IS-led violence as an aspect of ‘international anarchy’

June 10, 2015, 7:35 pm

Iraqi Shiite fighters from the Popular Mobilisation units flash the "V" sign of victory as they ride on the back of a vehicle in the city of Baiji, north of Tikrit, as they fight alongside Iraqi forces against the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group to try to retake the strategic northern Iraqi town for a second time, on June 9, 2015. Baghdad regained control of Baiji — located on the road to IS hub Mosul and near the country’s largest oil refinery — last year, but subsequently lost it again. AFP

In fact the US has a lot of explaining to do as regards Iraq and Afghanistan. The missions undertaken by the US-led military alliances in these states could only be described as half or less accomplished. Sectarian strife has increased in ferocity in Iraq, although the West thought it safe to effect a withdrawal of troops from that country some time back and the Taliban-led rebellion seems to be gathering in strength in Afghanistan. So, how have the US-led military operations in these states helped them? Little, if at all, is the answer because these hapless lands are continuing to be in the bloodiest turmoil.

One year on, it seems obvious that the US-led military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is proving counter-productive. Instead of a militarily-neutralized IS, what one finds is a spiral of violence in areas where the IS and its allies hold sway, and an intensification of the brutality linked with the species of violence triggered by religious extremism and sectarianism. In other words, ‘international anarchy’ and ‘disorder’ are on the upswing.

If one needs evidence to support the thesis that military means alone would not help In resolving violent upheavals associated with identity-based conflicts, then, we have such proof in the Middle East of today. However, Afghanistan too is living proof of the same thesis and the multifarious identity conflicts in South Asia, including that in Sri Lanka, clinch the same point. This evidence is amply visible in the principal Arab-Israeli conflict as well as in the violence welling in the IS-dominated areas of the Middle East. The question for the US in particular is: How has its military campaign against the IS and its allies helped in bringing even a semblance of normalcy to the theater of conflict in question?

Accordingly, ‘anarchy’ or ‘disorder’ could be said to be on the increase in the world. One is compelled to this inference not only because the world’s conflict zones are increasingly turning into unsettling ‘Killing Fields’ of the international system but also on account of the fact that what the major powers see as their national interest is tending to take the place of the core values of the UN system, which, on paper, upholds the collective interests of mankind. This proclivity on the part of the bigger powers, in particular, contributes substantially to the present state of ‘disorder’.

The US and its allies’ military involvements in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, for instance, do not have their origins in any altruistic considerations. They are rooted in what these powers see as their national interests. For example, the Western powers need to be physically present in these oil rich regions or have some controlling influence over them through the installation of West-friendly local governments. It must be borne in mind that the Gulf is of great strategic importance to the West and Iraq has been coveted by it over the past century and more on account of its vast oil resources. In decades past, the Baghdad Pact, the Central Treaty Organization and the South East Asia Treaty Organizations, essentially, served the same Western purposes.

Over the years, one cannot see a diminishing of these West-inspired processes. On the contrary, since the early nineties, consequent to the collapse of communism, the world has seen a renewed acceleration of these trends which substantiate the view that ‘disorder’ rather than order is the dominant characteristic of the current global political order.

It was Western political scientist Samuel Huntingdon who propounded the now well known thesis that a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is upon the world in view of the military challenges currently posed to Western hegemony by militant religious fundamentalism in particularly the developing world. The political scientist cannot be faulted for inclining to this view because this confrontation between ‘East and West’ is indeed a principal conflict at present in world politics. Since the crumbling of communism and the Cold War, we are having a civilizational clash of sorts, but over the past two decades, it could be said that this ‘Clash’ has been compounded by intra-civilizational violence within the ‘East’ or in the arena of religious extremism. This ‘intra-civilizational’ violence takes the form of brutal sectarian clashes in the Middle East; the Sunni-Shia confrontation, for example.

The point could be made, therefore, that the ‘Civilizational Clash’ in question is further degenerating into relentless bloodletting between armed formations in the world of religious extremism. Currently, the confrontation between extremist forces in the Sunni and Shia camps in Iraq and Syria has the potential of triggering a region-wide armed conflict in the Middle East. This is on account of the considerable spill-over effects of the sectarian violence in Syria and Iraq.

But a dominant factor which is feeding such religious extremism is the NATO-led bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq. While the West and its Saudi-headed allies in the Middle East may be aiming at weakening formations such as the IS through their military campaign, little of the sort seems to be happening. For, religious extremism may only be gaining in strength as a result of the perception that the Muslim world is being bombed into subservience and silence. As a result, the West’s current military efforts in the Middle East may not yield the desired results.

Adding to the sense of ‘anarchy’ is the harm being visited on Western society itself by the US-led military measures in the Middle East. It is no secret that Western nationals in disconcerting numbers are siding with the IS on account of the perception that the Muslim world is being victimized by the West. Such female sympathizers have been even braving the journey to Syria and Iraq to join the IS. Meanwhile, other persons of Middle East origin in the West are being put through much inconvenience by law and order measures adopted by Western states.

Accordingly, the West and its allies need to take a long hard look at their conflict-resolution measures in the Middle East and outside. Political means also need to be adopted to put identity groups in the world’s hot spots at ease. Regional peace could very well depend on such farsightedness.