Time to think about
>TIME<-Magazine
Double issue Nov.30, Dec.7,
2015; page 30+31:
Joe Klein "The 2016 candidates need
thougtful strategies on ISIS. Soon."
In his article
Mr. Klein cites the GOP candidate Lindsey Graham with this
sentence:
"ISIS is Germany and Assad Japan",
referencing to enemies of the second world war.
Mr. Klein takes
this for some understanding on Mr. Grahams side of basic truths
underlying the "syrian puzzle".
Notably that Syria's
president Assad can't go - for the moment.
The conclusion
maybe right - but lets focus on the historic reference. True - both
Nazi Germany und Imperialistic Japan were enemies of the United
States in WW2, against both huge efforts were undertaken, and both
were ultimately defeated to "conditionless surrender". On
the Arcadia conference in Washington the US and Britain agreed on a
"Germany first"-strategy, but in practice the pacific
theater was at least of the same priority to the US.
But Mr.
Grahams sentence is wrong in a more important way. Germany and Japan
were allies in the second world war, whereas in todays Syria
Assad's government and ISIS are the fiercest enemies. Luckily
for the US and its allies, Germany and Japan were restricted by sheer
geographical distance (and some ideological differences) to conduct
any kind of coordinated war effort. But some mostly technological
cooperation did take place, and a major defeat of the US would have
had the other "Anti-Komintern-Pakt"-member cheering.
It
is striking that both Mr. Graham and Mr. Klein are unwilling to see
the more compelling relation:
If ISIS is seen as a modern day Nazi
Germany, then the Assad Government is better compared to Soviet
Russia.
And even if it may sound unbelievable to modern day
conservatives: both Britain and the US chose Soviet Russia as its
main ally in WW2.
And although both Churchill and
Roosevelt were quite aware of Stalin's harsh rule and many "human
rights abuses" (as we would call these today), they chose Soviet
Russia for striking reasons: The Soviets were already fighting
Germany's armies on the ground, and they were by far the
biggest force available to topple the Nazy regime. And both
facts hold true for the Syrian governments army in relation to ISIS:
It is fighting on the ground, and it is the biggest ground
force available.
Taking that into consideration, it is
easy to understand why todays Russian government finally took the
step of direct air assaults on rebel positions in coordination with
the Syrian army. There was a saying in the times when the concept of
"air superiority" took shape: "You cannot surrender to
a plane in the sky". This holds true today, and it should sober
anyone who argues for "air strikes alone".
So, if
(and this is a big "if") the US really wants to defeat
ISIS, to stop the civil war in Syria and end bloodshed and terror in
that country, it must seek a temporary coordination (you don't have
to call it alliance) with the Syrian government to that end.
Obviously the Russian government is very willing to mediate such an
agreement, and I think the US should jump at this occasion. Also
there must be some coercion on those "long-standing partners"
of the US, Turkey and Saudia Arabia, that have aided and still aid
ISIS in numerous ways, notably arms sales and petrol
dealings.
Surely such a policy would "bolster the Assad
government" to some degree. But the concept of publicly
denouncing President Assad as "having lost all legitimacy to
rule" while pursuing air strikes on ISIS strongholds has been
around for years, with obviously little success. And Afghanistan,
Iraq and Lybia are strong reminders that toppling some unwanted
regime alone without any feasible alternative governing structure is
a recipe for chaos.
But taking the discussions in the US
presidential campaign as reported in TIME and other media, there is
seemingly very little understanding of foreign affairs to be found.
Of course you can learn from history - indeed this is the most
important reason to study history in the first place. Such profound
misunderstanding of your own country's history, as displayed by Mr.
Graham and Mr. Klein, is not only sad, but can only lead to false
conclusions.
(2016, January)