Every U.S. bomb in Iraq recruits more insurgent combatants

[bigtree]

from Phyllis Bennis at WaPo:


____ Every bomb recruits more supporters. As the Pentagon-linked Rand Corp. noted last year, the 2003 American invasion of Iraq “provided al Qaeda with a new front, a new recruiting poster, and a new destination for global jihadists.” The Chatham House research organization in London reported that the war “gave a boost to the al-Qaeda network’s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising.”

Today’s Islamic State fighters will likely see the same boost in morale and enrollment, even if some military targets are knocked out. Airstrikes won’t stop the Islamic State from advancing in Iraq and Syria, even if the U.S. manages to protect people in the Kurdish area.

That’s not to say we should do nothing.

The need for humanitarian assistance for Iraq’s beleaguered Yazidi community is urgent. But the United Nations had already offered to provide the necessary technical support for a truly humanitarian airlift. When Iraqi President al-Maliki rejected the U.N. for no justifiable reason, President Obama should have pushed him to reconsider.

Instead, he immediately offered the U.S. Air Force. This will link any humanitarian efforts to military action, making it difficult for the U.S. to secure local and regional allies.

For most Iraqis, the U.S. is still known for sanctioning, invading and occupying Iraq. Across the region, returning to direct U.S. military involvement in Iraq, against the Islamic State or not, will be understood as part of the effort to shore up the discredited Maliki. Long supported by the U.S. despite his corruption and exclusion and repression of Sunnis, Maliki is widely blamed for the recent escalation of sectarianism originally imposed by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. So when the U.S. military returns to Iraq, in support of not only the Kurdish troops directly opposing the Islamic State but more importantly on the side of the hated Maliki government in Baghdad, it once again places the U.S. against what many Iraqis are hoping for – an end to sectarian rule.


read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/08/how-obamas-iraq-airstrikes-could-help-the-islamic-state/

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. Her books include Ending the Iraq War: A Primer.

related:

2006 National Intelligence Estimate: U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq fueling terrorism

Airstrikes ''might have little lasting effect or even be counterproductive''. - UN's Ban Ki-moon

[PowerToThePeople]

1. USA MIC is very happy with those bomb dropping results. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

2. Not necessarily--not if they hit their targets properly.

Bombs and missiles create more terrorists if they hit civilians and ruin their infrastructure. I'd be pretty pissed off, too. But the Kurds/Yazidi are asking for our help, it's not a shock-n-awe against an unwilling Baghdad.

[bigtree]

3. killing civilians is certainly a good way to turn the population against the US and our interests

. . . but, as the author and observers who hold this view have explained, the problem is with the perception that the U.S. is weighing in militarily on one side or the other in the civil conflicts in Iraq.

I'm sure the lives of some of the civilians caught in the way of their opportunistic violence matter very little to many of these insurgent groups. They often sacrifice their own lives for whatever territorial, religious, or political aim of their violence.

highlighting from the article:

For most Iraqis, the U.S. is still known for sanctioning, invading and occupying Iraq. Across the region, returning to direct U.S. military involvement in Iraq, against the Islamic State or not, will be understood as part of the effort to shore up the discredited Maliki. Long supported by the U.S. despite his corruption and exclusion and repression of Sunnis, Maliki is widely blamed for the recent escalation of sectarianism originally imposed by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. So when the U.S. military returns to Iraq, in support of not only the Kurdish troops directly opposing the Islamic State but more importantly on the side of the hated Maliki government in Baghdad, it once again places the U.S. against what many Iraqis are hoping for – an end to sectarian rule.

and, so it goes . . .

[TwilightGardener]

4. Several reasons for airstrikes in the Kurds' region--American presence, there, for

one reason, more reliable partners to work with, for another. Maliki wants to stay in power, Iran wants him to stay in power, so they're going to bitch about us not being their personal Air Force in the rest of Iraq while they refuse to budge politically--basically still pissing off Sunnis, who retaliate by allowing ISIS to overrun Sunni areas. Until and unless something changes, we shouldn't fight for Maliki or Iran, especially not by bombing Sunnis--yet that is exactly what the Shia are hoping for, and what Russia wants to accomplish by delivering planes.

[bigtree]

5. »

[11 Bravo]

6. I wonder if every beheading of a Christian will lead inexorably to a new Crusade.

[Iggo]

7. We'll keep breaking it until it's fixed. (n/t)