Monthly Archives: August 2014

Britain, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Military, Politics, United States

The British military in Iraq are operating on blurred lines. Parliament needs to discuss the issue…

IRAQ: ISLAMIC STATE

The nature of our operational involvement in Iraq, while welcome, has made significant step changes to what the UK is now doing. This comes without proper parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

The actions of the military have involved dropping essential food parcels and water purification kits to those refugees fleeing the Islamic State militia. However, it has now been tasked with a large-scale rescue mission, but this – undoubtedly – is a major advance to what it was initially tasked to do.

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, is at pains to point out that this is a humanitarian aid relief effort rather than a military mission. But the line between aid and intervention is beginning to blur. The risks to the lives of our aircrews (and troops, should they be necessary on the ground) coming under attack by jihadists is definite and real. ISIS has already hit British military helicopters transiting those stranded on Mount Sinjar to safer ground, and it only seems a matter of time before the shooting down of an aircraft is reported. The British Government, along with its advisers, is jumping in once again without any consideration of what has recently happened in this most volatile of country’. It is quickly becoming apparent it has learned nothing of how military deployments should be sanctioned, and leaves open the Westminster Government to charges of blinkeredness and audacious adventurism.

We would no-doubt expect politicians from across the spectrum to support the rescue mission of those innocents fleeing for the safety of the lives, but Mr Cameron appears to be taking too much for granted as British forces become increasingly involved.

The British public deserve to know exactly what the country is getting into, and our democratically elected politicians must be given the chance to debate and speak up in parliament.

Just days ago, Britain was going no further than providing airdrops of food and water. Now, our involvement is markedly more dangerous. The risk of ‘mission creep’ is ever-present, and now even more of a possibility than before. The ‘rules of engagement’ in this theatre of war are still vague and there remains a risk that circumstances could draw the British military into combat.

David Cameron has so far resisted demands to recall parliament to discuss the crisis. But, as the UK gets further involved, that position is becoming increasingly untenable.

Standard
Britain, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Middle East, Military, Syria, United States

The intervention by the West in the Islamic State on humanitarian grounds is a right one…

ISLAMIC STATE

Intro: The West must do all it can to prevent the creation of an Islamist semi-state

The Islamic State has become a serious threat, and one that has to be confronted. Its outlook is based on foundations that are medieval, aims which include the destruction of all other faiths and the imposition of Sharia law. The establishment of a caliphate, under which Islamists are ruled, is an overarching objective.

The military successes of the Islamic State have been remarkable. Its campaign has spread across large swathes of Syria and Iraq like a plaque, threatening Baghdad as Iraq’s capital and pushing towards the Kurdish homeland in the north. This advance has caused chaos and anarchy and has driven thousands of religious minorities from their homes under the threat of ‘convert or die’.

The resultant effect is a humanitarian crisis in Iraq, a threat to the stability of a fragile Middle East and a challenge to Western security. Islamist hardliners speak of ‘humiliating’ the United States with a pledge of ‘raising the flag of Allah in the White House’. The ranks of this violent and barbaric army include around 3,000 who are said to hold European passports.

The immediate reason why the outside world has to intervene is to help those displaced people turned into refugees avoid the threat of execution. Many are trapped in the perilous and harsh geography of Iraq and will soon die if aid is not delivered. The worrying comments of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has helped to create the conditions for the rise of the Islamic State, suggest we also have a debt to pay.

There remains, too, a much wider task facing the West. Preventing the creation of an Islamist semi-state that both destabilises the nations around it and provides a safe haven for the plotting of terrorist attacks elsewhere is central to the US starting air strikes in Iraq and by halting the advance of the jihadis. Britain is providing logistical support.

This difficult operation has to strike a careful balance. Act too cautiously, and the West may fail to provide sufficient help to those in most need. Get too involved too quickly, and recent history will soon be repeated, with our military being sucked into an unwanted and protracted conflict which could potentially make the West an even greater target for terrorist outrages in the future.

