FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Trump Is Completely Out To Lunch When It Comes To Iran

Here we go again! Hasn’t the American administration learned from past mistakes in the Middle East?  Remember supporting the former dictator, the Shah of Iran, against the Iranian people who suffered terribly under his regime.  Remember the flimsy excuses given by Bush Jr. to invade Iraq based on false intelligence about  Saddam Hussein’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction”.  Remember how the American occupation of Iraq and failure of subsequent Iraqi governments led to the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIL) and subsequent years of terror in the region.

Now, we have an American President ordering the assassination of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who the Trump administration claimed to pose a “clear and present danger.”  One can always ask “why now”?  Seems all too convenient as a distraction for a President who is smack in the middle of the impeachment process.  Now, U.S. and NATO forces and Westerners in the region are at real risk from Iranian reprisals.  The Iraqi parliament has voted to kick American and foreign forces out of the country, despite Trump’s threats of placing stiff sanctions on Iraq and making the Iraqis pay for the al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq.  This important base hosts many U.S. troops and was a strategic key in the war against ISIL.  Indeed, the U.S.-Iranian conflict may have just opened the door for the reemergence of ISIL in the region which is a much greater threat to everyone.  Remember that Iranian-backed forces fought against ISIL in Syria.

The actions by Trump carried out by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo  and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper may have just complicated what is already a dangerous situation in the region.  As was the past case in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current administration appears to have no strategy to deal with the likely escalation of U.S.-Iranian conflict that will most definitely follow.  Iran on the other hand has been given an opportunity by the American actions to distract the Iranian people from recent protests and uprisings within Iran against the regime driven by the country’s poor economic conditions.  In addition, the Iranian regime now has an excuse to recommense its nuclear arms program by withdrawing from the current accord which, under Trump, is no longer recognized by the U.S.

Canada, which has hundreds of military and other personnel in the region, has helped in the training of Iraqi security forces. With the recent events, they have been told to stand down.  The Americans have unfortunately paused their counterterrorism operations and are now focused on ensuring their security on bases throughout the region.  Some retaliatory moves by Iran are bound to happen, leaving Westerners throughout the region in a very dangerous position.  Trump’s further threats of potential reprisals, military or economic, may only add to what is already a very volatile situation.  Indeed, I would advocate that all Canadian personnel be withdrawn immediately and entirely from the region, in particular from Iraq.  Once again, why should Canadians pay with their lives for U.S. mistakes in the region?

Leave a comment »

Why Canada Should Get the Hell Out of Iraq

It was March 2003 and the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq. According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.  After 21 days of major combat operations, the loss of thousands of lives and the destruction of much of Iraq’s infrastructure, President Bush declared that the war was over.  At the time, I had many misgivings and was happy that Canada had refused to participate in this farce.  Remember, no weapons of mass of mass destruction were found and the war continued on for a decade.  Saddam Hussein was subsequently found and hung by the interim Iraqi government.  Iraq supposedly was supposedly on its way to discovering “democracy”— Western style.

Jump forward a dozen years, and where are we today? On April 30, 2016, thousands of protesters stormed the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad and took over Iraq’s parliament. A state of emergency was declared in Baghdad.  President Obama’s plan for fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) was predicated on having a credible and effective Iraqi ally on the ground in Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.  Instead, we have a corrupt and paralyzed government overseeing an Iraqi society fractured once again along ethnic and sectarian lines, with Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish elements fighting for power, oil and territory.

Meanwhile, Canada has increased its military advisors on the ground to help train Kurdish fighters in the north in their battle against ISIS. However, the problem is that the Kurds are really fighting to eventually establish an independent state, separate from the current Iraqi regime.  Since ISIS is nothing more than a bunch of thugs who rely on fear and threats to maintain their occupation in parts of Iraq and Syria, fighting ISIS has become a “good feel” campaign for the West.  Recent ISIS-inspired attacks in France and Belgium have given an added incentive to the campaign.  However, there is the much tougher task of helping Abadi repair Iraq’s corrupt and largely ineffective government before a ground war can be won against ISIS.

Canada is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if it pulls out its advisors from Iraq, its allies and the hard-liners will argue that Canada is soft on terrorism.  On the other hand, if it continues with military assistance to Kurdish forces, the Shiite and Sunni factions will accuse Canada of supporting the Kurdish independence movement.  Iraq is becoming increasingly ungovernable and eventually the U.S.-led coalition will be left with overseeing the breakup of Iraq into separate political entities.  For the moment, the common enemy in ISIS has forced some form of sectarian cooperation.  If and when ISIS is effectively removed from Iraq, what will come next — another civil war?  Most likely.  Canada had better begin thinking about an exit strategy, sooner than later.

Leave a comment »

Canada’s Expansion of Iraq Mission to Syria is a Huge Mistake

No matter what the reasons that the Canadian government gives, the proposed expansion of the current Iraq mission to Syria has all kinds of serious consequences.  Simply stating that Canada is following the American lead provides little in the way of justification.  Syria is a bigger mess than even Iraq.  Let’s recap for a moment.  The Syrian uprising, part of the so-called Arab Spring, originally involved opposition groups to the current Syrian government under its dictator Bashar al-Assad.  The Americans didn’t step into this internal war, preferring to wait and see.  However, things didn’t go well for Assad, making him commit even more atrocities against his own people, including the use of chemical weapons.  Still, the Americans didn’t step in.  Then along came ISIL or ISIS, a major radical group who began to make territorial gains in Syria and eventually into Iraq.  So now, the Americans, no longer knowing who to support militarily in Syria, decide to go after the most radical group — ISIL.

