Going after IS?
Finally the Obama administration wakes up from its “junior varsity” misconception regarding the Islamic State caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria. Al Baghdadi’s outfit is no longer a weak player compared to al Qaeda, the Americans finally admit, and the time may have come to take him out, even if it means standing the current Middle East structure, already struggling to maintain the old status quo, on its head. But it is concerning that took an American journalist’s beheading – brutal and condemnable as the act was – to jolt Washington out of its denial. Had they acted before, instead of supporting GCC and Turkey arm and fund these militants, this day would never have come. In addition to American journalist Foley, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved, and millions kept from displacement, starvation, rape, etc.
But now that war drums are beating again, there will be intense lobbying also. Count on old friends Saudi Arabia and Israel to be very concerned because confronting the caliphate means siding with Syria and Iran, no matter how briefly. That the Israelis consider Iran enemy-number-one is hardly breaking news. But for the Saudis such a turn would imply double jeopardy – compromising their wahabi-salafi jihad franchise and also swinging the Middle East dominance pendulum back to Tehran. And the sharp tone towards Turkey – that Ankara better stop funneling jihadis into Syria – means similar rebuke may well be in store for Riyadh.
There is no doubt that an American return to this theatre of war can undo some of the monumental damage its earlier presence in Iraq brought about. As sorties following IS’s takeover of the Mosul dam proved, air superiority can soften IS cadres significantly as they struggle to maintain territories under their control. A coordinated ground offensive, that would comprise local militaries, could finish the job, especially since local populations have turned sharply against the caliphate and remain silent mostly out of fear. But the Americans need to realise that they have been behind the curve on this issue. Why is it that they take action only when chickens come home to roost? The terrorist threat is forever on the rise, and it is about time that those fighting it put up a more coordinated and cohesive show.
Why is it that they take action only when chickens come home to roost….. and why should it be the responsibiliyt of US to take action.since thethreat isfrom the Islamic world which hwever one wishes to mask is the trught it is for the Islamic world to rise and stop this threat.they are not surprisngly conveniently silent but vociferous when it come to advising Europe or USA on what they should do!
USA is as always operating ONLY in its own interests. Petroleum politics. They want to own that part of the world with their chosen leaders in place. They couldn’t care less about democracy or freedom. Now IS pose a threat to the flow of oil – air strikes.
Petroleoum from ME is not significant any longer.America is an exporter of oil today and so oil politics is not true any longer.Only china is the big cusotmer for ME oil.
Why didn’t they air strike Bashar Assad? No air strikes against Israel?? Lol. Let’s not be so naive. The puppet master is indeed, a master.
Comments are closed.