US Calls To Fight Islamic State for Much Selfish Gain
United States President Barack Obama changed his usual attitude toward topics related to the Islamic State, from hesitance to publicly announcing that the U.S. “is at war” with the organization. Through the fervent support by 10 Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, a new Middle East “counterterrorism alliance” was born. China is a rising power that possesses tremendous interests in Iraq. Consequently, instigation and encouragement for China to take part in countering the Islamic State have been nonstop. Such sentiments are understandable, but China should be cautious of the actions it takes.
First, from the point of view of morality, justification appears insufficient for this U.S.-led counterterrorism operation, through which the U.S. has made many selfish gains. The reason is simple. The Islamic State mainly operates cross-border in Iraq and Syria. To truly eradicate this organization, the U.S. must collaborate with Syria and Iran, the most capable forces in the region, to contain the Islamic State group’s expansion. However, the Obama administration made clear that the U.S. would not join forces with the Assad regime to fight the Islamic State group. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also said that working with Iran on this issue is “not appropriate.”And attempting to eradicate the Islamic State group without the cooperation of powerful nations like Syria is completely farfetched, like filling a pool through an inlet pipe while draining it from an outlet pipe.
Because the U.S. has not yet given up its hostile and subversive attitude toward the Assad regime, it is not difficult to deduce that the U.S. will intensify its firepower in Iraq, virtually forcing the Islamic State group into Syria and therefore increasing direct conflicts between the organization and the Syrian army. The U.S. is willing to see a scenario where both sides fight and weaken each other. Because the justification of this counterterrorism operation does not withstand scrutiny, China has no reason to intervene in this unclear military operation.
Second, from the point of view of interests, the Islamic State group is challenging the tolerance and interests of the U.S., so China does not need to nor does not have the ability to fight American battles. In the two months after the Islamic State group’s rise just this year, the Obama administration’s attitude had been ambiguous. However, the American people were enraged by the beheadings of two American reporters, and the footage that was made public by the Islamic State group. In addition, the Islamic State group announced that it would invade Mecca to replace the Saudi regime while declaring a bloodbath in the U.S., which poses a growing threat to America’s core interests in the Middle East and on home soil. Therefore, the current attack by the U.S. against the Islamic State group is not to provide the Middle East with “public goods,” but rather a result of domestic pressure and the defense of self-interest. Due to these circumstances, the U.S. thus has identified the Islamic State group as the main enemy. In comparison, the Chinese power projection is limited, and the Islamic State group has not yet threatened China’s core interests. There is no need for China to ask for trouble for America’s interests.
Third, from the point of view of responsibility, the Islamic State group’s rise was a result of American policy mistakes in the Middle East. The U.S. should bear the responsibility for counterterrorism. When the U.S. launched the war in Iraq, throwing Iraq into turmoil, al-Qaida, or the Islamic State group’s predecessor, was formed as a byproduct. Since 2011, the U.S. instigated a regime change in Syria while supporting and condoning the opposition groups, thereby creating an opportunity for the Islamic State group to prosper. At the same time, the U.S. offered yet another rare chance for the Islamic State group to fill the power gap during the tumultuous security situation in Iraq and the hasty retreat of the weakened Iraqi security forces. It is fair to say that the Islamic State group is a problem created by the Americans. Because the problem stemmed from the U.S., the responsibility to clean up the mess should belong to the U.S.
More importantly, it is difficult to make decisions based on our current limited knowledge of the Islamic State. It is in fact a result of the failures of the governments in the Middle East and American policy mistakes. But it is certainly unjustifiable without any rational element for this organization to quickly conquer territories in Iraq and Syria since its rise. Currently, the Western media is solely playing up the extreme side of the murders of captives and the beheadings of Western hostages, but the other side of this organization is rarely mentioned.
