Obama’s
Coalition: Willing To Wound And Yet Afraid To Strike
Saeed Naqvi
As
soon as President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced his intention to lead a
Coalition of the Willing to “degrade and destroy” the ISIS, his core coalition
partners began to fidget and reach out for the exit door.
British
Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond said “UK will not be taking part in the air
strikes in Syria”. He said the Syrian issue had been debated threadbare in the
British Parliament. Policy enunciated in the House of Commons cannot be
upturned.
A
hand from across the Atlantic must have tweaked Prime Minister David Cameron’s
ears, because his spokesman said Britain had not ruled out anything.
German
Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: “We haven’t been asked nor will
we do it (airstrikes). We have to be honest with ourselves: we don’t yet have a
final blanket strategy which guarantees that we’ll be successful against ISIS
and similar groups.” Similar misgivings in other European capitals suggest they
would first like to size up the ISIS danger at home lest premature action
provokes an unacceptable backlash.
Turkey
has said “no” to any participation in the conflict and Jordan says it is
worried about Gaza.
Syria
has been succinct in its response. “Any foreign intervention in Syria would be
an act of aggression against the country unless it is approved by Damascus.”
But if asked, Syria would oblige.
Russia
says: “Airstrikes against Islamist militants in Syria without a UN Security
Council mandate will be an act of aggression.”
After
the US National Security adviser, Susan Rice’ visit, Beijing has been cautious.
It has endorsed coalitions against terrorism as a general principle.
The
only outright endorsement of Obama’s speech has come from Saudi Arabia and
Israel. And thereby hangs a tale.
Time
was when Arab statesmen considered it politically incorrect to be seen alongside
Israel. Saudis have pioneered a culture of open coalition with the Jewish
state. But even the Saudis can sustain this policy only upto a point. They have
serious domestic concerns.
There
are several reasons for Obama’s over ambitious declaration of intent. A key
reason has been Saudi anxiety. King Abdullah and his bevy of princes have been
quaking in their long robes ever since Abu Bakr al Baghdadi declared a
Caliphate and conquered large swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria. By
reliable accounts, he has 30,000 men with the most sophisticated weapons,
armour, personal carriers, helicopters all left behind by externally financed,
then abandoned, mercenary Jehadis. As a result of chaos at Tripoli airport
there were fears that ISIS may have access to transport planes as well.
It
is common knowledge among West Asian observers that Paul Bremer, the first US
Representative in Baghdad, was overzealous in disbanding Saddam Hussains
Revolutionary Guards, secret police, armed forces and indeed, the Baath Party
structure. This entire lot reared in a culture of secrecy under Saddam Hussain,
proceeded to live below the radar waiting for the Shia Prime Minister Nouri al
Maliki to be sensitive to the Baathists. This lot were atheists when they were
in harness but they began to turn to the mosque in their bad days. After all,
even Saddam Hussain had “Allah” inscribed on the Iraqi flag only after
Operation Desert Storm. And that operation was launched from Saudi Arabia in
1992. The Saudis were the cheerleaders then.
Since
the occupation of Iraq in 2003, Islam as a tactic slowly transformed itself
into Islam – the faith native to Iraqis since pre Baath days. At the fall of
Saddam Hussain, who were the cheer leaders? The Saudis, ofcourse.
The
vacuum created by Saddam’s fall, was filled in by the Shia majority in the
South. Suddenly the world (and the Saudis) realized that Shias were a majority
in Iraq by a long margin. Earlier, after, the Taleban were ousted from Kabul in
2001, there was the usual wringing of hands. A Salafi-Wahabi bulwark against
Shia Iran had been removed.
The
Saudis began to beat their breast. “The Shia axis; the Shia axis.” So, every
extremist Sunni group was injected into Syria to topple the Super Alawi Bashar
al Assad even though the overriding concern was to break the Teheran, Damascus,
Hezbullah, Gaza chain. At one stage according to UN representative Lakhdar
Brahimi, there were 64 different groups in operation inside Syria, each more
unsavoury than the other. One ghastly fellow posted a video of him gouging out
the opponent’s liver for a macabre feast.
Well,
this lot has conflated with the Baathists in Iraq and some who may have
defected from the Syrian establishment. This powerful machine on the move is
giving Saudis nightmares. ISIS is a hotchpotch of Wahabis, Salafis, Muslim
Brotherhood wedded to an Islamized Baathist structure. This Caliphate has
become a rallying force for rampaging anti Americanism in the Muslim world.
Worry of worries, inside European countries too. For the Saudis the omens are
worse. A Caliphate is not a Caliphate without Mecca. Is the ISIS headed for
Mecca?
The
Syrian government would like to see the ISIS bombed, but the US cannot make a
sudden U-turn and incorporate Syria into the otherwise wobbly coalition. Saudis
will throw yet another fit.
Teheran,
like Baghdad and Damascus, would like the Sunni energy of ISIS to be exhausted
without being seen to be in the fight. It would not like to be seen externally
as a sectarian force. Inside Iran, proximity to the US, beyond the nuclear
deal, would alienate the powerful hardliners.
Teheran
would not like to upset the status quo in Riyadh. “An alternative to the
present regime may be more in the grip of the Wahabi clergy whose extremism is
boundless.” So, King Abdullah and co. are fine. Behind the scenes, Iran has
co-operated with the US and the Saudis in accepting Haider al Abadi as a
successor to the sectarian Nouri al Maliki.
Meanwhile,
Obama’s Congressmen face elections in November. A mega show has to be mounted
to take the cameras off the unspeakable mess in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Gaza etcetera etcetera..
#
#
# #
No comments:
Post a Comment