We may have reveled in our role in toppling the Soviet Union as we
supplied and paid for the training of the Mujahedeen rebels who hammered Soviet
forces, chipping away with solid “hit and run” tactics back in the Afghan war
in the 1980s. These well-armed, battle seasoned forces became the backbone of
organizations like the Taliban, al Queda and ultimately ISIS. We gave them an
easy enemy to hate (us!): we were sucking out their oil, dominating their
regional politics with our military support to corrupt and brutal dictators.
Yet our willingness to switch allegiance at our discretion (remember how we
once supported Saddam Hussein?) made even those at the top mistrust our
commitment.
We developed polite terms – like “blowback” – that added a note of
caution to our regional efforts, but clearly our failed efforts (costing
trillions and stretching well over a decade) in both Iraq and Afghanistan
illustrated with crystal clarity that we learned nothing from our own mistakes
or from the egregious errors of those superpowers and Western powers who
preceded us in these war zones. As much as Israel is a hated thorn in the side
of Palestinians, the Palestinian forces are not generally loved by most of the
rest of the Middle East, and for those in the region, the Israeli conflict has
been narrowed in their eyes to a very localized conflict. It is horrible, but
there is so much horror in that region.
The bigger conflict, for hearts, minds and – if that doesn’t work
– forced support is in the new mega-trend, that clash of civilizations between
radical militant Islam and the rest of the world, particularly the West. And
the test of any leader in this horrific battle is a confrontation, however it can
be arranged, with the greatest power on earth, the Great Satan itself: the
United States of America. And given our track record in Vietnam, Iraq and
Afghanistan, the lesson is simply: If you can tolerate a sustained battle
against the United States, the United States can always be defeated.
Indeed, if you aspire to leadership pretension in this militant
Islamic world, taking on the United States in confrontation is simply a
mandatory rite of passage. The track record is clear. Being Osama bin Laden,
the various Mullahs and tribal leader in the Taliban, and now the leader of the
new “Islamic State,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, “self-appointed caliph of
the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and the architect of its violent campaign
to redraw the map of the Middle East.
“‘He was a street thug when we picked him up in 2004,’ said a
Pentagon official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
intelligence matters. ‘It’s hard to imagine we could have had a crystal ball
then that would tell us he’d become head of ISIS.’
“At every turn, Mr. Baghdadi’s rise has been shaped by the United
States’ involvement in Iraq — most of the political changes that fueled his
fight, or led to his promotion, were born directly from some American action.
And now he has forced a new chapter of that intervention, after ISIS’ military
successes and brutal massacres of minorities in its advance prompted President
Obama to order airstrikes in Iraq… Mr. Baghdadi has seemed to revel in the
fight, promising that ISIS would soon be in ‘direct confrontation’ with the
United States.” New York Times, August 10th.
Our reputation for meddling in the Middle East is so bad that the
buzz in Lebanon, where ISIS had made a few moves, is that the United States is
actually behind that malevolent force. Fake “screenshots” – purportedly taken
from Hillary Clinton’s new book – are widely circulating in support of that
theory. “The rumour even prompted the Lebanese foreign ministry to summon US
Ambassador to Lebanon David Hale.
“Furthermore,
to try and quash the gossip, the US embassy in Beirut issued a statement on
Facebook: ‘Any suggestion that the United States ever considered recognising
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as anything other than a terrorist
organization, or had any role in its creation, is patently false. Allegations
circulating in Lebanon to the contrary are a fabrication.’… Instead, what Hillary Clinton has said is that the failure to
help Syrian rebels led to the rise of IS.
“It's not completely shocking that such a theory may have started,
given America's history of supporting militant and guerrilla groups; the
mujahideen in Afghanistan, from which al-Qaeda emerged, quickly comes to mind.
The fact that US allies in the Gulf are accused of supporting IS also doesn't
help their case… ‘Such theories abound, largely because Washington has shown a
propensity for outsourcing regime change. Support for insurgent groups in that
context is certainly not a new practice and, as of late, has not been a
particularly effective one,’ says Octavius Pinkard, a Brussels-based specialist
in foreign policy analysis and Middle East politics, who has been conducting
fieldwork in Beirut...
“Rumours like these risk harming US interests in Lebanon - a
nation where they have a keen interest in maintaining soft power. Symbolic
confrontation and proxy battles for clout with another group also seeking to win
over the Lebanese people, Hezbollah, are nothing new… But a theory that America
is to blame for beheadings and the barbaric acts attributed to IS can be
severely damaging to the US image - leaving them at risk of losing support and
the tide turning against them.” BBC.com, August 11th. Our misuse of
military power, our willingness in the past to use torture, our drones and spy
satellites, NSA intercepts make spreading crippling rumors about the U.S. too
easy. And we laugh at the absurdity of these accusations, we’ sort of done
enough “bad stuff” to lend credibility to just about any stupid accusation.
Yet as much as we had absolutely no justification whatsoever in
invading Iraq in 2003, the genocide fomented by ISIS today is both
unforgiveable and unconscionable. If only we had held back on when it was
morally wrong to invade and instead join forces with an international community
that is today justifiably outraged as al-Baghdadi violates every human right
imaginable. If only we had acted for what was right and just. But we didn’t.
In the end and in another way, al-Baghdadi is our terrorist, the
man that we helped mold into the despicable leader that he has become. As we
keep feeding our oversized military machine, the same machine that tempts us
repeatedly to get involved in these mega-losing struggles, the same machine
that too many Congress representatives (with huge local military-industrial
manufacturing carefully planned to be in their districts) tell us is
deteriorating from under-funding, we need to keep in mind exactly what our use
of that machine has done for us! The military budget cuts that we have
implemented to date pale in comparison to what they really should be!
I’m Peter
Dekom, and while a strong military is essential, we also must learn to use it
effectively and appropriately.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment