Do the Americans have any idea what they are doing in the Middle East.
For a long time and particularly since ISIL started overrunning the Bush project, Iraqi, I have been trying to make head or tail of what the American policy in the Middle East is? As of this moment I am convinced I would have much better luck unthreading a very large bowl of spaghetti.
The mayhem that is ensuing in Iraq at the hands of ISIL is unbelievable. They have captured heavy American supplied weapons. They have been machine-gunning civilians in a manner that rivals the Srebrenica massacre.
They seem to have nudged a deck of cards the USA spend more than a decade delicately stacking together.
The leader of the blood-thirsty group has declared a caliphate and demanded the allegiance of each and every Muslim. They clearly suggest they have no intention of respecting existing borders or even stopping just in the Levant. Secular countries like Jordan certainly have good reason to worry for their future.
Their rhetoric and methods makes the Taliban sound like Sunday school preachers.
Oh! Did I mention the Taliban? Aren't they another group that arose out of superpower misadventure in the region. Specifically the Taliban rose out of the ashes of the Mujaheedin, sponsored by the USA against a Soviet supported regime.
Isn't it ironic that ISIL is rising out of a rebellion sponsored by the USA against a Russian supported regime? Those who do not think history is repeating itself, please I beg to have your opinion on what you think is happening. Oh, remind me again what is it they say, about making the same mistake over and over, and stupidity?
To me it very much looks like USA foreign policy in the Middle East is floundering in a huge pool of sectarian quicksand.
Their best strategy as of this moment, would be to shore up the Iraqi government as best as they can and give Assad breathing space as well. That is their best hope at restoring and maintaining order in the region in a reasonable time frame. Carefully note the use of the words 'best' and 'hope'. I am not sticking my neck out and giving any guarantees. I also deliberately left out adjectives like 'loved' and 'liked'. The best way forward may not be a way they like or love.
One guarantee I am prepared to give is that violence radicalises people. The situation in the middle East is breeding more radicals than ever. A lot of people in the world, including those of us who have nothing to do with it, and are virtually powerless to change the course of events in the middle east, will pay a price.
Al Qaeda sponsored radicalism, which has its roots in the American sponsored anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan of the 1980s, is starting to spread mayhem across Africa. Boko Haram is a manace in Nigeria, al Shahaab in Somalia and Kenya, AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) has wreaked havoc in Mali and the Sahel.
I doubt the Americans would have sponsored the Mujaheedin with such gusto if they knew they were opening such a can of worms. I do not sit in their boardrooms, so I do not know the true answer. I do not think they ever guessed that Osama bin Laden was going to emerge out of their activities. They were short sighted.
Unfortunately there is absolutely no sign that the Americans have learnt from their mistakes. Look at the course they took in Syria and where it has left their pet project in Iraq. If there is any direction in American policy in the Middle East at present maybe I am a complete idiot for not being able to see it. To me their policy seems to have the resolute direction of a windcock in a whirlwind.
As of their latest talk, the Americans want to sponsor 'moderate Islamist rebels' against the Western educated Bashar Assad, and hope the same Islamists will also fight the extreme radicals of ISIL. Bookmakers I think this is your territory. Start taking the bets. Will it work?
It seems to be an assumption on the part of the Americans that there is a solid dividing wall between the 'good' or 'moderate' Islamists and the radical Islamists. My personal opinion is that the dividing line is a fuzzy foggy one across which individuals, fighting units and sometimes entire rebel groups drift back and forth, with whatever weapons they have in their hands.
Maybe my logic is wrong but to me the best strategy to bring stability to the region is to shore up Assad and tone down the anti-Iran rhethoric, and strengthen the Iraq government. The Americans need to stop having their foreign policy in the middle east run for them by Sunni secterianists. To achieve this, they need to pull the leash on regimes sponsoring rebellions in other countries.
Nonetheless, the developments in that part of world are too big for the minds running the United States at the moment. By this I do not mean just Obama and his crop of advisers, but several of his predecessor and a maybe couple of the regimes before them, as well.
Oh Roosevelt! Oh Washington! Oh Lincoln! Where are you when your country needs wise leadership?
The world after the Soviet Union has been beyond the ability of US politicians, who were forged in the furnace adversarial cold war politics, to adjust to. To them they must have a big bad enemy to deal with even when their country is the only big thing around.
After the collapse of USSR they talked so much about a New World Order. Am I alone in feeling that if they came to this New World Order they definitely forgot their minds in the Old World Order? They are still thinking very much in the old way.
Of course they occasionally go forth six-guns blazing in an effort to prove their mettle. Unfortunately, the more they thrash about, the deeper they sink into a foreign policy cesspool.
Also, unfortunately for us the little countries trying to keep our heads above the water, they drag us down with them. They come in, try something without listening to anyone. When things do not work out as they fantasised, they ship out and leave others to deal with the mess.
The US adventure in Somalia during the Clinton years has evolved into a major problem for Somalia's neighbours, particularly Kenya. Pakistan has had to carry much of the burden of Afghanistan's instability since the US sponsored the anti-Soviet mujaheedin. They have also dragged NATO allies into the mess.
Iraqi after Sadaam has been a perfect model of instability. At the time Iraqi was invaded, everyone except the Americans and their allies was saying he was well contained. Now the Americans have shipped out leaving behind an apparently two bit leadership that do not seem to know their index finger from the thumb.
Need I mention Libya after Gadhafi. He was taken out after he had swung well towards rapprochement with the West. Africa was humiliated in the process, with Zuma having to dodge bombs and missiles on his way to try and negotiate a peaceful way forward. His efforts were ignored with very little effort, if any, to hide the disdain. Right now testosterone driven hoodlums are fighting each other on Tripoli airport grounds.
My personal take is that the US think they know it all when in fact they know nothing. Take for example the vision Bush Junior expounded when he invaded Iraq for the second time. By now Iraq should be an oasis of American ideals. A leading democracy in the region.
What he didn't know was that he was dragging the USA into a cesspit of sectarian divisions which according to some schools of thought are rooted in pre-Islamic tribal divisions between Arabs and Persians, not just Islamic sects. Maybe it is because I am from Africa but I am yet to see democratic ideals transcend tribalism.
Ancient, deep rooted divisions cannot be papered over by any kind of ideology or idealism. They are best healed by long term peace. Conflict of whatever magnitude simply renews them for many more generations.
Take for example the tribal conflict between the Assyrians and Israelites recorded in the Bible. It is still going on with unbelievable ferocity today. One would be shocked at the amount of money and effort supposedly enlightened people are putting into perpetuating what is essentially a pointless centuries old tribal war.
As I write this Palestinians and Israel at each other's throats again. Missiles and rockets have replaced the swords and chariots of yester-millenium, but it is still the same tribal conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment