ISIS in grey
Lines have been mistakenly drawn over intervention in Iraq.
As the president moves to get concessions from Maliki to appease Sunnis and perhaps
including the former Baathists fighting alongside the radicals he seems bent on
drone and other airstrikes against ISIS. Collaborating with Iran and Shiites to
counter ISIS is a complex bag of glass we are going to chew on no matter what
happens. Many on the right are moving toward the former isolationist strains of
the Republican Party pre 9/11 while the neocons, losing money from ISIS gains
are biting at the bit calling for greater involvement, even ground troops which
would be a political disaster for the democrats and the president. Most
liberals of course want no part of Iraq and continue to use the criminal
mistakes and actions of the former administration as fuel for discourse
establishing Bush’s crimes as reason not to intercede now into a mess of a
civil war that could easily get out of hand into a regional war between Shiites
and Sunnis. A well respected liberal friend of mine suggested letting them kill
each other until they are tired of war however the lines drawn on each side of
the current political talking points are unfortunately both erroneous and the
clock is ticking for the victims. Unlike most global conflicts where direct
involvement would help stir actions in the right direction merely targeting or
even successfully wiping out ISIS won’t work in Iraq and would no doubt cause
more innocent Sunnis their lives in Syria as Assad’s regime continues to target
them. As liberals point out, the 800 or so ISIS radicals that moved into Iraq pushed
out tens of thousands of Sunni Iraqi army troops because their heart wasn’t in
the battle and they will continue to be unmotivated to fight for a government that
does not support them but their situation is not black or white, it’s grey.
What is needed in Iraq and in Syria as well where ISIS also
lays claim, is an army of freedom fighters. The United States should never have
abandoned the Syrian Free Army in Syria but with what is happening in Iraq the
time and opportunity to step in with American support is once again ripe. Why
doesn’t the United States set forth a call to arms for all men in the region
wishing to help establish their own style of democracy or at the very least be
proponents of some sort of peace and decency; like a militia for common sense? We
have seen the Kurds do it successfully. With arms funding and air support the
right type of soldiers can not only counter radical terrorist extremists but
they can also counter stubborn corrupt Shiite governments in the area as well
as Assad. The first step would be to allow the Kurds to keep their new gains in
exchange for their help along with the Syrian Free Army and the Turkish Iraqis
wishing to join as well, all with one aim in mind: to promote peace and some
form of democracy in the area. Any such endeavors could no doubt gain the
support of both Sunni and Shite nations in the region wishing to counter ISIS
while being pressured to do so by the West. The US can call out the countries
funding ISIS (as well as those not blocking such funding from their own
citizens) shaming them into supporting this new multi-religious freedom
fighting army. This can be a new Obama doctrine of peace and hope for the
Middle East. The die has been cast for ISIS and it seems the only force to
counter this extremism is to embrace, support and, guide those in the area that
want to.