According to scattered news sources, this organization is providing water and electricity, wages, and traffic control, and is managing establishments like bakeries, banks, schools, courthouses and mosques within the occupied territories. Therefore, it is still inconclusive whether the Islamic State group is a heinous terrorist group or an inevitable product of the current development in the Middle East. Involvement in strikes against its military is premature given that the key issues have not yet been resolved. This cautious attitude is exactly what China as a “responsible power” is demonstrating.
First, from the point of view of morality, justification appears insufficient for this U.S.-led counterterrorism operation, through which the U.S. has made many selfish gains. The reason is simple. The Islamic State mainly operates cross-border in Iraq and Syria. To truly eradicate this organization, the U.S. must collaborate with Syria and Iran, the most capable forces in the region, to contain the Islamic State group’s expansion. However, the Obama administration made clear that the U.S. would not join forces with the Assad regime to fight the Islamic State group. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also said that working with Iran on this issue is “not appropriate.”And attempting to eradicate the Islamic State group without the cooperation of powerful nations like Syria is completely farfetched, like filling a pool through an inlet pipe while draining it from an outlet pipe.
Because the U.S. has not yet given up its hostile and subversive attitude toward the Assad regime, it is not difficult to deduce that the U.S. will intensify its firepower in Iraq, virtually forcing the Islamic State group into Syria and therefore increasing direct conflicts between the organization and the Syrian army. The U.S. is willing to see a scenario where both sides fight and weaken each other. Because the justification of this counterterrorism operation does not withstand scrutiny, China has no reason to intervene in this unclear military operation.
Second, from the point of view of interests, the Islamic State group is challenging the tolerance and interests of the U.S., so China does not need to nor does not have the ability to fight American battles. In the two months after the Islamic State group’s rise just this year, the Obama administration’s attitude had been ambiguous. However, the American people were enraged by the beheadings of two American reporters, and the footage that was made public by the Islamic State group. In addition, the Islamic State group announced that it would invade Mecca to replace the Saudi regime while declaring a bloodbath in the U.S., which poses a growing threat to America’s core interests in the Middle East and on home soil. Therefore, the current attack by the U.S. against the Islamic State group is not to provide the Middle East with “public goods,” but rather a result of domestic pressure and the defense of self-interest. Due to these circumstances, the U.S. thus has identified the Islamic State group as the main enemy. In comparison, the Chinese power projection is limited, and the Islamic State group has not yet threatened China’s core interests. There is no need for China to ask for trouble for America’s interests.
Third, from the point of view of responsibility, the Islamic State group’s rise was a result of American policy mistakes in the Middle East. The U.S. should bear the responsibility for counterterrorism. When the U.S. launched the war in Iraq, throwing Iraq into turmoil, al-Qaida, or the Islamic State group’s predecessor, was formed as a byproduct. Since 2011, the U.S. instigated a regime change in Syria while supporting and condoning the opposition groups, thereby creating an opportunity for the Islamic State group to prosper. At the same time, the U.S. offered yet another rare chance for the Islamic State group to fill the power gap during the tumultuous security situation in Iraq and the hasty retreat of the weakened Iraqi security forces. It is fair to say that the Islamic State group is a problem created by the Americans. Because the problem stemmed from the U.S., the responsibility to clean up the mess should belong to the U.S.
More importantly, it is difficult to make decisions based on our current limited knowledge of the Islamic State. It is in fact a result of the failures of the governments in the Middle East and American policy mistakes. But it is certainly unjustifiable without any rational element for this organization to quickly conquer territories in Iraq and Syria since its rise. Currently, the Western media is solely playing up the extreme side of the murders of captives and the beheadings of Western hostages, but the other side of this organization is rarely mentioned.
According to scattered news sources, this organization is providing water and electricity, wages, and traffic control, and is managing establishments like bakeries, banks, schools, courthouses and mosques within the occupied territories. Therefore, it is still inconclusive whether the Islamic State group is a heinous terrorist group or an inevitable product of the current development in the Middle East. Involvement in strikes against its military is premature given that the key issues have not yet been resolved. This cautious attitude is exactly what China as a “responsible power” is demonstrating.