AMU Homeland Security Opinion

To Avoid “Genocide” in Iraq, U.S. Sends in Air Support

By Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

Today, President Barack Obama authorized aerial strikes against the Islamic State. The decision came in response to a fleeing Yazidi and other brutally persecuted religious groups. Reports of 40,000 Yazidis are trapped on Mount Sinjar, in Northern Iraq, threatened with slaughter by the Islamic State if they return to their homes below.

While Christians in Iraq are faced with grim choice of death or a special imposed ancient Islamic tax on them, the Yazidis are faced only with death and possibly slavery of the women. They are regarded as devil worshipers and since the Yazidi faith can only be passed down through blood from generation to generation, that warrants the definition of genocide, which is now under consideration at the UN.

In the wake of terror in the Islamic State, 200,000 Iraqis have been displaced from their homes in the last 48 hours alone. Some 100,000 of the refugees are Christians that flooded into Erbil, the regional capital city of the Kurds (northern Iraq).

Near Sinjar, American C-17s and C-130s dropped 72 pallets of food and water. With more support on its way. The Kurds are organizing rescue missions.

Britain and Turkey have stated that they will asset with humanitarian support efforts and the President contacted the King of Saudi Arabia for an extra hand in non-military aid as well. A chief UN envoy, Nikolay Mladenov has suggested for establishing a safe-zone.

In addition to humanitarian aid, U.S. launched several airstrikes that targeted the Islamic State fighters, convoys, enemy positions, destruction of mortars and artillery. F-18 fighter jets and drones are the primary weapons. Right now the military option is focused on stopping the advance of Islamic State from penetrating Erbil and aiding the Yazidi in Sinjar Mountain but the Presidential authorization of airstrikes extends to an “as needed” bases with regards to Iraq and the Islamic State.

Congressional reaction remains divided on the appropriate U.S. action in dealing with the Islamic State. Some senators or representatives want more military action and some want less.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner said, “The president’s authorization of airstrikes is appropriate, but like many Americans, I am dismayed by the ongoing absence of a strategy for countering the grave threat ISIS poses to the region.”

A leading anti-war advocate, Democrat Barbara Lee said, “While the president has existing authority to protect American diplomatic personnel, I remain concerned about U.S. mission creep in Iraq and escalation into a larger conflict, which I oppose.”

There is no deadline for U.S. support; however, one thing has been repeatedly made clear by the Administration: ‘There will be no [large concentration of] combat troops entering the fight.”

The air support and humanitarian assistance comes in addition to U.S. special operation forces, serving as observers on the ground. Washington is finally beginning to supply the Kurds with the ammunition after a defeat of their Peshmerga fighters in retaking Mosul and now their defensive posture in Erbil. Oil companies have been leaving in droves and guns are reported being sold out in the city of Erbil. Much more action will be required to keep the Kurds in the north safe.

Questions: At what point will the U.S. and the region realize that the Islamic State is the biggest threat?

Is the U.S. attempting the same course of actions in regards to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and the Islamic State as it did with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda before?

As before, Washington politics got in the way of national security before 9/11: 1) ignoring a bolstering unchallenged international terrorist threat; 2) after interests were threatened and attacks made, utilized limited political resources and retaliation; 3) continued to play down the severity of the threat environment from Islamic terrorism; and 4) when it was too late to prevent a monumental attack on U.S. soil, overreacted to the threat to finally eliminate its capabilities but did not effectively target revolutionary jihadism, which continues to evolve and now manifest into a state within parts of Syria and Iraq.

The last stage to America’s counter international violent Islamic extremism has not yet taken place, but it is only a matter of time before America is attacked again by the mutated al Qaeda faction called the Islamic State.

Unless the threat is neutralized, mitigated or diverted, the threat will likely grow. Using a last option as a true first option will likely require another ‘temporary’ military solution. But it is not a real solution and even if it were possible to defeat the new breed of terrorists in the form of the Islamic State, they have already gained scores of sympathizers, funding, weapons and control of substantial territory.

The other concern will be preventing another Libya situation where the U.S. used air support to support an already formed rebellion against Dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. What happens if Washington succeeds in helping al Maliki win? Does he persecute the Sunni again or even worse? Washington is not even able to station its embassy Libya at this time, having evacuated weeks ago and is ultimately expelled by violent Islamic extremism; some of which may also one day mount an attack on U.S. soil.

Ignoring the threat specified as ‘violent Islamic extremism’ has previously prevented the appropriate ideological warfare starting point and therefore the necessary response required by Western information and intelligence capabilities and assets.

Only because the cancer of the Islamic State was allowed to grow more effective without the use of substantial non-invasive and non-military national power. A more harmful treatment for Iraq may now be necessary. But what will the end result look like? While many other options were tried with a complete lack of determination, commitment and resources needed to realistically deal with another ‘manifestation’ of the same ideological enemy as before. One that was never destroyed. Unfortunately the political warfare does not leave Washington and battle the American enemy and the enemy of Iraq and the region.

There are more questions than answers but America needs a strategic vision for the region, not a crusade against the Islamic State. America must offer the people something better than al Maliki and rule of the Shia or the terrorist Islamic State.

Any military actions should be accompanied by the most powerful political actions that America can take.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed.