The ISIS forces are said to be within 5 to 10 km from the city of Baghdad, the capital of Iraq. Will they try to storm it? And who will welcome such a battle to see this historic city to be flattened by naked violence? The Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff has said that they need at least 15,000 land troops in addition to the air power to stop the tide of the ISIS, or to reoccupy the area taken by them.
Mr. Obama went so far as to say, one wonders if this is the right moment to say such a thing, that they have been underestimating the power of the ISIS forces and overestimating that of the Iraqi forces. He sounded rather more optimistic when he made a 15-minute speech on the occasion of the 9/11 anniversary this year. He said four things. (1) The ISIS would be stopped by the air power of the broad coalition. (2) The land forces of the countries in the region would be strengthened. (3) The outsiders should be stopped from joining the IS forces. (4) Humanitarian aid would be provided.
Would these be enough? Were they not overwhelmingly militarily oriented, even though the US would not be sending the land forces? Apart from the humanitarian aid at the end, presumably meaning dropping food and water, etc., they were about intensifying bombing, arming the local forces for the use of the modern equipment, and curtailing the incoming of the would-be new soldiers on the other side. Are they enough? The above statements by General Dempsy and Mr. Obama were effectively saying that they were not, already, in three weeks' time.
This writer is not saying that more armed action, let alone the sending of the US boots, are necessary. Rather it is my view that the US, NATO, or whoever else, who together with Obama looks at the IS as 'a terrorist organization pure and simple' must really sit up and think why this split has occurred, and if the US occupation of Iraq under Maliki, particularly from 2010 onwards, was not instrumental in alienating and distressing the Sunnis. They should try to isolate by all means available the Sunni masses from the presumably small number of die-hards, rather than to go on annihilating them as terrorists 'pure and simple', which would become increasingly difficult to explain even to the US citizens. That is the only possible way to avert the Battle of Baghdad.
But that is not enough in the long-term view. On the West of the region, there is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has been the US and European policy so much in favour of Israel and so much prejudiced against the Palestinians that has made the conflict so persistent and insoluble till today, and probably tomorrow. Without in the least defending the IS, the Sunni masses must be under the dual psychological oppression, anti-Sunni and more general anti-Muslim.
On the East, there is the "AfPak" problem, which got worsened by the "Obama's Wars", referring to the US military surge in 2009. I will not go into this here. But the question of the possible Battle of Baghdad should be placed in the whole spectrum of this East to the West to find a political solution. They are all related. The new President was inaugurated in Afghanistan yesterday. Let us wish all the best to his, and the new CEO's, administration.
Mr. Obama went so far as to say, one wonders if this is the right moment to say such a thing, that they have been underestimating the power of the ISIS forces and overestimating that of the Iraqi forces. He sounded rather more optimistic when he made a 15-minute speech on the occasion of the 9/11 anniversary this year. He said four things. (1) The ISIS would be stopped by the air power of the broad coalition. (2) The land forces of the countries in the region would be strengthened. (3) The outsiders should be stopped from joining the IS forces. (4) Humanitarian aid would be provided.
Would these be enough? Were they not overwhelmingly militarily oriented, even though the US would not be sending the land forces? Apart from the humanitarian aid at the end, presumably meaning dropping food and water, etc., they were about intensifying bombing, arming the local forces for the use of the modern equipment, and curtailing the incoming of the would-be new soldiers on the other side. Are they enough? The above statements by General Dempsy and Mr. Obama were effectively saying that they were not, already, in three weeks' time.
This writer is not saying that more armed action, let alone the sending of the US boots, are necessary. Rather it is my view that the US, NATO, or whoever else, who together with Obama looks at the IS as 'a terrorist organization pure and simple' must really sit up and think why this split has occurred, and if the US occupation of Iraq under Maliki, particularly from 2010 onwards, was not instrumental in alienating and distressing the Sunnis. They should try to isolate by all means available the Sunni masses from the presumably small number of die-hards, rather than to go on annihilating them as terrorists 'pure and simple', which would become increasingly difficult to explain even to the US citizens. That is the only possible way to avert the Battle of Baghdad.
But that is not enough in the long-term view. On the West of the region, there is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has been the US and European policy so much in favour of Israel and so much prejudiced against the Palestinians that has made the conflict so persistent and insoluble till today, and probably tomorrow. Without in the least defending the IS, the Sunni masses must be under the dual psychological oppression, anti-Sunni and more general anti-Muslim.
On the East, there is the "AfPak" problem, which got worsened by the "Obama's Wars", referring to the US military surge in 2009. I will not go into this here. But the question of the possible Battle of Baghdad should be placed in the whole spectrum of this East to the West to find a political solution. They are all related. The new President was inaugurated in Afghanistan yesterday. Let us wish all the best to his, and the new CEO's, administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment