Three years ago, when the world obsessed about President Assad, some of us warned that Syria was only one frontline in a wider sectarian war between Sunni and Shia; that the spread of militant jihadism among the Sunni community, funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, was a preparation for this. And that before long this movement, like the 30 years’ religious war of 17th-century Europe, would threaten to engulf the entire Muslim world
Paddy goes on to describe three options for dealing with the humanitarian crisis that is IS.
There are three. The first is an all-out, long-term western military engagement to defeat Isis and save Baghdad. This is favoured by some who have not yet learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a few superannuated generals seeking more spending on defence. It is by far the least practical and most unwise option open to us. Western populations would not support it, and we no longer have the military means to do it.
The second is to help the Iraqi state to defeat Isis itself. This seems to be current western policy. But I fear it amounts to little more than elevating desperate hope over reasonable expectation. It was the collapse of the Iraqi army that gave Isis the advanced American weapons they now use to drive back the Kurds. And it has been the subsequent absence of any effective government in Baghdad that has allowed the jihadists to continue widening their advance on all fronts.
…
The third option is to help the Kurds by all means possible – assistance to house the Yazidis, equipment, military training, advice, protective air strikes – anything short of current operational boots on the ground. The aim would be to make Iraqi Kurdistan the northern bulwark against the Isis advance. The government seems at last to be tiptoeing in this direction – but why so half-hearted? It’s a strange scruple that flies in other people’s weapons but denies access to our own. Is there a difference?
This third option brings significant risks and downsides too, but Paddy’s analysis of a regional conflict requiring a regional solution is surely correct.
You can read it in full in the Guardian
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
22 Comments
“This third option brings significant risks and downsides too, but Paddy’s analysis of a regional conflict requiring a regional solution is surely correct.”
That would be fine if the people fighting were from the region. But reports suggest there are around 400 British people fighting for Islamic State, along with around 150 Australians, 100 Americans, 320 Germans, up to 300 Belgians, 400 French, 400 Danes etc etc. And these figures come from a December 2013 report – they are likely to be much higher now.
With so many of these fighters having been exported from the West, I don’t think it’s morally right for us to wash our hands of this by characterising what’s going on as a “regional conflict” in countries far away.
That said, I totally agree with Ashdown’s conclusion that helping the Kurds is the most sensible current strategy. I just hope it’s enough.
Stuart, clearly I did Paddy an injustice in my summary. What I was trying to say with my use of “regional” is that this is not confined to Iraq, or Iraq and Syria.
Apologies Joe, I misconstrued. And thank you for reminding us that Gaza is not the only appalling conflict going on in the world right now.
I struggle to identify the difference between 2) and 3).
As I’ve said elsewhere;
I’m actually more uncomfortable about arming one side or the other, rather than direct intervention. It’s a cop-out.
I appreciate after Syria debacle in Parliament, Cameron and Clegg don’t want to invite another defeat, but this wishy-washy let’s not upset everyone approach is messy and problematic.
We may not have supported Iraq war before, but we are where we are. Turning it into a Vietnam-style cold-war will not help anyone. Will Russia now arm ISIS/IS/AQ? Much like Ukraine, the proximity of a cold war is too close for comfort.
I think, if Britain stood up and took responsibility, along with US, for the problems in Iraq, and got involved properly, I’d be inclined to support it. More than I do 5,000 paltry water decontamination kits and some bullshit on giving out a few guns.
While this may be seen as point 1), I am also uncomfortable about handing the process of war effectively over to who has the most money and the most guns. It makes it a one-dimensional (Marcuse) war, driven by markets and not by morality.
Kelly
War has always been fought on the basis of who has the most money and most guns wins, which is why the last strategic review was doomed from the start. This is one of the reasons that Cameron will not commit boots on the ground, the other of course is that the cost in blood and treasure would be unpopular, despite it being the right thing to do.
Can anyone tell me why the magnificent ‘intelligence'(sic) services of the USA and UK – you know, the ones which were so clever that they were able to say with such certainty that WMD, which didn’t exist, did exist 🙁 – were totally unable to tip our respective governments off before things happened that the ISIS/Sunni insurgency was going to be in a position to cause large parts of the Iraqi army to disband and run away, and was resourced with arms, armaments, munitions and vehicles sufficient to get to the gates of Kirkuk and Baghdad within days?
I heard Paddy on the radio this morning and thought he gave the most clear and consise explanation of the Middle East problem I have heard in 30 years. He mentioned the Sykes-Picot agreement, (twice) which was originally secret, unmasked by the Russians in 1917, but seems to have again been confined to the secret box by both modern day media and governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
Finally some discussion on a very important issue that has been completely ignored here for too long.
It seems to me that our understanding of what is happening and why is poor. Reports of atrocities in the IS-“controlled” region – including of women and children being buried alive – seem so incredible that one wonders whether they are fictions concocted to gain sympathy or to support Western motives. Perhaps the severed heads remind us that this is real.
Is it time to think of this is a different way, not just as terrorism, but as a part of an Arabic/Islamic Civil War or even as a Third World War that has been going on in the Middle East for several decades already, and is likely to go on for several more?
I read this yesterday and thought it was a good article, but from the limited knowledge I have I am in favour of an all-out boots on the ground international mission. In one way this is more hawkish, but in another way it isn’t, because boots on the ground reduce civilian casualties.
We can’t just let ISIS get more and more powerful. We should have snuffed them out from the start, from what I have heard about them.
I actually broadly agree with Kelly-Marie Blundell on this.
I tend to agree with Paddy. The Kurdish region and the rest of Iraq have a lot more at stake here than we do. It is all to easy to think of militant jihadism as principally a threat to the west, but these groups always kill many many more muslims locally than they ever do westerners, and IS is no exception. Obviously arming the locals can go badly wrong. Arm Iraq and the equipment may just fall into IS hands (again). But the Kurdish region is capable and deserves the chance to defend itself from this murderous aggression.
Why do we not hear who is funding IS? Are our Western governments too scared to challenge them? Who is paying the IS terrorists their wages which they say they are getting? Those countries funding them will never be sanctioned though will they?
Helping the Kurds sounds like a no-brainer. They seem to be a decent bunch, they seem to treat minorities fairly, they seem to have the will to defend themselves, they don’t seem to want to pick unnecessary fights, they don’t seem to seek domination over others.
However, they do have a lot of oil, and they do want to set up an independent oil-rich state.
Are we heading toward another oil-based alliance between the West and the Middle East, with the West on the side of the rich and powerful – and the Islamists, consequently, able to pose as fighting for the ordinary people against the foreign exploiter?
Anne,
A number of sources, looted funds along with money from Saudi and Qatar.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab1b61c4-1cb6-11e4-b4c7-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3AUkE9l74
Kelly-Marie I am puzzled as to why you think Russia might support ISIS which is after all the sworn enemy of Assad? If it wasn’t for Russia Assad would be in exile – Putin has been his strongest supporter.
I think something to be encouraged by is the positive ‘mood music’ coming from the Kurdish regional government who seem to have created an inclusive and peaceful administration for themselves. I am sure I am not the only one to be impressed by the media performances of the Kurdish High Representative to the UK Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman.
If we did away with other people and just cloned Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, there would likely be no conflict. She exudes commonsense and restraint. It helps hat she does so in absoltuely perfect English with a great clarity of diction.
In the short term arming the Kurds and keeping the option air to avoid geocode is a no brainer. The longer term solution is getting serious with Saudi Arabia and Qatar about their funding and support for destabilising jihadist movements.
So if someone asks me what the Liberal Democrats think about this matter, do I refer them to the official party line espoused by Lib Dems in government, or do I refer them to Paddy’s article in The Guardian. A person can very credibly be a respected former party leader with international experience or they can be the Chair of their party’s next General Election campaign – how easy is it to be both at once, I wonder? Well, he seems to be making a great job of both, so I suppose my question is no more than a notional one,
Paddy writes that a particular scenario “would inevitably lead to the creation of a de facto greater Iran extending into Iraq, and to a further widening of the sectarian faultlines. This may not be avoidable – but should we be encouraging it?” He’s got that right.
He calls for: “not just a short-term plan, but part of an integrated long-term strategy: a new rapprochement with Iran to act as a counter-balance to those who promote Sunni jihadism; deeper engagement with Turkey; greater pressure on those Gulf states that fund jihad (is the government’s reluctance here because of Tory friends among the Gulf states?); and a new determination to deal with illegal Israeli settlements, as a prelude to a lasting peace in Palestine.”
The reference to one country (Iran) being used to counter-balance the influence of other forces reminds me of past British attempts in different parts of the world to create or preserve “bulwarks” against this or that possibility, not to mention British attempts in various places to prop up so-and-so to preserve at all costs “the balance of power”,
That said, he’s not necessarily wrong about it – one can support a rapprpachement with Iran without necessarily wanting to strengthen Iran’s influence in all spheres.
When Paddy calls for “not just a short-term plan, but part of an integrated long-term strategy: a new rapprochement with Iran to act as a counter-balance to those who promote Sunni jihadism; deeper engagement with Turkey; greater pressure on those Gulf states that fund jihad (is the government’s reluctance here because of Tory friends among the Gulf states?); and a new determination to deal with illegal Israeli settlements, as a prelude to a lasting peace in Palestine”, I would have suggested phrasing it:
“not just a short-term plan, but part of an integrated long-term strategy: a new rapprochement with Iran to act as a counter-balance to those who promote Sunni jihadism while recognising the need also to counter some Iran’s less palatable strategic aims; deeper engagement with Turkey combined with a frank recognition of its current government’s not inconsiderable faults; greater pressure on those Gulf states that fund jihad (is the government’s reluctance here because of Tory friends among the Gulf states?); and a new determination to deal with illegal Israeli settlements and the hatred faced by Israel, as a prelude to a lasting peace in Israel/Palestine.
I wrote this piece on British policy towards the Arab world and Iran in 2011: http://matthewfharris.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/is-anyone-surprised.html
Very good stuff Matthew Harris.
..note that he didn’t mention Blair being any part of any solution scenario..
It would be helpful if our political representatives returned from holiday and there was a full debate. They might even like to check what the British people would want to happen.
David Cameron has just made a statement that is to say the least confusing and it is time the people of this country were consulted as to how we feel about the risk of being dragged ever more deeply into this conflict.