Monday, August 11, 2014
ROBIN HARRIS: Our leaders are in denial about this Islamic revolution because it exposes their own naivety
Repulsive agenda: Fighters for Islamic State in Syria
The
terrorist group now calling itself Islamic State has been lucky. It has
so far been able to advance its repulsive agenda of violence and
cruelty without bothering about comeuppance from the great powers.
This
is because it is confronted by probably the most incompetent and
ill-equipped Western leaders of modern times. For two months, this
barbaric group has been rolling forward. But Washington just dithered.
Barack
Obama and David Cameron do not dare, even now, tell the truth about
what Islamic State (or IS) are, or what motivates them. Obama and
Cameron talk of averting ‘genocide’. But genocide is, by definition, the
destruction of a racial or national group.
Islamic
State isn’t remotely interested in that. It is interested in religion —
its own extreme brand of Sunni Islam — and it has for months now been
engaging in forced conversions, killings, plunder and expulsion of all
those it considers infidels.
The
Yazidis, dying on a mountain in northern Iraq, while being pelted from
the skies with humanitarian aid, are seen as devil worshippers. The Shia
Muslims, meanwhile, are heretics, and so worthy of death. The thousands
of Christian victims of IS, about whom Obama and Cameron found it
convenient to stay silent, are regarded as having no rights whatever.
In
the Iraqi city of Mosul, Christian properties were painted with the
Arab letter ‘N’ (signifying Nazarenes) and then confiscated. The
Christians were first told to convert or pay the Jizya (tax on
infidels), and then, to simplify matters, killed or expelled.
They
sought haven in the Nineveh plain; that, too, then fell to Islamic
State. The likely fate of many or most of these Christians, and of the
Yazidis, is now a horrible death.
The
West’s strategic interests are also imperilled. Islamic State is a more
dangerous terrorist force than even Al Qaeda. It has carved out a vast
territory sprawling far across the Iraq-Syria border. It possesses a
huge cache of advanced weapons. It has its own financial resources, in
the form of conquered oil installations. It is a magnet for global
jihad.
And the West has looked on. Or rather Western leaders have looked away, and focused instead on Ukraine.
Fleeing for their lives: Tens of thousands of Yazidi people were trapped in Iraq's Sinjar Mountains
American
bombers may have finally flown sorties over northern Iraq at the
weekend, but for months it is as if nothing has mattered on the world
stage except ratcheting up pressure on Russia.
David
Cameron was photographed engaging in an (allegedly) ‘tense’ telephone
conversation with President Putin. He will shortly be playing host —
and, doubtless, playing to the gallery — when Nato leaders head to
Newport, Wales, for their summit.
Cameron
repeatedly pledges ever tougher economic sanctions. But if the
objective is to make Russia disgorge Crimea — which it annexed months
ago — then it is simply a waste of time. That will not happen. If the
goal is to stop Russia supplying arms to rebels in East Ukraine, then
that will not happen either — until some modus vivendi is achieved
between Kiev and Moscow.
During the
Cold War, the stand-off between the West and the Soviet Union was, of
course, far more dangerous. At certain junctures, it could have led to a
nuclear exchange. For that very reason, Western leaders and their
advisers were cautious.
It
was a cardinal rule for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to combine
steady pressure with the minimum of rash provocation and the avoidance
of foolish name calling. Resolve was combined with active diplomacy,
open channels of communication and basic courtesy.
So
what would Reagan and Thatcher have done now? I suspect that a secret
personal message would have gone to Putin proposing a way forward that
saved his face, while also saving Ukraine as a free but neutral country —
while making it absolutely clear that Nato will defend its members with
the full resources of a formidable nuclear alliance.
Relentless march: Islamic State fighters have until recently faced little more than threats and dithering
What
we would give today — as Iraq becomes a blood-soaked killing field —
for that assured combination of the iron fist and the velvet glove.
But,
then, would any previous generation of Western leaders have viewed with
such a mix of hopelessness and helplessness the rolling Islamic
revolution which now threatens the existing order of states in the
Middle East?
Western
policy created the conditions for it, by the botched Bush-Blair war
against Saddam. Western policy has since continued to focus on the
overthrow of other secular authoritarian Arab leaders, to be followed by
religious extremism, anarchy and war.
Western
leaders, as a whole, remain in denial about what is occurring in Muslim
countries because it exposes their past analysis as catastrophically
naive -but Islamic State can be defeated
The
West still refuses to acknowledge that in this region, religious
revolution is a far greater evil than undemocratic government.
David
Cameron’s head was turned three years ago by the cheers of Libyans
celebrating Gaddafi’s fall. Today, they are sheltering from the bandits
that now run the country.
If
Cameron, of course, had had his way last year, Britain would now be
engaged on the same side as Islamic State, fighting President Assad’s
regime in Syria. But, then, the British Prime Minister is merely one
egregious example of collective folly.
Western
leaders, as a whole, remain in denial about what is occurring in Muslim
countries because it exposes their past analysis as catastrophically
naive.
What is clear is that Islamic State can be defeated. Here, Bosnia provides a model.
Not
till 1995 did the West follow Mrs Thatcher’s urging to intervene, but
when it did the aggressor Serbs were defeated. Massive Nato air strikes
were accompanied by the advance of Western-armed, local Croatian and
Bosnian ground forces in a lightning operation. We provided the cover
and military hardware; locals fought the battles.
We
must recognise that Iraq is a failed state with a dysfunctional
government. Its army not only fled, but obligingly left its weapons
behind to be captured, many of which were gifted to it by the Americans
and are therefore of the highest quality.
A model in history: UN peacekeepers in Bosnia. Britain later provided cover while locals fought on the ground
We
should arm only those enemies of Islamic State who are prepared to
fight. We should give serious military aid and provide up-to-date
intelligence, and also political backing, to the Kurds of northern Iraq
who now find themselves on the front line fighting to keep the
terrorists — who seem to so relish beheading and crucifying their
victims — away from the Kurdish capital of Irbil.
It
may be hard for Cameron to swallow, but we must also recognise that in
Syria the Assad regime is the only alternative — and, despite its brutal
record, a much better one — to Islamic State. An effective policy will
definitely entail a high level of co-operation with Iran. And, yes, it
will mean ending the dangerous, directionless confrontation with Russia.
To
secure our own interests, we need assured access to the Middle East,
where the Russians have shown greater diplomatic aplomb than we have,
and reaped the benefits in terms of influence.
Russia
may be our strategic competitor in Europe — though a manageable one —
but it is an essential strategic ally in the Middle East and in the
broader fight against Islamist jihad.
The
British ambassador to Washington has publicly described President Putin
as a thug. This may, on some definitions, be true. But it was stupid,
not just undiplomatic. In the Middle East today, Putin can and must be
our thug.
The
Western nations are crying out for strong and decisive leadership in
the face of the calculated slaughter of innocents. Already, Obama has
been mocked for playing golf even as his warplanes were preparing to
bomb Islamic State positions at the weekend, and his officials seem as
concerned about the fate of U.S. diplomats as they are about the plight
of thousands of beleaguered Iraqis.
Now is the moment for Britain and America to stop the march of the jihadis before it is too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment