Skip to main content

Another coalition of the willing? It's probably the only way to stop IS.

In the world of realpolitik, your enemy’s enemy is, of course, your friend.

Funny to think that we’re now best of buddies with President Assad in Syria, because his murderous regime – although reprehensible – has decided to get stuck into the fight against the self-styled Islamic State. We hate these fundamentalists more than we hate the smartly-dressed Syrian strongman, although ironically the growth of ISIS was actually fuelled by our lack of willingness to support the more legitimate opposition to Assad’s authoritarian regime.

If you’re confused, it’s not really that surprising. The shifts of allegiance in the turbulent landscape of 2014 have all the hallmarks of an Orwellian dystopia. One day, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. The next, it’s in alliance with Eurasia to defeat Eastasia.

Politicians such as David Cameron are not really cut out for the international challenges faced by the UK in 2014. The British Prime Minister's politics are shaped by the bluster that comes with privilege and are completely lacking in substance. Platitudes on the economy and immigration are one thing. But when it comes to major international threats, he seems very lightweight in comparison with his immediate predecessors.

President Obama has more of an idea of the threats and a better sense of what is needed to tackle them, but is caught in an impossible situation. The American public’s appetite for military intervention is understandably at rock bottom and he’s forced to couch any justification for action in terms of US national interests. When he first authorised airstrikes against Islamic State fighters in northern Iraq, it was ostensibly to protect American diplomats in the city of Irbil. Stopping the genocide of the Yazidis was presented as a nice bonus.

The barbaric execution of US journalist James Foley might possibly be a game changer, but there are many limitations on what we can reasonably expect Obama to do. Wouldn’t it be so much easier if Islamic State could be turned back by the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters? We can pretend that all they need are some American and European arms and a few token airstrikes, but any gains will be short-lived. Islamic State will continue to expand to fill the vacuum that exists in Iraq and capitalise on the chaos that prevails in Syria. As they gain in confidence, they will try to destabilise Lebanon and Jordan.

It could be argued that there was only one bigger mistake than sending British and American troops into Iraq in 2003 and that was to take them away. The sectarian Shiite leadership in Baghdad has been hopelessly incompetent and managed through its deliberate actions to alienate large sections of the Sunni population. It’s this discontent which acts as oxygen for Islamic State as it charges through the region.

IS will not be stopped until it is confronted by a superior military force. There are really only three candidates.

The first is Iran, which will probably act if it looks as if the whole of Iraq is under threat and Shiite holy sites are being destroyed. The sectarian conflict which might ensue would be disastrous.

The second is Israel. Although preoccupied by its bloody conflict with the Sunni militants of Hamas in Gaza (and the latent threat of the Iranian-backed Shiites in Lebanon’s Hezbollah), Israel is well aware of the potential dangers posed by ISIS. The long-term objective of the most fanatical supporters of the ‘Caliphate’ is, after all, to head to Jerusalem. I doubt very much that Israel will act until such time as they perceive a very direct threat, but they will be watching developments closely.

The third option is a coalition of the willing, ideally under the auspices of the United Nations. In most instances, it’s very difficult to imagine any unanimity among the permanent members of the Security Council. Relations with Russia are at an all-time low because of the situation in Ukraine. But the fanaticism of Islamic State is anathema to Moscow, which has had its own issues with Islamic fundamentalism. China has faced terrorism from alienated Muslim minorities and, perhaps more significantly, has extensive economic interests in the Middle East and Africa.

Could it be that the threat posed by Islamic State is the one thing on which all the major powers might actually agree? It's possible that with time, people will come together. But time is the one thing we probably lack.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I was sad when I quit Labour a year ago. Now, I feel a sense of relief.

What motivates decent people to stay as members of the Labour Party?
It’s a question I’ve been pondering intensely over the past year, which I’ve spent in self-imposed exile. I resigned the moment Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected as leader after the contest with Owen Smith.
When I quit, it was with a very heavy heart.
As far back as the late 1980s, I’d served as Labour General Secretary of the London NUS. By the early 90s, I was chairing Frank Dobson’s constituency party in inner London. On two occasions, I stood as a Labour parliamentary candidate.
If you make that kind of commitment, you assume it’s a relationship that will last for life. And even though I hadn’t been an activist in recent years, it never occurred to me that I’d be forced to rip up my party card. 
Today, as Labour’s 2017 conference looms, I wonder how anyone with a moderate viewpoint can kid themselves the party is even worth rescuing.
One group of centre-ground survivors falls into the category of the bloody minded. Like …

What if the whole Corbyn project is based on a lie?

If there’s one thing that scares the Corbyn movement more than anything else, it’s the emergence of a new centre-ground party.
Supporters know very well that once it arrives, the alleged ‘popularity’ of Labour’s far-left leadership would be badly exposed – in just the same way that Michael Foot’s good poll ratings disintegrated with the emergence of the SDP in the early 1980s.
When people are given a choice, many will opt for moderation.
When they lack choice – a particularly stark problem in the UK’s indefensible first-past-the-post electoral system – they tend to polarise to left and right.
For supporters of today’s Labour leadership, it’s therefore critically important to dismiss the centre ground as something which no one wants any more. As a failed ‘neo-liberal’ project, which has no relevance to 2018.
But consider the facts.
A recent BMG Research poll for The Independent found that millions of voters currently find themselves without a political home.
Many feel that the main parties …

Why Momentum's victory in Haringey leaves Corbyn exposed

If you want to see what a Corbyn government might look like, keep an eye on Haringey. The north London borough is set to be taken over by the hard-left Momentum faction, after moderate Labour councillors were deselected in a bitter dispute over housing.
The respected and long-standing council leader, Claire Kober, has said that she won’t be contesting her seat again in May – probably forfeiting her own place on the council to another representative of the Corbyn fan club. She’s also effectively pulled the plug on her £2bn housing initiative – known as the Haringey Development Vehicle or HDV – by saying that the incoming administration can make the final decision on whether it proceeds.
Part of the pressure on Kober came from the extraordinary decision of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee to weigh in on the issue. Thankfully, their intervention provoked a backlash from outraged councillors right around the country. Whatever they thought of the specific model for housing pr…