Category Archives: United States

Britain, Iraq, Islamic State, United Nations, United States

The future of Mosul depends on winning hearts and minds

MOSUL, IRAQ

mosul3

The UN has predicted that at least 200,000 people will flee in the coming days as Mosul comes under attack from warring factions.

Intro: This is an opportunity to win the hearts and minds of young and old alike

Dramatic television footage from within the city of Mosul depict not only the advancing of troops but of life-and-death battles between warring factions. It is easy to be distracted from yet another flood of refugees seeking shelter and safety.

While aid agencies may be experienced in what they do, however, even they cannot cope with the sheer numbers involved. In the last 10 days, more than 5,000 men, women and children have fled their homes in Mosul and crossed the border into Syria.

Aid and Relief agencies are now attempting to provide makeshift homes for displaced families in the al-Hol refugee camp which was meant to give refuge to 7,500 people but currently holds over 9,000.

Save the Children says the camp has only 16 latrines, with human waste littering the ground. The site also has no clean running water for the refugees to drink or cook with.

The camp is in the process of being expanded to take 50,000 people, but the biggest focus now must be on what we can do to ensure that the people living in the camp, and others like it, are treated with dignity and respect.

The UN has predicted that at least 200,000 people will flee in the coming days as the city comes under increasing attack, and head for camps being constructed in the north, south and east of the city. Given these huge numbers, we should be preparing to help this tide of people who will be living in tents during the winter (and most likely for some time to come).

This is not just a humanitarian crisis which should appeal to our conscience by ensuring that each individual in the camp is treated properly and fairly by being given more than just the basics of survival. It is one that should also be at the forefront of our minds that many of these people will return to Mosul and will take with them the memory of what life was like there.

This is an opportunity to win the hearts and minds of young and old alike. Among the thousands in the camps will be impressionable young men and women, fired by a sense of injustice. While their older relatives may be more accustomed and schooled in the realities of war, the young still have the potential to make up their own minds by what they see in front of them. Once Mosul is liberated, these people need to have affinity with the West and believe it acted to help them in their time of greatest need. It is not inconceivable to believe that if the camps are filled with horror then we will not have them on our side, leaving a vacuum that could be filled by IS.

Large scale military operations could be used in getting aid to the camps.

We should remember the recent damning lessons as published in the UK’s Iraq War Enquiry, which was chaired by Sir John Chilcot. This found that one of the major failings was the failure to plan and prepare for the future following the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

We cannot be allowed to fail again.

Standard
Britain, Iraq, Islamic State, Terrorism, United Nations, United States

The ramifications of liberating Mosul

IRAQ

IRAQ-CONFLICT-MOSUL

Iraqi Peshmerga fighters fire a multiple rocket launcher east of Mosul as part of a broad coalition to retake the city from Islamic State.

Intro: The long-awaited attack on the Iraqi city of Mosul has begun. Taking Mosul will force IS to change its tactics.

Mosul, Iraq’s third largest city, is the last big prize that Islamic State hold. It is the city from which they announced the creation of their caliphate in 2014. The city means a lot to them and they might well decide that this is a last stand. That will mean a long and arduous battle, close-quarter urban and asymmetric warfare which will become bloody and slow. Civilian casualties are likely to be high as IS seek to be protected through the use of human shields.

The UN will have been making plans for this contingency and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has issued an appeal for an additional $61m (£50m) to provide tents, camps, and winter items such as blankets for displaced people inside Iraq and the two neighbouring countries. The fears that residents could be used as human shields – by, for example, being placed on rooftops in an attempt to deter airstrikes – and, that as many as a million people could be forced to flee their homes, has the makings of another humanitarian tragedy. Surely the governments involved in the broad coalition in the war against IS will ensure that the UN have the money and supplies that they need.

Worryingly, there may be another tactic that is more attractive to IS. There is likely to be a realisation within the organisation that the caliphate will not remain, which is likely to suggest that in pursuit of their long-term goals it would be better to flee in to the desert. That could involve as many as 10,000 fighters who could re-group and re-build. If they stand and fight in Mosul what may be left? The threats to Western societies are very real.

Regardless of tactics and time, however, there are two virtual certainties in this situation. The first is that Mosul will be re-taken by pro-government forces, it is only a matter of when and at what cost. The second is that IS will not be wiped out, but will turn in to an even more hardened terrorist organisation, not merely a territory-holding army, and be capable of conducting a campaign of insurgency. The big question here is just how effective it could be and what resources it could command.

When IS first took over its towns and cities there were local reports of at least some support for the organisation’s objectives: a deep distrust of the government and its supporters existed. But, by many accounts, that tacit support has now disappeared, and IS’s brutal regime has been uncovered for what it actually is. It is imperative that the disaffection with Islamic State be maintained, as all insurgent groups need the help and support of at least some of the indigenous population to be effective.

That is why it is vitally important that no sectarian violence occurs when towns are liberated from IS, and the undertakings given on this aspect must be delivered.

Equally as important is that there is a long-term plan to ensure the governance of these areas is as inclusive and equitable as possible.

It is in the interests of all the nations currently ranged against IS that these longer-term plans are instigated and that they continue. History clearly tells us that structures set up in the aftermath need to be adequately robust to ensure that any remnants of IS is not allowed to thrive.

