In an episode of the television series Boston Legal, the government of United States was sued for the genocide that was taking place in Sudan. The attorney general’s office was disgusted by the move and defied it. However, there was Shirley Schmidt to take care of that.
The argument from Ms Schmidt was clear and concise. She said that the core theme on which the presidents of United States are elected was: “We will root out terrorism wherever it thrives.” Wherever oppression abounds, the US gets involved.
It has almost become a motto. So, if the US is not interested in setting things straight in Darfur, they should make the world know of it. When the leaders do their bipartisan puffing, saying the genocide must end, other countries think the US is going to do something. They then stay out of it, and, in the end, nothing gets done, while millions of people get persecuted.
Schmidt was reciprocated by the US attorney that the United States’ response to an ethnic genocide is certainly not going to be: “Hey, not our problem.”
Schmidt replied: “See? This is how other countries get confused.”
These arguments can sum up the total condition of the ISIS crisis in the Arab World and Mediterranean. The blunder made the United States and its allies in Iraq and Syria, as it was said by former British premier Tony Blair, has created this Frankenstein that is leading terrorism to a new height. And the US itself has done little apart from lip work.
It is of no wonder that after the Twin Tower attack of 9/11, the US has been in the lead of the “war on terror,” as it has said. Starting from the invasion in Afghanistan to the fall of Gaddafi in Libya, the US and NATO played its role.
Though, after the arrival of Obama in the office, the US has been less provocative and inactive to some extent than the previous regime of George W Bush; Obama’s US has never actively opposed the core goals of the war on terror which was determined by the Bush government. It has stayed away from active warfare except from Iraq and Afghanistan, but its allies in NATO and the Arab peninsula have steered fresh wars in Yemen, Libya, Mali, and many other countries where the insurgency was on the rise.
The rebellion against the Assad government in Syria was not a bolt from the blue either. Rather, a planned warfare patronised by the western allies. Several news reports and confessions of ISIS personnel revealed that it was the CIA that brought up the ISIS and other insurgent groups in Syria, only to fight back the Syrian soldiers and lead it to the fall of the Assad government.
When this Frankenstein stole the march to invade a large part of Iraq, Syria, and Tunisia, and started mindless atrocities in their invaded areas, the western allies of the Free Syrian Army got confused of their immediate steps, only to let these insurgents run riots in the streets.
Now, we can see how far they have gone. With their fresh attacks in three continents -- Asia, Africa, and Europe -- in a day, it is proven that their network is bigger than it was thought before.
While it took only one month to force the Al-Qaeda fighters to flee, only three weeks to topple Saddam Hussein, and one week to overthrow Gaddafi in the soil of Libya for USA and its allies, the ISIS have been fighting back for more than a year.
To find the reason behind this, Schmidt’s arguments have to be recalled. The US and its allies must share the responsibility for both the rise of ISIS and the failure to stop their atrocities. As it happened, at first the US and its allies patronised the guerillas in Syria, then ISIS was born.
Then, they started invading a major portion of Iraq and Syria and some other countries, and then the US decided to send some military advisors in Iraq while the UK was arguing about who was at fault. Later, they started a “lower scale” air strike, only to let the world know they were trying, to some extent, to uproot ISIS from the Arabian peninsula.
The fresh attacks costing hundreds of lives are clear indications that the measures taken against these militants are not sufficient. Rather, these are actually of no use.
Moreover, Islamic outfits and insurgent groups of different countries are getting inspired by the fast and furious advancement of ISIS militants with the slow and steady counter-attacks by the US, NATO, and its Arab allies. The recent developments in Bangladesh, along with other countries like Australia and France, are indicating a storm that is yet to come.
Precisely, either the US (who is responsible for what is happening in Iraq and Syria) must launch a full-fledged war against ISIS, or leave the crisis to be solved in some other way. They must not create any confusion among their allies in these war-torn countries, and should not waste time by this dilly-dally action plan for ISIS.
ISIS should be uprooted at any cost, whatever the cost is. Any kind of delay will result in the death of thousands, only to add fuel to the fire of instability in the Arab world and the Mediterranean.
