Socialist Worker and Stop the War Coalition Solution to Islamic State? Oppose US Bombing.
SWP and StWC Says: Don’t Bomb the Islamic State Fighters.
To Alex Callinicos in this week’s Socialist Worker the US is an “imperialism at bay””.
“Amid the hubbub of media and official commentary on and denunciation of the jihadi Islamic State (Isis), only one thing is clear—no one has a clue what to do.”
The powers assembled last week in Wales for the NATO summit announced a 10 nation “core coalition” to fight ISIS/Islamic State (which has grown since Socialist Worker was printed).
They face a multitude of difficulties, but, “There is something common to the multiple crises confronting US imperialism and its allies.”
“First Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine are all disintegrated states.”
Next, “Secondly, these crises have been exacerbated by the action of local states.” These include Russia, whose actions in Ukraine, the SWP indicates, are those of a ” a relatively weak imperialist struggling to prevent encirclement by the US and Nato.”
What can the USA do? It faces constraints, “In seeking to impose its will on these local powers the US is limited by its unwillingness to deploy troops.” “The very multiple character of the crises reduces Washington’s room for manoeuvre
Socialist Worker believes however in the theory that Washington can still hit out, flailing, “None of this will stop the US hitting out viciously.”
In sum, for the SWP leader, the US is a military-political subject in an impasse.
It is stuck in a mess, much of it (in the Middle East) of its own making. But it can still ‘hit out’ – like a wounded beast?
From the Guardian we learn this today,
Barack Obama announced an open-ended bombing campaign against Islamic State militants on Wednesday that will extend into Syria for the first time, despite acknowledging that the extremist group did not currently pose a direct threat to the US homeland.
In a markedly interventionist speech on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Obama announced an aggressive offensive to combat Isis, which has been responsible for the beheading of twoAmerican citizens in the past month and captured a swath of territory in northern parts of Iraq and Syria.
He compared the campaign to those waged against al-Qaida in Yemen and Somalia, where US drones, cruise missiles and special-operations raids have battered local affiliates, yet without notably improving the stability of either country nor dealing decisive blows to Islamic militants there.
Obama said the air strikes were a necessary counter-terrorism measure to prevent the group, also known as Isil, from becoming a future threat to the US and therefore did not require fresh congressional approval.
There are good reasons to be sceptical about the US-led intervention.
Apart from the claims that it will decisively deal with the terrorist threat (hard to prove, and hard to define), it is not clear that its ‘allies’ in the region (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Gulf States) will effectively stand behind US-leadership. Relations with Iran remain fundamentally unclear, not to mention the military and political position of the new Iraqi government. And that is when we look into the viability alone of the new “coalition “.
The key issue is that Obama remains committed to supporting the Syrian ‘rebels, as the “best counterweight to extremists of ISIS/Islamic State.”
As Lorraine Millot points out in today’s Libération, Obama himself described the non-Jihadi forces in that country as farmers, carpenters and engineers, not hardened combat troops.
If this means he continues to seek a way of overthrowing Assad by military means then he is on a path with no immediately desirable end in sight. The only conclusion in present conditions that reaching this goal means creating conditions which favour the genociders of ISIS/Islamic State. If they won would it be a good thing if a directly US-run force took over? Would it last – like Iraq’s government?
Political and military relations in the Middle East at present have been compared to 4-dimensional chess. Fascinating but impossible to give a snap judgement about.
But there is one issue which has to be looked at: should people, states and political parties, support the forces on the ground fighting ISIS/Islamic State?
How should they do so?
This is the SWP answer: we haven’t a clue, but we know what not to do.
Charlie Kimber the SWP’s leader draws on the experience of the War and Invasion of Iraq to make his point.
A recent study by the Royal United Services Institute said “there is no longer any serious disagreement” over how Britain’s role in the Iraq war “far from reducing international terrorism had the effect of promoting it.”
Islamic State is brutal and offers no way forward for the people of Iraq.
But further bombing by US and Britain is no solution. It needs to be opposed.
This theme is taken up today by Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC),
The National Convenor of the StWC asserts,
…the growth of ISIS must be placed at the door of the US and its allies: funded by Saudis and Qataris, allowed through the Turkish border to fight in Syria, the aim was always to get rid of Assad, regardless of the consequences.
The refusal of the US to even sit down at peace talks with other players including Assad and Iran also helped to prolong and worsen what has become one of the worst modern conflicts.
The spread of ISIS to Iraq has everything to do with the break up of the country, the exacerbation of sectarian conflicts, and the destruction of its infrastructure, all of course carried out under the US occupation.
The proposed bombing is illegal under international law. It would be interesting to see the distinction between EU policy of sanctions against Russia for incursions into Ukraine and EU support for US incursions into Syria.
So, the US is “responsible” for ISIS – one assumes that means that the childlike folk of Syria and Iraq, and the jihadis, are simply pawns in the geopolitical games of the Big Powers.
In other words the SWP and the StWC deny any responsibility for their crimes to the creators of totalitarian actually existing Islamism.
Whether or not bombing the genociders is “illegal”, what does the StWC think of arming and supplying those fighting ISIS/Islamic State?
What do they propose to do to defend those ethically and religiously cleansed by the genociders?
There is a vast range of forces resisting them, including Shias, the Baghdad government (itself marked by sectarian religious feeling) and a variety of local forces.
Few who look into this come away with any unqualified heros.
Yet, why does the StWC not come out and support the brave Kurdish fighters – for all we might care to keep some critical distance – the PKK and the Peshmerga, in their battle for dear life?
Perhaps some faint groans of those oppressed under the boot of Sharia Law, the muffled groans of those tortured in the gaols of Islamic State and ISIS, may one day reach the leaders of the Stop the War Coalition.
At present, for the ‘anti-War’ movement this is just part of, as Alex Callinicos puts it, the “hubbub of media and official commentary.”
For others, “ISIS can be efficiently defeated only by a secular and democratic Iraq, and a secular and democratic Syria. It will be a long struggle to win those.
In the meantime, we must work to defend Iraqi and Kurdish socialists against both the ISIS threat, and the sectarianism and war fever mobilised against ISIS.”
See, Defend Iraqi and Kurdish socialists! (Alliance for Workers’ Liberty).
Defend the Peoples against the Genociders!
Written by Andrew Coates
September 11, 2014 at 4:50 pm
Subscribe to comments with RSS.