Social Media & the Military: Oil and Water

Individual social media profiles are generally bad news for militaries. They eventually lead to trouble. The Israeli army has repeatedly expressed concern and even made efforts to limit social media usage by soldiers. The United States military has had related concerns over access to social media. Simply put, people tend to overshare.

Russian soldiers and separatists have had a hard time keeping social media in check in Eastern Ukraine. The location functionality has repeatedly revealed activity that, according to Russia, isn't happening. Pictures are particularly telling. Recently, a reporter tracked down some specific locations, proving the photos were taken in Ukraine:

(Source: Vice News)

But the problem isn't just for Russia, Israel, or the United States. It's really a problem for all militaries. When it comes to social media, things separate out and float to the top, becoming real headaches in time. Social media doesn't mix well with the military.

Return to the Concept of a Three-State Solution in Iraq

Any "defeat" of ISIS, however one defines it, would certainly include re-taking ISIS-controlled areas of Iraq and holding them.  Part of the problem is that, similar to the "Anbar awakening" in 2007, such a strategy necessarily involves a serious and committed effort by local Sunnis to expel a distasteful group.  There is one key difference, this time.  In 2007, the U.S. military paid local Sunni groups to fight and expel al Qaeda.  This time, the Iraqi government is nominally in control of ground operations and put simply, there is little Sunni appetite to participate with a Shia-led government that has turned a blind eye to atrocities against Sunnis, used violence to break up Sunni protest camps, and has directly participated in the political disenfranchisement of Sunnis.  While many Sunnis bravely risk their lives to oppose ISIS control of their lands, there is a very understandable reticence to work side by side with the government that has spent much of its time oppressing and vilifying them.

Iraqis flee the city of Ramadi as ISIS forces take over after an 18-month fight with the Iraqi military (Source: CNN)

=

In short, Sunnis need to be invested in the future of their government.  They are certainly not invested in the current form of Iraqi government, and its history since the U.S. departure has suggested that they don't have much reason to support and be invested in such a government.  The Obama administration acknowledges that there must be meaningful Sunni participation in any Iraqi government.  However, that was already the plan when the United States was deeply involved in developing Iraq's governmental structure.  The plan was for a Sunni vice president and protections of Sunni citizens.  Obviously, that plan has not transpired, with the Sunni vice president arrested and expelled from the government soon after the U.S. departure.

How does one rebuild trust in a participatory Iraqi government?  One step in the right direction was the ouster of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, whose name toward the end of his tenure had become synonymous with Sunni oppression.  However, the changing of the guard has not translated to better relations between Sunni and Shia; rather, Shia militia rage through Sunni areas unabated, committing atrocities.

There has been a little discussion lately -- but not much -- of a three-state solution or some autonomy-heavy federalism in Iraq.  Indeed, the timing of such a discussion might seem ludicrous as ISIS controls vast swathes of what would be a Sunni state.  However, a few things should be kept in mind.  First, a three-state solution or heavily decentralized state was more widely discussed during the early years of the insurgency in Iraq.  The very reason is the same that warrants discussing it now: getting Sunnis invested in their own future.  Second, there is no reason that a discussion of a three-state solution must concede ISIS control over northwestern Iraq.  One could suggest, for example, that a northwestern Iraq referendum on independence or decentralized government occur only after Iraqi forces retake ISIS-controlled territory.

For those worried about the possibility of a Sunni state becoming a haven for terrorism: keep in mind that ISIS already controls much of the territory, and that the inability of Iraq's Shias and Sunnis to make political peace has in large part led to the lack of a united front to combat ISIS.  Indeed, so long as Iraq's Shia leaders fail to include and indeed openly oppress the Sunni, there is no incentive for Sunni to fight for such leaders.  Fighting for their own state, or own self-controlled region within a partitioned state, might give more Sunnis a real reason to expel ISIS and hold any territory it takes from the terrorist organization.

Of course, the political partition of Iraq needn't necessarily be a "three-state" solution.  One possibility, for example, is a two-state solution: an independent Kurdish state and a "federal" Sunni-Shia state with a weak central government and significant autonomy to the two federal regions.

Any type of devolution or partitioning of Iraq would involve the tricky issue of oil revenues.  Indeed, some people see oil revenue as overriding other concerns and thereby necessitating a strong central government.  Ultimately, however, any central government in Iraq is doomed if it is not ready to cede significant political autonomy to Sunni regions.  Moreover, control over their own future might be the only incentive significant enough to bring Sunnis to the fore of the fight against ISIS.

Pakistani Terrorist Commander Ordered Released on Bail, Likely Affecting Pak-Indian Relations

The world was horrified by the 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which terrorists stormed a number of buildings in India and killed 168 people.  All but one of the gunmen died; the surviving gunman was convicted and executed in 2012 for his actions.  The terrorists were Pakistani and came from the group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistani terrorist group with historical ties to the Pakistani government and military and highly suspected current ties with Pakistan's chief intelligence service.

The operational leader and co-founder of LeT, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, was arrested in 2008 in connection with the attack.  He has been incarcerated for the past 7 years.  Back in December 2014, a court ordered Lakhvi released on bail.  The Pakistani government opposed the decision and kept him incarcerated, but this past Thursday the Pakistani supreme court ordered that Lakhvi be released immediately.

Protests in India followed the court ruling ordering Lakhvi released (Source: BBC)

This will likely have negative effects on India-Pakistan relations, which have somewhat thawed following the election of India's Prime Minister Modi and a positive exchange of letters amongst the countries' leaders.

What is especially troubling is how little is known about Lakhvi's trial, which has been ongoing since 2009 and is not open to the public:

The commander, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, and six other members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group have been on trial since 2009 at a high-security jail in Rawalpindi, just south of Islamabad, on charges of participating in the Mumbai operation. 

But the trial has been conducted largely in secrecy, and its halting pace has given rise to speculation that its progress is being influenced by the vagaries of wider tensions between Pakistan and India.

While this doesn't mean the case is dismissed, only time will tell whether Lakhvi appears for the remainder of the trial.  While locked up, he wasn't exactly treated like a commander of a terrorist organization:

While Pakistan's government claimed that it was cracking down on terrorists, Zakiur-Rehman Lakhvi and six of his comrades in Rawalpindi's sprawling Adyala Jail had several rooms next to the jailer's office at their disposal. 

And with the jailer's permission, they had a television, mobile phones and access to the internet, as well as dozens of visitors a day. 

"He [Lakhvi] can receive any number of guests, any time of day or night, seven days a week," said one jail official while the terror suspect was under lock and key.
No special permission was required for visitors, who were not even asked to identify themselves to jail authorities.

That access allowed Lakhvi to retain his position as a high-ranking LeT commander even while he was incarcerated.  This is not simply a question of prison conditions.  LeT has been declared a terrorist organization by the United States and the UN Security Council and banned in Pakistan since 2002.

Letting one of their commanders continue to run the organization from prison is an insult to the memories of those who have died at the hands of LeT terror.  While arresting him and bringing him to trial in Pakistan were steps in the right direction for a government that has often been seen as having sympathies toward LeT, the recent supreme court ruling that released him is a step in the wrong direction.  While the Pakistani government publicly opposed that decision, it has been treating him in a manner for the past 5+ years that suggests it is not as eager to take on LeT as it claims.  Reaction in India to the decision has, unsurprisingly, been quite negative.  If Lakhvi and other LeT officials are ultimately acquitted, that negativity will likely manifest itself in worsening relations between two countries that seemed on track to gradually improve their historically volatile relationship.

Just a Add a Dash of Authoritarianism

Singapore became self-governing in 1959 and gained full independence in 1965 after a brief period as part of Malaysia. Over the ensuing decades, Singapore transformed from a small port in Asia to the seventh largest GDP per capita. With little to no resources or even land area - there are only 19 smaller nations - Singapore is often hailed as a model of success, arguably leading the Asian Tigers, which also include South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

But between 1959 and 1990, Singapore was led, all-but autocratically, by a single man - Lee Kuan Yew, whose funeral was held Sunday after passing away one week ago. Also since 1959, a single party has controlled Singaporean politics, the People's Action Party. The eldest son of Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong, has led Singapore since 2004.  These are not the typical politics of an economic and international paragon. In fact, if you take away the economic success, Singapore looks more like the typical pariah state than a vanguard.

