Over a year ago, I begged the question as to why the American media had almost completely abandoned its coverage of Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Most coverage was focused on events in Syria and Afghanistan. At the time, fighting among insurgent groups had increased in Iraq and the Iraqi government and security forces appeared unable to contain their activities. As the army faltered, Shiite militias were playing a growing role in the conflict, nudged toward the fight by the corrupt government of Mr. Maliki. As the militiamen faced radical Sunni jihadists, the threat of a wider sectarian conflagration grew. Then entered the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Too radical even for Al Qaeda, ISIS proceeded to take over numerous key towns and infrastructure in Iraq as Iraqi security forces abandoned their positions and American-supplied equipment.
All of a sudden, Iraq once again has become the main center of attention, notably in the fight against the brand of Islamic terrorism practiced by ISIS. Without the opposition of such groups as the Kurds and the use of American air power to target ISIS initiatives, Maliki’s government would probably have floundered even more. Even with a new more inclusive government in place, there is no assurance that Iraq’s situation will improve anytime soon. A longer-term internal political solution is definitely required. The West can’t provide this.
In the meantime, the U.S. has invited its allies to provide military assistance to the Iraqi forces. Low and behold, Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, has agreed to send a hundred or so “military advisors” to Iraq. Now, for a brief historical note. Canada did not join the original U.S.-led coalition of willing countries when Iraq was first invaded to oust then dictator Saddam Hussein — under the pretense of destroying his non-existent “weapons of mass destruction”. Subsequently, Canada had very little to do with the resulting Iraq governments and American military actions over the following ten-year period against the insurgents. So why now? What about finishing what we did to help the Afghans? What can military advisors do without becoming involved in actual military actions? Remember, Vietnam was never declared by Congress as a war, but was done through executive action by the U.S. President. Originally, Americans were only supposed to be military advisors to the South Vietnamese armed forces. Over 70,000 young Americans were killed in that tragic war, and for what? Yet, President Obama reiterated that there will be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq.
I’m not saying that Iraq could turn out to be another Vietnam. Obviously the circumstances are different. Yet, history should have taught us something by now. External interventions into the internal affairs of other countries can lead not to political solutions and stability, but can have serious consequences for both the interveners and the affected countries. After all is said and done, something very wrong happened in Iraq. Let’s not pursue never-ending bandage solutions!
FROLITICKS 