Global Terror -
but No Global War to Oppose It (Liberte, Algeria)
"There is indeed
'global terrorism," but in fact, there is no 'global war' to oppose it. Each
country in the coalition is fighting its own war. As is the case with France and
its penny-pinching air strikes, it is apparent that the armies involved in
intervention are constrained: they are economizing on bombs and their stock of
missiles is limited. … As for the Arab states, which for the most part were
involved in establishing and equipping the Islamic State army, the nature of
their contribution remains a mystery."
Kobani is about to fall into the
hands of the Islamic State. Yet the world has coalesced to oppose the expansion
of "jihadist" forces to oppose global terrorism with a "global
war." Some 60 countries have joined the coalition initiated by the United
States to stop the advance of IS and eventually destroy it.
However, the effect of this joint intervention still isn't noticeable
within the alliance or on the ground. The army of the Islamic State continues
to move forward rather than back following a strategy of total war, routing armies
that oppose its advance like a steamroller, crushing populations that resist and
establishing its rule over conquered territory.
There is indeed "global terrorism," but in fact,
there is no "global war" to oppose it. Each country in the coalition
is fighting its own war. The United States, perhaps the only power capable of
bearing the cost of a long war far from its territory, has limited the impact
of its intervention by refraining from sending men on the ground. Now that
Obama has adopted not dispatching ground troops as a matter of doctrine, IS can
be reassured that his all-aerial strategy won't its terrorist infantry. A
mobile army mingling with the population and with little heavy or sizeable
equipment is hardly vulnerable to air strikes.
As is the case with France and its penny-pinching air strikes,
it is apparent that the armies involved in intervention are constrained: they
are economizing on bombs and their stock of missiles is limited.
These strictly military constraints are further complicated
by the differing status of the territories in which Islamic States is rampant:
Iraq has asked for help, but Syria is governed by a regime whose legitimacy is
recognized by almost none of the coalition nations. It is a country where no
authority is sovereign in the eyes of these states. IS, a target for everyone
in Iraq, is benefiting from divided opinion when it comes to intervening on
Syrian territory.
As for the Arab states, which for the most part were
involved in establishing and equipping the Islamic State army, the nature of
their contribution remains a mystery. If it has been reported that Jordan made
a number of raids, the Gulf countries seem more inclined to register with the
allied powers their agreement with the principle of destroying the barbaric IS
army. The position of Turkey is even more paradoxical: it will not take part in
the defense of Kurdish nationalists in Kobani or anywhere
else! In some ways, the war on Islamic State can be considered Turkey's war.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
Each country has national reasons for making war on the
Islamic State: the murder of citizens by the terrorist organization's
executioners, the presence of nationals and residents among the Islamic State's
forces and the danger posed by their possible return. So, all wage this war
based on how the threat from IS ispercieved.
In this war, only the Islamic States has a clear strategy.
Against it is a mass of small wars with no overall strategy. In the face of
global; terrorism, there is still no "global war."
