Between Iraq and a Hard Place - thoughts on the crisis in the Middle East.
It will have escaped few
peoples notice that the security situation in Iraq appears to be worsening by the day, as
militia members affiliated to the Islamic State Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) continue
their advance south towards Baghdad. Already several key towns have fallen, with
reporting indicating a particularly hardcore Sharia law being imposed in its
wake. Where the forces have contacted the Iraqi Security Forces, the outcome
has been one-sided, with the numerically larger and better equipped ISF routing
in short order. With senior Shia clerics making almost unprecedented calls to
protect their people, and the Kurdish forces occupying Kirkuk, and with hundreds
of thousands of refugees fleeing, the situation in Iraq appears on the brink of
near total collapse. This is perhaps the most serious security situation in the
Middle East in decades.
The response from the West has
been mixed – a combination of well intentioned aid donations, verbal gestures
of support, but little in the way of concrete action to support the Iraqi
forces. At best there may be limited
airstrikes, but already the UK has ruled out putting troops on the ground, and
there seems little inclination to do so by the US either. By contrast, Iran
appears keen to be seen to do something, although what this might be is less
clear so far. One senses that we stand on the brink of a generational shift in
international relations, and the ramifications of what we are seeing here could
be seismic enough to influence Middle Eastern politics for decades to come.
The issue is what can be done
by the West to shore up a regime which has shown little interest in courting
them for many years? While Maliki owes his elevation and subsequent survival at
least in part to the efforts of the US, the relationship has long deteriorated.
It is hard to sense any real affection between the Iraqi Government and the
West, particularly the US. Maliki relies on the US for some military equipment
and support, but since the Americans left in 2011, there is no real military
link any more.
While there is some discussion
of airstrikes in support of the Iraqi forces, one senses this would be part of a
escalation into a wider and more dangerous situation. It is very difficult to
conduct effective airstrikes unless properly co-ordinated and carried out in
close co-operation. One does not get the impression that the ISF has the
current ability to call in support from the US, or more importantly provide the
intelligence, situational awareness and overall confidence to US commanders
that they know where the ISIS militia is, and that wider loss of life can be
averted. This places the US in a situation where it either has to conduct
airstrikes without having full confidence of knowing what is going on on the
ground, and potentially putting civilian lives at risk, or it needs to begin to
put boots on the ground as forward air controllers and liaison officers. Even
something as simple as forming a target list and sharing this information with
the Iraqis will need face to face liaison.
It is hard to see the US being able to commit to air strikes without a wider ramping up of their commitment on the ground. This is before considering where such strikes would actually come from- to fly from Iraq would necessitate a substantial ground presence for support, munitions and airfield security, and would realistically need hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops deployed to the country. Alternatively, they could seek to fly from one of the neighbouring countries – but, this necessitates getting overflight rights from any of the Gulf nations, or having to stage out of Turkey, who will almost certainly sense an opportunity to call in political or military favours – particularly with a resurgent Kurdish force occupying Mosul. However you look at it, airstrikes will result in a major escalation and will almost certainly lead to boots on the ground. |
More widely one has to look at
the phenomenally complex diplomatic situation. Some papers are running with the
story that the US and Iran could find themselves allied together to stop ISIS.
While this is exceptionally unlikely, it does highlight the way that Iran could
convert this into a minor diplomatic coup. Its’ no secret that many Gulf states
are uneasy at the gentle path of rapprochement between Iran and the West. They also
see a growing Shia awareness, and threats to their internal stability – just look
at the clashes in Bahrain in recent years. In a region where paranoia, plots
and counter plots are the order of the day, it is easy to imagine more vivid
imaginations seeing this as a plot between the Iranians and the US to support
the Shia, and threaten the stability of Gulf regimes. This may sound far-fetched
to Western ears, but never underestimate how paranoid the Gulf is, and how the unlikely
is often deemed probable in rulers eyes. Given the decline in US-Gulf relations
in recent years, this could be a situation which helps push the relationship to
breaking point.
The long term worst case
scenario is perhaps that Iraq as a nation will cease to have any recognisable
role, and instead split into three very different places. The Kurds acquire
control of the North, achieving a de facto state that the ISF and Baghdad will
never again be able to control. The Sunni heartlands will become a warzone, alternating
between militia and loose government control, and the four southern provinces
will break away and form a federal compact with Iran, thus strengthening
Iranian influence in the region, and indirectly putting Tehran onto the borders
of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
If this does occur,
particularly if the Gulf nations sense that US actions had a hand in this, then
there is likely to be an enormous shift in international alignment. There is a
realisation in the region that while many Gulf military forces possess enormous
theoretical fire-power, this doesn't translate into substantial and credible offensive
military capability. For many years the intent has been to secure the support
of the US, UK and France to come to their assistance – for this reason defence
purchases are as much about buying insurance as they are theoretical
capability. We are already seeing signs of the GCC nations introducing
conscription, which although limited in nature, represents a desire to grow
manpower pools. In most nations there are too few service personnel, often at
too inflated a rank (for instance the Qatari Armed Forces reportedly have more
1*s than the US Army), and there is a reliance on overseas personnel from third
world nations to fill out the ranks. Turning this into a coherent military
force, particularly if there is a break in US support, will be extremely difficult.
Is it possible that changes in
Iraq will force substantial recapitalisation of the Gulf militaries, backed up
by more effective training and conscription? If there is concern about the
level of US support, then equally it would be interesting to see where they
would turn – Russia or China? One senses the possibility of a substantial shift
in international alignment, which could be very interesting indeed.
