Four Wars and Counting: Making Sense of the anti-IS Struggle by Jonathan Marcus, BBC
The rise of so-called Islamic State (IS), which controls a swathe of territory in Syria and Iraq, has prompted the creation of a large, multinational coalition including the US, Turkey, and Washington's Gulf allies, all intent on its destruction.
So too of course is Iran and, not surprisingly, Israel. This has resulted, for example, in pro-Iranian militias in Iraq appearing to be on the same side as the US.
The struggle against IS in Syria has prompted even more contradictions - with Gulf states suspected of supporting Sunni groups linked to al-Qaeda - while al-Qaeda affiliates like Jabhat-al-Nusrah have battled US-trained moderate Syrian militias.
So what exactly is going on? How are we to make sense of some of these curious alliances and contradictions? ...
Comments
An interesting couple of paragraphs, but it does not really appear from their actions that any of the Arab States are actually interested in bringing down ISIS -- unless conversation counts. they have no interest in acting in a manner that enables Iran to increase or obtain control over more Arab areas, and it is ISIS that is carrying most of the fight against them and against Shiite expansion. Also, I would not characterize Israeli policy as being anti-ISIS. To quote Netanyahu, "When your enemies are killing each other, leave them alone." The only ones who appear to be interested in fighting ISIS are this country and, by necessity, the Kurds.
What the U.S. needs in the Middle East is far more rational strategy – one geared to supporting our national interests. The only national interest that the U.S. has in that region is to insure that the Iranians cannot gain control over more than the oil resources in their land and that Sunni Extremists cannot gain control over any of the oil resource rich areas in that region. We should not set our strategy based on some emotional reaction to one or more of those nations or groups killing or imprisoning Americans or other Westerners or based on their brutal treatment of minorities and Christians. People who choose to live or be in that area do so with the risks incumbent with that presence. They need to learn how to fight for themselves – as do the Kurds.
The U.S. should provide support and weapons to those anti-ISIS and anti-Iranian groups (independent of their nation) as needed to secure our interests. We should also maneuver so as to enable the Sunnis and Shiites to fight against each other on a long term basis which will drain their financial and manpower resources. Keep them busy, as much as possible, and fighting against each other. With the possible exceptions of the Kurds, maybe the Druze, and a few other groups they will never have any love or liking for the West – and we need to realize that. Ours and theirs is a relationship of temporary need and nothing else. And that includes the Middle Eastern Christians who long ago were culturally absorbed by and will continue to be dominated and used, then brutally discarded, by the Muslim populations among which they live.
Oliver North recently proposed an interesting strategic move for the U.S. He suggested that we directly arm the Kurds and provide them the needed Air Support, then provide the necessary support and weapons for a Saudi-Jordanian force that could conquer / overrun the Sunni part of Iraq. They could then take that area and absorb it into one of those States. Arabs know how to deal with their opposition. They will rather quickly (and brutally) deal with opposing ISIS members and any Shiite opposition they find in that area. The surviving ISIS forces could retreat into Syria and be allowed to war with the Iranian-Hezbollah backed Alawites.
It is time to put aside this emotional based war against ISIS and for this country to act in a strategically thoughtful manner – else we will find ourselves drug further into the quicksand of the Middle East without any probability of a positive Return on that Investment of forces and money. A cold but necessary view.