Here we go again

Some of the world's leading military powers have formed a U.S-led coalition to fight Islamic State (IS). Selective air strikes but not with 'boots on the ground', will be undertaken to aid the Iraqi, Kurdish and 'moderate' Syrian opposition forces to sort out IS.  World leaders, including Barack Obama and David Cameron, have warned that the action will take years rather than months, but no one has spelt out exactly what needs to happen for the world to know that the coalition's fight has been brought to a successful conclusion.  What's more, the recent history of US-led interventions into Iraq and Afghanistan illustrated the problem of unintended consequences, including the dire situation that the world now finds itself in.  A much older example, the Vietnam war, demonstrated how superior fire-power doesn't always lead to victory.

Let me make my own position quite clear, I am appalled by the tactics of IS.  Barbaric acts such as beheading journalists, crucifixions, gouging eyes out and raping innocent victims, are totally incompatible with what I am sure the vast majority would agree are acceptable standards of behaviour in a civilised world.  We don't need religion to define those standards but even if we do, a force that uses 'Islamic' in its title should surely question how its behaviour could be seen to be compatible with the teachings of Islam.

The real problem, in my opinion, is understanding what each side wants to achieve. Is IS really looking to dominate the Middle East and ultimately the world?  Is the coalition intent on annihilating IS?  Clearly with such diametrically opposed objectives, a negotiated settlement is highly unlikely and indeed, probably not worth considering since coalition States would not negotiate with IS.  So the prediction of a long drawn out conflict is on the cards and as time goes on, it is naive to think that there will be few civilian casualties.  As the number of innocent victims increases, the effects on the conflict are difficult to predict, but it could lead to greater support for IS against the foreign intervention.

So what's the alternative?  There are other options but I can honestly say I don't have a preferred way forward.  What I do know, however, is that knee-jerk reactions to events, often for populist and political reasons, are not normally the best way forward.  Weren't the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan knee-jerk reactions in the wake of 9/11?  History has shown that trying to solve complex problems with simple 'solutions' rarely works.  But here we go again and we are where we are.  As the consequences of the actions of all the players in the conflict unfold, let's hope that eventually sanity will prevail and a peaceful solution will be sought although I guess that will not be before the combatants become battle weary.

The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst ~ Henry Fosdick.