Appendage:

mosul-map

Mosul, Iraq’s third largest city, is the last stronghold of Islamic State. The threat now is that IS fighters may flee to the desert.

 

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States, Yemen

Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the West…

YEMEN

yemen-houthi

Map depicting Houthi controlled Yemen and the struggle for control

Intro: Saudi Arabia should limit its war in Yemen. Despite the difficulties of late the West should be in a position to help, not by rescinding an almost century-old alliance.

The recent air strike earlier this month that hit a funeral in Sana’a did far more than kill some 140 civilians and wounding 500. For once, it drew rare attention to Saudi Arabia’s 20-month war in Yemen and the strained relationship which now exists with America. That alliance is now under threat with the U.S. reconsidering its military support for the campaign.

Critics are adamant that it is time for the West to abandon its embarrassing alliance with the Saudis. They ask, how can the West denounce the bloodshed and carnage in Syria when its own ally is indiscriminately bombing civilians in Yemen? If the Saudis, with Western support, can intervene to defend the government of Yemen, why shouldn’t Vladimir Putin of Russia not defend the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria?

Morally, and perhaps also legally, the U.S. and Britain are directly implicated in Saudi actions: they sell warplanes and provide munitions and armaments to the Saudi regime; they assist with air-to-air refuelling and help with targeting. Critics also point to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a woeful ally against jihadism. They insist that the Saudis are inflaming global extremism through its export of intolerant Wahhabi doctrines.

Such arguments do have strength. On balance, though, the West should not forsake the Saudis. Rather, it should seek to restrain the damage of their ongoing air campaign, and ultimately aim to bring it to an end. Western support cannot be deemed to be unconditional.

Consider first the moral position and balance. The two conflicts are both ghastly, but not equally so. Around 10,000 have died in Yemen, too many, but far fewer than the 400,000 or so that have perished in Syria. The Saudi-led coalition has not used chemical gas – although it has undoubtedly been careless. It has bombed several hospitals, and its blockade of Yemen and the subsequent damage to its infrastructure has caused dire hardship. A famine now looms, with more than half the country deemed to be hungry or malnourished.

The political context is also different. The Assad regime wrest power in a coup, and has held onto it through tyrannical brutality. Its deliberate crushing of peaceful protests and dissent in 2011, and its indiscriminate and repeated slaughter since then, has removed any speck of legitimacy it may have had. By contrast, Yemen’s president, Abd-Rabbo Mansour Hadi, though ineffectual and flawed, has at least presided over a broad coalition that was established through UN-backed negotiations (which followed the resignation of the former strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh). The Shia Houthis and Mr Saleh, backed by Iran, overturned that deal by force. They frequently fire missiles indiscriminately at Saudi cities, although the damage is often limited.

While the West has little reason to join the war, it has much at stake if it goes wrong. Al-Qaeda’s local franchise has been strengthened, and the Houthis have begun firing missiles at ships in the Bab al-Mandab strait, one of the world’s vital sea lanes. America launched cruise-missile strikes against Houthi-controlled radar sites after attempts were made to attack one of its warships patrolling the region.

The West’s involvement with the Al Sauds is important to understand. Its long alliance, which dates back nearly a century, was also built on its extensive commercial interests that the West has had in the Gulf. Over the decades, the Saudis have put up with many American blunders in the Middle East, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They were shocked, too, by how the West abandoned the former Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, during the mass protests and upheaval of 2011. Last year’s deal between America and Iran to restrict Tehran’s nuclear programme, and Mr Obama’s skewered rhetoric and offhand tone about the Saudis, has deepened their own fear of abandonment. And, the Congressional approval for a bill to allow the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks of 2001 to sue Saudi Arabia, overriding Mr Obama’s presidential veto, is further evidence that the disenchantment is mutual.

Yet, despite this, there are still good reasons for the West to maintain ties to Saudi Arabia. The alternative to the Al Sauds is not liberalism but some form of radical Islamism. Saudi Arabia remains the world’s biggest oil exporter, and holds guardianship of Islam’s two holiest shrines. Better surely that these be in the hands of a friendly power than a hostile one. Whilst slow to respond to the emerging threats of fundamental Islam, it is now a vital partner in the fight against jihadism. It will be better placed than the West to challenge their nihilistic and radical ideologies. The chaos of the Middle East, a tinderbox of tension and hatreds, stems at least in part from Sunni Arabs’ sense of dispossession. The best hope of containing the volatility is to work and collaborate with Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia.

As uncomfortable as it is, the West should stay close to the Saudis. Riyadh should be encouraged to reform economically and politically, while acknowledging widespread concern in the Gulf about the spread of Iranian influence. As the U.S. has said, Western support cannot be ‘a blank cheque’; the more the West helps Saudi Arabia wage war in Yemen, the more it becomes exposed and liable for war crimes. If the Saudis want to fight with Western weapons, they must be obliged to respect the laws of war.

But above all, the West should use its influence and diplomatic powers to help the Saudis end the bloody stalemate. It should promote a reasonable power-sharing agreement that directly involves the Houthis. That would make Yemen a model by which the future of Syria could also follow suit.

 

Standard