Monday, September 29, 2014

ISIS: WHY IS OBAMA LEADING? WHY NO MUSLIM OUTRAGE?









The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. (ISIS), also known as the Islamic State, (IS), has bludgeoned onto the world scene with a bloodstained scythe. Unimaginably barbaric they have ridden roughshod over Iraqi, Kurdi and Syrian opposition. They then carved out with bullets and swords a large swathe of land in those countries and hoisted their skull and crescent flag. First and foremost they threaten the Middle East Muslim countries who are shuddering in their shawls. The Gulf States, the Sunni non Jihadists have joined Obama’s coalition to fight this unholy terror. Jordan and Egypt are onsides to a lesser or great extent. Iran, the paymaster of terrorism and genocide is the one country that could wipe out this menace but is standing aside scoffing at Western efforts. They are waiting for some trade off on their nuclear designs before entering. Before continuing this begs the question why is it that it is the Obama American led West that is spearheading  the campaign to rid us of this pestilence? 

WHY NOT LEADERSHIP OR PROTEST FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD

Why is it not Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States that are leading the propaganda campaigns, mobilizing world Muslim support to condemn these obscenities, cobbling UNO resolutions and begging the West to join in as it is essentially their problem and moral responsibility? Why are there not protest meetings in every Western City in the world lead by Muslims distancing themselves from these barbarians? Why isn’t every “Peace Loving” Imam preaching that this hate and savage brutality is a disgrace to the Muslim religion and should not be tolerated?

THE AMERICAN LED WEST ONLY TO HAPPY TO CRUSADE AND RISK ALL OUT WAR

Well there are many reasons why the Muslim States and the Muslim leaders themselves need not take the lead. These include the fact that it is the American led West’s pushy desire and arrogance to sort out the world. It is not an unreasonable hypothesis that ISIS beheaded a few Westerners anticipating  the heavy handed ill thought out response they have predictably received. Nothing is more geared to garner support in the Middle East than to cry the Imperialist infidels are attacking us. After all the misguided Bush/Cheney gang did for Iraq they couldn’t wait to chuck the US Army out. Now the West are groveling in thanks at Iraq’s invitation to bomb IS. 

US Chief Of Staff says that there must be boots on the ground.

Let it be clear once and for all that bombing and crippling IS for the moment is just not going to cut it. The US Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey has stated the obvious. “Absolutely we are going to need a large ground force to overcome IS”. He threw out a bone to the doves,  “It needn't be a US one!”. G-D spare us here we go again. The current plan is that the naked bootless toothless pathetic Iraq army, the overwhelmed Kurds and Syrian moderate rebels are up to the task. Apparently the Pentagon is ready to train up to 15,000 Syrian moderates. This had been wisely resisted to date as who vets the resumes and guess where the hardware can  land up. 

Intervention in the Middle East achieves nothing and is counterproductive

Not only is the West not wanted in the Middle East and have achieved next to nothing in several wars over decades but the exercise is counterproductive. Who armed and trained Osama and help him create Al Qaeda? Nobody but the “do gooder” American West in their effort to wrest Afghanistan from the Russians and ended up by giving it to the Taliban! CNN has reported that the US has hit 41 Humvees, given to the Iraquis, that cost three quarter of a million dollars each. The bombs to take them out cost $30,000 each. The latter has to be the tip of the iceberg of American goodies that IS has harvested coupled with the cost to neutralize the bootie. 

The other cultural factor the West does not take into account when computing its strategies is the differing concepts of time. The West’s concept of an age is an election cycle. The Middle Eastern Muslim one is whatever it takes. The Arab world first and now the Jihadis have made and are prepared to make the Palestinians suffer for forever till they have eliminated Israel. Likewise the leaders of ISIS with their culture of death don’t mind letting their followers die in the process of establishing their extreme Sharia Islamic State.

To deal with nuclear hungry Iran is insane

To do a deal with Iran to wipe out a menace that is not an existential threat to the West and prop up the paymaster of Assad, Hezbollah and Hamas and facilitate Iran going nuclear is crazy. Tell Iran to wipe out IS themselves. Sooner or later Iran will have to be drawn in when IS gobble up the sociopathic Assad and move onto Hezbollah. (Who do we back then?). IS will come after Iran too if it can. 

To spend all that money and effort to bomb IS will literally go nowhere. The only measurable outcome of this exercise will be is that it will ensure the longevity of the Assad regime. You see IS also has billionaires who will carry on replenishing their money supply. IS have no infrastructure to send in terrorists but rather an ability to instigate, exhilarate and galvanize Western home grown misfits to wreak havoc. Spend the money and the effort to root these out as IS has not one plane to come and bomb us. 

Obama changes course 

As Jay H. Ell blogged, (A Glimmer of  Sanity In The Middle East Lunatic Asylum), it wasn’t a national interest per se decision it was a moral decision to take on IS. Notwithstanding all the President’s rationalizations it was the barbarism that precipitated his change of heart. Obama’s decision signaled the beginning of a cultural war between two civilizations - one of life and one of death, and it was the barbarism of the beheadings that clinched it. Whatever made the crazy Islamic State, (IS), Jihadists decide on this medieval inhumane tactic has changed history. 

However, Obama’s decision has consequences and  illustrates the transformation of the ideologue who came into the office of Presidency with the naive belief that he could unify America and bring peace to the world, (a belief that persuaded the Nobel Committee to present him an anticipatory Nobel Prize for Peace) . Just to think one of the key factors in the Democratic Primary election was Hillary’s vote for the Iraqi war and his opposition to it. Sadly, he has felt forced to transform his agenda by the reality of the world that he was thrust into. Fox News cynically criticized Obama maintaining that this was the seventh Muslim State that the Nobel Laureate has bombed. (Fox and their crew had all but called him a Muslim plant). But this was not the way Obama planned it. As Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post pointed out in 2009 the President gave a speech in Cairo where he called for a new beginning between the US and the Muslim world. Now his priority is to wipe out the Jihardi killers, “Who understand no language but the language of force”. 

The only plus in Obama’s whole volte face is that he is still functioning within the parameters he set himself with regard to foreign intervention. (Blog: Obama’s Legacy - Take 1).

WHY THE GULF AND ARAB STATES ARE NOT LEADING

This all begs the question why the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan are not taking the lead in rooting out IS. They are the ones who face the threat of overthrow. They are all scared that IS threatens their very own stability in their unstable countries. Qatar is a dictatorship which has been controlled by the Al Thani family since the early nineteenth century. Legislation is Sharia law. Qatar has backed many terrorist groups and took on the main sponsorship of Hamas recently. Saudi Arabia has Sharia Law deluxe and has been run by a succession of hereditary monarchies from the Al Saud dynasty  for as long as memory serves. While Saudi Arabia have never been directly implicated in terrorist movements billions have emanated from that country in support of terror groups and it is the birthplace of the most notorious terrorists, including Osama. 

Bahrain has been ruled by the Al Khalifa royal family since the end of the eighteenth century and for practical purposes they are an absolute monarchy. They currently have an abysmal record on human rights and like the United Arab Emirates, (UAE), have made moves at giving women some rights. Also in tandem with the UAE, they have expanded their economic horizons to include banking and tourism. Whatever the window dressings are the predominant legislative code is Sharia Law in both “progressive” states. 

Jordan and Egypt are secular States the former being in control of a Hashemite king and the latter having rid themselves of the monarchy have had a succession of dictators.

So all have dictatorships of one sort or another and any populist movement is a potential threat. The Gulf States are obviously the most threatened by IS. They have the same culture as IS as they too have Sharia law to a lesser or greater extent - at least without the summary executions and beheadings. Every now and then scary Sharia decisions leak out to the Western Press to remind us of the state of human rights in those dictatorships. In all of these Gulf States there has to be lots of support for IS so they are treading very warily and letting the Crusader West do their thing and they will send a couple of planes - one even with a woman pilot.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

All this adds up to an even more unstable problem than it even appears at the moment - but not the West’s problem. Let them take a cue from Israel who is in the front line of all of the mayhem and where the threat is not existential but real - stay out! Israel is only worried about Iran and its surrogates. It has a promising sub rosa relationship with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates with a common objective to oppose Iran and its terrorist surrogates. If IS threaten to invade them they will do the necessary and they have one set of boots, not to mention the air force to go with it, to contain IS but they have spilled enough blood in survival without looking for unnecessary heroics. (They are probably providing the US with what intelligence there is). 

One may argue that IS is evil and these are unheard of atrocities. To true but what about, Somalia, Rwanda and the like? It would not be inappropriate to respond to a beheading with bombing or taking out a leader with a drone but the allies can never sort out the differences between a culture that is so different from their own. The West keep trying to foist their value system down the Middle East Muslim throats who are literally, at the end of the day, not interested. 

Alas all this discussion is in vain. The question is what does the US do when IS still has its territory and the surrogate boots that they can put on the ground have failed. Is it a rerun of “Onward Christian Soldiers” or will they at least do what Reagan did, albeit in a different context, after the Lebanon disaster, pack up and go home. If it is any consolation the US public are expecting forces to be shipped as evidenced in a recent poll.



No comments:

Post a Comment