How Difficult Will It Be To Stage a United Attack on IS?

Published in Beijing News
(China) on 22 September 2014
by Zehua Shi (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Darius Vukasinovic. Edited by Emily France.
Yesterday, unilateral support for an attack on the Islamic State was ratified into law by the U.S. Congress. But insofar as related international attempts to establish a U.N. resolution on the Islamic State group situation are concerned, the Obama government has yet to achieve any satisfactory outcomes. Although an agreement has been struck between 10 nations in the Middle East, key members Iran and Turkey have not signed up for the plan. The traditional Western allies of the U.S. are united in moralizing their objectives, yet both the United Kingdom and Germany have staunchly declared that they will not take part in any air attacks on the Islamic State group. In tracing the cause for these divisions back to its source, we can see that America’s current difficulties with its allies stem from its own psychological “affinity for war,” the conditions it imposes on its allies and the unrealistic expectations it has for its alliance model. When all is said and done, it boils down to the ever-growing flaws inherent in the foreign policies of “Obama-ism.”

To begin with, the United States does not want to waste its energies on this battle against the Islamic State group. Right now, a strong ambivalence toward military intervention permeates U.S. society. Americans fear the resurgence of terrorism in their homeland, and they don’t want their country wasting its manpower and resources on yet another war. An even larger problem is that the general public has lost faith in its government’s foreign policy, and they are pouring out their feelings of discontent right on Obama’s doorstep. With midterm elections drawing near, both Republican and Democrat candidates will naturally want to avoid the spotlight over the Islamic State group issue, for fear of it tarnishing the rest of their election campaigns. Consequently, the attack on the Islamic State has become President Obama’s “one man war.” Since the U.S. itself has not showing a committed strategic response to the Islamic State issue, its allies can hardly be blamed for being “sectarian” in their responses.

From another perspective, America’s demands from its allies are rather shameless sleights of hand. In this war on the Islamic State group, the Obama government is actually continuing on with the Bush administration’s war on terror. When taking the moral high road in the political arena, one need not pay heed to critical voices directed against your objectives and, in truth, the whole war on terror can be distilled into a simple war between democracies and non-democracies. Since the beginning of the Islamic State issue, the impression that the Obama government has been giving off is that they want other countries to share the burden, while simultaneously excluding them from the traditional, tightly knit circle of allied democracies. So, apparently, it’s best to prevent old enemies from plucking food from the shared campfire and not get blinded by the potential spoils of victory that lay ahead down the road.

Meanwhile, as the alliance is mobilizing itself for action against the Islamic State group, the issue of how to deal with the various types of “sideline profits” that will arise from the ongoing conflict is becoming a key issue. Only recently, the government of Iran posted a clear statement on its website requesting that the U.S. refrain from providing assistance to any groups attacking the Islamic State. America’s request for Iran to assist in the fight is also mere camouflage because, in truth, the “cooperative” airstrikes that the U.S. is carrying out are also likely to support Iraqi Shiite forces that are operating within Iran.

The last problem is the impossibility of the America’s allied strategy. Under the imposed conditions of “self-restraint” in this military commitment, the U.S. is left waging an “agent” war—limiting its strength and scope and gambling its results on mobilizing local forces to rise up and take arms against the Islamic State group. However, coordinating this “mob attack” from Syria is likely to be more difficult than walking a tightrope.

Organizing an international alliance to respond to the Islamic State threat is the crux of Obama’s strategy. However, if the White House doesn’t make a concrete commitment and take stock of America’s internal issues, as well as the international climate surrounding them, the U.S. could, over time, find itself friendless and surrounded by chaos.

The author is an assistant professor at the Beijing Foreign Studies University


联手打击ISIS到底有多难?

分类:评论2014-09-22 02:30:17来源:新京报

外参

美国想打“代理人”战争,即动员当地人民起来战斗,然而在如“乌合之众”的叙利亚,打击ISIS比走钢丝难得多。

日前,美国国会两院先后通过了支持行政当局打击ISIS(伊斯兰国)的法案,但在相关国际联盟的组建上,奥巴马政府依然未遇晴天。中东虽有十国签署联合协议,但缺少两个关键国家伊朗和土耳其。美国西方传统盟友齐声道义响应,但英国和德国都明言不会参与空袭。

究其原因,美国当今的联盟困境主要源自于美国自身的“惜战”心理、苛刻的联盟条件和难度过高的战略设计。这一结果,依然是“奥巴马主义”对外政策缺陷的放大。

首先是美国自己不愿意花大力气。当前,美国社会的心理矛盾加剧,民众既担心恐怖主义势力卷土重来、袭击美国本土,又害怕国家陷入另一场持久战、劳民伤财。更大的问题是,社会失去了对政府外政策的信赖,把不满情绪都倾泻到了决断力不足的奥巴马身上。

中期选举将近,无论是共和党还是民主党候选人,谁都不愿意把打击ISIS问题弄成血拼的焦点,弄不好惹得一身腥。于是,打击ISIS的战争正在成为奥巴马“一个人的战争”。在美国自己没有充分表现坚定的战略意志的情况下,盟友们“各怀鬼胎”并不为过。

其次是过于苛刻的联盟门槛。在打击ISIS问题上,奥巴马政府表面上是在沿袭布什政府的反恐思路,以江湖大义为重,举贤不避亲仇,实际上却依然固守民主/非民主的传统意识形态准则。这样一来,奥巴马政府给人的印象便是,既想让他国承担和分享责任,又不愿放开传统的联盟小圈子,防止宿敌火中取栗比早日看到胜利果实更重要。

同时,在联盟标准执行的过程中,打击战略中所夹带的过多的“私货”,已经成为阻碍核心目标实现的最大包袱。日前,伊朗在政府官方网站上发表声明,拒绝了美国协助打击ISIS的请求。美国要求伊朗协助的请求是假,通过“合作”控制伊朗对伊拉克什叶派势力的干预能力才是真。
最后是难度过高的战略设计。在对参与规模和力度提前“自我约束”的情况下,美国国内政治博弈的最佳结果是打“代理人”战争,即动员当地人民起来战斗,然而在如“乌合之众”的叙利亚,打击ISIS比走钢丝难得多。

组建国际联盟是奥巴马政府打击ISIS战略中的关键一环。但是,只要奥巴马政府不真正“放下身段”,纵观美国国内、国际态势,未来很长一段时间内,奥巴马当局还将在缺少朋友的“混沌”中徘徊。

史泽华(北外副教授)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: The Deal for Kyiv Is Better Than the Many Threats against It

Canada: Trump Prioritizes Commerce Over Shared Values in Foreign Policy Gamble

Canada: Tell Me Again Which North American Leader Is Acting like a Dictator?

Australia: Trump Often Snaps at Journalists. But His Latest Meltdown Was Different

Topics

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary