Category Archives: Middle East

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Society, United States

The ‘war on terror’ doctrine has failed, but why?

‘WAR ON TERROR’

Intro: The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily

It is now more than twelve and a half years since the Al-Qaeda attack on America’s Twin Towers of 9/11. Yet, despite all the efforts by the West in dealing with additional terrorist threats under its catch all phrase ‘war on terror’, al-Qaeda and its affiliate type organisations (of which there are many) now control an area the size of Britain in western Iraq and eastern Syria. This size increases still further if we factor in Afghanistan, Libya and vast swathes of Somalia.

The rapid expansion and spread of jihadi groups comes amid the west’s ongoing fight and struggle of George W Bush’s infamous war on terror doctrine. In the name of such a struggle, great sums have been expended; wars have been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; civil rights have been curtailed; and the practices of torture, rendition, detention without trial and domestic espionage have been justified. What is so extraordinary is that the attempts made by the West to eliminate the supposed enemy have wholly failed.

It was never an inevitable outcome that organisations and splinter groups aligned to the ideology and methods of Osama bin-Laden should have survived and flourished like they have. Al-Qaeda inspired jihad is now stronger than ever.

Undoubtedly, Saudi Arabia was crucial to the rise of the original al-Qaeda based group. On the 9/11 attacks, 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi and the Commission Report in the aftermath revealed that Saudi donors were the main financial supporters and backers for al-Qaeda. More than 28 pages of the report relating to Saudi involvement have never been published, and the Bush administration never sought for a moment to pin blame or any measure of responsibility on Saudi Arabia. This failure has enabled the Saudis to go on playing a central role in the funding and recruitment for jihadi groups across much of the Muslim world. Instead, Bush sought to wholly attribute blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, without a shred of acceptable evidence.

Policies of wrong-footedness have continued. Since the start of the Arab Spring the US, Britain and their allies have supported jihadis who manoeuvred and appeared to be on their side – much in the same way as they backed them in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Rebel groups in Syria and Libya, much like al-Qaeda, have been viewed tolerantly thanks to their opposition and denouncements of Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. The US ambassador to Libya, J Christopher Stevens, paid with his life after Washington underestimated the danger posed by the jihadis with whom America had been cooperating.

The willingness of the US, Britain, and their allies to cooperate with theocratic absolute regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf does have aspects to it which are hypocritical. The absurd pretence that they want to establish secular democracies in Syria, Libya and Iraq is the clearest example. There is a sustained unwillingness, too, to admit that the Sunni monarchs are viscerally anti-Shia. We need to look no further than the sectarian hate propaganda proliferating on well-funded Arabic satellite television stations, across social media sites, and through the internet in general.

But ‘why’ you may ask has the West been so gentle with the Saudis (and their allies) responsible though they are for sustaining the jihadi movement. The reason is the kingdom’s financial might. Washington and London’s hunger for lucrative arms deals and the lure of consultancy contracts and other personal benefits for powerful individuals is a prime driver.

The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily. Greater accountability should have been delivered by now for those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Syria

Recent peace talks in Syria have been a complete failure…

SYRIA

The recent round of peace talks in Geneva concerning Syria collapsed in just under 30 minutes. If anyone believed that the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, and his enemies had the slightest intention of making peace, this latest setback should be evidence enough of just how difficult it is going to be in bringing about a peace treaty. At this stage it seems wholly impossible. Just to get the blood-stained dictator and a selection of his foes to the negotiating table required almost three years of international endeavour and a death toll that has now reached 140,000 people since the civil war started. All efforts to bring about peace in Syria have ended in failure.

The crisis has usurped even the bleakest of forecasts. Last year, it seemed reasonable and rational to believe that Assad’s agreement to disable his poisonous gases and chemical weapons would at least rid the conflict of these ghastly weapons. But even that deal is unravelling.

Under the agreed timetable, 700 tons of Assad’s most dangerous chemical agents should have been shipped out of Syria by 31 December, 2013. In January, the best estimate was that a mere 4 per cent had actually been removed. It is understood that a further shipment (of an undisclosed size) has taken place since, but it will not have altered the overall stockpiles of chemical agents being held by the Syrian regime by that much. The agreement was designed to destroy Syria’s entire inventory of some 1,300 tons; less than 50 tons has been deemed to have been disposed of.

