THE BOSTICK REPORT-Recent calls by Republicans for President Obama to “act stronger” and “exert US authority” overseas in response to escalating tensions and outright conflict are based on a simplistic, outdated worldview.
Worse, these calls are rooted in the idea that every government, leader, or action is based on a faulty effort to identify conflict as being between altruistic ‘good’ actions in response to selfish ‘evil’ actions. It’s just not that simple and probably never was.
As a mental exercise after the Malaysian commercial jet was downed in the separatist region of Ukraine – most likely by Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists – I tried to conceive of how our current global crises could develop into global warfare, otherwise known as World War III.
The problem is that there are too many multi-faceted positions with too many interconnected conflicts supported by interest groups that are frequently operating from points of contradiction, both in their alliances with various factions on the battlefield and inconsistent with our own perceptions of who our opponents should be, will be, and could be. There is no clear path towards a simplistic Axis vs. Allies type of warfare or sides like we’ve had in the past.
In other words, alliances aren’t so straightforward in the areas where warfare is breaking out. There are four major issues involved.
First, a major point of discord rests within a stateless, philosophical war of terrorism so the battlefield is not fixed. Second, the interwoven state alliances currently in place are contradicted within the sectarian Islamic battlefield. Third, historical political relationships between the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are upended within that sectarian Islamic battlefield. Finally, Russia’s brokerage of arms within the Middle East region act to both simultaneously aid and undermine our goals, efforts, and objectives.
While 9/11 woke the world up to the potential of a stateless terrorist organization to enact global harm, we have just recently begun to see the efficacy of that movement as a philosophical tool of warfare. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, now simply known as the Islamic State, has illustrated the power of a unified jihadist group to undermine state boundaries and political borders as it marches through Iraq and Syria.
They are brutal and have nothing to lose through a scorched earth approach to the battlefield. Truly, their deaths on the battlefield support their religious faith because dying on the battlefield to establish an Islamic state would achieve for them what the Christian right would call their eternal salvation. In that sense, victory to the fighters of the Islamic State is twofold: death on the battlefield and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.
Compounding this issue is the lack of a diplomatic solution to end the Islamic State’s march. They have nothing to lose by fighting and everything to gain. No one in the region wants to acquiesce to them and give them land for a caliphate state because their destruction of state lines is to create a global caliphate, not a national entity. And we have demonstrated through our own efforts at Guantanamo Bay and our rhetoric that our goal is hunt down the terrorists and “bring them to justice”. Not a lot of room for compromise or diplomacy with the Islamic State.
So far, however, this is a pretty simplistic worldview of good versus evil. Who is good and who is evil depends heavily on perspective, but that perspective alone is not power enough to win because the Islamic State has succeeded in smearing the battle lines across two different countries physically, Syria and Iraq, where our own political interests are in conflicting. We are in support of the democratically elected government in Iraq (if not the actual person elected), but in opposition to the leadership in Syria that is questionably elected through a democratic process.
In other words, if our opponent is the Islamic State, then are our allies the governments of Iraq and Syria? That depends on what you think of their own allies and how they break down along the sectarian battle between militant Sunni Muslims and the governments of Iraq who are Shi’a Muslims and Alawite Muslims (an arm of the Shi’a model).
For the purposes of this discussion, we are only going to look into the following Islamic organizations and how they relate to this conflict: Hamas (in Gaza), and Hezbollah (in Lebanon). If we were to start discussing Al Qaida, Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other factions of Islamic politics and terrorism, the thread line of chaos in our choices would distract us from the overall point of this essay. Just understand that the following political and religious conflicts are not the whole of this sectarian warfare nor do they represent the limitations of building alliances in the Middle East.
The Islamic State is a Sunni extremist group that coalesced within the Syrian civil war, but really came to prominence as they torched their way through Iraq back towards Syria. Hezbollah is a militant Shi’a group born in Lebanon in opposition to Israel and has also fought against the Syrian government in that civil war, often alongside the Islamic State. Hezbollah is historically aligned with the efforts of Hamas, a Sunni terrorist organization in Gaza that recently assumed political power for the Palestinians.
Here’s where things get complicated. Iran is a very conservative Shi’a government ruled through hardline rhetoric. Since the overthrow of the Shah in1979, Iran has been our opponent, both because we do not support their government and for their scorched earth rhetoric against our most important ally in the region, Israel.
But Iran supports the democratically elected Shi’a government in Iraq and thus, stands along side us in opposition to the de-stabilizing force of the Islamic State both in Syria (another Iranian ally) and Iraq. On the other side is Iran’s mortal enemy, Saudi Arabia – a Sunni kingdom that has used its vast wealth to fund proxy wars against Iran in Syria and Iraq that has developed into the Islamic State.
With Saudi Arabia in support of the Islamic State, there is a dovetailing of interests that are developing in the Israel ground invasion into Gaza where after nearly a month and 1,800 rockets launched into Israel, we again have an engagement of the military. As the Hamas politics disintegrates into Hamas militancy against an overpowering Israeli army, Hamas will need allies. This corresponds to the growing power of the Islamic State’s march north. Please note that the Islamic State and Hamas are both militant Sunni Muslim organizations.
With Hezbollah, you have a militant organization that is Shi’a, not Sunni, but they were formed to fight Israel. As Israel’s battle against Hamas develops, it’s likely that Hezbollah would see more in allying with Hamas against their common enemy, Israel.
The question here is whether Saudi Arabia’s history of apathy against Israel will bring them towards our help in this conflict or will their antipathy towards Iran push them to continue supporting the Islamic State as it merges with Hamas and Hezbollah?
In this scenario, Iraq is devastated and Israel is under attack from a Saudi-backed Islamic State, our potential allies would be Iran and Syria – two states avowed to the destruction of Israel, but against Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State.
Then comes Russia, allies of – yes – Iran, Syria, and international arms dealer to both governments along with Hezbollah.
So, I ask my Republican friends who have been so critical of President Obama because of his hesitancy to exert US authority over conflicts in the Middle East and beyond, who is good and who is evil in these scenarios? Aside from Israel, who is our ally here: Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Russia? Where is our moral authority within a sectarian, religious conflict between politically convoluted bodies encountering a borderless battle against terrorism that is itself, a proxy war between state players?
Apply this globally – to the crisis in Ukraine, where Russia has a strong hand both in that separatist movement and in the energy supply to Europe through the Ukrainian pipeline and note that I have completely failed to include any of the militant religious battles and civil wars in the African horn adjacent to the middle east, nor have I included any discussion of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Don’t forget deteriorating Chinese relations with Japan over disputed islands, and China’s growing influence with Saudi Arabia and various Middle Eastern powers and dictators – and then there’s North Korea and Russian-Chinese influence there.
Republicans need to tone down harsh rhetoric and criticism of President Obama’s handling of foreign policy. We need less American policing and more American diplomacy. Our voice and historical stewardship are more important than ever, but with prudence and caution lest we bulldoze ourselves into a religious war.
{module [862]} {module [662]}
(Odysseus Bostick is a Los Angeles teacher and former candidate for the Los Angeles City Council. He writes The Bostick Report for CityWatch.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 59
Pub: Jul 22, 2014
