Default Strikes
Published in Le Devoir
(Canada) on 26 September 2014
by Guy Taillefer (link to original)
(Canada) on 26 September 2014
by Guy Taillefer (link to original)
Translated from
by Senegal N. Carty.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The adhesion of the Arab monarchies to the American offensive against the Islamic State is hanging on, but only by a thread. If the new war against terrorism into which Barack Obama is entering is, for the moment, justified, it remains that he too has come in on the defending side. Healthy indecision.
It is clear that according to Western opinions, the Arab — and Sunni — participation in the military operations against the Islamic State group in Syria and in Iraq comes in handy to legitimize Barack Obama’s strategy. That the ultraconservative monarchy that is Saudi Arabia had participated in air raids against the organization is surprising — to an extent. On the side of Jordan, Riyadh and the other three countries of the Gulf who have come together in the war effort — Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — are already well integrated into the American military machine. If the main objective is to clip the wings of the Islamic State group, of which it is worth noting that its religious obscurantism is not after all very different from Riyadh’s, it is certainly also to contain the influence of Shiite Iran in the region.
With this legitimization, the Arab countries that make up the coalition of about 40 countries hastily knocked together, betray obvious reticence: Toward the Americans because they maintain a deep distrust of the Middle East; among themselves because intertwined interests and allegiances make them obliged to act with circumspection. Libya is one example where Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are waging war on one another by proxy, the first supporting a radical rebel faction, the other a more moderate group. There is a similar dynamic in Syria.
Hesitant Turkey, a central link in the United States’ strategy, tried for its part on Wednesday to clear away the ambiguity regarding its engagement, while a human tide of several tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians fled Syria a week ago. A complicated situation for Turkey, since joining in the war effort undeniably amounts to supporting the Kurdish autonomist cause despised in Ankara, in a context where the Kurds are a major defense against the Islamic State group in Iraq.
Washington does not have the clearest position in Iraq either, where a powerful Shiite militia supported by Iran and operating around Baghdad — a militia that killed American soldiers yesterday — has now become the spearhead of the battle against the Sunni Islamic State group, and so the objective ally of the United States.
It’s the same in Syria. Few were more satisfied at the turn of events than the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. The United States, which had sworn to overturn the Syrian regime, is now stepping in to rid it of one of its most dangerous enemies.
A lot of noise around a violent and fanatic organization, equipped with a formidable capacity for harm, but which has at most 30,000 combatants. The Islamic State group asks for nothing more. The Western bombs motivate its unity. If militarily dismembered, it will appear in another form.
The phenomenon that is the Islamic State group calls out to the Arab dictatorships most of all. And if this battle contributed in some unintended way to make sure that these dictatorships fell and these societies were liberated? We can always dream. The Arab world will not overcome its conflicts while social justice is cultivated as it is now.
So we appreciate that Mr. Obama is not George Bush. We appreciate that he hesitated — in consideration of elections, certainly, but not that alone, we would like to believe. Caught up in historical dynamics, he would have made efforts at promoting dialogue all the same during his presidency; he would have taken note of the world’s multipolarity. Will we ever escape it, the American militarist culture? In this case, his indecision was not weakness, regardless of what the Republican falcons say.
It is clear that according to Western opinions, the Arab — and Sunni — participation in the military operations against the Islamic State group in Syria and in Iraq comes in handy to legitimize Barack Obama’s strategy. That the ultraconservative monarchy that is Saudi Arabia had participated in air raids against the organization is surprising — to an extent. On the side of Jordan, Riyadh and the other three countries of the Gulf who have come together in the war effort — Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — are already well integrated into the American military machine. If the main objective is to clip the wings of the Islamic State group, of which it is worth noting that its religious obscurantism is not after all very different from Riyadh’s, it is certainly also to contain the influence of Shiite Iran in the region.
With this legitimization, the Arab countries that make up the coalition of about 40 countries hastily knocked together, betray obvious reticence: Toward the Americans because they maintain a deep distrust of the Middle East; among themselves because intertwined interests and allegiances make them obliged to act with circumspection. Libya is one example where Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are waging war on one another by proxy, the first supporting a radical rebel faction, the other a more moderate group. There is a similar dynamic in Syria.
Hesitant Turkey, a central link in the United States’ strategy, tried for its part on Wednesday to clear away the ambiguity regarding its engagement, while a human tide of several tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians fled Syria a week ago. A complicated situation for Turkey, since joining in the war effort undeniably amounts to supporting the Kurdish autonomist cause despised in Ankara, in a context where the Kurds are a major defense against the Islamic State group in Iraq.
Washington does not have the clearest position in Iraq either, where a powerful Shiite militia supported by Iran and operating around Baghdad — a militia that killed American soldiers yesterday — has now become the spearhead of the battle against the Sunni Islamic State group, and so the objective ally of the United States.
It’s the same in Syria. Few were more satisfied at the turn of events than the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. The United States, which had sworn to overturn the Syrian regime, is now stepping in to rid it of one of its most dangerous enemies.
A lot of noise around a violent and fanatic organization, equipped with a formidable capacity for harm, but which has at most 30,000 combatants. The Islamic State group asks for nothing more. The Western bombs motivate its unity. If militarily dismembered, it will appear in another form.
The phenomenon that is the Islamic State group calls out to the Arab dictatorships most of all. And if this battle contributed in some unintended way to make sure that these dictatorships fell and these societies were liberated? We can always dream. The Arab world will not overcome its conflicts while social justice is cultivated as it is now.
So we appreciate that Mr. Obama is not George Bush. We appreciate that he hesitated — in consideration of elections, certainly, but not that alone, we would like to believe. Caught up in historical dynamics, he would have made efforts at promoting dialogue all the same during his presidency; he would have taken note of the world’s multipolarity. Will we ever escape it, the American militarist culture? In this case, his indecision was not weakness, regardless of what the Republican falcons say.
Next article![]( "The Best Antidote to Extremism? A Girl with a Book")
