Why the Enemies of Islamic State Outside America Should Root for a Republican President in 2016

Source: Daily The Nation

Source: Daily The Nation

Do you believe that the votes of American citizens matter in shaping the future of the world?

Do you also happen to believe that the United States has been following a disastrous foreign policy over the years, creating more chaos than good?

If yes, then chances are that you must blame the 2003 invasion of Iraq for destabilizing the Middle East.

I do too, and that is why I think people sharing these beliefs, and those who want to destroy the Islamic State should root for a Republican President in 2016.

We don’t just need a hawk in the White House, call the candidate a neo-conservative, if you like, but one who is interested in completely eliminating ISIL and one who believes in establishing a permanent ground force in Iraq. I very much wish Hillary Clinton would be that candidate, but the sort of focus and commitment that you can expect from candidates on the Republican side.

I also believe that it has been the foreign policy of President Obama which has led to the current chaos that Iraq and Syria are in. Ever since the rise of ISIL, we have seen President Obama rejecting and belittling the threat has only made matters worse, and only recently he has taken stricter military action.

President Obama relies mostly on air power and drone warfare for his war strategy. Just as his presidency was a reaction to the war overdose during the term of George W. Bush, he probably is allergic to the idea of deploying ground troops as an occupying force.

At this point in history, the world needs the moral leadership of the United States to get rid of this horrific state of affairs in the Middle East. A lot of US citizens assert why the United States should be a part of a regional sectarian conflict. They are right. The United States does not have to be the sole participant of dealing with ISIL, but it must lead the world to that goal. However, that requires a leader that could rally the world around the cause as George W. Bush did during his term.

The world is prepared to take on ISIL, even including Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite their clash of interest in terms of the balance of power in Iraq and Syria. The problem is that the lives of the people of the Middle East cannot be left at the mercy of terrible authoritarian regional powers such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, who both have a record of backing terrorist or militant groups for their own political advantage.

Now that Iraq and Syria have reached this state, long term NATO forces must occupy these states in order to ensure the stability required by the citizens migrating to other parts of the world. This is why Western forces have been stationed in high risk regions such as South Korea. The need for such forces is far greater in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan than anywhere else. Such relative stability has been brought in Afghanistan and Iraq was relatively stable as well when George W. Bush left office.

I only wish the Democratic Party had brought more ideas about fighting ISIL in this race. Both the candidates have expressed commitment to fight ISIL, but the issue is given very low priority in the Democratic forum of ideas and is barely even discussed. Sadly, Hillary Clinton’s election would simply mean the continuation of the foreign policy of President Obama for at least 4 more years. If Bernie Sanders win, who knows what the US foreign policy would be. The stakes are too high for any such choices.

Quite frankly, if it were not the issue of foreign policy and ISIL, I would hardly see any reason for someone outside the US to have their interests attached with a candidate. Particularly at a time when a more aggressive US intervention in the Middle East is the need of the hour and one that involves ground occupation. I am sure that the people and leaders of the rest of the world, including Europe and the Middle East, would be watching the 2016 race with similar concerns.

There used to be a time when the Democratic Presidents used to initiate military action abroad, from FDR and Harry Truman to JFK and LBJ. Not that I miss the Democrats being the internationalist hawks, which they still are, but the approach of the political parties have changed since then. Especially since the war overdose of Bush 43 Presidency and President Obama’s allergy to troops on the ground as a reaction.

While most people would like President Obama’s approach, the world cannot afford it. At least, the Middle East cannot afford it any longer. A President with more assertive military leadership and one who seriously believes in destroying ISIL is needed to bring the Middle East back to order.

I know how some people are worried about the immoral and dangerous prospects of a conservative Republican President, but the only immoral and dangerous force that I see in the world is the Islamic State. And the closer the next President is to George W. Bush in approach, the better are the odds of eliminating it.

Let’s get rid of the Islamic State first. Then we can return to our lovefest with the Democratic candidates.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.
Advertisements

Pakistan Must Join the Global Coalition Against ISIS

Source: ipp-news.com

Source: ipp-news.com

In a recently reported statement, the representative of the Pakistan military has denied any intentions to send troops as a part of a global coalition for fighting ISIS. I hope I am reading it wrong but the statement is disappointing to say the least and would cast serious doubts about the nation’s commitment to fight terrorist threats around the world. This is only disappointing considering how the Pakistani military has been acknowledged by international leaders for its contribution in the war against terrorism.

On the other hand, Pakistan Army has already made statements vowing that the existence of ISIS would not be tolerated in Pakistan. While so far the officials have not acknowledged the presence of the terrorist group in Pakistan, critics have good reasons to question how the threat of ISIS in the region is being downplayed.

However, contributing to the global coalition against ISIS does not necessarily have anything to do with the threat in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is no doubt that increased security is required at home, but we also have a responsibility to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

We are not sure whether the Western leaders have really started to rally a serious coalition for ground forces in Iraq and Syria, but this early statement is not a healthy sign. Nevertheless, the need to build such a coalition as soon as possible, and one which many in the West are underestimating, if not undermining, at best.

While the efforts of the Pakistani military must be appreciated for fighting the terror bases in the North Western tribal areas, this does not mean that the war against terrorist threats is over. Pakistan must fulfill its global responsibilities, and the Pakistani civilian leadership should take a stand on the issue.

The war against ISIS is too important to be left to the lack of enthusiasm and reluctance of nations making up the allies. The United States and other leaders of the coalition should pressure Pakistan, among other countries around the world including India and Middle Eastern countries, to contribute their due share.

Pakistan has a proud tradition of assisting the United States in its campaigns against enemies of freedom around the world. From resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and being an inseparable part of the peacekeeping force to stop genocide in Bosnia, Somalia and Sierra Leone to the war against terrorism, Pakistan has been a responsible ally for the most part. It is time to act in that spirit again.

Muslim majority countries must lead the way to battle Islamist terrorist groups organizing themselves in tyrannical states and it is imperative that Pakistan be in the frontline. Pakistan would also be reluctant to take action on ISIS abroad due to its refusal to participate against the Iran-backed Yemeni rebels.

There has been a particular reluctance to fight ISIS both among Western powers and Sunni majority countries due to their anti-Shia inclination. However, saner political forces both in the West and in Sunni majority countries do not agree on this dangerous and counterproductive way of countering the Iranian influence.

Tolerating ISIS is also a terrible way to hope for the fall of the Assad regime. Probably a more morally and politically correct way would be to launch a mass invasion on Syria, in the manner of the 2003 Iraq War. Both the United States and the EU did not hesitate for a minute to get directly involved to overturn the Libyan regime. At least we can agree that Assad is far worse than Gaddafi. And if removing Assad is not that important, why even bother with that?

You know the world is dealing with a moral crisis when Russia is actively claiming to fight ISIS, and Turkey and other adjoining nations are just silent witnesses. And even worse, shooting down their planes.

There is no doubt that a ground force or any sort of political intervention is not going to resolve the Sunni-Shia rift in the region, and such a coalition should not aim to achieve any nonsensical goals in the first place. However, such a presence is required to ensure the elimination of the Islamic State and to prevent such organized threats from emerging.

Even today, the public opinion and many liberal politicians oppose deploying ground troops. And many of them are asking valid questions, like the UK opposition enquiring if the airstrikes proposed by Prime Minister Cameron would make any difference and what would be the next step.

The current leadership in the West is not thinking about the next step because of the horrors of the Iraq War campaign. Who are they going to help by bombing ISIS? Assad, Russia and pro-Iran forces? And would it be enough to help what is left of the Syrian Free Army that is currently being targeted by the Russians?

Those opposing substantial military action for the liberation of the ISIS occupied territory might as well not bother with the bombings either, apart from surgical drone strikes targeting ISIS leadership. Also, they should make up their minds about what to do about Assad.

Apparently, many people around the world still need to be convinced that ISIS is a threat worth proactively fighting against. Unfortunately, for political reasons or otherwise, the Pakistani military leadership appears to be among them.

It is important to understand that without a long-term occupying ground force in Iraq and ISIS occupied Syria, stability cannot be achieved.

Pakistan needs to be an inseparable part of this ground force.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.