Unfortunately, two major conflicts with far-reaching ripple effects, along with a myriad of others, are being overshadowed by the Iraq Crisis to the point those instigating these crises are using the situation in Iraq as cover to act with impunity. Where Russia continues to feed the Ukraine Crisis by building up its military presence along the Ukraine-Russian border, China is ramping up its efforts to the test the tolerances of the International Community by growing ever more aggressive towards neighbors like Vietnam, instead of seeking balanced solutions to its issues. Clearly, these three conflicts should alone garner the attention of the International Community, while we would have struggled with each of these on their own, yet our world is facing far more serious conflicts than just the Iraq Crisis. Although the situation in Iraq affects the International Community in terms of higher oil prices and an increased risk of globalized terrorism, the crisis is largely an internal one. Absent the economic interests of colonial powers, such a crisis would have had little bearing on the public policies of major powers a few centuries ago. So long as the Soviets were not involved, the US would have had no interest in fighting the Iraqi People’s battles during the Cold War. Today, we live in a globalized world where more and more localized crises are impacting the policies and decisions of world powers. Like the globalized world economy, the interconnectedness of our globalized society is making the fabric of International Community world ever more fragile thanks to the intensifying political and tangible impact of once “small,” local events. From emerging crises to long festering conflicts, the International Community is facing an increasing number of issues and failing to resolve these issues. Most of these crises can be classified as major state-actor driven conflicts, minor state-actor driven conflicts, and non-state actor conflicts. Dealing with nonstate actor conflicts, such as those involving terrorist groups, criminals, corporations, etc, hinges on cooperation among nations and international policing, i.e. greater use of international investigators and special forces. When it comes to minor state-actor driven conflicts, versus major state-actor driven conflicts, the size of the nation affords world powers like the US greater leverage, especially given that threat of war is still realistic, to force the smaller country into submission. When it comes to major state-actor driven conflicts, the International Community’s goal to avoid open conflict makes military action far less likely, thus major powers are more likely to ignore the will of the International Community and act as they please. Looking at Russia’s blatant disregard for Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law, as well as China’s growing confidence in its ability to flex its muscles to get its way, the International Community is facing major state-actor driven conflicts that have not been seen since the Cold War. Because these threaten the very fabric of the International Community, i.e. if the big guys don’t follow the rules, no one should, they are probably more serious and pressing than minor state-actor and nonstate actor conflicts. Decades ago, we would not have had to prioritize these issues as China and Russia’s bad behavior would have taken preference by default. Regrettably, the unprecedented era of, more or less, peace and stability following the Cold War was shattered by events like the September 11th terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq, this meant our world was recognizing the need to address nonstate actor driven conflicts while growing more aggressive toward minor state-actors. Because few of the conflicts and crises involving nonstate actors and minor state-actors were properly resolved, we now see our attention divided by mounting global crises. The lists, of course, also involves economic crises, such as the Great Recession and the European Debt Crisis. In Iraq, America’s decision to send military advisors is probably the most effective international solution so far; whereas, Iran must be careful not to involve itself militarily in Iraq at the expense of diplomatic efforts to improve its world standing. That said, the Iran nuclear talks were put on the backburner, because of the unfolding Ukraine Crises, which involved Russia behaving as a rogue state. What is happening in Iraq is important and must be addressed, but relative to the impact of unfolding events, it is a backburner issue. Consequently, the main focus of world leaders should be toggling between the actions of Russia and China.
Comments
The capture of terrorist suspect Ahmed Abu Khattalah, who is accused of organizing the 2012 attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, on Tuesday, June 18th, 2014, resulted in some fairly mixed reactions for the Obama Administration. Where Republicans used the event to criticize the President for allowing his belief in a legal philosophy rooted in civil liberties for all to supposedly hinder anti-terrorism efforts, the Obama Administration’s assertion that the detainment of Khattalah demonstrates America’s resolve when it comes to going after those who harm Americans reveals much more. What this surgical use of American military might does is show how foreign engagement is changing.
