ISIL: Why bombing is doomed to fail
The West’s experience in
the Middle East is that military intervention doesn't counter terror; so why
do it again?
Last updated: 18 Sep 2014 12:33
got what it wanted, the group that says we must call it "Islamic
State". As it aired videos showing the unconscionable, gruesome beheadings
of two US journalists and a British aid worker, the response from the leaders
of those respective countries came right on cue.
sort of rhetoric that so typified the "war on terror" years, US
President Barack Obama vowed to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL) "by any means necessary", while the CIA warned of a surge in
ISIL numbers. And, presumably mindful of the growing public support for military intervention, Vice
President Joe Biden added his own action movie flourish by declaring
the intent to chase the group to the "gates of hell".
again, just like the last time western forces pointlessly and disastrously
bombed an Arab or Muslim country (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya; take your pick), we
are being presented with the same old arguments. You know by now how this
script goes: We have no choice; military involvement is the least bad option;
we must "do something" against such an evil force of terror.
such recklessly counterproductive actions are dismissed as knee-jerk
anti-interventionists - as though military action is the only possible form of
And, as a
final flourish, terrible and entirely predictable outcomes are brushed off as
necessary "unintended consequences".
another coalition of the willing - which Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the US
Institute for Policy Studies, has described as another "coalition of the
killing" - the US is pursuing military action in Iraq to counter ISIL.
Meanwhile, Obama just got a green light from the US House of Representatives to
arm and train Syrian moderates - whoever those may be - as part of the same
It should be
obvious by now that if such bombing campaigns have an effect, it is to make
things much worse. What western leaders portray as valiant efforts to rid the
world of evil forces such as ISIL just don't play the same way in the region.
In Iraq, for instance, western military intervention is viewed as support for
the authoritarian, sectarian and West-approved leadership, whose persecution
and air strikes are so bad that many Sunnis are prepared to put up with ISIL,
for now, as preferable.
military intervention thus gives ISIL its recruitment fuel of choice: A war
with a self-interested external enemy around which to galvanise support.
arming supposed "moderates" in Syria is equally delusional: Even
self-declared moderates have on the ground, allied with the currently dominant
ISIL in the fight against dictator Bashar al-Assad, and even these so-called
moderates have carried out beheadings and other brutalities. A cursory glance
around the region shows exactly what happens when the West arms groups that
somehow fit the "moderate" descriptive; as one writer most succinctly puts it: "The terrorists
fighting us now? We just finished training them."
situation is so bad that many have suggested a more sensible approach would be
to impose a regional arms embargo. And if there is a need for a West-sanctioned
flow of anything into the region, it is obviously of humanitarian aid, not
leaders talk the talk about diplomacy and political solutions, both of which
are far more likely than anything else to ultimately stem support for
groups such as ISIL. But when it actually comes to engaging in such
endeavours - well, it's a different story. For instance, "diplomacy"
at the moment involves side-lining Iran, a major regional player, with vital
influence over rulers in both Syria and Iraq.
nation's involvement at a Paris summit on the issue on September 15 was
nonetheless deemed "not appropriate" by US secretary of State John
Kerry. It later turned out that this was because Saudi Arabia had threatened to
"boycott" the summit if Iran came, too - and the US decided to go
along with that, even though its clear that both Saudi Arabia and Iran have a
common interest in containing ISIL. Small wonder, then, that Iran finds the US
building a Sunni-dense alliance against ISIL as somewhat
another key player with influence over the regime in Syria, is found
distasteful for different reasons, but similarly excluded. This is despite Russia's repeated warnings over ISIL - the country has its
own reasons to fear the spread of this terror group. For the ringleaders of
this new coalition, it is as though "diplomacy" simply means
cherry-picking the people you find it easy to talk to, and ignoring everybody
So there are
different forms of intervention available, alternatives to repeated air strikes
that end up devastating ordinary lives and causing long-term chaos. The
question isn't a handwringing: "What else can we do?" The question is
why we aren't pursuing any options that don't involve dropping more bombs on
the Middle East.
I have read the article written in eloquent English
and moderately touching some salient very sensitive points, but I feel she did
not want to touch upon very important issues where Israel is involved.
Because it would get too complicated, as it would
reveal the facts of this bombings Secrets the reasons why the West and EU is
not putting the soldiers on ground may be because last time they had put the
whole lot of stock, barrel and boots on the ground and suffered a very deep
Global Financial Recession.
In Addition, Leader of the West might have
been under immense pressure by a section of the same lobby group that allured and
pursued G W Bush to go to war in Iraq.
This time they meticulously planned to force
the innocent American Public and French public to pressure their Presidents and
others their Prime Minister to constitute a Collision and take action similar
to G W Bush did. And announced unaccomplished
mission as ‘Mission Accomplished
Wherein these time only a few faces have changed
in the leading roll of the war against ISIL.
The early symptoms of this fight clearly
directs to a whole- some World War III, master minded and planned by the
Zionists, prepared the implementing ground and tool (“ISIL" or renamed
"ISIS FRANKENSTEIN " ) for initiating the war as usual by Israel the
terrorist state authorities
To initiate the war by warming up the sentiments
of the WEST and EU countries population against ISIS duly monitored and
controlled by IDF covertly from behind is a praise worthy cover plan in deed.
In addition, killing a few journalists of the
super power countries overtly showing the Super Powers are united for the war to
save the world. Of course, the Electronic Media played a leading role to help
the plan a success did a fantastic job.
Could any super power grantee to the effect
that no Muslim countries except a few Muslim countries would be made weak forever
to accept to humble down to Israel's Zionists leadership in Mid East.
I would not like to proceed further in detail
analysis except agreeing with the writer's plain suggested suggestion that
going for a war with ISIL or ISIS without exploring many other avenue left open
to solve the issue without a fight seem to raise doubts
At the end of the day this war might backfire
as always such issues did but this time with a
colossal loss of lives throughout the world apart from total devastation of
economy and property,
It is true that the heads of the states might
or might not know of the secret plan but A Prime Minister of a super power
state might know of it. I suppose the writer of the article did not want to put
down in pen and paper.
Whatever it is I salute her for at least
raising the issue for further analysis of the clandestine plan and the actual
mission of the Zionists and Israel's involvement in making a Frankenstein, that
has yet not retaliated against it even after Israel killed thousands of Muslims