I see a lot of foreign policy experts all of a sudden, which is kind of depressing. If you don't understand the difference between Iran and ISIS, how the Iraq War helped create ISIS, the Syrian Civil War, or why terrorism is increasingly happening in France, please stand down with your opinion. What happened is terrible and scary, but going into foreign countries like a lunatic cowboy is not a response, it's suicide.
While that sounds cold, it is actually the truth of the matter. The American Conservative response is a mish-mash of nonsense that is vaguely related to the truth. Their position is basically "fight everybody over there," even though not everyone over there is on the same side, has the same objectives, or even like each other. Their response is to both call for a war with Iran, and for a war with ISIS, not knowing that those two sides are not in alignment. It is at very least ignorant, if not downright dangerous to listen to anything these people have to say, especially since so much of the problem in that region stems from their last White House, that of President George W. Bush.
Start by understanding why these things are happening in France. Part of the issue is the cultural tensions that exist in France, particularly between the Judeo-Christian background types and Muslims. If you remember the Charlie Hebdo attacks, they stemmed from a cartoon image of the Prophet Muhammad. Indeed, particularly since the 2008 economic crisis, but really before that, anti-Muslim rhetoric has had a place in the French political conversation. The third leading party in France, the National Front, is essentially a white-nationalist party existing in France. It goes well beyond French cultural issues though, which are really not all that unique in multi-cultural, diverse nations (the same is happening in Britain and Germany, and we have had episodes of this as well). France is also the second-largest member in the U.S. lead coalition that is bombing ISIS in Syria right now, undoubtedly a major factor in ISIS wanting to attack them. Between internal tensions with Islam, the bombing war on ISIS they joined in, and France's generally socially liberal society, it's not hard to see why ISIS is targeting them.
Who is ISIS though, and why do they exist? It's important to understand that they are a Sunni-Muslim extremist group that seeks to create a Caliphate across the world, beginning with territory in Iraq and Syria. They came into existence in 1999, joined al-Qaeda in 2004, separated from al-Qaeda in 2014 and created their Caliphate that same year. Beyond Syria and Iraq, they claim territory across North Africa, the Middle East, and into the Indian-Pakistani peninsula. They hate Iran and the Syrian Government, and by proxy, the Russians and Hezbollah. They hate the Free Syrian Army, because they align with us, as well as France and the United Kingdom, all in addition to hating the United States. They obviously hate Israel as well. They have been able to successfully survive as a terror group mostly because of the Iraq War, and the fact that there is no strong central government in Iraq like there was before the war, as well as the added recruiting benefit of Americans "killing Arabs and Muslims" across the region. They used our presence as propaganda, and used it quite well actually. Their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is a billionaire, not unlike al-Qaeda's former leader, Osama Bin Laden.
It's important to note here that they hate Iran, the Syrian Government, and Russia, mostly because they are Shiite Muslims. This is important to note when someone says there is some sort of connection between the rise of ISIS and President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Anyone who says this is a complete idiot. In fact, ISIS is the best reason for us to talk to Iran and Russia, or to even consider dealing with Syrian Dictator Assad. It's also important to note that ISIS is probably getting financial support from several allies of the United States who are more concerned with their dislike of Iran, Russia, or Assad (namely the Saudis come to mind here). In other words, there aren't some group of "good guys" to go to and figure out an easy way to handle these guys.
It's also worth noting that in Syria, there are many armies taking part in the war. How many? Well, from Wikipedia-
In other words, the Syrian Civil War is a really complicated conflict. There are some bad guys at the lead of just about each side. By my count, there are about 52 armed groups listed above, ranging from actual countries, to terrorist groups, to groups that are clearly Islamic in nature, but I have no idea what they are. ISIS is a part of that conflict, a part that is opposed for instance by both the U.S. and Russia, but the U.S. and Russia don't agree on who it is they back. It is really much tougher than you may think to solve this conflict.
