America’s Mistaken War on ISIL
By: Kayhan Int’l Staff Writer
The Obama Administration’s plan to bomb Iraq and Syria (without UN mandate), and to train and arm imaginary “vetted and moderate” Syrian rebels is now in full swing.
This while the Obama Administration insists they don’t need any authorization for the war at all, and by the end of November the war is going to be extremely entrenched and difficult to roll back.
The decision is unsurprising. If anything, it is American intervention, not its absence, that fuels terrorism in both Syria and Iraq. Given these realities, with boots on the ground, Iraq is destined to become a slippery slope. To make matters worse, the new war launched less than a month ago as a "humanitarian intervention”, will escalate into an air war spanning Iraq and Syria. Add to this a divided coalition of nations (some ISIL financiers), so unruly, unwilling, and ill-matched, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Failing to learn the lessons of the previous wars, American officials are thoughtlessly convinced they can still win the mistaken war on ISIL if only they could get more power, more money, more coalition members, and more boots on the ground.
In any event, the War Party should realize that in the absence of a true coalition of the willing, the war they will be fighting will be a hopeless war they cannot win.
Likewise, the War Party cannot fight "extremist terrorists” in Iraq by arming "good terrorists’ in Syria. Their double standard approach to the subject matter of terrorism, overt and covert alliances, thicket of misinformation, hit-and-miss commentary and competing propaganda is the reason why they cannot thwart the roiling chaos.
It is true that boots on the ground (Iraqi forces and volunteers only) are needed to effectively fight ISIL. But it is also true that inserting the former occupier’s military personnel for fighting would be counter-productive, with terrible consequences for ordinary citizens in both Iraq and Syria.
Still, there remains a chance for the international community to contribute to a military process that ensures the security of all communities. Having boots on the ground in Iraq or pursuing regime decapitation through military escalation and guns/training for "good terrorists” in Syria will not produce such results.
Ultimately, the best way for the external actors (including the former occupiers) to help curb violence and terrorism is to support and arm the government forces (the true fighters of terrorism) in both Iraq and Syria under UN mandate and without preconditions - not through some wasteful meeting somewhere in the middle of Paris and certainly not through a coalition of terrorist enablers that started this terrible mess in the first place.
The decision is unsurprising. If anything, it is American intervention, not its absence, that fuels terrorism in both Syria and Iraq. Given these realities, with boots on the ground, Iraq is destined to become a slippery slope. To make matters worse, the new war launched less than a month ago as a "humanitarian intervention”, will escalate into an air war spanning Iraq and Syria. Add to this a divided coalition of nations (some ISIL financiers), so unruly, unwilling, and ill-matched, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Failing to learn the lessons of the previous wars, American officials are thoughtlessly convinced they can still win the mistaken war on ISIL if only they could get more power, more money, more coalition members, and more boots on the ground.
In any event, the War Party should realize that in the absence of a true coalition of the willing, the war they will be fighting will be a hopeless war they cannot win.
Likewise, the War Party cannot fight "extremist terrorists” in Iraq by arming "good terrorists’ in Syria. Their double standard approach to the subject matter of terrorism, overt and covert alliances, thicket of misinformation, hit-and-miss commentary and competing propaganda is the reason why they cannot thwart the roiling chaos.
It is true that boots on the ground (Iraqi forces and volunteers only) are needed to effectively fight ISIL. But it is also true that inserting the former occupier’s military personnel for fighting would be counter-productive, with terrible consequences for ordinary citizens in both Iraq and Syria.
Still, there remains a chance for the international community to contribute to a military process that ensures the security of all communities. Having boots on the ground in Iraq or pursuing regime decapitation through military escalation and guns/training for "good terrorists” in Syria will not produce such results.
Ultimately, the best way for the external actors (including the former occupiers) to help curb violence and terrorism is to support and arm the government forces (the true fighters of terrorism) in both Iraq and Syria under UN mandate and without preconditions - not through some wasteful meeting somewhere in the middle of Paris and certainly not through a coalition of terrorist enablers that started this terrible mess in the first place.