In
a series of announcements in August-September 2014 the Prime Minister committed
us to a steadily escalating role in northern Iraq: first humanitarian supplies
for Yezidi civilians trapped on Mount Sinjar, then air strikes by RAAF FA/18s
and airborne support for the missions of other members of the latest US-led
Coalition, then an “advise and assist” training role for several hundred soldiers.
This
is presented as an operation by a US-led Coalition to degrade and destroy IS,
and in early June Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said with some pride in a
morning interview on Radio National that the size of Australia’s training
contingent is second only to that of the US.
The
fact is the principal backers of the Iraqi Government in the fight against IS
are the Iranians, so the Americans find themselves de facto allies of a country
with which they have no diplomatic relationship, against which they have
maintained strong economic sanctions for decades, and against which they have
expended considerable diplomatic energy to ensure that they are diplomatically
isolated and play no significant role in the settlement of the many problems of
the Middle East.
In
the minds of the Iraqi Government, however, the Iranians were seen as so
central to success that when the Iraqis launched an assault to recover Tikrit,
Saddam’s birthplace, they reportedly neglected
even to inform the Americans ahead of the event. This might have had something to do with the fact that several
months after thousands of American advisers turned up to train the Iraqi Army
on which they and various allies had already spent a reported $25 billion, the
Iraqi Army still wasn't ready for combat. Most of the hard work would be done by Iran-backed Shi’ite
militias, who reportedly made up about two-thirds of the force which the Iraqis
assembled outside Tikrit for the operation.
As
we now know, things didn’t go according to plan, and the ground forces were
forced to call upon US air strikes, which led to American expostulation that as
a matter of policy, the United States does not coordinate...anything with Iran,
and that "The Iraqis have some
homework to do on this before we are able to assist them in the area they've
asked for." US air support was provided in due
course, but the “liberation” of Tikrit was followed by a
wave of looting and lynching.
Further
evidence
of the confusion emerged on 1 June when it was reported that the prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist
activities in Syria had collapsed at the Old Bailey, after it became clear
Britain’s security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed
had a trial gone ahead. It seems that British intelligence agencies were
supporting the same Syrian opposition groups the accused man was.
This
whole operation against IS puts one more in mind of a dog’s breakfast than a
well-organised military campaign. It seems neither to be militarily effective
nor calculated to win the hearts and minds of the Sunni people living under the
dominion of the Islamic State.
Nicholas
Stuart summed it up well in The Canberra
Times on 26 May (see Ramadi's
fall signals a strategy in tatters).
Of our Prime Minister’s approach Stuart says:
Abbott's
theological background hasn't served him well in the real world. He instinctively
divides forces into black and white, and that's why he's finding himself out of
his depth in a Middle East where there are multiple loyalties and conflicts.
Should we really be surprised that the simplistic answers he advocated have
failed to solve anything?
… Abbott needs to
understand that the world is not engaged in some kind of Manichean struggle
between good and evil: the Middle East is a complicated situation where
subtlety is needed to succeed.
It's fine to label
people, or insist on particular courses of action, but unless you've got the
power to enforce your desires you're wasting everyone's time. There's a rule
that suggests if you don't understand something you shouldn't get involved lest
you make the problem worse. Our PM should consider taking this advice.
And
in a letter to The Age published on 27 May, CIAW/AWPR Treasurer Andrew Farran
summed it up in a few lines – see Blindly
following the US, seventh letter from the top. Andrew’s letter reads:
Tony Abbott would
have us follow the US any and every where. So which country in the Middle East
does the US most fear? Iran. Which force in the region does Iran most fear?
Islamic State. So why is the US so opposed to IS when it could provide the
required balance against Iran? Why is it so concerned with the fate of Iraq
when it has become irretrievably a pawn of Iran? The region is full of contradictions.
Does Mr Abbott comprehend this when he speaks of IS simply as a "death
cult"?
Syria and Iraq are
destroyed states. A new balance of forces is emerging based on centuries-old,
pre-colonial historical and religious rivalries, in which other regional states
like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are also involved.
This is not where
Australia has direct interests nor should it be involved. The terrorist
repercussions from there to here are greatly exaggerated.
