Some background.
It is rare to see any sort of meaningful discussion about the history, where ISIS came from, and so on. He who controls the past controls the present…
-> Our interventions in the middle east (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria a couple of years ago) have done the opposite of what their claimed objectives were. We went to war in Iraq on some sort of vague notion that there were ‘weapons of mass destruction’, though in retrospect it turns out that Bush and Blair knew that this was not the case, and Blair lied to the people and to parliament about it (having promised to Bush that he was going to war, while telling the people he had not promised it). It was also well known that toppling the Saddam regime would cause huge instability and power vacuum – this is why in the first gulf war, Saddam was not taken out, with Cheney (later VP to Bush Jr when Iraq was invaded in 2002) describing it as a “quagmire”.
→ In 2012 and 2013, we joined in against the Assad regime, supporting vague ‘rebel groups’ which included groups we condemned as terrorists, such as Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. There was a 2012 CIA report which warned that funding the rebels and destabilising the Assad regime would lead to the growth of “Islamist” groups, which includes a warning that “there is a possibility of establishing a Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want”. ‘Supporting powers to the opposition’ refers to the powers opposing the Assad regime, which included ‘the West’, Turkey and Gulf States.
→ Our past interventions, into Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, have failed. Terrorist attacks, such as suicide bombings, have increased. For this point made in full, see the following link from the Canary, one excerpt I will put here: “One of the aims of the operation was to stop Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist haven. Instead, the 14-year intervention has overseen an increase in terrorist incidents of more than 5,000%, from 30 in 2002 to 1591 in 2014:”.
<http://www.thecanary.co/2015/11/28/entire-war-terror-lie-charts-prove/>
→ So we are currently having a discussion about bombing a barbarian horde (ISIS – not a state) without acknowledgement that this approach to foreign policy has consistently failed over the last decade or proper discussion of what is going on.
The current plan is comparable to trying to put out a fire with petrol...
…WHICH DOES NOT WORK.
→ Instead of dealing with any sort of root causes, the plan is instead to lob some more bombs. Civilians will be killed – despite what Cameron seems to claim – and many more than were killed in Paris last month. As Tony Benn says, “Do not Arab and Iraqi women weep when their children die?”. We respond to attacks on civilians in Paris by attacks which will kill civilians in Syria. The ‘precise’ strikes done by the Obama administration as part of its “counter-terrorism” against groups such as the Taliban have ‘collateral damage’ of 17 civilian deaths per intended target killed. The weapons used against ISIS will not be any more precise than that; much more likely less precise… and so many civilians will be killed.
Tony Benn speech:<https://www.facebook.com/cloakedtruth/videos/501139246726445/?pnref=story>. It’s really excellent.
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147>
DEALING INSTEAD WITH IDEOLOGY, AS A ROOT CAUSE.
→ ISIS has a totalitarian style of thinking that there is a war between muslims and non-muslims. By bombing them, we reinforce this. It is clear from the Iraq invasion – perhaps a better example would be a Vietnam war – that killing civilians makes people hate you; so bombing Syria will increase support for ISIS. It is clear in the linked Huffington Post article, called “Ten Reasons why Bombing ISIS Won’t Work”, and includes a section entitled “Conflict just creates more radicals”. I recommend the article for a good discussion of the problem (and from which it is abundantly clear that the current bombing approach is very insufficient).
<http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kieran-turner-dave/isis-syria-air-atrikes_b_8660504.html>
→ The attacks in Paris – Charlie Hebdo and the massacres in November – have the underlying strategy of feeding into the ISIS worldview that it is muslims versus non-muslims. ISIS want muslims in the west to be hated by the rest of the population in the country they live in, to help grow their importance in the world (or the world they believe in).. We play right into their hands when this is the response we give. That’s why there was a Syrian passport (a forgery) carried by one of the attackers: to make us hate refugees.
YOU HAVE TO FIGHT HATE WITH LOVE.
→ Love the muslims in our countries – because they are humans, just like us; because it will weaken divisions and make our country a better place; because it will reduce the number of them radicalised who might attack in the future; because it will reduce the propoganda ISIS can use. Love the refugees fleeing from ISIS (and many other countries – Afghanistan, for example) – because they are human; because they can improve our country and society; because it reduces the propoganda ISIS can use about there being a holy war they are fighting against the west and that the west hate them. Love the civilian population in Syria – by working towards dousing the flames instead of adding to them.
→ If you follow only one link from this post, let it be this one: <https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/man-who-spent-10-months-with-daesh-syria-airstrikes-are-a-trap-set-by-isis/>. It’s an interview with a French Journalist (which, of course, fed into what I wrote here) who was held captive by Islamic State militants for ten months, talking about the IS mindset.
→ So, instead of the response of muslim hate that we have seen following on from the Paris attacks, we must have a response of love. Instead of attacking muslims and bombing mosques (in the USA), or abusing muslims in public (many instances in the UK) and having hateful posts, we must instead draw closer to our muslim brothers. MUSLIMS ARE CLEARLY PEACEFUL: there are two million of them in the UK, over a billion in the world. Islamic State does not represent them. We should help the people being killed by Islamic State and the people fleeing them. It is claimed by David Cameron that we should bomb IS in Syria to “help the Syrian people”, yet there are plenty of Syrian people (refugees) fleeing from Islamic State who we could help. Not only do we help people, but we undermine the ISIS propoganda about there being a war between muslims and non-muslims. This fights the root of ISIS.
What should we do?
This section was mostly inspired by a post by Marc Itzler (who I don’t know, no idea who he is, but I came across his post via facebook: <http://marcitzler.com/2015/12/02/you-want-a-seven-point-plan-to-destroy-isis-here-it-is/>).
The current debate is bomb ISIS versus don’t bomb ISIS, but doesn’t give that much alternative. Corbyn has made some comments about this, such as the importance of tackling the root of the problem with economic sanctions, and the media is certainly against Corbyn in general. But more could be done to discuss an alternative.
As above, we should deal with the roots of the problem. The Turkish and Saudi governments are helping ISIS: see further these two links <https://undercoverinfo.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/isis-survives-largely-because-turkey-allows-it-to-the-evidence/> and <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-saudis-largest-source-of-terror-funds/>.
There is a huge hypocrisy with our dealings with the Saudi regime. HUGE. But I won’t discuss that here. As acknowledged in the above-discusses CIA report and elsewhere in the media, Turkey is tacitly supporting ISIS. Turkey prefers ISIS to the Assad regime – hense tension between Turkey and Russia, with Turkey being anti-Assad and so pro-ISIS, while Russia is pro-Assad and bombing ISIS. (The different states and interests in the Syrian conflict are multifold and this is a simplification of part of it). And Saudi Arabia has long been a source of “islamic fundamentalism”, including supporting ISIS (or at least, the rebel groups which became ISIS) – see above link. In our hypocrisy, we instead support Saudi because we need oil and we sell them huge amounts of weaponry.
So, instead of throwing more petrol on the flames, we should:
-
deal with the Turkey and Saudi causes of ISIS via diplomatic measures (such as sanctions)
-
focus our attacks not on civilian areas but supply routes (such as oil refineries and convoys), to weaken ISIS (instead of strengthen them, by hurting civilians and increasing anti-western sentiments).
-
Do more with humanitarian aid in Syria (and the region) to help the millions affected.
-
Instigate a massive regeneration programme of islamic communities to recognise, enrich and upgrade the lives of muslims in cities across the European Union and elsewhere. Promotion of multi faith co-operation and unity to dilute racism and islamophobia.” This is what I mean of fighting ISIS hate with love.
(Credit for some of the ideas to the above-linked post from Marc Itzler. And the many other things I have read, many linked here, plus my common sense and free thinking on the issue).
—–
Postscript1: This is an emotional piece. I am emotional about the country and society I live in taking a path which I see as not just morally abhorrent but also dangerous and damaging. I have decided to keep the emotions visible in this post – I find the way that ‘academic’ and journalistic writing distances itself from emotion to be artificial.
Postscript2: a bit about my writing of this post. I find myself in some DESPAIR about the state of the world, such as this. So, as I acknowledge in my WRITING ETHOS post, I write to make myself feel less helpless. I do not think that by some magic, me publishing a blog post will suddenly mean that the West will change its whole approach. Instead, I write because it gives me an outlet. Perhaps a few people will read it and learn something too – these small ripple changes are important in the big picture. But most importantly, I think I write because I think it is important for truth and free speaking/thinking to be done for their own sake. In the book 1984, Winston writes in his diary, despite there being no intention for anyone else to read it (and of course, if anyone else had found it that would be the end of him); he wrote simply because he wanted the freedom to express himself. “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4”, as he says in that book: so I write this because I believe it to be true, and for that end want to say it. This is a public blog, but I believe my main purpose of writing this is to express myself, and create a bit more sensible, rational discussion, instead of the decontextualised, senseless discussion of this issue which is usually present. The freedom to say that 2+2=4; the freedom and value to speak the truth for its own sake.