Nonetheless, Singapore has clearly been an economic success story. World leaders turned out for Lee Kuan Yew's funeral. Singapore is often seen as a model that other nations can scale. China has emulated some of its policies and tactics. But does the model truly scale? Can "soft authoritarianism" that was effective in a an area characterized by its limited geography and alternative opportunity prosper on a grander scale? That question remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the Singapore experiment continues to demonstrate what could be possible, if political and economic dreams can be massaged into sound and equitable policies.

Boko Haram: A New Beginning?

Boko Haram, whose name loosely translates to "Western education is a sin," has been operating in Nigeria since the early 2000's. It was not designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States Department of State until 2013, although there was likely sufficient evidence to make the designation earlier. During those ten years, as Boko Haram and its influence grew, it was sometimes difficult to grasp the organization's potential longevity, though time itself should have been an indicating factor over the years.

(Boko Haram attacks, BBC)

This week, Boko Haram leaders pledged allegiance to ISIS, a move that could reflect a new beginning for the terrorist group. Evidence that ISIS has been influencing Boko Haram has existed for the past few months. It could also simply demonstrate the reach and dominance of ISIS. All in all, the full impact of this 'bayat' are not entirely clear. Increased coordination between different organizations is certainly of concern, reminding nations of similar coordination under the al-Qaeda umbrella. At the same time, Boko Haram could simply be jumping on the ISIS bandwagon. 

Battling ISIS - A Short Update

Despite the numerous groups battling ISIS, there has been arguably minimal organized support from Western governments, who are most equipped, militarily speaking. Nonetheless, alongside the flow of individuals from Western nations to fight for ISIS, there has been a smaller flow of individuals from Western nations fighting against ISIS. Many of these individuals have little affiliation with the Middle East. Some have military training, some do not.

Meanwhile, in the closing days of February, Ashley Johnston, an Australian, died fighting ISIS. He is believed to be the first Westerner to die fighting with the numerous groups battling ISIS. Seemingly immediately after his death, Australia made it a crime to be Australian and exist in Mosul, with few exceptions. Although the law has good intentions, it almost feels like a stopgap measure. What does it accomplish? How will it be proven that you were in Mosul? Will it really prevent Australians who want to be there from being there?

Perhaps some thought should be given not necessarily as to how the government can directly support or oppose individual efforts, but how to stop the movement overall - how to defeat ISIS entirely.

No Consequences, Just Lies

Early this morning, news broke that a ceasefire was reached in the nearly year-long conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The four-party talks in Minsk, Belarus involved Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France, but not the United States. While the agreement is certainly welcome news, it will still take time to uncover whether it has any true substance.

Many observers are concerned that the agreement is solely on paper and that action, particularly on the Russian side, may not follow. Previous agreements to stem the war have failed and the conflict reignited.

Of interest is the clause that arms and troops will be withdrawn to a distance from the area of dispute. As recently as late January, however, Russia denied that its troops were in Ukraine. One can dispute official troops as opposed to other forms of military presence, but Russia's role in that military presence is widely accepted, despite Russia's consistent claims to the contrary. Despite the realities on the ground and their acceptance inherent within the agreement, there are no consequences for these past statements.

Russia has, of course, made the news in other ways this week that do little to help the overall situation and sense of mistrust, including claiming that it will be leasing military bases in Cyprus , which is in the European Union but not part of NATO, and denying a request by Ukraine to restructure that country's debt to Russia.

While the situation in Ukraine is not resolved by any account, there remains the possibility that this ceasefire may lead toward peace. At the same time, past statements that fail to accurately describe intentions on purpose do reflect what the future may have in store.

(Ukraine Crisis Map from National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine via Business Insider Australia)

Note: A neat interactive map of the crisis is also available.