Aims and Consequences of Airstrikes
Patrick Cockburn
It was difficult at times to recall that the military intervention in Iraq being debated in the House of Commons involves sending six Tornadoes to bomb suspected Isis positions. It is very much a symbolic action from the British point of view. MPs seemed to be trying to grapple with the complexity of what is happening but not quite succeeding. Cameron and others made great play with the idea that military action is in support of a new, inclusive Iraqi government, when in fact it is as Shia-dominated as the old. Its most effective military strike force are Iranian-managed Shia militias but they, along with the Iraqi army, terrify the Sunni.
It is reasonable to bomb and give air cover to defend Kurds under attack by Isis, but giving air cover to the Iraqi army, Shia militias or peshmerga advancing into Sunni areas means joining one side in a sectarian civil war. Airstrikes are effective within very strict limits. Isis was a guerrilla organisation and easily reverts to guerrilla tactics, making it next to impossible to detect.
What was lacking in Cameron and Miliband’s speeches was any sense of the necessity of arranging ceasefires among the non-Isis forces in Syria. It is absurd to have a coalition against Isis that largely excludes those actually fighting Isis, such as the Syrian army, Iran, Hizbullah and the Syrian Kurds. Curious also that there was so little mention of Libya, where air intervention, supposedly used on humanitarian grounds, has led to a country torn apart by contending militias. Why did so few MPs even bring up Libya? Understandable why Cameron didn’t.
Comments
That is, the disintegration of the country. Ditto Libya. Ditto Syria.
Albeit without success to date, the powers that be have been working on Lebanon for some time. Towards the same end.
Cui bono?
"Let's you and him fight."
Salient point in discussion of this mini-intervention. Demonstrates the NATO consensus is to keep Syria in play. Obama apparently prefers the more circuitous path to uprooting global jihad in the Levant. Bombing ISIS is just the half-time intermission in the civil war. But at least he has managed to convey to Tayyip that he is serious about toning down the jihad, apparently outbidding Qatar for his allegiance and reigning in the rabid grey wolf. The fact that German anti-tank missiles have now made their way to capable YPG units is the one positive outcome so far of this re-boot.
You've royally missed the point: ISIS exists at the nexus of various interests - Qatari and Saudi aspirations i.e. paramilitary proxies throughout the Middle East in contradistinction to Hezbollah, mixed with Turkish opportunism and general sympathy with the MB project, Israel looking to deal as many cheap blows to Iran as possible, and the US looking to blow the wind one way or another and step in when things get out of hand, as now they clearly have.
What I really take issue with is that you've flippantly replied to two prior commenters on this post and seemingly ignored my original comment, perhaps because it was too on point.
As to flippancy, now that I’m, into my eighth decade of life, I’ve either earned the right to it, or, if not, don’t care if others find it offensive. Go ahead, laddie-boy, "take issue with it". As to the original “point”, its implications seem as muddy as the reasoning accompanying them. Let’s see, if we recruit Assad into the anti-ISIS coalition, we reverse several years of rhetoric and (some) action, without justifying exactly why is he is preferable to ISIS (he probably is, in the sense that Stalin was preferable to Hitler, for everyone except his fellow citizens) – in either case bad things are in store for many people in Syria. Bring in the Syrian Kurds – a non-starter, unless everyone has an acceptable agreement in mind that will unite Iraqi, Syrian, and Turkish Kurds into a new Kurdistan; this is not in the cards, especially those held by the Turks. Once again, we cannot control all of these players in a way that leads to an acceptable solution (the best being Assad gone, ISIS totally defeated, and everyone agreeing to tolerate the neighbors, cults, sects, and nationalities that they despise and to peacefully negotiate their differences through a series of compromises – this is the ultimate opium dream).
Apparently we have very different prerogatives as to what "an acceptable solution" is. You're wrong about the Syrian Kurds. Tayyip has been bullied into accepting their political existence. The PKK no longer poses any existential threat to Turkey. Tayyip has flipped back and forth on almost every foreign policy position since Libya. For all his bluster he is bought very easily. Turkey has overplayed its hand and now has to toe whatever line Washington chooses.
On an acceptable solution, that’s easy – use military force to carry out rescue missions (such as the one that got the Yazidis off the mountain or operations that prevent whole towns from being massacred if they refuse to “convert”) and to destroy as much of ISIS as possible. As to regional partners who go along with this, remember, they’re only in it for the short haul and that their reciprocal animosities will prevent an ideal “regional solution” from taking place, and no one in the West has the competence or power to force such a solution. Getting involved in a three-way civil war within Syria in a manner that aims at an ideal solution for that country is a no-win policy for all outside parties, who can only chip away at immediate crises, but who have no long-term solutions open to them because they don’t live in the neighborhood.
