ISIS: Is Obama doing the same mistake Bush did in West Asia?

                                   Barack Obama                Pic: Telegraph

US President Barack Obama’s strategy, which he unveiled on Wednesday, against the Islamic State (ISIS), had the stench of a stale dish. Only a week ago when he was asked about the US’ strategy on ISIS, Obama said: “We don’t have a strategy yet.” He was criticised for this response and Wednesday’s speech was expected to minimise that damage. The US president’s plan involves attacking the ISIS in Iraq and Syria, increasing assistance and training for all forces fighting ISIS (except the Bashar al-Assad government), cutting off the funding and recruitment channels for the terror group and continuing humanitarian assistance to those affected.
Obama has done the right thing — though late in the day — in deciding to pursue the ISIS “wherever they are”, but his strategy leaves many questions unanswered. There is no clarity on the specific roles of the US’ coalition partners. There is no stipulated timeframe— experts estimate will take two to three years to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the ISIS.
After the 9/11 attacks, Washington was quick to respond, first by invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. As The New York Times’ Carlotta Gall in The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014 writes: “…by going to war in 2001, the United States was walking into the Islamists’ trap. It was just what al Qaeda wanted: for Afghanistan to serve again as a battleground for Muslim fighters against a superpower”. Is the US repeating the same mistake and walking into an ISIS trap?
While speaking about sending troops to the region, Obama said: “…American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” The usage of the word “dragged” gives the impression that in 2003 the US was forced to invade Iraq. This is not true.
The US invaded Iraq in search of fictitious weapons of mass destruction and left an ineffective ‘democratic’ government, headed by Nouri al-Maliki. Not only did Maliki favour Shias but he also cracked down on protests and alienated the Sunnis. Chelsea Manning, former US army intelligence analyst, recently said the US did nothing to stop the “brutal crackdown against political dissidents by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and federal police”. This prepared a fertile ground for al Qaeda to recruit and build its network in Iraq.

                                                                                                     Pic: CBS News

Nothing explains Obama’s dilemma better than the crisis in Syria. Since pro-democracy protests broke out in 2011, the US has been trying to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government. The US and its allies in the region have been aiding various rebel groups and the Central Intelligence Agency has been running training camps in Jordan for the Free Syrian Army, which is fighting against Assad. If ISIS bases are attacked in Syria, Washington will be indirectly helping Damascus, thereby strengthening Assad. It would be interesting to see how Obama plans to weaken the ISIS in Syria and at the same time not give Assad an advantage.
The plan to train and aid rebels is a myopic one — and Obama should know it. In July, the Pentagon said that it was difficult to identify ‘moderate rebels’ and train them against Assad. The rebels are an amorphous group of fighters, many of whom are pro-al Qaeda. Obama’s idea of picking the best among the worst is similar to America’s perception of the ‘moderate’ Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
After the hasty retreat from Iraq and setting a deadline for pulling out of Afghanistan, Obama had shown an obdurate reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts. Obama, especially in the second term, has focused on internal matters, leaving foreign policy to his secretary of state, John Kerry. Obama’s foreign policy arc has been so limited that suddenly Sarah Palin’s “they’re our next door neighbours” comment on Russia looks brighter.
Obama’s speech came on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and if the US is at the drawing board, chalking out plans after more than a decade in the region, one would at least expect Washington not to repeat past mistakes. However, Obama’s move to aid rebels sounds more like his predecessor George W Bush’s ‘War on Terror’. And that’s not good news.
(This appeared as an article in the Hindustan Times on September 12)

Gaza attack: World nations watch as Israel 'wins'

                                                                                                                Pic: WSJ

The scoreline says it all: 1814-67. Israel 'won', Palestine battered black and blue. This latest round of Israel-Palestine conflict started with the abduction and killing of three Israeli youth in June 30. Israel began a manhunt for the people behind the killing and started bombing what it called 'Hamas targets'. On July 17, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) invaded Gaza and on August 5 withdrew its forces. On Friday, hours before a 72-hour ceasefire was to end, two rockets were fired into Israel by militants from Gaza. Hamas has denied firing the rockets. The Cairo-brokered ceasefire was has come to an end with Israel and the Hamas not reaching an agreement.

After nearly 30 days of violence more than 1,814 Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, have been killed. On Israel's side, it lost 64 army personnel and three civilians. That's roughly 27 Palestinian lives for every loss Israel suffered.

For those who enjoy the spectacle of warfare this is how comfortable it gets. A news report that is widely circulated and called the 'Sderot Cinema' shows how Israeli residents climb a hillock, sit on chairs and cheer as bombs fall on Gaza. For those who are shaken by its horrors, this is what 21st century massacres look like.

While Israel is guilty of using disproportionate force, Hamas cannot escape blame. Its use of human shields, keeping weapons in schools and firing rockets from densely populated civilian areas has jeopardised the safety and security of Palestinians — who the organisation claims to serve and protect.

Guilty of complacence

World nations have expressed grief at the events and have asked for peace to prevail but have stopped short of condemning Israel for its attack on innocent civilians (however, many nations have condemned the Hamas for its atrocities).

The United States has always showed unwavering support to the Zionist cause and this time also it stood by its ally. However, two instances stood out that showed a bit of insensitivity on Washington's side. First was on July 14 when President Barack Obama hosted prominent American Muslims at the White House Iftar dinner. Obama probably chose a wrong occasion to reiterate Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Hamas, especially at a time when scores of innocent Palestinian children and women were dying. The second was on the next day, on July 15, when a shipment of 4.3 ton US-manufactured arms arrived at the Port of Haifa, Israel.

Former US President Jimmy Carter in an article co-authored with former Irish President Mary Robinson for 'Foreign Policy' said, "There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defence Forces are conducting this war… Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it co-operate in its own demise". Carter and Robinson go on to say that only by recognising Hamas as a political player can the West provide it incentives to lay down arms. But it seems Obama is in no mood to listen to Carter.

 

BRICS leaders at Fortaleza

Playing both sides of the fence

New Delhi, it seems, is playing both sides of the fence. In mid July in a strong-worded statement released at Fortaleza, Brazil, India, along with other BRICS nations, censured Israel. However, a discussion on the Gaza conflict was not permitted in Parliament. Following this, on July 23, India voted in Palestine's favour at the UNHRC.

No friends in West Asia

Though the grand visions of a United Arab Republic and Arab Federation have more or less perished, the fault-lines that drove such ambitions during the mid-20th century are visible. If Arab socialism and nationalism were the threats to the monarchies in West Asia then, today it is democracy and variant Islamic schools of thought. That's why even though Saudi Arabia will not break bread with Israel it will not lend a hand to the Palestinian cause in which Hamas is a player. Add to this Syria's historical claim that Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine are part of Greater Syria (Damascus disapproves the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916) and the hostility the Palestinians have faced from Jordan's Hashemites, the Palestinians have few friends in the region.Read: Militants fire rockets at Israel as Gaza truce expires

John Kerry

So it's not surprising that there was not much condemnation from the Arab world against Israeli action, except for token statements calling for a ceasefire and peace from the Arab League. The 21-member league was, however, critical of US secretary of state John Kerry's meeting with officials from Qatar and Turkey (two countries that back Hamas) in Paris.

Far from a solution

While Israel maintains that it cannot lower its guard, the Palestinians are replete with stories of atrocities and injustice by Israel that 'occupies' its territory. Israel's violation of international norms, especially its spree of new settlements in the occupied territories (in 2013 there were about 540,000 Israelis living here), has made it hard for even its well-wishers to defend its cause. On the other hand, Hamas, which is ruling the Gaza Strip, without shunning its violent ways has not made it easy for the people of Palestine.

                                                                Pic: Twitter

In its zeal to 'protect' Israel's interests the IDF have forgotten the number of innocent Palestinians killed by its mindless bombings. In the din of new settlements coming up Tel Aviv has forgotten UN Resolution 242. Washington has shown double standards in defining human rights, and the world in general has remained a mute spectator. Hamas, which claims to represent the voice of a section of the Palestinian people, has been exposed and has done disservice to the Palestinians.

Israel has retreated to 'defensive positions' around Gaza claiming that its objective of destroying tunnels in Gaza has been achieved. But this is a pyrrhic victory — if at all there is a victor.

If Carter's words are uninspiring and violence is the preferred way, Israel and the US should consider another US president, John F Kennedy's words: Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.

(This article appeared in the Hindustan Times on August 8)