Amidst the Middle East’s explosive chaos the advice to the American President is all over the map. McCain would have us in, boots and all - once again with feeling. His hawk bosom buddy, Lindsey Graham, would have us talk nicely to join up with Iran and get rid of ISIS. Dick Cheney and his daughter have formed a new organization, Alliance for a Stronger America, to get America involved in Iraq. They together with all the other neocons like Wolpowitz and Brenner, who on arriving in Bush’s Iraq completely disassembled the whole lawkeeping infrastructure - is that we should at least bomb. There are those who caution but are saying nothing for the moment, so Jay H. Ell is going to represent the silent majority.
Jay H. Ell’s advice to the Commander in Chief is, “Don’t just stand there. Do nothing!
IN THE BEGINNING
While everyone is blaming George W. Bush, (43), for starting it all by throwing out Sadam and thereby destabilizing the whole area and/or blaming Barak for not staying there forever to prevent this type of chaos from occurring, those really culpable are the Brits and to a lesser extent the French. They are skulking out of it but they created the problem. After World War 1 with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the whole area was divided up between them. They created countries that never existed before by drawing lines on maps thereby splitting the spoils. The Brits bagged Iraq, because they were into oil already. The French got Syria and Lebanon. (The British in addition were mandated Jordan and Palestine).
There was a fascinating piece in The Daily Beast by Clive Irving on the role of the “British Orientalists” played in expanding the British Empire in the Middle East. He discussed the role of one, Getrude Bell, whom was labelled “Getrude Of Arabia”. She was instrumental in the establishment of Iraq. Apparently she rigged an election and installed a King who was loyal to the British crown and then went home. From then on it has hardly been any different.
The two major sects in these countries are the Muslim Shia and the Muslim Sunni and they are present in both Iraq and Syria. The Colonial Powers just supported whatever friendly, (to them that is), authoritarian regime that was in control. Now, while peace has occasionally broken out, within and between these newly created States, they mainly have been at odds with each other and often at war internally and externally.
So for practical purposes we now have a war between the Sunnis and the Shia across the whole artificial divide that the colonial masters created. It has gotten very ugly. Neither side is very civilized by Western standards and are behaving barbarically in trying to gain ascendency. (Blog: ISIS, Sharia Law, Hamas Terrorism and The Methodist Church).
WHAT GOT IT GOING RECENTLY.
This all began in Syria where a Shia minority was controlling a Sunni majority. The Syrian government, was, as one might expect, totalitarian. The Sunnis wanted a fair shake and Assad the Shia Syrian President brutally suppressed the opposition with killings, chemical warfare and the like. The problem was although the opposition were being brutalized, and their’s is the side the West should have been on, they were fragmented and included a host of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and the quaintly named organization, Islamic States of Syria and Iraq, (ISIS). Saudi Arabia, (Sunni) were supposedly supporting the opposition whoever they were and Iran, (Shia) were backing Assad directly and indirectly via their surrogate, the terrorist organization, Hezbollah.
The problem really escalated dramatically when ISIS , having secured Eastern Syria suddenly decided to invade Iraq and join up with the Sunnis there, including Sadam’s Baath party, Sunni tribes and create what their name suggests, an Islamic State, (Sunni), of Syria and Iraq. Their brutality superseded that of Assad of Syria. This made Iran very tense because they did not want to see their Iraq Shia ally, Maliki, himself no democrat, lose out. Especially as ISIS grabbed a half a billion in cash and went for the oil fields.
Meanwhile back in the Western world the agitation grew for the NATO countries to get involved. Even more so now that Iraq has been invaded. Up till now they have resisted these pleas.
USA RATIONALE FOR FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT AND THE OBAMA DOCTRINE.
There are two possible motivations for the West, specifically the USA, to become involved in foreign wars. They are either national security or humanitarian concerns. The argument for intervention on humanitarian grounds here is very strong because the barbarism displayed would make Attila the Hun blush. There are hundred of thousands that are displaced and are refugees. Not to mention the loss of life, limb and property of the innocents already caught in the middle.
