Tag Archives: Islamic State

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Middle East, National Security, Society, Syria, United States

Britain’s terror threat…

BRITAIN AND THE THREAT OF TERRORISM FROM ISLAMIC MILITANTS

The words of the Prime Minister that the British people face a ‘greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before’ are chilling. David Cameron has said that this could last for ‘years and probably decades’, sentiments which should trouble us enormously because ordinary members of the public are now threatened as political figureheads. Disturbing, because the public will only have a sketchy understanding of why the probability of a terrorist attack has now been assessed as ‘highly likely’ within these shores.

The threat of an outrage of murder and mayhem on our streets in the UK stems from the exponential rise in Syria and Iraq of the murderous Islamic State (IS) group, whose wholesale executions of men, women and children – for failing to support their extreme and distorted interpretation of Islam – has made them unparalleled in their savage and brutal desire for bloodlust.

Intelligence suggests that more than 500 radical British Muslims have travelled to the Middle East war zone and that many, if not most of them, have joined the ranks of IS and have become steeped in its methods and ideology. Of real concern to the Security and Intelligence Services (SIS) is that about half of these are believed to have returned to Britain and that a few could be intent on waging their ruthless campaign on these shores.

Cynics are likely to argue that there is another agenda here. Government and military heads from NATO countries will shortly be meeting at Celtic manor in south Wales; President Obama is canvassing support for American air strikes; and, David Cameron is thought to want parliamentary backing for the RAF to bomb IS.

Yet, this theory hardly stands up to scrutiny. Terror threat levels are assessed independently of government by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. Such analysis may well have drawn upon the intelligence that came in from the intensive effort made by SIS to identify the British executioner of US photojournalist James Foley.

If defeating IS in the Middle East would cut off access to its training camps and weapons by new recruits and those intent on joining in the future, that would not deal with those returning to the UK nor the possibility of IS springing up again in another part of the Middle East. A region that is divisive and fractured will always be luring to militants intent on carrying out barbaric acts.

No part of the UK should see themselves as being on the periphery, or a spectator on the edge of trouble that could strike at any time. We should remember that one jihadist has already been identified as being from Aberdeen and the al-Qaeda inspired attack on Glasgow airport in 2007 should not be forgotten. Terror fuelled zealotry is no respecter of borders or boundaries.

The most obvious sign of what the raised terror threat means will be the increased visibility and intensity of armed police patrols at vulnerable locations. Further preventative measures will depend on unseen and diligent intelligence-gathering on likely perpetrators and intercepting IS fundamentalists as they attempt to enter the country. The maintenance of an uneasy calm should be allayed with the strenuous efforts being made by our security services in deterring IS attacks in the UK.

****

  • 02 September, 2014

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has said that groups in Iraq and Syria are planning attacks on the West and that, ‘some of these plots are likely to involve foreign fighters who have travelled there from the UK’. Whilst the intelligence services say that 500 British born nationals have travelled to the Middle East, with half of them returning, other sources indicated that up to 2000 radicalised British Muslims have travelled to the warzone with more than half of them returning. The British Government says that every effort must be made to thwart their twisted and illogical agenda.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a series of new measures to combat this threat. That is wholly appropriate. New legislation will be drawn up to give the police the power to confiscate the passports of suspected terrorists at Britain’s borders. This is a sensible move given that young men can become truly battle-hardened before returning home and committing terrorist atrocities on our streets. It is all to the good if they can be prevented from travelling there in the first place. But Parliament should be concerned that any attempt by the courts to water down this power would be openly embraced by the extremists themselves. Human rights are an issue for all of us.

Plans were also announced to block suspected British terrorists from returning to the UK. This will be drawn up on a ‘cross-party’ basis. However, whilst promising, this is likely to be more problematic, especially where it concerns those who do not have dual citizenship with another country. It is against international law to render any individual stateless. None the less, the Prime Minister is surely right to say that ‘adhering to British values is not an option or a choice’, but a duty to those who want to reside here. Quite clearly, if a British extremist pledges their firm allegiance to a terrorist organisation in a foreign land, it makes sense that they be asked some searching questions before they are allowed to roam freely in the UK.

