Iraq: into the purple banana business

18/08/2014

There always has been something of a symbiotic relationship between the legacy media and blogs, as media output was often the starting point for a blog post, as one sought to explain and develop their reports.

Such has been the deterioration in the media, though, that the lack of trust not extends beyond that which is supposedly factual reporting. The "bias by omission" is so great that one must trawl an increasing range of sources before it is possible to put together an account of events, or take a media report at face value.

That means that blogging is getting rather more complicated these days, although as Complete Bastard remarks, I'd sooner be a blogger attempting to get things right, than one of the increasingly useless hacks, polluting the media with their low-grade drivel.

No lower does this drivel get, though, than in the comment sections, so much so that I mostly deliberately steer clear of them, to avoid the taint of false or inaccurate analysis, but one occasionally descends to view the like of this Telegraph leader which today argued for "clarity" in the prime minister's policy in Iraq.

Already, Complete Bastard has spotted a particularly egregious example of fatuity, as the leader bemoans the difficulty in discerning public opinion, "not least because Parliament is in recess".

This is classic example of the MPM-loop (Media-Politico-Media) where the media offers its own distorted view of events, only to have the politicians comment on it, then to have the media report on the comments, so creating the narrative which becomes the "received views" which too many people mistake for expressions of public opinion – not least, the media itself.

But the fatuity in this leader goes much further than this piece of self-serving rhetoric, to make the bizarrely absurd charge that, while the Islamic State (IS) forces have rampaged through Iraq, it is apparent that Washington no longer wants to fulfil its role of world policeman".

In the considered opinion of this dire publication which still has the nerve to call itself a newspaper, it opines that: "The baleful legacy in blood and treasure from George W Bush's invasion in 2003 was too great to allow for another US intervention".

This, of course, completely miscasts recent events, but it is the sort of thing that happens when the concentration is on the "human drama" of an event such as the Iraqi crisis, and the politics is completely ignored. As a result, the paper is totally out of its depth.

What in fact has been going on centred on the increasingly autocratic behaviour of Nouiri al-Maliki who, after the general election, was seeking to hold onto power despite his party not having majority support.

Alongside this, with the Sunni tribes having lost confidence in the Maliki government, allowed al-Baghdadi's ISIS thugs to run riot, while the Sunni-led Army, deserted by its officers, either failed to perform or sat on its hands.

With the situation crying out for intervention, the US was in an impossible position. If it sought to take any military action, it would have been seen to be supporting Maliki, thus exacerbating an already fraught situation, while any action take could not have succeeded without the support of the Sunni tribes – which would not move as long as Maliki was in place.

Gone are the days – as in Vietnam and South America – where the US could actively conspire to achieve regime change. To be seen interfering in the internal politics of Iraq would have been catastrophic, leaving the US no option to sit on its hands and await developments.

Having seen the same dynamic before, with the Sunni awakening in exactly the same areas where ISIS is currently running amok, Pentagon analysts doubtless reasoned that the tribes would, in time, be sickened by the barbarity of the ISIS thugs – as they had been by the al-Qaida who came before them.

Then, as the situation deteriorated without US intervention, Maliki's power base would weaken. And then, as Iran observed the deterioration and took fright at the apparently growing power of the Sunni insurgency, it withdrew its backing from Maliki and publicly endorsed his successor, al-Badi.

As we remarked at the time, the moment Iran cast its lot with al-Badi, it was game over for Maliki and it was no coincidence that the moment this happened, US air power was unleashed – from a conveniently positioned carrier group in the Gulf. Since then, ISIS has been on the run.

This, then, is not an indication that, "Washington no longer wants to fulfil its role of world policeman", as the Telegraph leader avers. The paper has misread the situation and got its analysis completely wrong. The US is very much in the game, and is looking after its interests in Iraq.

What the US is very well aware of – as are seasoned British observers in the field – is that any solution to this crisis must be seen as an Iraqi solution, implemented by Iraqis. Support is welcomed, but "boots on the ground" in a combat role is not. The Iraqis need to deal with ISIS themselves, if there is to be an enduring settlement.

Thus, as it stands, UK the UK policy response has been entirely adequate. The provision of humanitarian aid, followed by the deployment of the RAF's formidable surveillance assets (including Rivet Joint, recently bought second-hand from the USAF), has been as much as can be expected and is certainly as much as is needed for the time being.

However, after his particularly inept intervention on Sunday, Mr Cameron has ramped up the threat just at the time when the tide had turned against ISIS, and the power if its leader, al-Baghdadi, was on the wane.

Having wrongly magnified the threat, however, Cameron has raised the bar in terms of an expected response, and has now created a rod for his own back. A high level of threat requires a high-level response and, as the Telegraph observes, Mr Cameron is not in a position to deliver the "tough response" that Mr Cameron says is required.

With an election in the offing, though, it occurs to me that Mr Cameron may be running the purple banana ploy.

This is my imagined response to any crisis where, just before the turning point when things start to get better, the opportunist politician suggests that the problem is caused by yellow bananas and orders them all to be painted purple. When the crisis abates (as expected) the politician can then claim the credit, having ordered the timely and "effective" action.

In this case, any informed analysis would have told you that the tide was about to turn against ISIS, in which case Cameron's timing is immaculate. He simply needs to talk tough – very loudly – and then take a few token action, only then to watch the crisis abate, as it is already doing. In a few months time when memories have faded, Mr Cameron can add to his list of very great achievements, the defeat of the "caliphate" about which he warned so stridently, and no longer exists.

Inasmuch as the anti-elephant policy on Wandsworth High Street – prohibiting the free roaming of pachyderms – has been an absolute triumph, so too will have been Mr Cameron's anti-caliphate strategy.

If that is the case, in accepting the prime minister's copy for publication, The Sunday Telegraph and its readers have been well and truly "played" by Downing Street. Sadly, this probably doesn't matter to the paper. It must have done wonders for Jason Seiken's hit rate, which is all he is really concerned about for his global digital media brand.

On the other hand, if Mr Cameron really does believe he is confronting the "creation of an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria", then his FCO advisors should be fired. They, like the Telegraph leader writers, don't have the first idea of what is going on. And Mr Cameron doesn't have the first idea what to do about it.

FORUM THREAD