Daily Times

It is ironic that President Obama began his speech at the UN with a reference to World War II. Before the war that shaped the modern world, Hitler’s rise in Germany was favourably compared to the ostensible threat the west believed it faced from Soviet communism. European powers and the US attacked and ostracised the USSR, but when the Nazi threat became clear, the logic of the situation demanded that old enemies join together to fight it. Despite the difficulties and enmities of the Cold War, one cannot imagine the hideous world a Nazi victory in Europe would have brought. Mass genocide was written into Nazi beliefs, and it is a similar code that drives the world’s new monster, the Islamic State (IS). IS is a Frankenstein’s monster: an unintended consequence of the strategy of using jihadi proxies that began in the Afghan war against the Soviets and continues till today. It has its roots in anti-western hatred that developed after the Soviets left Afghanistan and al Qaeda became a multinational, multi-ethnic terror group, but it would never have evolved had the US not blundered into Iraq and then blundered out again, leaving a Shia regime that marginalised and radicalised Sunni Iraqis. After Iraq it became clear that the War on Terror was not the US’s plan, it was al Qaeda’s. With the 9/11 attacks it provoked the US into a violent crusade that wrecked the Middle Eastern order of dictatorial but stable regimes. However, unintended consequences cut both ways and now al Qaeda faces existential threats from IS, which has fast become the global jihadist standard-bearer. Its meteoric rise is a direct consequence of the west funding proxy militant outfits and providing them with diplomatic cover as ‘rebels’ against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Even on Wednesday, President Obama could not help himself from attacking the Syrian regime as “brutal” and saying his country would fund Syrian ‘rebels’ to fight IS.

Obama’s dilemma is that while IS is being degraded by US airstrikes in Iraq that began earlier this month, it cannot be defeated without boots on the ground. Public sentiment in the US and Europe supports airstrikes but not more than that and the shaky coalition of Arab countries he has put together appears unwilling to commit itself to more than token contributions. In fact Qatar still says the real problem is Bashar al-Assad. Obviously the Arab states have their own agendas and that makes them unreliable partners. They are also Sunni regimes that are not opposed to IS’s ideology per se but fear it could undermine their authority. Saudi Arabia particularly worries that IS’s claims to a ‘caliphate’ directly threaten its hegemony over orthodox Sunni thinking. The only regimes truly opposed to IS are in Syria and Iran but it appears that Obama’s desire to create a workable coalition with them faces opposition from within US institutional and policy circles. Propaganda against them and Russia is deeply embedded in US thinking, undermining the logic of cooperation. Obama also hinted at the necessity of changing the way international institutions function to encompass the realities of the twenty first century. Was this a subtle hint to his establishment as well? It may be so because he very unsubtly gave Israel a rap across the knuckles, saying the current status of the conflict in Palestine was “unsustainable”. Undoubtedly the statement was supposed to garner support among Muslim communities, but at home he is already being harshly criticised by right-wing commentators for being ‘pro-Muslim’. This is virtually an indictment in US politics today. Despite this, the US quietly informed Syria and Iran of its intentions before striking IS targets in Syria and was positively received. Iran has intimated it would join a coalition against IS, and Russia has both a link to the Syrian regime and the diplomatic power to create a multilateral umbrella for action. Obama’s unwilling coalition will not be able to bring even a portion of this to the table, but it remains to be seen whether the logic of necessity or the power of prejudice will triumph. That is where the battle against IS will be won. *