Despite what political opponents of President Obama say, the Obama Administration’s approach to foreign policy is not one of disengagement. It is, in fact, one of a strategic, non-domineering engagement of a superpower with limited resources facing too many divergent global crises. Because the military option has largely been exhausted thanks to the George W. Bush Administration’s Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the Obama Administration is forced to experiment with new strategies in order reassert America’s leadership on the global stage. This can be seen in America’s efforts to discourage Russian interference in Ukraine, the Obama Administration’s targeting of individuals and companies with sanctions to avoid hurting the Russian People. In other words, the Obama Administration learning to use limit resources to assert American interests while minimizing collateral damage. Unfortunately, the capture of Khattalah did come with collateral damage in the form of an angry Libyan government over America’s failure to respect Libyan sovereignty. While the public statements of the Libyan government may have exaggerated the sentiments of officials, the lack of respect from the US does make it harder for the Libyan government to represent itself as legitimate in the eyes of its People. Looking at the ever-increasing reliance on drones and covert operations in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, the world needs to be more honest in how it reacts to US intervention. The world likes to complain when America acts unilaterally, but the International Community also expects the US to lead and act when there is a crisis, often without the support of allies. With all this is mind, friends like Libya need to have honest conversations with their populations and the US on how we can effectively operate in their countries without explicit permission when the United States is trying to address our mutual interests of stopping extremists. Furthermore, the Obama Administration’s experimental approach to foreign policy and international security is the type of international engagement that the US will be forced to use in the foreseeable future. Where there is failure, there will be backlash that will result in more interventionist approaches that will be doomed to failure as the US does not have resources to pursue such paths in all the global crises. Consequently, the world needs to start recognizing this reality and learning how to better deal with a new America. For starters, the US will be more likely to be more engaged in regions of the world where conflicts are less likely and people can help themselves; henceforth, the Obama Administration’s pivot away from the Middle East, South America, Russia, etc. to Asia. That said, the current situation in Iraq presents quite the conundrum. On the one hand, political pressure, concerning national security and economics, i.e. oil, force the Obama Administration to consider renewed intervention in Iraq. On the other hand, the failures in Iraq and the need to address the unstable region in the context of a broader approach leave the Obama Administration struggling to offer a surgical option that can be effective. Unfortunately, there are multiple conflicts of interests in play when it comes to relying on regional powers like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and Iran to help stabilize Iraq. This means the US will ultimately need to rely on a political solution as we hope the various militants groups and Iraqi military can reach a draw, which will allow a political solution to be implemented. For those nations not wanting intervention by the US in favor of the Shia majority, yet looking to America to stabilize the situation, they need to push for honest, straightforward efforts on behalf of the Iraqi government to reform while regional powers must step up and openly support US involvement in the process. This means putting aside their conflicts of interests to help find solutions to this crisis for all the Iraqi People. For regional powers, the core issue behind stopping a sectarian war is preventing Iraq from turning into a breeding ground for militant extremists. As regional powers have even more pressings interests in preventing this from occurring than the US, they must treat the destabilization of Iraq as a regional problem and not an America or Iraqi problem. In short, the Iraqis and the governments of the Middle East must do their part to stop extremist behavior before the US will be to help implement a solution. It is good that the Obama Administration is sending 275 troops to Iraq in order to protect US Embassy and personnel. It is also good that the Obama Administration is using our air assets to stay apprised of insurgent activities, which helps us help the Iraqi military to function to some degree. Although offering Iraq military advisors and the potential use of American airpower to protect undefended Iraqi civilians from heavily armed insurgents could be a way of slowing the collapse of the Iraqi military and national government without alienating sectarian factions, i.e. peacekeeping, there is no mission unless the dysfunctional government can come together, or be replaced, and the disbanding, terrified military can regain control of its own ranks, or be replaced.
For many, the immediate threat of a failed Iraq is driving speculation that the Obama Administration might be willing to partner with Iran. Although the Administration has largely ruled out such cooperation, it is attempting to use Iranian forces to replenish the failing Iraqi military. Where both Iran and the US have the common short-term interest of preventing the Nouri al-Maliki government from undergoing a catastrophic collapse, which is not to say a controlled transition/collapse would be beneficial or harmful, inviting Iran into Iraq runs counter to several broader US interests. During the Iraq War, for starters, Iran supported and encouraged insurgent attacks on US troops in order to help hinder America’s ability to respond to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, among other issues. Given the trillions of dollars spent and the thousands of lives lost over Iraq, openly inviting the Iranian military into Iraq would essentially nullify every ounce of that sacrifice. In such a case, we would have been better off just letting Iran invade OPEC’s second largest producer of oil and expands its sphere of influence as a growing regional power. Clearly, this outcome, then or now, should be seen as far more problematic than allowing Iraq to undergo even a temporary collapse, which is far more problematic for Iran, and/or divide into multiple nations, especially when considering the anti-Iranian stances of traditional allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Meanwhile, it is important to recognize Iran is struggling with internal political shifts. Far more moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani came to power as a result of stewing civil discontent and international pressure, but Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamein is still ultimately in control of Iran’s policies. This means Rouhani’s survival as a political leader depends on his ability to produce results that the Supreme Leader can accept and that hinges on his ability to find solutions the outside world can also accept. Having the West rely on Iranian troops to stabilize Iraq would likely to be a very useful solution when it comes to balancing those often-competing interests. Not only would it give the West a vested interest in Iranian military power, it would also aid Iran’s efforts to establish itself as a regional power. That said, the reason people are speculating about such cooperation is that the West and Iran are currently engaged in nuclear talks that could eventually lead to normalized relations. Given Iran’s negative interference in places like Iraq and Syria over the past few decades, including its support of terrorist activities, Iran’s rise as a regional power has long run counter to Western and regional ally interests. As such, Iran has conflicting interests when it comes to expanding its influence and securing normalized relations with the rest of the world. Although the leaders of Iran may prioritize these issues differently and view both as achievable at this time, the International Community needs to see a reformed Iran before it can be allowed to rise as a regional power. It would, therefore, be wise for the Iranian government, particularly the more conservative elements, to give Rouhani space to build trust by putting plans to expand Iran’s sphere of influence on hold. Instead of playing a destructive role in Syria by solely supporting President Assad and trying to take military action inside Iraq, it is best for Iran to focus on its relationship with its adversaries. Consequently, Iran’s role in Iraq at this time is to stop supporting any groups that might be helping to destabilize the situation. It is important to recognize Iran and Iraq’s Shia majority would be very compatible should an Iranian military intervention occur; however, the Sunni minority would likely become further more marginalized, or become the victims of genocide, due to their alliance, thus adding fuel to the fire. Given realities like Saudi Arabia’s Sunni majority, which is also the majority in the Muslim world, and its support of Sunni militants in Syria, there is quite a sectarian web connecting various conflicts in the Middle East. While extremists have already taken advantage of a lack of apathy before the September 11th Attacks, the failed Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the chaos following the Arab Spring revolutions to prosper, the region may well be shifting from the rough transition away from unresponsive governments to an outright regional war based on sectarian divisions. In terms of a regional strategy, this means the International Community needs to avoid action intended to save the al-Maliki government that can trigger an open regional conflict defined by sectarian division. Supporting an unpopular and/or ineffective government will ultimately lead to failure, always. The truth is that the outside world cannot respond fast enough with enough force to stop the collapse of the al-Maliki government and the Iraqi military, if it cannot protect itself. In other words, the best the Obama Administration could do is put troops on the group to replace Iraqi security forces and that is not going to happen. The true question for the Obama Administration, and all other concerned parties, is, therefore, what can be done to restabilize the situation as soon as possible. If Sunni and Shia militants collide in a war over the whole of Iraq, there could be a bloody civil war that could turn into a regional conflict. If Sunni and Shia militants come to a standstill where all sides end up taking control of different territories within Iraq, politically dividing the country is likely the best option. That is, unless the Iraqi central government and military can step up to this challenge in order to their Peoples as a nation, but this seems more and more likely as the outside world finds itself doing more to save Iraq than Iraq. Just in time for Friday the Thirteenth, the American People are watching and waiting to see if President Obama will decide the US needs to take action in Iraq once again after months of watching Iraq fail to address increasing violence. One of many countries in the Middle East facing armed militants thanks to governments unable and/or unwilling to become more responsive to the will of their diverse populations and the ongoing rise of extremist activities, a destabilized Iraq could easily revert back to being a breeding ground for terrorists and make it far more difficult for other Middle Eastern nations to transition to freer and more democratic societies. In that sense, it is in the interest of America, as well as the rest of the International Community, to prevent the collapse of the central Iraqi government; however, the same can be said about most territories under duress in the Middle East.
The only reason the Obama Administration is so openly willing to entertain the notion of military intervention in Iraq is that the US has poured billions of dollars, along with the priceless blood of American troops, into the largely ineffective Iraqi military for nearly a decade. For those who want to use the emotional rationale that America’s invasion and disastrous nation-building efforts in Iraq somehow obligates the US to intervene in the distressed country, it would be wise for them to consider what Warren Buffet might say about such an investment strategy, i.e. more intervention would likely mean more bad investment. It would also be wise to recognize the Iraqi military’s failures mean any more weapons given to Iraq could easily fall into the wrong hands and pose a risk to security forces, which is a particular problem when it comes to our advanced weapons. Where the Arab Spring revolutionaries sought peaceful political transitions to serve the majorities, Iraq is facing sectarian strive due to the failure of the Shiite majority’s political leadership to respect the rights of the Sunni minority. As the Saddam Hussein empowered groups of the Sunni minority of Iraq to abuse the Shiite majority, the Shiite increased abuse of the Sunnis was expected. In fact, this writer was one of many individuals who foresaw Iraq devolving into a civil war that would result in the slaughter of the Sunni minority once the US could superficially stabilize the situation on the ground to justify a withdrawal. The only thing surprising is that it seems the Sunnis are actually provoking their own demise. Just as the Bush Administration failed to address the underlying issues behind the sectarian violence, any military intervention by the Obama Administration would almost assuredly have the same result. Furthermore, the fact that the Sunnis are actually the majority of Muslims in the world and globalized terrorists groups like Al Qaeda were the result of once national sectarian groups taking greater interest in the treatment of their brothers around the world, US intervention in Iraq to simply prop up the Shiite dominated government would actually help provoke anti-American sentiments and enflame sectarian strife across the region. For the majority Sunnis in Syria, where the US failed to intervene against the crushing military strength of the Assad regime as it targeted peaceful protestors, US intervention against the minority Sunnis in Syria in favor of the far better equipped and trained Shiite government would surely come back to haunt the US, especially given that Nouri al-Maliki was originally installed as the national leader by the US. In fact, the military intervention by a US lead or backed coalition would likely result in the same sentiments with little gained in terms of long-term stability. At the same time, what potential connections Iran may have with Iraq’s current problems only serves to complicate our attempts to normalize relations with the rogue state. While Iran should do everything it can help calm the situation in Iraq for bonus points, direct Iranian intervention is sure to inflame regional tensions, i.e. Iran should not try to establish itself as a regional power/threat until it normalizes relations with the International Community. From immediate action on behalf of the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to address minority rights and concerns, which might include him finally stepping down from power, to Iraqi voters being given the option to divide Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish etc. states, there must be a political solution that the US and the International Community can implement before military intervention can even serve a purpose. Like in Yugoslavia, where genocide made it impossible for factions to resolve their grievances, a divided Iraq might be better for the Iraqi People, though oil revenue would complicate the short-term transition. In regards to other foreign affairs matters, such a position would differ from the Russian position on weakening the central Ukrainian government in that such action would be based on the verified will of the Iraqi People and serve no world power’s interests. If a political settlement can be reached by warring parties, the International Community must come together to provide a coalition of peacekeepers able to help implement any peace agreement that may come into existence for the sake of regional stability. If escalating violence threatens the implementation of a credible peace agreement, military intervention should be considered. Outside of these conditions, America’s interests are best served by avoiding direct intervention in Iraq and taking a more regional approach for intervention. The often inherit conflicts of interests that can come with being a Representative of a district and a national leader, who needs to appeal to a broader coalition of supporters and lead by compromise, has finally hit home for now former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Although the many extreme policy shifts most Tea Party groups would like to see put in place can be disconcerting and makes the congressional primary election upset worthy of national attention, it is important to recognize Tea Party favorite David Brat’s win over Canter is not necessarily a negative to the People of his home district or the Country as a whole. It does, however, highlight the extreme volatility plaguing the Grand Old Party as the Tea Party insurgency tries to devour its parent organization.
Considering Republican responses to events like the freeing of US Solider Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban captivity after five years, the GOP is acting more and more as though it is in a state of duress. That said, the fact that the Republican candidate for Canter’s district is both the Tea Party and the pro-business candidate, the unexpected upheaval in Virginia may not be as dramatic of a shift in terms of party politics, though massive internal division and a lack of seasoned leadership is going to further undermine the GOP’s ability to win elections. While David Brat’s campaign was largely based on an anti-immigration platform, which does setup a conflict of interests between the public good and businesses that happen to benefit from illegal labor, Cantor’s failure to properly represent his constituents in a responsive enough manner as he undertook his leadership role seems to have been the driving force behind his loss. Truth be told, a great deal of this failure can probably also be blamed on Republican strategists. Since the election of President Obama, the GOP has relied heavily on an increasingly divisive, anti-everything- Obama platform to point even Obama’s embrace of Republican policy initiatives has been met with opposition. Unfortunately, for the GOP, the need to govern and accomplish something depends on cooperation with the majority of the Senate and the guy who can veto their legislation. Accomplishing little to nothing, the past few Congresses have barely managed to pass a few costly, last minute fixes to multiple near fiscal catastrophes and government shutdowns with no major public goods done through legislative action since the GOP became the majority in the House. Being forced to do something, the Republicans actually have to agree with the Obama Administration, which they radicalized in the minds of their key supporters. Trying to break the social momentum Republicans created, Cantor’s slight turn from the hyper-speed anti-Obama agenda has ended in disaster. In other words, Obama was turned into a “third rail issue” for the Tea Party Members and other far-Right constituents of his district, i.e. the association with Democrats outweighed sound policy solutions in the primary. Unfortunately, the consequences of Canter’s failed reelection bid will be fear and that fear will discourage candidates from engaging in constructive campaigning when it comes the general election where the Tea Party will have far less influence. On the other hand, it is ultimately the voters who decide the winner and the Tea Party is not the majority, so voters must support solutions over politics in the forthcoming election. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|