Turkey is undeniably in a weaker position to play the spoiler as per Kurdish ambitions than it has ever been before. That does not mean Hakan Fidan and dim Davutoglu won't try to do just that. But Tayyip is much more vulnerable than western observers seem to imagine. Until last week Washington was likely weighing whether or not to keep Turkey's economy afloat. Obama and Biden have a dreadful relationship with Tayyip and his poodle Davutoglu - lately is based mostly on threats and open intimidation. Washington got its way on Libya which Tayyip was dead-set against letting NATO bomb to bits. He became a born-again Qaddafi-hater faster than you can say 'great man made river.' Not to mention the AKP has basically been elected as to be the party that will negotiate a settlement of the Kurdish issue in Turkey, so everything is in play - even Ocalan's release.
But part of Turkey's diminished standing should also be attributed to the humiliation of their proxy, Barzani, when the YPG saved the Yezidis of Sinjar (Americans hogged the humanitarian limelight) and diverted the ISIS from Irbil despite Barzani sealing them off so ISIS could destroy them. Barzani showed how useless he and cowardly he was and now is begging to pose in photos with YPG units. For many this signals a shift of the balance of power within the Kurdish movement. Salih Muslim, Bayik and Karayilan, in different capacities now seem to act more or less untethered from Ocalan, and certainly command increased respect for unifying Kurds. After all, they save Barzani's blushes and they remain on the front lines, fighting to retain very hard-won enfranchisement. All three men repeatedly stress that they are striving for Kurdish autonomy as a means to greater democratization as end in and of itself, within each country with a Kurdish minority. They have disavowed independence as counterproductive, unequivocally, repeatedly. Avoiding dialogue with them is becoming increasingly untenable. Germany is now providing arms to the YPG and does not give a damn about Tayyip's griping.
"Far away" and "close by" mean very little in this conflict. PKK operates out of Europe, Tayyip's operation is headquarterd in Qatar. ISIS is Chechen Euro-dominated. Intelligence agencies are omnipresent. Best to reconcile yourself to this.
Part of the “winning the cold war” intoxication/illusion was the idea that without a formidable nation-state enemy the immense and technically sophisticated military power of the US could be projected anywhere, anytime, and arrive at a quick solution of some “problem” that allegedly impinged on US security interests (which were redefined as global). It just ain’t so. There is also a lack of experience, linguistic & cultural competence, and political and diplomatic sophistication that goes along with this. From a military point of view the US has won all the battles since (and including) Vietnam, while politically losing all the wars (not getting the desired outcome touted when entering them). This should tell our leaders something -- Obama knows it, but lets the US get too involved for domestic political reasons. (I don’t count Grenada and Panama as “wars”, though they certainly appeared to be to the locals there; undertaken on truly flimsy pretexts they achieved their goals – kick out their unsavory bums, install ours -- which you would expect when a nation of a quarter of a billion assaults a foe of hundreds of armed men – if that - in the one instance, and a few thousand in the other).
Even with air power alone the US is capable of devastating ISIS so that their area of control shrinks, but it cannot eliminate ISIS as a political force. That depends on Syrians, Turks, Kurds, Iraqis, and Iranians, none of who seem in agreement about anything else important. Shrewd and competent politics (and money) might enable them to dry up the region’s sea of recruits, but the ideological attraction of the Caliphate (or something like it under another name) remains to be reactivated by the disgruntled and the fanatical. And that has several psychological components that won’t go away either: (1) extreme religious literalism; (2) “we’re not like you and never wish to be” -- the notion of removing all outside political and cultural influences as alien and disgusting; (3) it’s time for revenge (“we’ll show them”), and probably some others. The real inequities of the nations/societies where such movements flourish have to be taken into account too, so there is always a motivation to try sweeping change (and its usually delusory promises) that can be harnessed and directed by ambitious political actors.
In the absence of any meaningful coordination with the Kurdish forces at Kobane its impossible to see that the US & its subalterns can even provide effective ground support against the ISIL forces. In this respect I have to agree with SixthPartWorld; ISIL looks much like a Turkish proxy (& I expect them to politely stop at the Turkish border).
Is this whole quagmire the echo of the last centuries several Balkan Wars - a long delayed resolution of arbitrary borders in the wake of the retreating Ottoman Empire? Tho' now complicated by a renascent sense of national mission at Ankara?