Why The "Fight Against ISIS" Is A Farce

Prime Minister Harper's current political "divert the public's attention" strategy is to beat on the war drums over ISIS.

Yes, ISIS is a brutal lot, and they are doing a lot of horrible things.  Should they be held accountable for their actions?  Absolutely.  Are the western powers the right people to "hold them accountable"?  No.  Not in the slightest.

Way back in 2002 (before I started this blog), Bush the Lesser decided to invade Iraq, turning one foolhardy war in Afghanistan into two wars.  Invading Afghanistan was foolish enough, invading Iraq was ludicrously stupid.  Both of these were essentially colonial wars of occupation.  Over a decade later, the invading forces pulled out after fighting bloody wars against insurgencies in both countries with dubious results.

Those of us old enough to remember the 1980 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, will remember the western powers pouring vast sums of money and munitions into the "Mujahideen" resistance, which ultimately gave rise to the Taliban.  Yes, the same Taliban which eventually took control of Afghanistan and gave support to the development of al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden.

Starting to see a pattern here?  Namely that factions and squabbling among quasi-militarized groups in the area are incessant, and more importantly that foreign interventions have this nasty tendency to end up creating the conditions for the next escalation.

So, returning to Bush the Lesser and Iraq, there's an important bit to consider.  Bush wandered into Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, declaring "Mission Accomplished" a year later.  The fighting in Iraq would continue for a decade after that.  However, deposing Hussein and banning the Baath party was the beginning of the problem, not the end of a problem.  You see, the United States in its usual ham-fisted manner left some half-million Iraqis wandering around loose with no money and lots of weapons.

These people became the military leadership of what is now ISIS.  That's right.  You can pretty much blame the existence of ISIS on the ham-fisted approach taken in Iraq (and to some extent Afghanistan).

So, fast forward to today, and Canada's current government is in a mad rush to get into a shooting war against ISIS.  Quite frankly, this is a ridiculous thing to do.  Even if we (the western powers) were successful in dismantling ISIS, the odds are that whatever intervention we make will create the conditions for yet another violent, paramilitary organization to arise.

The simple reality is that wars of occupation are guaranteed not to succeed in today's world.  An aerial campaign against ISIS is unlikely to be effective in the long run.  It is not terribly difficult for an organization like ISIS to disperse in ways that make aerial attack ineffective, and even if a ground war were to be undertaken, it will create the same problems that we saw in Iraq.  WWII style heavy equipment warfare simply is the wrong solution here.  This is a war that needs to be fought behind the scenes.  Dismantling ISIS cannot be done using standard military approaches.  Attempts to do so will simply result in the rise of a new rival - likely originating by whomever becomes the  local "resistance" against ISIS.

There is a role for western powers in the region, but it is not the military role that Harper has been putting forward.  Ultimately, we have to take a "hands off" approach, and allow the region as a whole to settle its own squabbles.  The current borders are the consequence of a failed exercise in nation creation as the colonial powers pulled out of the Middle East in the early 20th century.  Those borders were created to satisfy the political and economic objectives of the colonial powers, not the peoples who live there.  While we can, to some degree, provide humanitarian intervention and relief, beyond that, it is not ours to prop up states which have only limited validity in the eyes and minds of the people who live there.

Harper wishes to style himself a "War PM" to deflect attention from Canada's growing economic woes (pay no attention to the 20,000+ jobs lost since November, 2014 in Alberta).  Make no mistake, by committing Canada to an expanded role against ISIS, Harper is hoping that Canadians will forget the mess that he has made in this country.  He is hoping that Canadians will be so scared by the horrific behaviour of ISIS that we will rally behind his brand out of fear.  

The Closer You Look ...

The closer one looks at the ISIS thing, the more it starts looking like a sectarian war in the Middle East.  Yesterday in the Globe and Mail, Robert Fowler very nicely articulated the problem with short term solutions to the mess in Iraq, and today I spotted a really interesting read describing some of the reasons behind the apparent lack of response from several Arab states, in particular Saudi Arabia.