Till now Obama has resisted intercession and this is in tune with his doctrine on foreign policy. He has to the chagrin of many adapted an isolationist attitude to intervention in foreign squabbles.This is counter to the foreign policy of USA post second world war where they were everywhere for 40 years in the fight against Communism. Both Bushs, 41 and 43, and Clinton for the next 20 years, at least, rationalized that they were fighting to prevent evil and or for a better world. Just think, Saddam's Iraq times two, Bosnia, Haiti, Panama, Somalia for example.
“Normalcy” by Robert Kagan, published in The New Republican is a seminal analysis of American foreign policy in the last 100 years and is a must read. Kagan states that George H. W. Bush, (41), described American foreign policy in terms of national ideals and not national interest. Kagan maintains that Clinton claimed that America was an “indispensable nation” to world order. USA had a moral obligation to monitor and thrust themselves into disputes on the side of “right”.
When Obama got elected he opined that he intended to deal with the world “as it is” rather than “how it should be”. Put another way there would be no wars for “ideals” . America could no longer accept the role as the arbiter and policeman of international morality. Kagan maintains that since 1989 only one US intervention has been in national security interest and that is Afghanistan. Obama has been there and done that.
WHY JAY H ELL THINKS OBAMA IS GOING IN TO IRAQ
Obama has stated that he believes that ISIS going into Iraq affects American national interest. Maliki has officially asked him for air cover. Maliki had to have been told that if he wanted help he better ask for it publicly because he is he type of guy that once America has done his dirty work he will throw them out and say ,”Who asked you in the first place”. So that bit is in place. Then Obama, in front of the world, addressed the four Congress leaders about the situation and the only message to come out of that meeting was, “He could use force in Iraq without going to Congress”. There was no argument from the Republicans or Democrats. They probably all agreed that maybe Obama should be given the option of surprise. The think tank, Progress for America, headed by John Podesta, a Clinton and Obama operative, believes that there should be limited air strikes. They argue that this will not solve the whole problem and their language seems to indicate that the quid pro quo should be that Maliki would have to make an effort at getting a government of national unity. Progress for America is said to be the think tank closest to Obama policy decision making.
WHY JAY H. ELL THINKS OBAMA SHOULDN’T GO INTO IRAQ AND SHOULD STAY HOME
Progress for America spokespersons were all over the media explaining their rationale. Jay H. Ell believes that their argument is tautologous and as the air strikes have no fixed objective. What is the point! What does “limited” air strikes mean. When do you stop?
Any action pro Maliki gets Obama involved in the Shia/Sunni fight. He is opting for Shia here. Why? Because he thinks their atrocities aren’t as bad? Is it because this is interrupting the oil supply? - generally speaking that is not Obama’s style. Also getting involved with Maliki means at least some cooperation with Iran. Iran, it is speculated, in the media, want a quid pro quo for their getting into bed with the USA and it begins with nuclear. This will make an impossible situation even more impossible. The Saudis will go ballistic and will want nuclear weapons not to mention Turkey and Egypt.
Most importantly whatever Obama does will have no impact on the hatred the Sunnis and Shia have for each other. They will carry on killing each other come what may. Obama has got to let this play out and deal with the world as it will become. He has to keep his eye on the ball and the ball is Iran.
Tons of humanitarian aid is the order of the day so let him go ahead with that.
And guess what David Petraues, the former Commander of the Coalition of forces in Iraq, came out in agreement with Jay H. Ell. The argument he used is that the USA would be taking sides in the age old battle between the Sunnis and Shia. He states that Maliki has not delivered on a Government of national unity and the USA would not be supporting a government it would be supporting a sect.
So Barak it is not to late - Don’t just stand there do nothing and stay home!”.
Maybe it is already to late. Obama has just committed himself to 300 advisors on the ground and “targeted action” if necessary…….. He is also reported to be pressuring Maliki to resign. So who is giving him permission to go and advise? Who will be the new guy? How will he be elected? How and what are the 300 going to do? How do you advise an army that doesn’t want to fight? What is the middle and end game?
“When will we ever learn. When will we ever learn”
No comments:
Post a Comment