Category Archives: Middle East

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
Government, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Politics, United States

Gaza: For a ceasefire to last there needs to be serious negotiation…

PALESTINE

Israel began its latest campaign against Hamas on July 8th. The mounting toll of innocents in Gaza should be reason enough for anyone with heartfelt compassion to demand a ceasefire. Gaza, and the Palestinians who live there, deserve more than just temporary truces, sometimes lasting for just a few hours, after which the attacks from Israel appear more aggressive and disproportionate. Since the start of the ongoing offensive more than 700 Palestinians have been killed with hundreds more injured – most of them civilians and many of them children. Some 35 Israelis have been killed, including three civilians.

It was after the ground invasion of Gaza on July 18th when the casualty rate on both sides soared. Hospitals have been hit and scores of buildings flattened, often with women and children inside. A single Palestinian family of 25, accused of sheltering a Hamas militant during a Ramadan fast was wiped out.

A ceasefire that attempted to revert to nothing more than the status quo would be a grievous mistake. If a more durable peace is to be built, the Israelis must seek a sovereign state for Palestinians. But they, including Hamas, must commit and reiterate their support for a government that disavows violence and recognises Israel. Unless a ceasefire is delivered on such terms, the invective poison of hatred will stir up all over again and the cycle of violence will be repeated, as it has done repeatedly since 2007.

In May, talks of a peace deal foundered. But one reason to be more optimistic now is that both sides have seen how a war has been ignited that neither really wanted. Israel has incurred higher military casualties than it had been expecting.

According to John Kerry, America’s Secretary of State, those recent talks broke down because of Israel. In frustration, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinians’ moderate leader, formed a unity government that Hamas backed. Whereas the US administration cautiously welcomed this development, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, railed against it, fearing a united Palestinian front. When in June three Israeli students wrongly identified as soldiers were kidnapped and murdered on the West Bank, the Israeli government instantly blamed the crime on Hamas. The group refused to claim responsibility for it, and subsequently rounded up more than 500 of its members who then, in retaliation, unleashed its multiplying rocket fire at Israel. Some of Hamas’ rockets have reached as far away as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, one of which landed just a mile away from Israel’s international airport. These continuing missile launches led Mr Netanyahu to mobilise his forces and attack Gaza in the manner in which he has.

There can be no doubt that Israel’s first stated military aim is a legitimate one. That is focused on destroying Hamas’s stockpile of rockets, thousands of which have been fired indiscriminately in to Israel in the past decade, killing a score of Israelis and frightening millions more. Over time, the missiles’ range and sophistication have increased.

A new aim, also legitimate, is to destroy Hamas’s delicate infrastructure, especially the tunnels that provide access to Israeli territory. Guerrillas are sent in to murder Israelis, or to kidnap them as a means of barter for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

Nevertheless, war is not only about aims but conduct. Israel is wrong to hit buildings with no evident military purpose and houses packed with civilians, even if householders are harbouring Hamas fighters and its officials. Israel should know that this is always likely to be counterproductive. As the death toll among Gazans rises, Hamas will always be in a better position to promote its cause.

To stop the internecine warfare Hamas must stop firing its rockets into Israel. In return, Israel must commit and agree to honour an agreement from 2012 to lift the siege that has immiserated Gaza’s inhabitants since 2007 in an effort to marginalise Hamas. And Israel should free, or put on trial, some of the hundreds of Hamas prisoners rounded up over the past month on the West Bank, the larger part of a would-be Palestinian state.

Yet, the catastrophe and events that continually befall Gaza stems fundamentally from the refusal of Israel to negotiate in good faith to let the Palestinians have a proper state encompassing both Gaza and the West Bank. Why, many ask, does Mr Netanyahu still allow the building of Jewish settlements there, which makes the creation of a workable Palestinian state even less likely to emerge?

Whilst real mediation is necessary, geopolitically the region is extremely fraught. Egypt has to be involved, but its new military rulers detest the Islamists of Hamas as much as Israel does. Turkey and Qatar could help Hamas towards moderation but are loathed by Israel. The United States is still the one global player that has the political weight, however diminished, to bring everyone to the table. Mr Kerry has to do more than just stop the rockets.

 

Standard