President Barack Obama has indicated that he sees this military operation as being a ‘long-term project’. In military terms, the situation will have to be monitored very closely to decide whether what we are doing is working and, if not, what should be done instead. Mr Obama has said that Iraqis themselves must take a lead.

Where the West’s action should certainly be unstinting and unsparing is in the provision of humanitarian aid. The US and Britain will hopefully do their best to help bring urgently needed supplies – food, water and medical supplies. The Head of the Church of England, Archbishop Justin Welby, is right in his condemnation when he speaks of an ‘evil pattern around the world’ where religious minorities are persecuted for their faith.

****

In response to the escalating situation in Iraq, three RAF Tornado fighter jets from RAF Marham in Norfolk have departed for the skies over Iraq. Their mission is to assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid to refugees who have fled in fear of the ISIS insurgents to the slopes of Mount Sinjar.

Technically, this is a humanitarian aid relief effort. No-one should be making the mistake of assuming this operation is in anyway routine. This isn’t an aid drop into a zone struck by a natural disaster, such as happens after an earthquake, but a relief effort that is dealing with the plight of retreating religious minorities. The military are dealing with a situation that is very much man-made.

The ISIS advance has demonstrated their brutality in the most sickening of ways. There are frequent reports of beheadings, crucifixions and the burying of people alive. Amongst those being targeted are the Yazidi, one of the most ancient Christian communities on Earth.

American air strikes against the militia of ISIS, and the UK aid operation that accompanies them, are aimed at saving thousands of lives that are in perilous danger.

Whilst the Islamic State is an organisation that is regarded by the West as the most deadly of destabilising forces in the region, we should also be clear that there are many who will see any US/UK involvement as a provocation. The RAF Tornados are fully armed, and have flown direct to a war zone.

****

It will be curious for many Britons, that – given the political sensitivity of UK military involvement in the Middle East – a British deployment has happened without a debate having taken place in the House of Commons. Parliament may be in its summer recess, but military operations in a war zone are exactly the kind of circumstances that could justify a recall. The last time the Prime Minister thought he knew the will of Parliament on a sensitive matter in the Middle East (on support for the rebels in Syria) MPs swiftly disabused him of that notion. If air strikes had gone ahead against President Assad of Syria, the sworn enemy of ISIS, the jihadists could have now also been in control of Damascus. That embarrassing foreign policy reversal was perhaps the most damaging in modern British political history, and has certainly marked one of the lowest points in Mr Cameron’s premiership.

It is apt to point out that this is a tinderbox moment in Iraq, a country still a long way off from being a coherent and sustainable political entity. War zones are, by their very nature and definition, places where the unexpected happens. ‘Mission creep’ will always be an inherent risk.

The questions are real, and not subjective rhetoric. For example, what would happen if British warplanes came under attack? Would they be justified in returning fire? What exactly are the rules of engagement? Any military action – however limited – must have defined objectives, a time limit and a clear endgame.

This demonstrates why it is wise for our political leaders to ensure they have the full backing of the country, through its democratic representatives, before they make a commitment in a conflict situation. The Prime Minister has, so far, not sought that endorsement.

Air strikes against ISIS positions, humanitarian aid drops and even arming the Iraqi Kurds are all options that could be justified if Turkish anxieties can be assuaged. But, as recent history has shown, a full military intervention is bound to have unforeseen and potentially calamitous consequences.

It was ill-conceived foreign intervention that led to the situation we have today in Iraq. The West must avoid making it even worse.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, Iraq, Middle East, Politics, United States

Events in Iraq have forced a reluctant West to act…

IRAQ

Intro: The West’s decision to act in Iraq is one based on the threats posed by the Islamic State. Its intervention is not based on nation-building, as was the original aim in 2003, but to stop the proliferation of evil by the terrorists and in protecting religious minorities

The advances being made by the Islamic State in Iraq, formerly ISIS, is a tragedy for those religious minorities unfortunate enough to be standing in their way. Among those fleeing are the Yazidis, believers in an ancient religion who have survived countless attempts before in being wiped out. Their religion has been maintained and kept alive through oral history, passed down through the ages by Talkers who memorise the text of a holy book they believe was stolen by the British.

The Yazidis are men and women of flesh and blood fleeing for safe protection. Far from being anthropological curiosities they are hiding in and around the region of Mount Sinjar, in desperate need of attention as many are dying of hunger and thirst. Tens of thousands have fled their homes in the face of death threats from the Islamic State if they fail to convert to Islam.

The lack of a powerful lobby and representation for religious minorities has led to the West becoming strangely reticent about what is happening in Iraq. One maybe inclined to perceive that their cause is simply not fashionable; the anecdotal evidence is perhaps proof enough. For instance, prior to the Iraq war there were around 1.5 million Christians domiciled – amongst them Chaldeans, Syro-Catholics, Syro-Orthodox, Assyrians from the East, Catholic and Orthodox Armenians. Today, the number is just 400,000 and is predicted to shrink further. After sacking Mosul, in which the church bells were silenced for the first time in 1,600 years, the Islamic State then conquered Qaraqosh, Iraq’s largest Christian town, and imposed its medieval caliphate and sharia law on those who suddenly find themselves its subjects.

Many Westerners may struggle to conceive, too, that Christians in several Muslim countries have similarly become an oppressed minority. Many are being slaughtered, overlooked by the West out of ignorance or awkwardness. The mess is bloody and terrible none the less.

Another possible explanation is that the West simply does not want to think about Iraq. After squandering and plundering so much treasure there – both in terms of financial resources expended and human lives sacrificed – politicians would rather draw a line under the whole subject. But to do so is to negate responsibility for a crisis that the West helped create the conditions for. What is happening in Iraq today is directly connected and linked to its recent history.

When it comes to foreign affairs, the West is often caught looking the wrong way. The situation in Ukraine was allowed to fester until the shooting down of flight MH17. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians died before the West even considered action and then backed off. With minds now understandably drawn to Gaza, the risk of missing a catastrophe occurring in the east is self-evident.

No one will doubt the complexity of the situation, and there will be no appetite for a direct military response involving air strikes. But by talking seriously about what is happening in Iraq would be a start. There has to now be recognition of the threatening menace posed by the Islamic State both to the minorities of that region and, should they secure a power base, to the West and the wider world.

****

Such barbarism occurring in the 21st century is hard to conceive given that expression of religious freedom is a right that all should enjoy. The Islamic State, however, represents the flowering of a grim fundamentalism that is willing and able to go to appalling lengths to achieve its aims. Its objectives pose a threat not only to the vulnerable religious minorities in the north, but also to the Iraqi government, the stability of the Middle East region and the security of the entire world. The Islamic State has created a crisis that demands a response.

Suddenly the West is prepared to act by doing something. The United States has begun a military campaign designed to prevent the hardliners from advancing much further and to coordinate the provision of humanitarian aid and support to those many tens of thousands of internally displaced refugees. Britain has announced that it will support America with surveillance and refuelling assistance, and will help with aid drops from the air.

Although there will be a degree of reluctance by the West in ‘returning to Iraq’, given all that has happened since the 2003 invasion, it is precisely because the West played a significant role in creating the circumstances in which the Islamic state has flourished, that it now feels there is a responsibility to act. With a mix of too much action in Iraq and, arguably, too little in Syria, the terrorists found easy shelter and incubation. The Islamic State bridges both Iraq and Syria.

America and Britain are not engaging in anything remotely connected to nation-building, as was the original aim in 2003. The plan is simply to halt the advance of the Islamic State and to protect those threatened by it. It is felicitous, too, that the US shoulders the burden of the airstrikes while Britain provides logistical support. This is a clear example of the Atlantic alliance’s traditional arrangement, one in which we offer intelligence and support to our American partner in the cause of international law and order.

This is a mission which will have to be approached with due care and caution and every political and diplomatic avenue should be explored. Sometimes events do move fast to a point where action is necessary. As far as the Islamic State is concerned, that point is the ghastly threat it poses to the fleeing innocents of Iraq and the future of their country. Such evil has to be confronted.

Standard