Abbott’s limited military action on Islamic State is risky but right Paul Kelly Editor-At-Large AUSTRALIAN SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 THERE are no good options on Iraq and Syria, no choices without risks or unintended consequences, but the balance of risk justifies US President Barack Obama’s campaign because doing nothing comes with the certainty of permitting a terrorist state with its own army, resources and global insurgents. The Islamic State constitutes modest yet distinct progress in moving towards a caliphate that involves the destruction of borders between Iraq and Syria as a prelude to destructive aims in other parts of the Middle East. Its progress since May has stunned most nations and intelligence services. The military success of the Islamic State has inspired recruits from many nations, including Britain and Australia. As ASIO says, there have never been so many Australians radicalised, willing to join the jihadist quest. Momentum feeds upon itself. The more success it enjoys, the more recruits it inspires. Obama’s reaction has been slow and cautious. When Mosul fell he delayed military action, seeking the removal of Nouri al-Maliki and his Sunni exclusivist policies in Baghdad. Yet his recent limited interventions have delivered measured success — the Islamic State push into Kurdish territory has been checked, mass slaughter of the Yazidi was averted and a new prime minister is installed in Baghdad. Tony Abbott is not fool enough to think intervention has no downside. “We cannot promise risk-free options,” he said. “All courses are hazardous. No course has a guarantee of success.” These are not the words of a Prime Minister blind to danger. Refusing to guarantee success is prudent. But Abbott then proceeds to the pivotal point: “The one course that has a guarantee of failure is inaction.” This is the judgment Obama has made. It is the judgment most of the apparently 30-strong coalition of nations has made. The easiest argument to make these days is against intervention in what Abbott has called a region of “witch’s brew complexity”. The newspapers are full of armchair critics warning the commitment seems open-ended, the goals are not precise, the duration is not defined and coalition leaders seem confused on whether to brand this a war. Much of this is correct. It is the nature of the situation. It fails, however, to confront the core questions. What is the consequence of doing nothing and, second, how is doing nothing a superior and more realistic option? Abbott has been decisive yet cautious. Decisive because our contribution is significant — eight Super Hornet combat aircraft, an airborne early-warning aircraft, other aircraft with a total of 600 ADF personnel, 400 from the air force plus 200 from the army, including an SAS contingent operating as military trainers. It reveals Abbott as a leader who likes to back his words with muscle. Yet it is cautious since Australia’s role, at this time, will be limited to Iraq and not extending into Syria. This is critical. It falls short of the full scope of US military activity that includes both nations. Abbott says, correctly, the legal situations are different: intervention in Iraq comes with the support of the Iraqi government. The real significance of Obama’s position is turning his campaign in Iraq from a humanitarian mission to assaulting the Islamic State as a threat to the region and the world. The US has the military strength to punish and degrade its capability and, over time, to assist Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces. This action is justified in moral terms. It has a prospect of some success in strategic terms. But Obama’s statement that the US will launch strikes in Syria is far more problematic. He had to make this declaration. But how serious is it? Given that the Islamic State arose within Syria, action in Syria became essential because Obama said his mission was to “degrade and ultimately destroy” it. This statement about destroying it is neither wise nor realistic, given the lack of a viable political partner in Syria. Saying you will eliminate the Islamic State sets up any Western leader for humiliation. Neither Obama nor Abbott should use such a formula. It must be abandoned. The gap between the means and ends in Obama’s statement is far too great. There is nothing he said that offered any prospect of destroying the Islamic State. Seeking to “degrade” is a far better notion, more flexible and more achievable. In essence, Obama’s campaign is a pre-emptive strike. The President was cautious in defining the threat. He said the Islamic State now pose a threat to the people of Iraq, Syria and the broader Middle East. “If left unchecked” the terrorist entity “could pose a growing threat beyond the region including to the United States”. Very measured. Abbott is more aggressive in defining the Islamic State as a threat. He seeks to halt its momentum not just within the Middle East but as a training ground for Australian-based jihadists. Abbott sees the emergence of the Islamic State as a direct threat to Australia via the potential for home-based terrorism, witness ASIO’s upgrading of our terrorist threat to high. Abbott is right to point out that the Bali bombing occurred before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the point being that in this global ideological war Australia is a permanent potential target. There is no immunity and allowing your foreign policy to fall hostage to the quest for such immunity is untenable. Abbott knows that as Prime Minister he will be held responsible for any setbacks. He wants the public to grasp the full extent of risk and says our forces will be engaged in “combat operations” to disrupt and degrade the Islamic State. The Australian public will support the mission but its commitment is likely to be thin and fickle. Abbott is lucky to have a cautious president like Obama as his senior ally. Presumably Obama will focus on the targeted military goal, not rebuilding the Middle East. Domestic bipartisanship around a Coalition-Labor concord is pivotal. It helps Abbott immensely. It prevents an immediate and inflamed schism over Australia’s commitment (in contrast to 2003), despite fierce opposition from the Greens. The progressive side of politics is split. Labor leader Bill Shorten, who has done the right thing, has exposed his left flank to the potential for Greens-fuelled anti-intervention sentiment. Another vital difference is the more broadbased coalition supporting this intervention. Abbott is super-optimistic about an international coalition. He predicts “a number of Middle Eastern countries” will join military action as well as offering political support. If realised, it will vest Obama’s campaign with added legitimacy.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:53:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015