23/08/2014
In the matter of Iraq, the recapture of the Mosul Dam and continuing action on the part of the Kurds and
the Iraqi Army (
when they can stop squabbling), with the assistance of the US Navy and the support of RAF surveillance assets, all goes to demonstrate that the ISIS threat in this theatre is being contained and gradually rolled back.
Untainted by reality, though, much of the politico-media-military establishments on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have bought into the
Assad ploy and accepted his linkage of the otherwise separate ISIS activities.
Currently
leading the charge on the other side of the Atlantic is Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is stridently declaring that the Islamic State cannot be defeated without addressing "both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border". "ISIS is a bigger threat to the US than al-Qa'ida",
he says.
In what must be music to the ears of Bashar al-Assad, Dempsey is saying that the United States and its allies in the Middle East and beyond need to join together to defeat the terrorist group "over time", thus
bringing forward the prospect of US military intervention in western Syria, in a bid to stop ISIS taking over all or part of Aleppo.
With Assad currently cast as an enemy, he has taken a situation where he has ISIS as an enemy, while Iraq has an enemy with the same title. But, instead of confronting his ISIS, Assad has allowed it to grow in strength so that the threat level can be raised, in order that we will deal with him. If he's worked it out correctly, we will fight ISIS for him, applying a strength he can never muster.
However, if it ever gets to the point where western forces do intervene in Syria on the side of Assad, it will represent the one of the most amazing policy turnarounds in modern history. It was only two years ago that Western nations were calling for action against Assad, while
being blocked by Russia and China on the UN Security Council - with Mr Cameron's vainglorious attempt to mount air strikes
blocked by Parliament in August 2013.
Of course, had not this gaggle of nations so comprehensively soured their relations with Russia (with the US Secretary of State effectively accusing Putin of murdering the passengers and crew of MH17), then talks could be in progress with Putin, to see if there was a way round, but it would seem that any such avenue is closed for the time being.
Quite frankly though, when Dempsey wades in to call ISIS an "
apocalyptic organisation" that posed an "imminent threat", you know that the US military brass has totally lost it, especially if in terms of action he feels it is sufficient to "contain" the group. To be consistent, he would surely be screaming for immediate action.
On this side of the Atlantic, though, the "stupid" virus is
equally ramapant with Dannatt (pictured top) â the man who wanted to run away from Iraq in 2006 - now wanting "talks and possible military co-operation" with Assad. Not content with pouring our non-existent divisions back into Iraq, he now wants to send them to Syria as well.
Caught in the middle of this stupidity is our newly appointed foreign secretary,
Philip Hammond, who at least has the sense to says that the UK will not enter into a "poisonous alliance" with Assad. He is of the view that "my enemy's enemy" is not his friend.
But when policy
is being driven by what amounts to
media-induced moral panic (MIMP) following the murder of an American journalist, one can perhaps be grateful for defence cuts which deprive us of the capability of implementing the fantasies of Gen. Dannatt
and his ilk.
For many decades, Britain has been proud to assert that it has been able to punch above its weight, but now with delusions of grandeur abroad, the only safeguard we have at the moment is that we are reduced to punching seriously below our weight. It's almost as if we've cut our armed forces because our politicians are too dangerous to be let loose with them.
At least, though, the Russians are thinking ahead. With many pundits convinced that hostilities are in for the long haul, they have had the prescience to
launch their invasion using "tanks" already painted in
winter camouflage. And before the Americans get worked up about this breach, and certain
other incursions, they need to listen to their
Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser.
He says that ISIS had become an increased threat to the United States, a threat the American government was taking seriously. "If you come against Americans, we are going to come after you", Rhodes said.
According to the
NYT, he declined to say whether the president was considering expanding air strikes to include ISIS targets in Syria as well as in Iraq. "We're actively considering what's going to be necessary in dealing with that threat", Rhodes said, then adding the money quote: "We're not going to be restricted by borders".
Unfortunately, the United States has a habit of punching above its weight, so it might just start trampling over Mr Assad's territory without asking him first. And the UK's new status may not be enough to compensate. Welcome to our new borderless society.
FORUM THREAD
