act accordingly created the chaos that empowered ISIS in the first place.

When considering the recent actions of ISIS, foreign military intervention to incapacitate the group appears necessary. The strategy of “bombing them back to the stone age,” however, fails to address the underlying political instability and social conflict that enabled ISIS to expand so rapidly. Instead, it proposes a shortsighted solution that only perpetuates the cyclical rising of another extremist faction. As Bush’s actions left Americans questioning the true intent of his Iraq invasion, Obama’s actions raise the same concerns, especially in light of Bush’s obvious failure.

A version of this article appeared in the Tuesday, Sept. 16 print issue. Email Dan Moritz-Rabson at [email protected].