It is interesting to reflect on, as have many informed commentators, the justifications trotted out by politocians for the various wars we have had since the turn of the century. Matt Carr does so in this ope-ed piece "Hey Look: We’re At War Against Evil Again" on CommonDreams.
"With ‘reluctant warrior’ Barack Obama’s declaration of war against Islamic State, the United States has found another in a seemingly endless series of justifications for waging war in the Middle East. In 1990/91 it was saving Kuwait. In 2003 it was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Last year it was the chemical weapon ‘red line’ in Syria – an attempt that only failed because of vocal public opposition. Now it’s ‘evil’ and ‘extremism’ and a ‘network of death’ and this time there is very little opposition at all.
Ostensibly, this war is directed against the IS ‘caliphate’ in Iraq and Syria, and is being waged by a coalition that includes Arab states, but that coalition is essentially a fig-leaf for yet another Western intervention in which IS is as both a pretext and a military objective.
Even as the US is bombing IS it is already paving the way for the formation of ‘moderate rebel’ enclaves in Syria that will be used to attack the Assad regime – a development that will intensify the civil war and escalate the destruction. Already the US has identified another organization called Khorasan, which some analysts claim is even worse than IS, so that even if IS is ‘degraded’ there will be another enemy to take its place.
Generals and politicians now insist that the war against IS/extremism/whatever will last not for months, but for years. All this points once again to a very disturbing conclusion: that Western democracies have tacitly embraced the toxic principle of permanent war as an instrument of policy in order to achieve specific strategic objectives internationally (control and supply of vital resources, strategic denial, the elimination of regional competitors in areas of strategic interest), while simultaneously imposing ever more authoritarian models of national security governance on the population."
Meanwhile over at The Independent, Patrick Coburn - who has extensively covered the Middle East and is known for his knowledge about the region - says that the Brit PM, David Cameron, has no idea what he is getting into, much like Tony Blair didn't back in 2003 when Iraq was invaded, with this latest "war" again ISIS.
"Britain is set to join the air campaign against Isis in Iraq, but, going by David Cameron’s speech to the UN General Assembly, the Government has no more idea of what it is getting into in this war than Tony Blair did in 2003."
****
"What the plans of President Obama and Mr Cameron lack is a diplomatic plan to bring the war between the non-Isis parties in Syria to an end. The two sides fear and hate each other too much for any political solution, but it may be possible for the foreign backers of the two sides to pressure them into agreeing a ceasefire. Neither is in a position to win against each other, but both are threatened by Isis, which inflicted stinging defeats on both Assad and anti-Assad forces in the summer."
"With ‘reluctant warrior’ Barack Obama’s declaration of war against Islamic State, the United States has found another in a seemingly endless series of justifications for waging war in the Middle East. In 1990/91 it was saving Kuwait. In 2003 it was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Last year it was the chemical weapon ‘red line’ in Syria – an attempt that only failed because of vocal public opposition. Now it’s ‘evil’ and ‘extremism’ and a ‘network of death’ and this time there is very little opposition at all.
Ostensibly, this war is directed against the IS ‘caliphate’ in Iraq and Syria, and is being waged by a coalition that includes Arab states, but that coalition is essentially a fig-leaf for yet another Western intervention in which IS is as both a pretext and a military objective.
Even as the US is bombing IS it is already paving the way for the formation of ‘moderate rebel’ enclaves in Syria that will be used to attack the Assad regime – a development that will intensify the civil war and escalate the destruction. Already the US has identified another organization called Khorasan, which some analysts claim is even worse than IS, so that even if IS is ‘degraded’ there will be another enemy to take its place.
Generals and politicians now insist that the war against IS/extremism/whatever will last not for months, but for years. All this points once again to a very disturbing conclusion: that Western democracies have tacitly embraced the toxic principle of permanent war as an instrument of policy in order to achieve specific strategic objectives internationally (control and supply of vital resources, strategic denial, the elimination of regional competitors in areas of strategic interest), while simultaneously imposing ever more authoritarian models of national security governance on the population."
Meanwhile over at The Independent, Patrick Coburn - who has extensively covered the Middle East and is known for his knowledge about the region - says that the Brit PM, David Cameron, has no idea what he is getting into, much like Tony Blair didn't back in 2003 when Iraq was invaded, with this latest "war" again ISIS.
"Britain is set to join the air campaign against Isis in Iraq, but, going by David Cameron’s speech to the UN General Assembly, the Government has no more idea of what it is getting into in this war than Tony Blair did in 2003."
****
"What the plans of President Obama and Mr Cameron lack is a diplomatic plan to bring the war between the non-Isis parties in Syria to an end. The two sides fear and hate each other too much for any political solution, but it may be possible for the foreign backers of the two sides to pressure them into agreeing a ceasefire. Neither is in a position to win against each other, but both are threatened by Isis, which inflicted stinging defeats on both Assad and anti-Assad forces in the summer."
Comments