10 Reasons Airstrikes in Iraq Are a Terrible Idea
June 24, 2014
Peter Van Buren / The Huffington Post
The smell of blood is once again in the air in Washington -- this week for airstrikes and other forms of violent intervention in Iraq. (Reference: Many of the same people -- McCain and Graham in particular -- were only recently calling for airstrikes or other military action in the Ukraine, and before that Syria, and before that...) Here are some of the many reasons airstrikes (or any other form of US military action) in Iraq are just a terrible idea.
(June 22, 2014) -- The smell of blood is once again in the air in Washington -- this week for airstrikes and other forms of violent intervention in Iraq. (Reference: Many of the same people -- McCain and Graham in particular -- were only recently calling for airstrikes or other military action in the Ukraine, and before that Syria, and before that...)
Here are some of the many reasons airstrikes (or any other form of US military action) in Iraq are just a terrible idea.
1) Air strikes will not resolve anything significant
The short answer is through nine years of war and occupation US air power in Iraq, employed on an unfettered scale, combined with the full weight of the US military on the ground plus billions of dollars in reconstruction funds, failed to resolve the issues now playing out in Iraq. Why would anyone think a lesser series of strikes would work any better?
We also have a recent Iraqi example of the pointlessness of air strikes. The Maliki government employed them with great vigor against Sunnis in western Iraq, including in Fallujah, only six months ago, and here we are again, with an even more powerful Sunni force in the field.
2) But air strikes now are crucial to buying the Iraqi government time to seek a political solution
See above about nine years of ineffectiveness. Today's crisis is not new; Iraqi PM Maliki has been in power since 2006 and has done nothing to create an inclusive government.
Indeed, he has done much to actively ostracize, alienate, jail and destroy his Sunni opposition. Maliki currently is his non-inclusionary own Minister of the Interior and Minister of Defense. Replacing Maliki, another regime change the US now apparently supports, is no magic cure.
Maliki's successor will most likely come from his own majority party, and inherit his own ties to Iran and the many Shia groups needed to stay in power. Even with good intentions, a new Prime Minister will walk into office in the midst of a raging, open war against Sunni forces -- not exactly the best place to start towards a more inclusive government.
This argument of buying the Iraqis time is the same falsehood that fueled the unsuccessful Surges in Iraq (2007) and Afghanistan (2009). History matters, and it is time to accept that despite arguable tactical progress, in the longer view, the Surges did not work. And long views are what matter.
Even David Petraeus, once America's golden boy as architect of the Iraq Surge, warns against military intervention now in Iraq.
3) John Kerry flying around the world diplomizing on Iraq is an airstrike of its own
Worth noting is also the uselessness of American diplomacy. Since 2006 the US has maintained its largest embassy in the world in Baghdad, with thousands of State Department and military personnel, alongside no doubt a healthy intelligence presence. It is clear that all those diplomats have not accomplished much in service to Iraqi reconciliation under even the more peaceful conditions in the past. It is unrealistic to expect more now.
As for recruiting allies to intercede somehow with America in Iraq, that seems equally unlikely. The British, America's former stalwart companion in global adventures, refused to get involved in American action last September in Syria. British involvement in the 2003 invasion remains controversial at home, and it is hard to see the Brits getting fooled again.
4) Airstrikes are surgical
Oh, please. Check with the wedding parties in Yemen destroyed, and funeral gatherings massacred in Pakistan. Bombs and missiles are not surgical tools. They blow stuff up. It is impossible to avoid killing people near the other people you set out to kill, what the US blithely refers to as collateral damage. And even that assumes you are aiming the weapons even close to the right place to begin with. Bad info that identifies the wrong house means you kill an innocent family, not a ISIS command cell.
And even if you take the coldest American view possible that collateral damage is just an unavoidable cost of war, you fail to understand the real cost. Every innocent killed sets the population further against the US and the people the US seeks to support, both in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East. Videos of dead children propagate well over social media.
5) Airstrikes are not a counterinsurgency tool
See nine years of war and occupation in Iraq, or forever years of war in places like Vietnam. You cannot bomb away a political movement. You cannot kill an idea that motivates millions of people with a Hellfire missile.
6) Airstrikes mean the US is taking sides in a pitbull fight
The US strikes would presumably be in an attempt to support the "Iraqi government and army." The problem is that those entities are elusive. The Maliki government enjoys uneven public support, so supporting it alienates swaths of the Iraqi population and nearly requires them to take up arms against the US and its puppets.
The forces Maliki is putting into the field include a growing number of Shia militias under the control, such as that even is, of individual warlords and religious leaders. These are fighters who actively killed Americans just a few years ago, but somehow we're on their side now. Maliki's collection of forces are also bolstered in various ways by Iran. Somehow we're on their side now too. Airstrikes are part of a pattern of failed short-term thinking by the US
7) Airstrikes are just more of "whack-a-mole" foreign policy
These entanglements are much more serious than to be dismissed as "well, politics makes for strange bedfellows" or "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Such trite phrases are typical of a US foreign policy that only sees discrete crises within clear geopolitical borders.
As long as the US fantasizes that it can support Sunni fighters in Syria while striking them in Iraq, and as long as the US believes it can bolster Iranian goals and credibility in Iraq while pushing back against it elsewhere in the Gulf, the worse things will get in the broader region.
The same applies to the US' global "whack-a-mole" geopolitical strategy. Russia invades the Ukraine? A devoted by Washington to that. Boko Harem kidnaps girls? Ten days of Twitter memes. Iraq simmers for years? Let's act now (and only now) before the next shiny object distracts our leaders.
8) But airstrikes are necessary because the US must "do something."
Nope. There is nothing that says the US must "do something" in response to all world events. There are many reasons to say even if we are compelled to do something, a military "solution" is not necessarily, or even often, the right thing to do. Imagine if you are outside a burning house, with a can of gasoline in your hand. With the compulsion to do something, is it better to throw the gas can into the flames, or stand back. Sometimes the best answer is indeed to stand back.
9) ISIS is a threat to the US and has to be air struck to stop another 9/11.
ISIS is far from the supervillains the US media has seen necessary to depict them as. The groups fighting on the "Sunni" side, such as it is, are a collection of tribal, Baathist, religious, warlord and other conglomerations. Their loosely-organized goal is to hold territory that criss-crosses the borders of Iraq and Syria.
Absent some odd event, they are likely to withdraw or be chased out of central Iraq and hold on out west, where they have existed as a state-like thing for some time now. Central Iraq is way too far from their home base to retain supply lines (though they have been doing well capturing weapons from the retreating Iraqi forces), and Shia militia strength is more powerful the closer ISIS, et al, get to Baghdad.
The threat line is most ardently espoused by who else, Dick Cheney, who brought out his own go-to scary thing, saying "One of the things I worried about 12 years ago -- and that I worry about today -- is that there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters."
ISIS and/or its Sunni supporters in Iraq have held territory in western Iraq for years without being a threat to the US Homeland. Little changes if they hold a bit more, or less territory.
ISIS is not a transnational terror group, and unless the US drives them into an alliance with al Qaeda (as the US did in the early years of the 2003 invasion with the Sunnis), they are unlikely to be. They fight with small arms in small groups under loose leadership. They will not be invading the US
10) Bottom line why airstrikes are a terrible waste:
The US lost the war in Iraq years ago, probably as early as 2003. It is time to accept that. Airstrikes will not change the ground truth.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.