More worryingly, hundreds of British Muslims have travelled to Syria’s war-torn country to join the most radical rebel groups, most of which are aligned to Al-Qaeda. British intelligence and senior police officers are gravely concerned of the prospect of these people returning home to the UK with their newly-found skills acquired from Al-Qaeda run training camps disbursed throughout Syria and neighbouring countries in the Middle East. No counter-terrorism official doubts that such radicalised individuals threaten our national security.

Syria is systematically destroying itself before our very eyes. Millions of refugees have been displaced and are placing an intolerable strain on neighbouring countries as they seek refuge and shelter. All efforts to bring peace to this blood-soaked land have been foiled, and have created in the process a new generation of jihadists.

No one should forget that Assad has been aided in his mission – and been given a licence to do what he has been doing – through Russia and Iran who have sustained this war by arming and funding the Syrian regime.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, History, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

The US Secretary of State faces challenges, but is John Kerry sufficiently supported?

US FOREIGN POLICY

John Kerry has illuminated the paradox of current American foreign policy. No where is this more embodied than in the Middle East, the region that continues to consume so much time and effort for the US Secretary of State. Rarely has the diplomacy and energies spent been as active and as bold as they are today. But flamboyant charges that the US is enfeebled and in retreat are also accusations that are running in parallel.

Mr Kerry is tacitly involved on three immensely challenging and overlapping fronts: his efforts to end the bloody civil war in Syria; the continued search for a nuclear deal with Iran that might end more than three decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran; and, the renewed and engaging process to secure a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestinians that has eluded negotiators since 1948.

An analysis of the progress being made will reveal a mixed picture. Encouragingly, the best advances have been made with Iran, with an interim deal that parts of the country’s nuclear programme have been frozen for a period of six months. This deal could yet unravel, but the U.S. and Iran are engaged in a process of constructive dialogue.

To the other extreme, Syria constitutes a total failure. The recent Geneva conference which could not even deliver an agreement on bringing humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of civilians, trapped by the savagery of the conflict, epitomises this rank failure. Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues to arm and supply the regime, while progress on securing Assad’s chemical weapons and stockpiles is, at best, described as being limited. More accurately, it would not be amiss to say that progress in removing Assad’s arsenal has been brought to a stuttering halt.

The current state of play in dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is less clear. Whilst Mr Kerry has been doggedly determined in keeping talks going, his indefatigability may be perceived from different angles of thought. For those who support him, this involvement and persistent diligence is proof of resolve. It is also recognition of his courage by placing his prestige on the line in a way that many of his predecessors never did. For the detractors, though, the US Secretary of State is merely on an ego trip, driven largely by the naïve belief that hope will triumph over experience. The more impartial may wonder whether Mr Kerry’s goal of a ‘framework’ plan – an agreement by the two sides on the shape of the final agreement with the details being worked out later – is really any different from the other diplomatic formulae’, such as the ‘road maps’, that have littered nearly seven decades of futile peacekeeping.

Underpinning Mr Kerry’s efforts on all three fronts is the ‘damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t’ scenario faced by the US in the Middle East. Most expect America to lead, even if its ability to shape and bend the region to its will is often grossly exaggerated. When the U.S. has taken decisive action, as in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has been accused of being a blundering warmonger. Following on from these two long and costly interventions, Americans will have no appetite for another. Yet, when it steadfastly refuses to robustly intervene in Syria (or to a lesser extent in Egypt), it is denounced for abandoning its responsibilities, and of condoning and supporting human rights abuses. It can hardly wave a magic wand and expect all to be well.

American history tends to suggest that the most effective Secretaries of State tend to be those that have been closest to their respective Presidents. Henry Kissinger, for instance, under President Richard Nixon, or James Baker who held post during the reign of President George HW Bush, spring to mind. Secretary of State Kerry is barely a year into his tenure, and so it is too early to say whether he will join this company. Success, however, on one of the three major challenges he is faced with would amount to a distinguished and noteworthy achievement.

Standard