Asking the Wrong Question

Source: usnews.com

Source: usnews.com

These days the candidates for the 2016 US Presidential Elections, especially Republicans, are being asked the perfectly wrong question. And I hope we don’t see it as often for the rest of the duration of the campaign.

Knowing what we know now, would you still attack Iraq?

Of course, America has just gotten out of two wearing wars and great sacrifices have been made. So no wonder the public mood is pretty anti-war. And in a perfect isolationist world, rightly so. But ISIS is a threat of the proportions of the Nazis, if not worse, so being an anti-war isolationist with ISIS is not even an option.

The media has been orgasming over Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush fumbling the question, as ISIS moved on to take the historic city of Palmyra in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq. The White House responded to the development by assuring they were not losing against ISIS. Actually, the administration had an even more creative explanation of their disaster of a military strategy.

It is remarkably ignorant comment of the US Secretary of Defense  Ash Carter to assume that recent ISIS gains in towns such as Ramadi was due to the “lack of will to fight” of Iraqis. Maybe that could be true for some of the radical Iraqi Sunnis, but what about the United States letting the Kurdish people down, who are very willing to fight and are still fighting singlehandedly?

The Iraqi military is inadequate, and is neither properly equipped, nor trained for fighting the monstrous force of ISIS, which is fighting with sophisticated Western weapons anyway. Even in Senator John McCain’s opinion, the US administration seem to have no strategy to fight ISIS. But then again, he’s just another pissed hawk.

Source: News Corp

Source: News Corp

And leave alone the question of aiding a militia on the ground trying to resist ISIS, something which is apparently against the principles of the White House, they did not even bother taking action to help the unarmed Yazidis. Since then, countless Yazidi women have been forced into sexual slavery.

Apparently, of all the people, Iranians seem to have some moral authority in this issue. Yes, finally I found one. They and their supported Shiite militias are the ones who seem to be resisting ISIS, albeit for their own interest, which is perfectly fine.

But it speaks volumes of the state of morality of the nations around the world, especially the EU, who usually would go to great lengths to threaten dictators like Gaddafi and Assad, but would be largely silent on this issue. The Sunni majority Arab states are completely ignoring this monster, which has already started knocking on their doors.

And to which heading is the moral compass of Pakistan pointing? Surely, we don’t want to stir another hive of bees. But what if the enemy is at the gates?

Where is the international coalition that got together to fight against terrorism? Is dethroning Assad worth destroying the entire Middle East?

So instead of asking the candidates hypothetical questions about what they would have done in terms of invading Iraq 10 years ago, (most of them supported Iraq War anyway, including Hillary Clinton) how about asking them what they have to offer to improve the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria now. And I am sure this question will come up near the elections.

And if they simply have no solutions to offer, just like the current President, let the voters hear them.

Because it is no doubt that US foreign policy created this mess, whether Bush or Obama, it doesn’t matter.

America should clean the mess up, because apparently no one else will anyway.

A version of this post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

The Neglected Brat Fighting Back

Source: Dawn/Reuters

Source: Dawn/Reuters

Countries such as Pakistan, being peripheries in the larger theater of global politics, that have unusually large armies and unusually dangerous security concerns, tend to be paranoid. Strategically, they are always on the lookout of how the powers around them are responding to them. Of course, if you put the military leadership itself at the helm of foreign policy, the effect is manifold.

Considering how closely Pakistan has been to the United States in the Cold War years, being in the forefront of the war against Soviet Communism, had made its national security pretty much dependent on the American partnership. After years of dependable war partnership with Republican administrations, Pakistan is now apparently left alone by a fairly long but largely neglecting Democratic administration, pulling out troops, resorting to distant drone warfare, and one that does not give half as much priority to the Pakistani state as it does to India in its strategy for the region. Considering the growing Chinese influence, it only seems to make sense.

Where does this leave Pakistan? In an extremely precarious and insecure state, in terms of survival.

Peripheries are like surviving but perpetually underfed chicks in a jungle full of predators. You have to take care of them to make sure they grow up the way you want.

Pakistan’s recent shift to more authoritarian and undemocratic powers for its primary diplomatic partnerships is suggestive of the vacuum created by the democratic powers perceivably forsaking it. Sadly, with the weakening influence of the democratic powers, and under the influence of China and Saudi Arabia, you could find the already weak democratic values in Pakistan weakening even further. Especially when some people could argue an almost colonial influence of these countries growing in Pakistan, especially the religious influence of the Wahabi monarchy of Saudi Arabia. The recent religious decrees of the federal government and the recent visits of Saudi officials in the wake of the Yemen campaign are but a few signs.

The China Pakistan economic corridor sounds like an ingenious idea for its sheer simplicity, or complexity, and it is almost surprising that it didn’t already happen years ago considering how strong Pakistan China relations have been over decades. Of course, literally lending a good piece of land of your nation and its local opposition, considering the controversial nature of the province it is situated in, are sizable hurdles to the achievement of such an ambitious goal. Something that the Pakistani leadership finally decided to take on, with criticism more focused on provincial rights deprivation than the almost colonial nature of the deal.

There would surely be greater outcry if Pakistan were leasing out a port to a country such as India. But why would Pakistan be offering its port to a country such as India in the first place?

But what minimizes that realization is the tremendous business opportunity of a geographically disadvantaged power hiring you for improved trade efficiency. Even the harshest of critics, as well as the adversaries of the campaign, would not be able to ignore the economic possibilities of this deal. It’s mutually beneficial, right?

However, this step appears to be Pakistan’s own way of angrily reacting to the neglect that it perceived to have been a victim of, probably intended as a message to some powers. For a country that considered itself to be worthy of a civilian nuclear program deal instead of India, and which might have felt wounded getting its F-16s from Jordan than directly from the United States.

But apparently, it is something way deeper and darker than that. It also sends out a message of where the Pakistan’s allegiances would be in the next century. And it’s probably too late for the other interested parties. Perhaps, it is a brat spoiled by the United States itself.

But the bigger question to ask is this. Would the world be a better place with this deal? Would it open more strategic than mere economic opportunities for various parties?

Or maybe if these questions are so hard to ask, is that a side that Pakistan would really want to take for the next century.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.