Subsequently, the Iraqi government and security forces couldn’t stop ISIL’s advances inside Iraq, threatening to bring down Iraq’s American-supported and primarily Shia-backed government.  ISIL found support among the Sunni population in Iraq who felt persecuted by the Shia regime, and have faced atrocities by Shia security forces and local militia.  Enter Iran, whose military guard began to support the Shia militias in Iraq, who in turn appeared better able to defend against ISIL than Iraq’s government forces.  Let’s not forget about the Kurdish forces fighting ISIL in northern Iraq, and who would still like to have more independence from Baghdad.  At this point, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called on the U.S. to provide military support in the form of air strikes against ISIL and military advisors to Iraqi forces on the ground.

Six months ago, Canada entered the American-led campaign along with some other European and Arab countries.  Remember, this is not a NATO endorsed campaign.  Canada’s token contribution deployed several dozen special forces troops to northern Iraq, six fighter jets, two surveillance aircraft, a refuelling plane and around 600 support personnel based in Kuwait.  So far, Canada has had one casualty and three injured by Kurdish friendly fire.  Have air strikes really accomplished much?  ISIL’s advancements have to date been slowed, but most military experts believe that the war against ISIL can only be won on the ground.  In the case of the Syrian campaign, the results of air strikes are even less convincing.

Yes, ISIL has made some vague propaganda threats against Canadians, has committed atrocities, and a few Canadians have even gone to join ISIL in Syria, along with other foreign combatants.  However, is there really a serious threat to the homeland from ISIL?  Or is this just political maneuvering on the part of the Canadian and American governments to justify their military actions in the region?  What are the governments’ exit strategies?  Indications are that the Iraqis and Syrians could be at war for years.  Neither the current Iraqi nor the Syrian regime appears to be able to deal with this mess.  Do the Canadian and American governments really believe that they can resolve the disputes without further bloodshed and atrocities?  These are real questions and consequences that need to be further explored before both countries begin to witness ever-growing “mission creep”.  Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians and Americans don’t really understand the complexities of the situation to adequately address these questions.  Sorry, but it’s the truth.

Leave a comment »

Why Should Canada’s Small Air Force Help Bomb ISIS in Iraq?

In case you weren’t aware, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent half a dozen CF-18s to help bomb targets in Iraq held by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISEL). As Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau noted, the government whipped out our CF-18s to show them how big they are. He rightfully asked why Canadians aren’t talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in. Besides thousands of civilian deaths, the previous Iraq war also created hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing that country’s on-going civil war. With the onset of ISIS, thousands more Iraqis have fled to neighbouring countries and safe havens within Iraq. They are desperate for food, shelter, clothing, medical supplies and other essentials to survive the coming winter conditions.

Let’s take a step back to clarify Canada’s historical position vis-a-vis the first American incursion into Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein. The Iraq War began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The government of Canada did not at any time formally declare war against Iraq. The then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said in 2002 that Canada would, in fact, be part of a military coalition to invade Iraq if it were sanctioned by the United Nations. However, when the United States and the United Kingdom subsequently withdrew their diplomatic efforts to gain that UN sanction, Jean Chrétien announced in March 2003 that Canada would not participate in the pending invasion. As it turned out, this was one of the best decisions that Prime Minister Chrétien ever made during his government’s term of office.

Recently, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien defended Justin Trudeau’s controversial decision to oppose Canada’s air combat mission in Iraq. He believes that the fighter planes deployed by the Harper government are a “very marginal” response to the crisis caused by ISIS militants. He concluded that the best ‎contribution Canada can make is by engaging in massive, not token, humanitarian assistance. The leader of the official opposition, Thomas Mulcair of the New Democrats, has also stated that Canada’s first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground. We should also help to strengthen political institutions in both Iraq and Syria.

Let’s face it, the U.S. has been in this conflict for well over 10 years and has been fighting ISIS under one name or another. While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004—al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in Syria—it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade. The Americans propped up a corrupt Iraqi regime under Maliki, which favoured the Shiite population at the expense of the Kurds and Sunni. With the evident inability of the Iraqi security forces to fend off ISIS militants, the Americans once again have had to step in militarily to defend the Iraqi government through air strikes and provision of thousands of military advisors.

President Obama has already warned that American military and financial support will be needed for a long time in this new campaign. The Canadian contribution is but a mere token of some sort of support. The danger is always that such policies can go quickly from mission creep to mission leap. As in the case of Canada’s contribution to the Afghan mission which started out with only a few dozen soldiers and ended up with many casualties, when will this mission end? Canada’s international credibility as a country with an extensive history of humanitarian achievements is in jeopardy. Unfortunately, ISIS is not going away anytime soon. In a year’s time, there is little doubt that the Canadian government will have to seriously rethink its policies!

Leave a comment »