Together, the combined effect of these new measures will make life more difficult for Britons who subscribe to the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism.

We should not forget that those who do travel to Iraq and Syria to fight will have been exposed to radical Islam here in the UK first – either online, or indoctrinated in their communities. Tragically, as many cases have shown, this has been happening at school or on the campuses of our universities. The Cantle Report on community cohesion, first published in 2001, is worth reflecting upon. It stated that such individuals will have often lived ‘parallel lives’ to their peers, with little or no experience of modern British values. Unless this root cause of extremism is dealt with and fixed, the UK (and others) will be dealing with the risk of terrorist threats for decades to come.

****

  • 03 September, 2014

David Cameron has opened the door for Britain to join US air strikes against Islamic State forces in Iraq without Parliament’s prior approval.

The Prime Minister has given his strongest hint yet that he is considering supporting Washington’s attempts to build a coalition to expand air assaults on the jihadists.

Previously, he told MPs Britain would ‘look very favourably’ on a request for help from Kurdish forces fighting extremists in Iraq, so they are ‘properly armed and equipped’.

Downing Street has been wary about joining military strikes following Mr Cameron’s humiliating Commons defeat last year when he sought support for air strikes in Syria.

But, in a noticeable change of attitude, the Prime Minister has suggested he could order action against jihadists without MPs’ approval in advance.

He said: ‘If there was a direct threat to British national interests, or if … we had to act very rapidly to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, the British Government must reserve the right to act immediately and inform the House of Commons afterwards.’

Officials insist no decisions have yet been made, but Mr Cameron said this week’s summit of NATO leaders in Wales will include a ‘review of the effectiveness of the international response so far’ and a discussion of ‘what more we should do to help the region’.

‘Britain will continue to consider what further role is in our national interests, including any further diplomatic, humanitarian or indeed military measures we might take.’

‘We support American air strikes. I do not think that we should rule anything out. We should act … to promote the British national interest and to help keep our people safe. We should consider everything.’

While at least 500 people have travelled from the UK to fight in the region, it is also believed that 700 from France, 400 from Germany and hundreds of others from countries including the US, Canada, Austria, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia have embarked for the warzone.

Mr Cameron told MPs the world was ‘shocked and sickened by the barbarism’ seen in Iraq this summer, including the slaughter of Muslims by Muslims, persecution of religious minorities, enslavement and rape of women, and the beheading of US journalist James Foley by an apparently British terrorist.

The prime minister’s message came as British forces flew more than nine tons of assault rifle ammunition to Kurdish forces in Iraq. Two RAF planes landed in Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish region of Iraq, to deliver the ammunition as well as body armour, helmets and sleeping bags.

US President Barack Obama said last month that America was seeking to build a coalition to ‘take the fight to these barbaric terrorists’. However, according to a recent ComRes survey, only 35 per cent of people believe the UK should join air strikes.

Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth said IS was a ‘substantial threat to the continued integrity of Iraq’ and that US air strikes have been ‘successful in halting its further advance’. He added: ‘Would it not be better for the RAF to join in that measure?’

Conservative MP Colonel Bob Stewart, said: ‘Tragically, the only way to defeat people who are determined to carry out appalling acts, despite reason, politics, economic sanctions or whatever, is to defeat them on the battlefield.’

****

  • 04 September, 2014

Video verifications are hard to come by. But another sickening video released by Islamic State militants would appear to show the brutal beheading and execution of another US journalist. The family of Steven Sotloff had feared the worst following the receipt of ransom demands from the terrorists and the staged execution of James Foley two weeks ago. Their worst fears have been confirmed with an almost identical brutal killing.

