Home
The US needs an alternative policy in Iraq
Friday, 17 July, 2015
The United States continues to fail to show strategic leadership in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS). A number of near-simultaneous terrorist attacks in France, Kuwait and Tunisia last month killed dozens of people, barely 24 hours after massacres in and around Kobani in Syria.
The Kurds, however, have by now become the most effective fighting force against the extremists, with Kobani the site of the first major defeat for ISIS after a lengthy siege in which Kurdish forces ultimately beat back and repelled the militants.
Kurdish forces have so far been the only force on the ground demonstrating a will to fight matching the Islamic State’s. They have defended Yezidis and Christians, as well as Arab Sunnis, who altogether make up the bulk of nearly two million displaced persons taking shelter in the autonomous Kurdistan Region.
But perhaps what most reveals the Kurdish Peshmerga’s commitment is how they hold the line with so little material assistance, while surrounded by a number of ineffective and passive actors, among them the Iraqi army. This is a force without a will to fight, a force that on several occasions fled from the battlefield and left the Peshmerga to take action.
On another front is Turkey, which has not only suppressed the Kurds themselves for a long period of history, but also turned a blind eye on fighting ISIS or considering it a threat.
During one of his recent speeches, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reportedly vowed not to accept a move by Syrian Kurds to set up their own state. The Turkish president is planning to invade Syria, to stop the Kurds, not ISIS. This sums up Turkey’s priorities at this time.
Massive volumes of weapons have been bought by a number of European countries to arm the Kurds. But American commanders, who are overseeing all military operations against ISIS, are blocking the arms transfers and demanding the weapons be channeled through Baghdad.
One of the core complaints of the Kurds is that the Iraqi army has abandoned so many weapons in the face of ISIS attacks that the Peshmerga are fighting modern weaponry with outdated equipment.
For a period of time now, the US has been aiding the forces on the ground that are fighting. But it is debatable whether they have made the right choice over which forces to support, or that they have a mechanism for the support being delivered.
The US has refused to directly arm the Peshmerga. The Obama administration claims it does not want to threaten the “unity of Iraq” — as if there is any to begin with — and due to the threats in the US partnership with Turkey.
The question, then, is over priorities of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Do US policies need to be either black or white, or can there be a middle ground in having neither intervention nor isolationism?
As the US continuously stresses on the importance of supporting the right partners in the region, perhaps the time has come to determine who the right partners are. Is it the corrupt central government in Baghdad, which has declared it does not want US help in any way and is basically a satellite of Iran? Or is it the Kurds, who have actually made significant efforts in defeating ISIS on behalf of the rest of the world and have proved themselves to be reliable US boots on the ground against the extremists?
Is it the right call for the US to take into consideration Turkey above the Kurdish forces at this critical point, when ISIS has demonstrated renewed interest in expansion, including back into Kobani?
Turkey in many respects fears the Kurdish forces and Kurdish independence more than it does ISIS. The US appeasement of Turkey, which supports the jihadists, will eventually only result in more chaos in the region. And US support for the Iraqi government will only result in the strengthening of Iran as a regional power, without benefitting the fight against terrorism.
An efficient and rational alternative solution at this critical point is to develop a mechanism to separately arm the different Kurdish and Sunni forces on the ground. This, in order to first degrade ISIS power and second to prevent disputes among the different groups and lead them to a victory against ISIS.
The US needs to more deeply consider the interests of the groups it is arming on the ground. Ultimately, ISIS will continue to perpetrate the kinds of horrors we have seen in recent days because it sees potential propaganda and strategic gains.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Friday, 17 July, 2015
The United States continues to fail to show strategic leadership in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS). A number of near-simultaneous terrorist attacks in France, Kuwait and Tunisia last month killed dozens of people, barely 24 hours after massacres in and around Kobani in Syria.
The Kurds, however, have by now become the most effective fighting force against the extremists, with Kobani the site of the first major defeat for ISIS after a lengthy siege in which Kurdish forces ultimately beat back and repelled the militants.
Kurdish forces have so far been the only force on the ground demonstrating a will to fight matching the Islamic State’s. They have defended Yezidis and Christians, as well as Arab Sunnis, who altogether make up the bulk of nearly two million displaced persons taking shelter in the autonomous Kurdistan Region.
But perhaps what most reveals the Kurdish Peshmerga’s commitment is how they hold the line with so little material assistance, while surrounded by a number of ineffective and passive actors, among them the Iraqi army. This is a force without a will to fight, a force that on several occasions fled from the battlefield and left the Peshmerga to take action.
On another front is Turkey, which has not only suppressed the Kurds themselves for a long period of history, but also turned a blind eye on fighting ISIS or considering it a threat.
During one of his recent speeches, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reportedly vowed not to accept a move by Syrian Kurds to set up their own state. The Turkish president is planning to invade Syria, to stop the Kurds, not ISIS. This sums up Turkey’s priorities at this time.
Massive volumes of weapons have been bought by a number of European countries to arm the Kurds. But American commanders, who are overseeing all military operations against ISIS, are blocking the arms transfers and demanding the weapons be channeled through Baghdad.
One of the core complaints of the Kurds is that the Iraqi army has abandoned so many weapons in the face of ISIS attacks that the Peshmerga are fighting modern weaponry with outdated equipment.
For a period of time now, the US has been aiding the forces on the ground that are fighting. But it is debatable whether they have made the right choice over which forces to support, or that they have a mechanism for the support being delivered.
The US has refused to directly arm the Peshmerga. The Obama administration claims it does not want to threaten the “unity of Iraq” — as if there is any to begin with — and due to the threats in the US partnership with Turkey.
The question, then, is over priorities of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Do US policies need to be either black or white, or can there be a middle ground in having neither intervention nor isolationism?
As the US continuously stresses on the importance of supporting the right partners in the region, perhaps the time has come to determine who the right partners are. Is it the corrupt central government in Baghdad, which has declared it does not want US help in any way and is basically a satellite of Iran? Or is it the Kurds, who have actually made significant efforts in defeating ISIS on behalf of the rest of the world and have proved themselves to be reliable US boots on the ground against the extremists?
Is it the right call for the US to take into consideration Turkey above the Kurdish forces at this critical point, when ISIS has demonstrated renewed interest in expansion, including back into Kobani?
Turkey in many respects fears the Kurdish forces and Kurdish independence more than it does ISIS. The US appeasement of Turkey, which supports the jihadists, will eventually only result in more chaos in the region. And US support for the Iraqi government will only result in the strengthening of Iran as a regional power, without benefitting the fight against terrorism.
An efficient and rational alternative solution at this critical point is to develop a mechanism to separately arm the different Kurdish and Sunni forces on the ground. This, in order to first degrade ISIS power and second to prevent disputes among the different groups and lead them to a victory against ISIS.
The US needs to more deeply consider the interests of the groups it is arming on the ground. Ultimately, ISIS will continue to perpetrate the kinds of horrors we have seen in recent days because it sees potential propaganda and strategic gains.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