More broadly there is reason to
be concerned about the scale of the humanitarian disaster unfolding – if reports
of refugee numbers are true then Iraq is potentially on the verge of a
humanitarian catastrophe. But unlike the previous decade, there is nowhere
obvious for the Iraqis to flee to. Jordan has reportedly absorbed a nearly 25%
increase in population in recent years through population fleeing, while Syria
(where many Iraqis fled during the last decade) is now itself in a state of
civil war. It is hard to see where the population can safely flee, or who would
willingly take them – especially given Iraq's poor standing with other nations
due to its actions in recent years.
So why does this matter to the
UK? For starters we retain enormous trade, diplomatic and military links to the
region. Many Gulf states see the UK as a ‘power behind the throne’ influencing
the US and other nations actions. They will closely scrutinise UK actions to
see what they may indicate, and whether there is a sense of the UK picking
sides in the ongoing struggle between the Sunni and Shia, and Iran and the GCC.
There is little if anything
that the UK can militarily do – this conflict is too complex, too vast and too
challenging for the US, let alone any other nation to realistically intervene
in with ground forces. While there is naturally a desire to say ‘but we helped
break it in 2003’ in some quarters, this shouldn't be seen as a reason to
commit ground forces or other assets automatically. Any UK intervention would
be extremely difficult, would face identical challenges to the ones outlined
above for the US, and would also pose extremely difficult questions on how to
do this and also maintain effective relationships with the wider Gulf region. Handled
incorrectly and the UK may find itself in a shift in attitudes and
relationships which will be seen as being as damaging as the withdrawal in
1971, something which is still a sore point to this day with many senior
figures in the region. Arguably, at best the UK could do what other nations are
doing – send aid, whisper diplomatically in peoples ears and see what nation or
nations emerges in the aftermath. It is hard to see any other nation being able
to do more.
The situation in Iraq is and
will remain fluid, challenging and extremely difficult to observe. It is not
yet clear how things will end. But one thing is clear, Middle Eastern politics
and international relations will never be the same again.
I've wasted at least a coupe of hours trying to learn some lessons out of history to illustrate the reasons for the present chaos in the Levant and then to draw some shafts of insight into possible solutions. Consequently a couple of pieces of advice for the Government: don't bother and don't draw any more lines on maps..
ReplyDeleteIraq is responsible for Iraqi problems and the West is responsible for Syria's problems.
The West was determined to bash Saddam again and to do it properly this time and contributed mightily to Syria's problems by sending very strong signals that it supported the rebels. Iraq couldn't handle freedom and the Arab Spring has been shown to be another western invention.
Both these projects were invented, supported and inflamed by the western media. Dead children were displayed for the public's outrage and faux fear spread by publicising Muslim radicalism.
We took hammers to crack nuts and the costs have been enormous, not least upon the military personnel who were told to fight to the death for us back home only to be humiliated by the donkeys in armchairs called politicians.
We have not the machinery or leadership for any more interventions and the Muslims should be left to sort out their own problems, but only if we can stomach the piles of dead bodies on our screens and on our front pages.
Because that is their way and because they will never trust each other.
"Be careful of your enemy once and of your friend a thousand times" (Arab Proverb)
I say we throw our lot in with the Kurds and back them for a fully autonomous region, they seem like decent, well organised people. The way things are going they will end up controlling Kirkuk too, an important oil centre. Iraq won't work as a nation unless it's highly federalised, otherwise the Shia majority will just attempt to lord it over the rest of them. We're struggling to convince Scotland to remain part of the UK, and that's without a recent history of war or significant ethnic or religious differences. So imagine what it's like cobbling Iraq together, which as already mentioned, was a misconceived Imperial construction in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn some places it appears ISIS are being welcomed with open arms by the local population, so useless was the rule of the central government. Even the most "well meaning" airstrikes will kill a fair number of civilians, especially due the liaison and ground-direction issues that Sir H mentions, and thus will probably just aggravate the situation and drive the locals further into the arms of ISIS. Even with airstrikes, is an Iraqi army as hopeless as the one we've seen in the last few weeks likely to exploit them? The government has failed catastrophically, and the army has failed catastrophically, and I for one don't see them bouncing back.
And why should we prop up Iraq, just to prevent Iran from bordering/influencing the gulf? I hope people realise that a lot of ISIS's funding comes from Saudi, so in other words they're financing a fundamentalist militia which is destroying their own buffer zone. Well so be it, at least they might buy more of our over-priced fighter jets that nobody else wants to buy.
We did "break" Iraq as a coherent state, but we have no chance of fixing it. Let the US try, alone, if they want.
When have the Kurds occupied Mosul? have i missed something here?
ReplyDeleteMosul was occupied by ISIS, it is not in Kurdistan.
Kurds forces have occupied Kirkuk, not Mosul
Very good point! I've amended it in the article - well spotted :-)
DeleteOh the UK will help the US-give the US access to bases and logistics..
ReplyDeleteThe Kurdish Peshmerga occupy eastern Mosul, with its mainly Kurdish population - this has been reported widely. They arrived when the Iraqi state forces left (I am being polite). Technically the Peshmerga are Iraqi state forces, but everyone knows their loyalty lies first to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The BBC and others have reported clashes between the Peshmerga and the rebel coalition, but not with footage from Mosul itself.
ReplyDelete"For starters we retain enormous trade, diplomatic and military links to the region." Lol. No we don't. A couple of patrol boats and a bunch of expats getting rich in Dubai is not much in the terms of influence. Nice try, though.
ReplyDeleteThank you for offering this great information to everyone. Very useful and very useful.
ReplyDeleteรูเล็ตà¸à¸à¸™à¹„ลน์