Following the death of Mr Foley, the end of the video which captured his decapitation was a gruesomely efficient PR stunt. Many of those recruited to IS are known to be well versed in the power of social media and film production. The videos are troubling and deeply graphic and one wonders how in the name of religion these acts of grave depravity are attracting others to a cause that appears to have no bounds. IS had warned that Mr Sotloff would face a similar fate if President Barack Obama did not call off US airstrikes on IS positions in Syria and Iraq.

Mr Obama was never likely to accede to these demands. To do so would have simply allowed IS greater freedom to continue its violent and murderous progress towards establishing a regional caliphate, mercilessly slaughtering those who did not fit with its strictures on who that caliphate should encompass.

Mr Obama had no choice but to press on with his military operation, knowing full well that IS would, in all likelihood, carry out its threats of beheading Western hostages. The surety and knowledge of these events happening will have been hard for the U.S. to carry. IS poses enormous challenges for the West, and one where it shows little sign of how it might rise to the task.

This is not a group, either, that reserves its brutality for Westerners with high propaganda value, who can be presented and perceived as the representatives of a free democratic culture these jihadists so abhor. Its mentality is more hardwired than that, meting out violence just as mercilessly to fellow Muslims and fellow Arabs, often with no compunction.

The West is faced with a difficult challenge that requires a sophisticated response. It must now be a high priority in dealing with the threats posed by Islamic State.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Politics, Uncategorized, United States

The bloody shambles in Iraq…

IRAQ

Amid the despicable violence and rising tide of horror stories emanating from Iraq, there seems to be little constructive thought emerging from Western politicians on how to solve the political and humanitarian issues that are directly confronting the country.

Politicians have become like panic-stricken rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming motor vehicle. What is more, they do not appear to know which way to go.

The one thing that they do know is that something must be done in curbing the barbaric savagery and advances of the Islamic State (IS). Developing a viable and effective strategy, however, against the brutal campaign of the IS has, so far, clearly been beyond their competence.

Many military commentators and strategists will strongly believe that military intervention must be instigated only as a matter of last resort. Many of them did oppose the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but the cold-blooded murder of an American photojournalist, James Foley, this week, along with the Islamic State’s continued genocidal attempts to extinguish religious minorities, will have made many to believe that there is now a powerful and practical moral case for intervening against the insurgents of IS.

What the world is witnessing is the terrible and awful consequences of the so-called Arab Spring, so naively celebrated by almost all Western leaders just a few months ago.

Many people who have watched and read news reports from this embattled and disintegrating region will be aghast and mortified as events have unfolded. Intervention must now be given a high political priority to protect the lives of Iraqis and to restrain the rising and rapacious tide of the Islamic State.

Some western interventions in the past have proved highly successful and were no-doubt of an enormous benefit to civilians caught up in war torn countries. For any intervention to succeed there must be clear direction from the politicians. Sadly, though, this is distinctly lacking within Iraq as the West’s leaders seem to stumbling over themselves as they try to configure exactly what they want to achieve.

Given our recent involvement in two bloody and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we should have grave fears that western politicians do not have a clear idea of what form such military intervention should now take. For it is imperative that before we even consider sending so much as one British soldier back to Iraq, our government strategists must decide with absolute clarity and precision the objective of the mission.

They must commit sufficient resources to ensure the job is done with as little risk as is possible to the lives of those who are sent to a land that is fraught with danger. If our intervention is based on half-thought-through plans and weak intelligence, this risks not only further treasure being plundered in terms of financial resources and human lives expended but could embroil us in another almighty mess of a war.

Any ill-conceived plan would be both dangerous for our already depleted military and, in the longer term, precarious for Britain’s standing on the world stage.

Crucially, any cogent plan must involve our intelligence services providing the information on which highly-targeted and heavy air strikes can be launched. The success of these should mean that few boots will be required on the ground and that our involvement be over in a matter of months.

****

As the situation deteriorates in Iraq, the country where the current unravelling of security across the Middle East started with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, we owe it to the Iraqis to halt the advance of extremists and then help to restore peace and order.

Furthermore, our credibility in the West depends on us doing something more than just launching pin-prick air strikes or dropping bags of rice to help the thousands of innocent people caught up in this appalling civil war.

We have faced similar problems before, most notably in Afghanistan in 2001 when the Americans, supported by the British, launched a highly successful campaign against the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist group that had ruled the country for five years.

At the time, the Taliban were as brutal and powerful as the Islamic State are today and they, too, wanted to drag the country back to 7th Century-style rule.

But, within just six weeks, the US-led invasion, which had the simple objective to eliminate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, had been successfully completed.

The strategic key to this successful campaign was that much of the fighting on the ground was not done by Western forces but by Afghans themselves.

The U.S. and UK restricted their military involvement to providing intelligence, air power and Special Forces on the ground, who worked alongside local people.

Unfortunately, military success in toppling the Taliban was not followed up by any coherent plan, and President George W. Bush transferred his attention, along with most military and economic resources, away from Afghanistan to Iraq.

****

Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein we must learn from our failings.

In 2007, an insurgency by Sunni extremists threatened to overwhelm the country. Washington realised that the only way to prevent civil war was to gain the support of the country’s Sunni minority by making the Shia-run government include them in Iraq’s political process.

And so, with that bipartisan approach, the U.S. cleverly set about winning the support of the Sunni tribal leaders and helped to arm their militias.

Yet, today’s Western leaders seem unable to learn from that experience nor understand the basic principles that could lead to any kind of stability in Iraq. Unless the Sunnis feel involved in the political process, there will never be peace in the country.

With this in mind, the key to any solution now is for the West to offer military support to the Sunni tribal leaders, who, in return, must dissociate themselves wholesale from the Islamic State. This could well materialise as the majority of Sunnis have been alienated by the organisation’s fundamentalism and extreme brutality.

The fact is that the Islamic State, which is tactically exposed and lacks both sustainability and popular support, is no match for a combination of U.S. intelligence, close combat air support and Special Forces operating on the ground, who would work with local militias.

As we see, the present, albeit somewhat limited, U.S. military intervention is already demonstrating what can be done in the north of Iraq. Not only have the insurgents been halted in their advance towards the Kurdish capital of Irbil but the strategically important Mosul Dam and several villages have now been recaptured by the Kurdish Peshmerga with the help of U.S. air strikes.

****

The question for strategists is whether Barack Obama and David Cameron can get their act together by setting clear objectives – and, most crucially promise the Iraqi people that they won’t be abandoned in the same way the Afghans were in 2001. If such objectives can be set then there is every chance that the terrorist organisation running amok in Iraq can be destroyed.

But, we should fear, the signs are not good.

It was, for example, extremely unwise of the prime minister to limit his military options by declaring that he will never have ‘boots on the ground’ in Iraq. By saying this, he was excluding the possible involvement of our own Special Forces, who have worked tirelessly and successfully with their U.S. counterparts in similar situations before.

Sadly, also, any combat air support provided by the RAF is likely to be only token, given the disastrous defence cuts that have so significantly reduced the number of combat squadrons.

In any case, military action by itself cannot solve the underlying problems of Iraq.

The election of a new prime minister probably does bode well for Iraq’s future than what it did under his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki, who deeply divided the country.

Elsewhere, neighbouring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait will universally support the return of the Sunnis to the political arena. They were never comfortable with the idea that the Shias should permanently rule Iraq.

Some of these countries may, indeed, have once backed the Islamic State in the hope that Iraq might one day be ruled by the Sunnis. But as events have shown they now don’t have any proper control of an organisation that has become savagely inhuman in its actions.

Ultimately, it will not be the extremist Islamic State which decides the future of Iraq. That will be for the Iraqi people themselves and for their neighbouring countries.

After the turbulent years following the negligent and wrong decision of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to invade their country, that’s the very least the Iraqis deserve from the two men’s successors in Washington and London.

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