Britain, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Society, United States

Iraq and the tinderbox of the Middle East: America weighs up its options…

IRAQ

Intro: Learning the lessons of recent conflicts in the region should provide us with a guide concerning the current situation in Iraq

The paradox of the US and UK cosying up to Iran in light of the chaos in Iraq reconciles well with the age-old adage of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ – an example that demonstrates in comfortable fashion just what is implied by this historical idiom. And, yet, the crisis in the region leaves the US and UK with little choice.

Over the last ten days images of ISIS fighters massacring Shi’ite captives, brought to us most graphically through the medium of social media, are brutally barbaric and shocking – but, that has been their intention all along; horror is, after all, a weapon of war. It is being used by ISIS in ways that is totally depraved and inhumane of reasoned thinking.

We should be in no doubt. There will be more such images as the insurgents intensify their activities. And with that will come increasing calls for the UK to accept its responsibility for Iraq’s grim predicament and to help to do something to alleviate it.

We should not be misunderstood, either, when it is asserted that the UK is, in some measure, culpable in bringing about the grisly events that are being played out in Iraq. That can hardly be denied. There are, of course, other factors which have played their part, most notably the wave of sectarian conflict that has swept across the Middle East as part of the Arab Spring and revolution. Ultimately, though, in supporting the 2003 military invasion, Britain helped to light the fuse.

Pressure for the UK to re-engage militarily in Iraq must, however, be firmly resisted. There is no public or political appetite for an intervention again at this level on this occasion. Two things have emerged that should be crystal clear, and learning the lessons of recent conflicts in the region should provide us with a guide concerning the current situation in Iraq.

The first is that, like all modern warfare, aerial superiority is the key to victory. This was demonstrated through the use of UK/US air support in the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, and, as it happens, in the way the absence of this support for rebels in Syria has allowed president Bashar al-Assad to continue his onslaught and by surviving as the country’s brutal dictator.

But the second is that air supremacy on its own cannot conclusively defeat an insurgency. Boots on the ground are required – although, crucially, those boots do not need to be US or UK boots. Arguably, those boots can be Iraqi boots. Once the Baghdad military forces regroup following the recent embarrassing defections that ceded so much ground and territory to ISIS, Iraq’s own security personnel should be in a position to claim back much of the lost ground.

For the Iraqi government to regain control, it does look as if US air support will be needed. But such assistance carries significant risks.

With Sunni-Shia tensions already high in the region, how would others in close proximity to events in Iraq react to the US effectively becoming an instrument of Shia might and strength? Middle East conflagrations do have a habit of converging, no more so than in the tinderbox that is Lebanon. US air strikes in Iraq would not auger well for those neighbouring countries that have allegiances with each other.

President Barack Obama continues to weigh up his options. Mr Obama has already approved 300 extra troops to secure the US embassy and Baghdad airport, and calls are mounting in America – notably in Republican quarters – for a more strategic military deployment to help repel the rebels and by restoring order.

In all likelihood the US President will win domestic support for drone strikes. Given what has gone in recent conflicts an air of caution seems certain to be placed over the use of direct air strikes. The use of drones carries risks, too, as innocents caught up in the crossfire, for example, will always consider defecting to the other side for protection. On a calculation of minimising collateral damage to achieve its objectives the use of aerial drones is an option America has at its disposal.

Standard
Africa, Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, Society, United Nations

Tackling rape in war through international law…

INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL

For as long as wars have been fought, rape and sexual violence have conventionally featured in them. Men running amok with guns will always be hard to control; that the level of rape and sexual assaults in conflict zones haven’t fallen since 1945, when the Nuremberg trials decried it as a crime against humanity, points to the stubborn depravity of man. The difficulties of bringing perpetrators to justice have proven to be complex with the process often described as being an “uphill task”.

This week, a global summit has begun in London with the arch objective of changing perceptions. Participants to the symposium whose aim it will be to change the narrative are faced with a steep and problematic issue. Within the last two decades alone hundreds of thousands of women have been victims of serious sexual assault. The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, a leading figure at the summit, acknowledges the difficulties the summit is addressing and has said that, if anything, sexual violence is getting much worse.

Mr Hague is not mistaken, though, when he says there are measures which can be taken to limit the scourge of sexual crimes. Whilst, of course, it will never be eradicated, recent studies portray a more nuanced picture of rape’s prevalence in times of war. Although the levels of rape are notoriously high in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, a survey of all African conflicts between 1989 and 2009 concluded that only 26 per cent of armed groups were reported to have been engaged in sexual violence.

In addressing the hugely difficult issue of what can be done to make soldiers on the front lines think twice, an International Protocol is to be launched to standardise the kind of evidence needed for a case to be brought to court. This will lead to more convictions. And it will also hold commanders legally responsible for the behaviour of their troops. A change in the law to this effect will make it much harder to get away with rape.

Standard
Egypt, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, Politics, Society, United States

Abdulfattah el-Sisi: Egypt’s new political leader…

EGYPT

Once again, Egypt has a senior military officer in charge of the country’s affairs. Field Marshal Abdulfattah el-Sisi, recently promoted from the rank of General, has been elected with the support of 97 per cent of the voters (of a low turnout) and has been inaugurated into office. He officially stood down from his military appointment in contesting the presidency. For the past 60-years, ever since the Free Officers Movement overthrew King Farouk in 1952, the Egyptian government has had a senior military strongman at the helm. Successive leaders – Naguib, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak – all came from the military, so on that basis el-Sisi’s political victory in now leading his country should come as no great surprise.

For many, though, given the political earthquake and subsequent tremors that have occurred over the past three years, and the way in which power has been handed over, will leave many feeling uncomfortable if not untoward. The high hopes of the Arab Spring and the resulting revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak were undone by the election of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mohammed Morsi’s mandate suggested that the Arab world’s most populous country would become increasingly Islamised, and became a significant factor in his eventual deposition that came in the form of a military coup. But now the Brotherhood is proscribed once more and most of its leaders are in prison.

Whether President el-Sisi is to be remembered as another Arab tyrant will depend on how he utilises his unparalleled position of public dominance. Time will tell – and history will record – whether he is able to reform his country’s anachronistic and decrepit institutions and his ability to convert an inward-looking society into one that is more representative of the modern age. In the short-term, his priorities must be to overhaul the police and judiciary and to end the daily charades of how justice is dispensed in the courts.

Standard