As is typical of these situations in the region, it is starting to become apparent that for all of its bloodiness, ISIS is simply another sectarian feud spilling out into the open.  Saudi Arabia is divided at the top because some people see ISIS as a challenge to Iran's Shiite beliefs and aggression and therefore a "good thing".

Suddenly, western powers are in the awkward place of having to somehow justify going after ISIS in Syria when they have all turned their backs on the Assad regime there.  (which is nominally secular(ish))

Yes, the beheadings are grisly and vile acts.  Yes, we know that radicals are now recruiting from around the world - using tactics and techniques which are neither particularly new or innovative - they are more or less the standard tactics of recruitment used by extremist religious leaders for decades if not centuries.

Is ISIS really any different than the Taliban in Afghanistan in the late 90s?  Or al Qaeda during the early 2000s?  Not particularly.  They are enacting more or less a variation on the usual quasi-tribal violence that has wracked the region for decades and longer.

While Harper is all hot to trot to drag Canada into a moral war to stop ISIS, he and his followers are missing the fundamental point.  This is a sectarian war in a region where we have no political capital left.  The western powers, all of them, have had too much to do with supporting heinous regimes over the last hundred years; and a set of borders which have little to do with the political and social realities of the region.

In 2000 years of assorted interventions in these countries, there is but one lesson for foreign powers:  Direct intervention is doomed to fail.  The Roman occupation of the Arab lands was a gong show from the start, and every intervention since has ultimately failed at the cost of much treasure and more innocent lives.  To claim that intervening against ISIS is going to turn out any differently is to ignore not only the lessons of the past, but worse to repeat its mistakes.

It is this writer's opinion that while the western powers can intervene legitimately in the realms of politics and humanitarian aid, the powers of the region must work through whatever sectarian differences they may have and develop their borders and governments accordingly.  We may not like what we see happening, but our political capital has been spent there for a long time, at least back to the withdrawal of the colonial powers if not longer.

For those who feel there is a "moral imperative" to intervene, there are interventions which will make a difference, but none of them involve bombs, guns or tanks.

Dear Mr. Adler: PFO

Charles Adler published a particularly noxious screed in the National Post the other day - presumably at the behest of the knuckle-draggers in the PMO that want to silence critics of the government's handling of of Afghan prisoners.

The fundamentals of Adler's tirade are nothing more than the usual "you don't support the troops" line.

This is incorrect. The issue isn't the troops. It's the orders that they have been given - and those come from command and the politicians. Let's be absolutely clear on that matter. The decisions about the handling of individual detainees happens on the ground, in the context of the moment and the standing orders the troops operate under. The orders they are given come from the command structure, and ultimately are directed substantially by the politicians.

So ... the issue here is the orders that told troops to turn over prisoners to a questionable regime. We already know that Mr. Colvin's e-mails made it to the Department of Foreign Affairs ministerial offices (then occupied by Peter Mackay).

It's apparent that at several points in time the military's command hierarchy put the brakes on those transfers over the course of 2006-2007, but subsequently resumed them.

The politicians involved did nothing to correct the situation - or if they did, it was so slowly as to be meaningless in terms of dealing with the issues.

The issue today is simple - why were our politicians so slow to address the issues of prisoner handling? AND - why are the Conservatives being so obstructive about getting the facts out?

Make no mistake, the war in Afghanistan is a war of occupation. We (NATO forces) are the invaders, and what is happening on the ground there has happened repeatedly in the past - not just the Soviet occupation, but every attempt to control that region over the millenia of recorded history. Canada is paying a high price in 'blood and treasure' to prosecute this war of occupation, and nobody has ever put forward a convincing case that Canada's security is truly benefiting from our presence over there. (Lots of jingoism, no substantive facts)

The issue is not about "supporting the troops" - it's about a government that doesn't understand why we are there in the first place, and has clearly lost its moral compass.

