by Matthew Bugeja
Anyone who considers themselves well-versed in movies will tell you that turning a movie into a trilogy is a sure way to either have amazing success or spectacular failure. In fact, even a casual person can think of great examples of trilogies, and some utterly horrible ones too.
Hold that thought for a moment.
An international conference. A statement of intent against a serious threat in Iraq. A coalition of the willing is formed. The deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, the insertion of Western Special Forces and airstrikes against enemy targets. Threats made against foreign civilians in Iraq.
Sound familiar? Feel a bit of déjà vu? That is because we have been here before. The wars in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 followed a similar pattern. The old saying “History tends to repeat itself” is almost too cliché to use in this instance.
Thirty countries which met in Paris on Monday have pledged to assist Iraq to wrestle back control of its territory from the self-styled Islamic State. The countries who attended the conference include such heavy-hitters as (in no particular order): the U.S., the E.U., Russia, China, the U.K., Saudi Arabia and the Arab League. It is rare enough that the most important global powers agree on something – it is even rarer still that they agree on issuing joint statements with wording such as:
'To that end, they [the countries participating in the conference] are committed to supporting the new Iraqi Government in its fight against the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, by any means necessary, including appropriate military assistance.'
That is quite astounding, especially when you put it into a larger perspective: Russia and the E.U. /U.S. are hardly on good terms (check our Ukraine articles), Germany and the E.U. are still busy trying to get the European Union’s economy on track, and the U.K. is busy batting its eyelashes seductively at Scotland, trying to entice them to stick around. And yet, everyone is happy to put their differences aside for the moment to help Iraq take on the Islamic State.
While I will be the first to admit hindsight is certainly 20/20, the Islamic State did not just suddenly come about by accident. The U.S. failed to get Iraq under control in 2003. It took its eye off the ball against al Qaeda, which then spread across the Muslim world like wildfire. The death of Osama bin Laden certainly dealt a hell of a blow to their organisation, but al Qaeda’s way of thinking spread nonetheless. It inspired what had been first ISIL/ISIS and now the Islamic State. The Islamic State found a wide tract of territory in both Iraq and Syria where both governments were too weak to stop them, and set up shop there. Now, months later, the international community has committed themselves to pull out the Islamic State like a gardener would pull out a bad weed.
In 1991 and 2003, the ‘Coalitions of the Willing’ took on Saddam Hussein’s army, and utterly destroyed them. Twice. In fact, the second time, the Iraqi Army had still been recovering from the beating it took over a decade before. But for a number of years, the U.S. military was unable to defeat radical Sunni jihadists, including al Qaeda, in Iraq, and only stopped that threat once the Sunnis realised that al Qaeda was a bit too crazy for them. The U.S. military pulled out a while later, and the Iraqis have been struggling to get their security under control ever since.
So the question is: Can this ‘Coalition of the Willing’ eliminate the Islamic State? To some extent, yes. It may take a few months, but I would expect the Islamic State to crumble under several weeks of intense air strikes by the international community, whilst the Iraqis push on with economic and aid support from their international allies. But once the Islamic State is defeated as a military force (which I feel it will be, it is simply a matter of time), are they done for? The answer is probably no. Unless they are eliminated from both Syria and Iraq simultaneously, unless their financial power is decimated and their armed forces are defeated and unless the attraction of joining the Islamic State is diminished in the eyes of young, impressionable Muslims – then no, this intervention will not quite finish the Islamic State off for good.
So while this may be the third installment in the ‘War in Iraq’ series, on a smaller scale, one needs to ask where this latest intervention will take things. Whilst it is a necessary intervention, the West is still struggling to defeat radical jihadists, at least when it comes to preventing young people from flocking to the radical cause.
Sometimes, the only thing worse than a bad trilogy is a disappointing trilogy that requires a fourth installment to wrap up. Let’s hope that will not be the case.
http://www.obs.com.mt/news/290/1/Back-to-Iraq--A-trilogy
Anyone who considers themselves well-versed in movies will tell you that turning a movie into a trilogy is a sure way to either have amazing success or spectacular failure. In fact, even a casual person can think of great examples of trilogies, and some utterly horrible ones too.
Hold that thought for a moment.
An international conference. A statement of intent against a serious threat in Iraq. A coalition of the willing is formed. The deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, the insertion of Western Special Forces and airstrikes against enemy targets. Threats made against foreign civilians in Iraq.Sound familiar? Feel a bit of déjà vu? That is because we have been here before. The wars in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 followed a similar pattern. The old saying “History tends to repeat itself” is almost too cliché to use in this instance.
Thirty countries which met in Paris on Monday have pledged to assist Iraq to wrestle back control of its territory from the self-styled Islamic State. The countries who attended the conference include such heavy-hitters as (in no particular order): the U.S., the E.U., Russia, China, the U.K., Saudi Arabia and the Arab League. It is rare enough that the most important global powers agree on something – it is even rarer still that they agree on issuing joint statements with wording such as:
'To that end, they [the countries participating in the conference] are committed to supporting the new Iraqi Government in its fight against the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, by any means necessary, including appropriate military assistance.'
That is quite astounding, especially when you put it into a larger perspective: Russia and the E.U. /U.S. are hardly on good terms (check our Ukraine articles), Germany and the E.U. are still busy trying to get the European Union’s economy on track, and the U.K. is busy batting its eyelashes seductively at Scotland, trying to entice them to stick around. And yet, everyone is happy to put their differences aside for the moment to help Iraq take on the Islamic State.
While I will be the first to admit hindsight is certainly 20/20, the Islamic State did not just suddenly come about by accident. The U.S. failed to get Iraq under control in 2003. It took its eye off the ball against al Qaeda, which then spread across the Muslim world like wildfire. The death of Osama bin Laden certainly dealt a hell of a blow to their organisation, but al Qaeda’s way of thinking spread nonetheless. It inspired what had been first ISIL/ISIS and now the Islamic State. The Islamic State found a wide tract of territory in both Iraq and Syria where both governments were too weak to stop them, and set up shop there. Now, months later, the international community has committed themselves to pull out the Islamic State like a gardener would pull out a bad weed.
In 1991 and 2003, the ‘Coalitions of the Willing’ took on Saddam Hussein’s army, and utterly destroyed them. Twice. In fact, the second time, the Iraqi Army had still been recovering from the beating it took over a decade before. But for a number of years, the U.S. military was unable to defeat radical Sunni jihadists, including al Qaeda, in Iraq, and only stopped that threat once the Sunnis realised that al Qaeda was a bit too crazy for them. The U.S. military pulled out a while later, and the Iraqis have been struggling to get their security under control ever since.
So the question is: Can this ‘Coalition of the Willing’ eliminate the Islamic State? To some extent, yes. It may take a few months, but I would expect the Islamic State to crumble under several weeks of intense air strikes by the international community, whilst the Iraqis push on with economic and aid support from their international allies. But once the Islamic State is defeated as a military force (which I feel it will be, it is simply a matter of time), are they done for? The answer is probably no. Unless they are eliminated from both Syria and Iraq simultaneously, unless their financial power is decimated and their armed forces are defeated and unless the attraction of joining the Islamic State is diminished in the eyes of young, impressionable Muslims – then no, this intervention will not quite finish the Islamic State off for good.
So while this may be the third installment in the ‘War in Iraq’ series, on a smaller scale, one needs to ask where this latest intervention will take things. Whilst it is a necessary intervention, the West is still struggling to defeat radical jihadists, at least when it comes to preventing young people from flocking to the radical cause.
Sometimes, the only thing worse than a bad trilogy is a disappointing trilogy that requires a fourth installment to wrap up. Let’s hope that will not be the case.
http://www.obs.com.mt/news/290/1/Back-to-Iraq--A-trilogy
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου