{UAH} FOUR QUESTIONS AMERICANS NEED TO ASK ABOUT BOMBING IRAQ

Four Questions Americans Should Ask About Bombing Iraq

 Part of channel(s): Iraq (current event)

Over the past few months, President Barack Obama and various members of
Congress have attempted to justify military intervention in Iraq. The
reasons they have given vary, but all surround the spread of the
extremist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Here are four questions Americans should ask about the government’s
decision to resume bombing the country.

1) Is ISIS a threat to Americans?

Politicians such as Senator Lindsey Graham have claimed that ISIS is
an existential threat to the United States saying, “I think of an
American city in flames because of the terrorists’ ability to operate in
Syria and Iraq.” This has the ring of fear-mongering more than an
honest assessment of reality. The president’s top military adviser,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, has said
that he has not seen any evidence of “active plotting against the
homeland” by ISIS.
The irony is that ISIS has been strengthened as a result of US
government policies in Syria and Iraq. In the attempt to oust Syrian
dictator Bashar al-Assad, the US supported the rebels with weapons. Some
of these were obtained by the most radical elements: ISIS. These same
extremists stole nearly a half a billion dollars in cash and more
state-of-the-art US weapons as they rampaged across Iraq. So, the US
government armed terrorists in Syria and is now fighting some of the
same terrorists in Iraq who are fighting back against the US with its
own weapons.
This is not to downplay the danger that well-armed militant groups
pose to innocents anywhere they set their sights. ISIS and others such
as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have called for attacks
against Americans. ISIS has even murdered two American journalists on
video. However, these acts and calls for more like them are described by
the militants as being in response to the US air war in Iraq. The FBI
and Department of Homeland Security have also warned that airstrikes
could lead to retaliation. It would seem that to the extent ISIS is a
direct threat to Americans, it is government policies that are provoking
it to be so.

2) Is the bombing really for humanitarian purposes?

This is a regularly used justification for military intervention
given by politicians. In the current crisis, the US has stated that
entire minority communities – from Christians to the little known
religious sect the Yazidis – face certain extinction without US bombing
and perhaps even ground forces.
While the viciousness of the ISIS militants is undeniable, the
official story has changed constantly. The original claim of 40,000
Yazidis stranded on Mount Sinjar and facing imminent genocide turned out
to be in the low thousands. Those who remain on the mountain consider
it their home and do not want to leave. Further, many of the attacks on
the Yazidis came from their neighbors, not from ISIS.
In regards to Iraqi Christians, it should be noted that over one
million of them lived in the country prior to the US war in 2003. Many
hundreds of thousands fled during the US occupation and the number is
estimated to now be as low as 200,000. In light of this recent history,
skepticism regarding the US government’s so-called humanitarian
motivations on the behalf of Christians is well founded.
Also, consider that the US used the same humanitarian rationale
recently in both its war on Libya and its planned but aborted war on
Syria last year. In the case of Libya, it falsely claimed that a hundred
thousand civilians were about to be slaughtered by dictator Muammar
Gaddafi. So, it bombed the country on behalf of the rebels, thus
prolonging the civil war there and leaving the country in ruin.
Officials also fabricated stories of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad
being behind the use of chemical weapons against civilians. However, the
American people rose up and demanded a stop to the attack.

3) Are “limited airstrikes” likely to escalate into something more?

The act of one country bombing another is an act of war. Thus, the US
has quietly begun the third installment of the Iraq War. From here,
escalation seems inevitable. There has already been “mission
creep”—shifting objectives that expand and prolong the conflict. There
are sure to be unintended consequences that simply cannot be foreseen
from Washington D.C., which will make even more involvement necessary.
Expansion of the war into neighboring Syria, which the US government has
long wanted, is also likely.
The recent US military activity in Iraq began a few months ago with
Obama declaring that he was sending 300 “advisers” to the country. That
number was discovered to be nearly double and included 275 marines to
guard the US embassy. Soon after, airstrikes were ordered. In response,
ISIS has changed tactics and has transitioned from a traditional
military force to an insurgency that tries to blend in with the
population. This will make airstrikes increasingly ineffective. Even the
Pentagon admits that the current airstrikes alone won’t stop the
militants. Director of Operations Lt. Gen. William Mayville said, “I in
no way want to suggest that we have effectively contained, or that we
are somehow breaking the momentum of [ISIS].”
The goals that Obama has laid out for the military operations in Iraq
cannot be achieved with limited airstrikes. Just as 300 advisers (which
in reality was 575 and included combat troops) quickly turned into 108
warplanes and 8 ships, limited airstrikes could easily become a large
number of ground troops in order to battle an insurgency that cannot be
fought from the air. Indeed, the number of troops has already grown and
currently stands at over 1,000.

4) What is the alternative?

In a word, the alternative is nonintervention. US policies of
invasion, occupation, overthrowing leaders and arming rebels led to the
conditions in which a group like ISIS can arise and thrive. The current
bombing campaign boosts recruitment, solidifies support and further
motivates ISIS. The US should not continue to double down on failed
policies.
The US could remove its military forces completely and let those in
the region sort out this tragic mess. ISIS is very unpopular due to its
viciousness—even al-Qaeda has disavowed it. The nations surrounding ISIS
have a strong incentive to not have on their border a violent group of
extremists that claims dominion over vast swaths of land and kills
whomever it chooses. Why would these countries trade with such a group
or even recognize its legitimacy? How would ISIS survive in light of
this reality?
Individual Americans who want to find a way to help can donate to
organizations such as the Red Cross, which does not use bombs to
distribute its humanitarian aid. They can also attempt to see through
the pervasive war propaganda and withdraw their support from the US
policy of intervention, which has failed repeatedly and left even more
death, destruction and suffering in its wake. As seen in the recent
Syria example, it is still possible for a popular uprising of Americans
to stop the US government from its desired war making.
There is not an immediate and perfect solution to a problem that is
the result of decades of foolish policies. But it would be unwise to
assume that the current situation could not be made even worse. The
notion that the US government can use its military to fix things has
proven wrong, disastrous and deadly over and over again.

                Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni katika machafuko"