My point is that when you hear American conservatives say this is reason to enter the Syrian Civil War as a full-fledged combatant, or time to rip up the Iranian nuclear deal and bomb their nuclear power-plants, or that we need to "get tough with Putin," or "go back into Iraq," these are all half-baked, un-thought-out ramblings of the same people who thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq for no reason in 2003. Had we not listened to them then, it's doubtful ISIS would be carrying out multiple attacks in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, or elsewhere. If we listen to them now, I do not doubt that we could end up stuck in a long-fight that would not end unlike the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did several decades ago.
One final point, about the refugee crisis, which hard-right-wingers in Europe and America are saying should simply be ended by "sending them all back." While it is possible that one of Paris attackers entered Europe with a Syrian refugee passport, that is not yet confirmed. It is confirmed though that hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing the chaos and terrorism that is going on in Syria. Absolutely no one should live under the extremists in ISIS, and it is morally necessary that we help these people escape genocide on all sides in their home country. We absolutely need to screen them and do our best to keep radicals out. We also cannot entertain the position of forcing these people to stay in the closest approximation to hell on this Earth.
When you hear someone say we should get tough, ignore them. When someone tells you it's easy to solve the ISIS issue, ignore them too. Everything about this region is highly complicated, and listening to the likes of Bibi Netanyahu, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush is not going to get you to an intelligent answer. It's just going to make you the latest pseudo-foreign policy expert.
It's important to note here that they hate Iran, the Syrian Government, and Russia, mostly because they are Shiite Muslims. This is important to note when someone says there is some sort of connection between the rise of ISIS and President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Anyone who says this is a complete idiot. In fact, ISIS is the best reason for us to talk to Iran and Russia, or to even consider dealing with Syrian Dictator Assad. It's also important to note that ISIS is probably getting financial support from several allies of the United States who are more concerned with their dislike of Iran, Russia, or Assad (namely the Saudis come to mind here). In other words, there aren't some group of "good guys" to go to and figure out an easy way to handle these guys.
It's also worth noting that in Syria, there are many armies taking part in the war. How many? Well, from Wikipedia-
.svg){kind=small}
In other words, the Syrian Civil War is a really complicated conflict. There are some bad guys at the lead of just about each side. By my count, there are about 52 armed groups listed above, ranging from actual countries, to terrorist groups, to groups that are clearly Islamic in nature, but I have no idea what they are. ISIS is a part of that conflict, a part that is opposed for instance by both the U.S. and Russia, but the U.S. and Russia don't agree on who it is they back. It is really much tougher than you may think to solve this conflict.
My point is that when you hear American conservatives say this is reason to enter the Syrian Civil War as a full-fledged combatant, or time to rip up the Iranian nuclear deal and bomb their nuclear power-plants, or that we need to "get tough with Putin," or "go back into Iraq," these are all half-baked, un-thought-out ramblings of the same people who thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq for no reason in 2003. Had we not listened to them then, it's doubtful ISIS would be carrying out multiple attacks in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, or elsewhere. If we listen to them now, I do not doubt that we could end up stuck in a long-fight that would not end unlike the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did several decades ago.
One final point, about the refugee crisis, which hard-right-wingers in Europe and America are saying should simply be ended by "sending them all back." While it is possible that one of Paris attackers entered Europe with a Syrian refugee passport, that is not yet confirmed. It is confirmed though that hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing the chaos and terrorism that is going on in Syria. Absolutely no one should live under the extremists in ISIS, and it is morally necessary that we help these people escape genocide on all sides in their home country. We absolutely need to screen them and do our best to keep radicals out. We also cannot entertain the position of forcing these people to stay in the closest approximation to hell on this Earth.
When you hear someone say we should get tough, ignore them. When someone tells you it's easy to solve the ISIS issue, ignore them too. Everything about this region is highly complicated, and listening to the likes of Bibi Netanyahu, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush is not going to get you to an intelligent answer. It's just going to make you the latest pseudo-foreign policy expert.
No comments:
Post a Comment