You Only Just Figured This Out, Coren?

Apparently, a little glimmer of reality finally penetrated the TheoCon fog of Michael Coren's mind:

A War Built On Lies

We have been lied to about that terrible war and only a fool would think that we are suddenly being told the truth about the current ones.

It was horrific then and horrific now that good people have to die for agendas rather than causes.

Coming from a man who has argued for dropping nuclear weapons on Iran, or all of the great things our troops are fighting for in Afghanistan, it's more than a small surprise that Coren is finally starting to question the truth value of the reasons we have been fed about why we are engaged in Afghanistan, or why the US attacked Iraq.

When we are being told stories about why we are going to war by our politicians - and their allied commentators - we should treat them with more than a little skepticism.

More On Israel's Invasion of the Gaza

Apparently, in the minds of the right-wing-o-sphere, the right to defend yourself is unbounded where Israel is concerned. These people sit around scratching their heads, wondering why Israel is on the receiving end of such harsh criticism.

Well, bombing schools is a pretty good start for an offensive that is "not targeting civilians".

Of course, we can't ignore the fact that Israel keeps the Gaza - and other Palestinian lands - under lock-and-key. Borders are closed, the regions are fenced in and so on - effectively making the Palestinian territories open air prisons. You think that might just breed a little animosity both within the territories, as well as outside?

Now, Israel's all outraged over the fact that the denizens of the Gaza (and other territories, no doubt) are building tunnels to subvert the blockades - and are busily trying to destroy those too.

This will accomplish nothing. Israel will bomb the area back into the stone age, and the Palestinians will continue to smuggle in bombs, rocket making materials and so on. The violence will continue because both sides are party to the cycle they have created.

Sadly, Canada's current government seems to be blind to this reality, blaming Hamas for bombs that Israel dropped. (It strikes me that this is a little like blaming the wife when her husband beats her within an inch of her life)

When the Israelis and the Palestinians come to the negotiating table as equals, then and only then, will there be any meaningful progress. That means significant political change has to take place on both sides. Just as Hamas (or whoever the group du jour is) needs to replace bombs and rockets with diplomacy, Israel needs to do the same.

Peace will never be achieved as long as the language is that of occupier/occupied, and the instruments of communication are bombs.

This is Progress?

In Afghanistan, we find that reality on the ground is quite different from what Canada's government is trying to convince us is the case.

So, the next time some politician starts trying to blow smoke about how wonderfully well things are going in Afghanistan, think hard on the fact that the calls for more troops are coming, and the NATO forces are busy abandoning ground for the Taliban. This does not sound like a country that is acquiescing to foreign occupation to me.

Bom! Bom! Go The Drums Of War

Gee - Bush II couldn't be any more transparent about stirring up fear of the evil Iran threat in time for this year's presidential elections, could he?

US President George W Bush says he wants to pursue diplomacy to deal with Iran's controversial nuclear programme, but "all options are on the table".

Mr Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said further sanctions against Iran were possible.

"The first choice is to solve it diplomatically and that's exactly what we're doing," Mr Bush said.

He was speaking after talks in Germany, on the latest leg of what is likely to be his last tour of Europe.

Uh huh...coming from a man whose idea of diplomacy involves holding the trigger of a gun to the other party's head, I don't think that he's really trying that hard. Similar noises were made about Iraq a few years ago too.

I'm guessing that the current focus on Iran has more to do with sagging Republican fortunes in the US than it does anything else. The Rove formula for electoral success tends to require that the population be scared of something - preferably a remote and easily demonized adversary - it distracts the masses from what's happening at home.

Right On Schedule...

As the US Presidential race moves out of the nominations process and shifts into active campaigning, we see the latest Rethuglican war drum being beaten.

Does anyone else find it suspicious that the first thing that hits the news as the Democrat nomination cycle wraps up is Iran's nuclear program?

Last time this came bubbling up was 2006 - while George II was busy trying to get re-elected. Okay, so it's Israel making the threats - it's not as if Israeli leadership's connections to the Rethuglicans are news or surprising.

