Everyone seems to have a theory on how to obliterate ISIS, or “Daesh”. However,
two points are rarely raised: one, concerning the origins of the group and the
second, on whether there are genuine intentions to defeat it, in the first place.
We must boldly address the first to unravel the enigma behind the rise and growth
of “Daesh” – otherwise, how else can the group be dismantled.
We must contend with the second point before engaging in superfluous discussions
about the most appropriate war strategy – that if war is, at all, the answer.
The questions are quite urgent yet, somehow, they are frequently overlooked,
glossed over through some disingenuous logic or the blame is always placed somewhere
Now that the Americans have launched yet another aerial war against Libya, purportedly
to target “Daesh” positions there, the discussion is being carefully geared
towards how far the US must go to defeat the militant
In fact, “can airstrikes alone win a war without ‘boots on the ground’?” has morphed, somehow,
to become the crux of the matter, which has engaged a large number of intellectuals
on both sides of the debate.
US media gurus, split between two equally warmongering parties, love to jump
at such opportunities to discredit one another, as if waging wars in other countries
is an exclusively local American affair.
Days are long gone when the US labored to establish coalitions to wage war,
as it did in Kuwait and Iraq in 1990-91 and, to a lesser extent, again, in Iraq
in 2003. Now, wars are carried out as a matter of course. Many Americans seen
to be unaware, or oblivious to the fact, that their country is actually fighting
wars on several fronts, and is circuitously involved in others.
With multiple war fronts and conflicts fermenting all around, many are becoming
desensitized. Americans particularly have, sadly, swallowed the serum of perpetual
war, to the extent that they rarely mobilize in any serious way against it.
In other words, a state of war has become the status quo.
Although the US Administration of President Barack Obama has killed thousands,
the majority of whom were civilians, there is no uproar nor mass protests. Aside
from the fact that the Obama brand was fashioned to appear as the peaceable
contrast to warmongering George W. Bush, there has been no serious change in
US foreign policies in the Middle East in any way that could suggest that one
president is “better” than the other.
Obama has simply continued the legacy of his predecessor, unhindered. The primary
change that has occurred is tactical: instead of resorting to massive troops’
buildup on the ground with an assignment to topple governments, Obama has used
airstrikes to target whoever is perceived to be the enemy, while investing in
whoever he deemed…