Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
America set out a few years ago (NOT hundreds of years ago) to rid the world of ‘evil’. They blew up a lot of sh*t, killed a whack load of people (mostly civilians), got rid of a dictator…and apparently all else was supposed to work itself out. The oil would flow freely, the world would be “safe” again, blah blah blah. Things don’t just work themselves out, though.
What happened instead is ISIS. And Haroon Siddiqui is absolutely correct when he states that ISIS is a direct result of the 2003 invasion. So we fast forward today, and see the same fantastical rhetoric. Same recourse to bombings. Not so much in terms of..well…anything else. Sounds familiar.
What’s being asked for is a bit more thought before the bombings. I’m not saying I have the answers. Just saying that it would have been nice to hear something articulated before the bombs start flying. I don’t expect anything ground breaking or morally upright. Just something sensible.
For starters, there is a difference between Assad and ISIS. I get it. ISIS has pan-state ambitions which threatens everyone in the region. Assad’s conflict is contained within the borders of Syria, even though it is much more costly in human terms. But lack of containment of the Syrian civil war led to the dominance of ISIS. There may be merit in the argument that supporting rebels and militants with local ambitions who are a bit more tempered in their actions would have stolen the air from ISIS’ fire.
Restoring order in Iraq is penultimate. I get the sense that there’s too much willy nilly thought on whether Iraq should be one or multiple states. If it is in America’s agenda to split Iraq, I think this campaign is a bit of a conflict of interest. So, they need to announce where they stand on this. If a strong Iraq is desired, then support it’s army. Provide logistical support. Give it the backbone that was broken in 2003. Otherwise, let ISIS be if they show a willingness to stay within their territories. Confine them and contain them. Concentrate on non-ISIS held territories. Why not, if we can think the same on monsters like Assad?
Getting rid of Assad…secondary. Stopping the massacres by the Syrian army is a must. So if that means supporting rebels, so be it. Create new power centers, not vacuums.
Perhaps not much of a plan. Perhaps dumb. I don’t get paid to think about this, so I reserve the right. But nothing even as simplistic as the above has been articulated, with instead the use of language you’d rather read in a Tolkien book. So all we see is the bombs. And have no clue what the desired outcome is. And there I see Haroon’s point.