Is Iran a military threat? Perhaps; but I'm not about to assume that it is without some credible evidence. The world has been misled into two wars in the Middle East already - starting a third war in Iran would be foolish indeed. Not to mention likely to create an atmosphere of hostility. Right now, I'm inclined to suspect that the Iran drum is being beat again to give the Rethuglicans a "fear card" to play in the coming election.

Holding Up The Mirror

Sometimes a political leader says something so boldly daft that you just have to hold up the mirror of their words in front of them. Such is the case with Bush's speech in Israel yesterday.

Quoth the Bush (Jr):

In his speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals.”

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler all this might have been avoided'.”

“We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Yes, and how many lies did BushCo propagate to "justify" their invasion of Iraq? Many - possibly more than any of us want to think about. Was anyone going to be able to "appease him"? Not a snowball's chance - Bush was hell-bent on finding an excuse to invade Iraq, and his shifting lies about the subject made the point for me.

Further, we can see from the progress in Iraq (or lack of it...) just how successful Bush's "six-shooter diplomacy" has been. His actions have further polarized the world and have done little to stabilize anything. Arguably, Bush's pugilistic approach to world affairs has done little more than guarantee that organizations like Hezbollah and al Qaeda will continue to find more fertile grounds in which to put down their roots - for they thrive in the shadows and rubble of conflict.

Or perhaps, when Bush moralizes about the evils that Hezbollah and others perpetrate, we should reflect upon his support of torture - done by either his people or others; the legal limbo of "not-quite-POWs" he's created; pseudo-courts rigged to achieve a political outcome rather than justice; or the myriad international treaties he has blithely ignored in the prosecution of his wars.

The Terrible Human Price of Conflict

Go, read

I cannot add anything to this except my utter dismay at the cavalier way in which our politicians in both Canada and the US shrug these kinds of events and stories off.

The Next Arms Race...has begun

In 2003, the United States quietly tested a device called a Thermobaric Bomb.

This week, Russia tested its answer to the US weapon.

The destructive capability of these devices is impressive to say the least:

The U.S. bomb has a destructive force equivalent to 10 tonnes of TNT, while Russia says its bomb is equivalent to 40 tonnes.

Not quite in the range of what nuclear weapons produce, but that doesn't minimize the destructive capability either:

The two countries say such bombs are capable of massive destruction yet do not harm the environment as nuclear weapons do. They are also useful for attacking underground and hidden targets because the explosive blast can spread through tunnels. While a deeply buried target may be immune to traditional bombs, a thermobaric weapon can penetrate through a tunnel system and damage any equipment or systems, thus effectively neutralizing — if not actually destroying — the target.

However, the nuts and bolts of these things aren't the point. The context within which the US developed its thermobaric device is Afghanistan, now Russia, China and India have these weapons, a development that signals the emergence of a new arms race that will live on long after the storms of Afghanistan and Iraq have passed. I wonder if Dubya and crew are cackling gleefully about this, or did they simply forget about the long term impact of starting another arms race?

Afghanistan As Harper's Ego Trip

A lot of people have thought what Michael Byers is say - that Canada's participation in Afghanistan is essentially all about Harper's ego:

This comes back to my point that this is Stephen Harper's war.

There's a lot of other points that he makes - in particular the concerns that he raises about the direction that Harper's attempt at playing "beach muscle" with the military is headed in the long run:

You write that our mission in Afghanistan could, over time, lead to the development of a Canadian Armed Forces that is focussed almost entirely - in its training, ethos and equipment - on aggressive missions conducted in concert with the U.S. What's the evidence of that happening, and why is that not a good idea?

The evidence is widely manifest. One saw it in [Chief of Staff Gen. Rick] Hillier's comments about fighting "scumbags and murderers." One saw it in terms of the reluctance to deal with international law on detainees comparable to our European allies. We essentially embraced the American approach starting with Day One, certainly in terms of our embracing the search-and-destroy component.

