President Obama is considering options of US involvement in Iraqi issues to halt Islamic militants' offensive. While the operational flexibility of US airstrikes on Sunni insurgents is limited, sending US forces on a rescue mission would revive the memories of an unpopular Iraqi war.
Vladimir Sotnikov, Director of the East-West Strategic Studies Center in Moscow, Murat Yeşiltaş – Professor at Sakarya University in Turkey, and Israel Shamir, independent expert, shared their opinions with Radio VR.
How can it be that, say, on Monday they say that the situation is desperate and just 48 hours after that, they say that the situation is not that bad? Is it a miracle?
Vladimir Sotnikov: I can give you a straightforward answer. This is probably a lack of ground reconnaissance information about what is really going on. The US tend to be based on their own reconnaissance information. That is probably the main reason.
Murat Yeşiltaş: We should, first of all, understand what the ISIL is and what its military actions mean for Iraq and the region. I think that ISIL does not look like a traditional terrorist organization in terms of its motivation, its geopolitical ambitions, its organizational structure on the ground and its military tactics or capability. I think in terms of motivation, it has a strong ideological motivation, which is mainly constructed around the Islamic caliphate. I think this idea provides the ISIL with moral superiority and the militants think that they are doing the right thing and fighting for the state of Islam.
In terms of its geopolitical ambition, the ISIL wants to establish an Islamic geopolitical belt. I think this ambition is directly threatening the territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, and is indirectly targeting the Kurdish region, which is the only stable region in the area.
Thirdly, in terms of its organizational structure, the ISIL is fighting on the ground like a regular army. They strategically control the oil refineries and electricity centers, and the strategic bridges. In addition to this, they also have military equipment that provides a military advantage for ISIL against its contenders.
When it comes to the US military and political strategy, we should also think about the possibility of a military victory, and also, what is the limit for the US in Iraq, in terms of maintaining its military operation against ISIL.
As Obama repeatedly says in his different statements, he thinks that a military operation is not the ultimate solution to demilitarizing the ISIL threat. It also requires a political solution in which the new Iraqi Government will be the main mechanism and which will be established in the near future.
But in terms of the sectarian fragility in Iraq, I do not think that this option will properly work. More importantly, I do think that the US’s intervention also directly influenced regional politics by using and showing its military capability and political advantages.
Firstly, the US thinks that the rise of ISIL as the most capable terrorist organization and its military expansion in Iraq demonstrates the weakness of Maliki Government and its sectarian politics, particularly against the Sunni. So, it seems to me that the US reached its goal by proposing and supporting the another-prime-minister option in Iraq in order to form a new Iraqi Government.
Secondly, the US policy also demonstrates that the Kurdish regional government is not ready for the independence and they still need international support. And also, they do care about regional politics as well, simply because they don’t have a sufficient military force and equipment to defend themselves and their autonomous territory.
What do you make out of this controversy of the American mission in Iraq? And to what extent do you think the offensive on Sunni insurgents can come as a game changer for the whole region?
Israel Shamir: I think we should condemn the US intervention in Iraq. Iraq is an independent country and air strikes are an intervention. The US says that the delivery of humanitarian aid to the east of Ukraine is an intervention. So, if delivering bread is an intervention, why do you think that air strikes are not an intervention? It definitely is an intervention.
And it is coming after they occupied Iraq, after they destroyed its army, destroyed its police, and destroyed everything that could be destroyed. They ignited the strife in the country and assisted the ISIS to install themselves in Iraq. In other words, what we see is a direct result of the American policies.
