There’s a post over at FP’s blog that makes an interesting point. In providing air support for the joint Iraqi Army-Shi’ite militia offense to retake the city of Tikrit from DAESH, the U. S. is supporting a violent ethnic cleansing:
Sunni villages in Amerli and Suleiman Bek, in the Salah ad-Din province, have been looted or destroyed by militiamen operating on the specious assumption that all inhabitants once ruled by IS must be IS sympathizers or collaborators. Human Rights Watch has also lately discovered that the “liberation†of Amerli last October — another PMU/Iranian-led endeavor, only this one abetted by U.S. airstrikes in the early stages — was characterized by wide-scale abuses including the looting and burning of homes and business of Sunni residents of villages surrounding Amerli. The apparent aim was ethnic cleansing.The apparent aim was ethnic cleansing. Human Rights Watch concluded, from witness accounts, that “building destruction in at least 47 predominantly Sunni villages was methodical and driven by revenge and intended to alter the demographic composition of Iraq’s traditionally diverse provinces of Salah al-Din and Kirkuk.â€
As of this writing we are being treated to a very bizarre spectacle. In Syria we’re at least implicitly supporting DAESH and opposing Iran by opposing the Assad government. In Iraq we’re implicitly supporting Iran and opposing DAESH by supporting the Iraqi government. If there is clearer evidence that our Middle East policy is in disarray I don’t know what it would be.
As a thought experiment let’s list the possible combinations of policies we might be adopting.
- Support the established governments. That would mean we would support the Assad government in Syria and the present government in Iraq. That’s essentially the Russians’ position.
- Oppose the established governments. That would mean we would oppose the Assad government in Syria and the present government in Iraq. We’re obviously not doing that but it would have some consistency to it. We would be opposing pro-Iranian governments.
- Foster chaos. Support the Assad government, the Syrian rebels (implicitly DAESH), the Iraqi government. Let ’em beat each other to a pulp. We don’t like any of them so why not? Don’t laugh. I’ve actually heard people articulate this as a strategy.
- Incoherence. Which is where we are. We’re supporting DAESH in Syria and opposing it in Iran. We’re supporting Iran in Iraq and opposing it in Syria.
Let the banner of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick fly!
“If there is clearer evidence that our Middle East policy is in disarray I don’t know what it would be.”
It’s completely clear if you believe hard enough in the transformative and decisive nature of US policy. Sure the the Shia’ militias are a problem, but all we need to do is properly engage with the “Iraqi government” and create the right incentives for them to support multi-sectarian governance. And in Syria, haven’t you heard of the moderate opposition? Once we find them, or drag them out of European cafes back to Syria, our support will inevitably bring them to power and unite the country into a stable, secular democracy.
Seriously, Dave, your lack of imagination is disturbing.
Across the political spectrum people are scratching their heads at the bizarre cross-connections between the US and Iran — being enemies in one ME locale, bonding as allies-in-arms in another, all the while desperately seeking a nuclear deal that is either baffling or firmly opposed by most, for posterity purposes of the Obama Administration’s end-of-term legacy.
We need to either support both the Iraqi and Syria governments, or we need to oppose both of them? I don’t really follow the logic on that one. Anyway, I would say that they are attempting to oppose both IS and Assad in Syria. We have been bombing IS in Syria after all. We have also been opposing IS in Iraq. So, it looks to me as thought the goal is to oppose IS wherever they are, while also opposing Assad.
What should we do? We should pretty much get out of Syria. There may be some good guys there, but we can’t figure out who they are. While we are bombing IS, any attempts to arm the “good” groups in Syria will probably help IS, or do nothing. In Iraq, we should minimize our efforts. I don’t think domestic politics will let us do nothing, but let’s not invade again. This is really a problem for the local governments of that area.
“while desperately seeking a nuclear deal that is either baffling or firmly opposed by most”
While seeking a deal that is wanted by everyone other than Israel and US supporters of Israel.
Steve
I don’t think everyone wants just any deal with Iran. The Saudis & other Gulf States seem opposed to just giving Iran carte blanche.
… Fair point. So let me amend that. The countries that funded 9/11, Israel and US supporters of Israel oppose any deal.
France, too, does not appear to support the deal the Obama Administration wants to strike. Unless they’re playing “good cop, bad cop”. I don’t think the U. S. makes a very credible “good cop” at this point.