Part of the reason the Dutch have not lost nearly as many soldiers is that they rejected that particular approach even though they're in the south. They're working on stabilizing and winning hearts and minds closer to their bases.

But the Canadian military has embraced the tough-guy approach. You ramp up the aggressive nature of your equipment, your rules of engage- ment, your choice of mission, your rhetoric - and then, of course, it becomes more dangerous, and that in turn justifies ramping up some more, and the end result, I fear, is we wind up with a mini-version of the U.S. Marine Corps.

While I am sure that there are many who are impressed by Harper's "tough-guy" stance - I'm not. Canada is a small nation, and does not have the resources (militarily, population and budget) to sustain an aggressive style of military. Canada needs an effective military, but that doesn't mean we need to play "heavy" on the world stage. (In fact, I would argue that in the long run, Canada is far more effective playing a more subtle game that doesn't require us to be prepared to invade or occupy foreign countries.

There are a number of reasons, but I think a lot of Canadians, particularly my gen- eration, bought into [philosopher] George Grant's thesis that Canada as an independent country has effectively ceased to exist. That has had a quite pervasive effect on how Canadians think about Canada's place in the world. And so, essentially, on the really big issues, we've been content to drift along on the slipstream of the United States.

Here's perhaps where I disagree with Byers somewhat. Canada has long played the moderating influence between US foreign policy and the countries that policy is directed to. Harper's near slavish devotion to the "six-shooter" diplomacy of G.W. Bush is in fact the worst possible thing Canada could do in the long run on the world stage. To some extent we have "drifted" along with the US, but that's perhaps better described as being "swept along" by the US. It is only people like Harper who favour deep integration with the United States that have given up on the concept of Canada as an independent state.

Are We Really Making Headway?

I'm not going to spend any time here on the quagmire that is Iraq - anyone with their eyes open will have figured out that there's a huge problem there, and it will take years to sort out - even if US troops leave the region tomorrow.

No, today's topic is Afghanistan, where Canada's troops are being asked to put their lives on the line in the name "rebuilding". However, one has to wonder just how much real headway can be made when air strikes destroy Afghani homes?

The US tries to avoid taking real responsibility for the fallout of this particular act by complaining:

A coalition air strike destroyed a mud-brick home, killing nine people from four generations of an Afghan family during a clash between western troops and militants, Afghan officials and relatives said Monday.

It was the second report in two days of civilian deaths at the hands of western forces. On Sunday, U.S. marines fired on cars and pedestrians as they fled a suicide attack. Up to 10 Afghans died in that violence, which President Hamid Karzai condemned.

Both times, the U.S military blamed militants for putting innocent lives in danger.

Hold on a second, here. The US is blaming the opposition for operating "too close to civilian targets" - couldn't the other side of that be that the US troops overreacted to a situation when civilians were too close? No matter how we slice this one, it seems to me that as long as coalition forces are the ones seen to be killing and maiming Afghani civilians, there is little or no chance of actually creating some kind of peace. It's hard enough to be an occupying force in a land where you are "the outsider" - and that's without bombing the crap out of it on a near daily basis. If you are doing the latter, you can fully expect that the "resistance" (or "insurgence" as the lingo goes today) to find plenty of sympathizers among the populus who are willing to give them sanctuary from which to stage their disruptions.

Of no great surprise is that these heavy handed tactics are even getting Afghanistan's "democratically elected puppet government" upset:

But Karzai has repeatedly pleaded for western troops to show more restraint amid concern that civilian deaths shake domestic support for the foreign military involvement that the president needs to prop up his weak government - increasingly under threat from a resurgent Taliban.

I can see how the Taliban is making gains. As horrific as their government was to Western eyes, the Afghanis who support them no doubt see them as attacking the foreign invaders who currently occupy the land. Granted, under similar circumstances, I might even welcome a "Conservative" government led by Ted Morton.