Thursday, August 28, 2014

A Second Front: The Israeli Dilemma

Rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government forces captured a border crossing between Syria and Israel in the disputed Golan Heights. While Syrian forces are attempting to recapture the crossing near Quneitra, the outlook is bleak; Syria also lost the Tabqa airbase in the country's north, the site of a gruesome mass execution of prisoners of war - a war crime from any perspective. The Nusra Front, linked to al Qaeda, participated in the Quneitra battle and represents a wakeup call for Israel as it settles the country's border.


It is unlikely that the Israelis are interested in a two-front war, having just disengaged from 50 days of warfare in Gaza just a few days ago. This ceasefire itself may only prove to be temporary. The Israelis have fought several two-front wars in their past (1948, 1967, and 1973) and have conducted operations on multiple fronts since; however, handling two distinct conflict zones is not something that is desired.

Israel has largely stayed out of the Syrian Civil War, having only sporadically engaged across the border. However, with alert levels raised and the capture of 43 United Nations peacekeepers charged with securing the Israel-Syria border by rebel forces, reality may become necessity. Both Israel and the West may have to choose the lesser of two evils - Assad or the rebels. The US is not expected to work with Assad, but airstrikes against some of the rebel forces, namely the Islamic State, may come. This could place Israel in a precarious position of both defending itself and not being swallowed in regional conflict.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Press Play

It seems that Russian and Ukrainian leaders are simply waiting around till someone tells them to press play. After a huge row last week over a supposed humanitarian convoy purported to be poorly disguised military support, full-fledged war is occurring in all-but name across Eastern Ukraine. And it seems that the convoy will cross the border after all.

(Source: AP via BBC)

Meanwhile, a group of refugees fleeing the fighting were hit with "rockets and mortars," causing numerous fatalities and casualties. Both sides blame one another, naturally.

Victories in this war are reminiscent of recently-highlighted accounts of World War I on the centenary of its beginning - opposing sides fighting for mere feet and meters at great cost and little tactical advantage. Even the politics of soccer have been infiltrated, with teams in annexed Crimea beginning play in the Russian leagues.

But perhaps the real concern should be perspective. Everyone became worried for a week and half after pro-Russian rebels shot down an airliner at cruising altitude, but then the airlines and other nations decided they would just not fly over Ukraine anymore and all became well again. Perspective is in how a conflict is described, discussed, and referenced. Perhaps it is no longer appropriate to call it the "Ukraine Crisis," or the "Crisis in Ukraine" (also used by the Wall Street Journal). Perhaps we call it what is - war - because it's quite possible that reality may lead us toward a solution.


Monday, August 18, 2014

India and Pakistan: Domestic and Foreign Policies Collide

May 2014 brought the promise of progress in India-Pakistan relations.  After the historic swearing-in of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi - the first ever attended by a Pakistani prime minister - people were cautiously optimistic about relations between the feuding nuclear powers.  That optimism was extended when Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif publicly exchanged letters of gratitude toward each other, which followed up on the meeting the two held after Modi's swearing-in.  In his letter, Modi also expressed India's sympathy toward Pakistan after the terror attack on Karachi's airport.

Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif shake hands after Modi's swearing-in (source: The Guardian).

These developments were promising, and they may well continue.  Of course, it will take more than a meeting and a letter exchange to overcome decades of mistrust and border attacks.  Furthermore, both prime ministers must still deal with local populations that are not so quick to mend old wounds.  Moving too quickly toward improved relations will undercut the support both leaders need to rule.  Indeed, Sharif was condemned for the very decision to attend Modi's inauguration.

Unfortunately, both leaders have already gone back to the tried-and-true tact of using the other country as an easy target for domestic woes.  Last week, for example, Modi declared in a speech to Indian troops that Pakistan now wages a "proxy war of terrorism" because it lacks the capabilities to wage a conventional war.

Sharif, meanwhile, finds his own prime ministership at risk in the midst of large-scale protests.  Those protests are led by political rival Imran Khan of the PTI party.  Khan is calling for Sharif's ouster due to issues ranging from alleged vote-rigging in the 2013 elections to the "dynastic" nepotism of the Sharifs.  Although he has called on protesters to keep their actions peaceful, he has also called on them to stop paying taxes and bills as part of the larger protest.

Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that, in the midst of this internal challenge to Sharif's rule, Pakistani military forces attacked Indian border posts at 20 different locations yesterday.  Incidentally, none of Pakistan's major English-language outlets - Dawn, The News International, and The Express Tribune - reported on the attacks.

Ultimately, the political strategy of pandering to the local population while trying to present a more suitable international front is nothing new.  Its most recent notable iteration may be Iran's positions during the recent nuclear talks.  Iran may try to woo investors and welcome the UN nuclear watchdog, on the one hand, but talk about destruction of the U.S. in the event of an attack, on the other.  In the case of Pakistan and India, the effort to garner local support by castigating the other country is a short-term tactic.  It is also one that finds itself increasingly outdated in the digital age, where information from non-local sources is more readily available.  The longer-term strategy of mending old wounds is harder; it will involve less flashy developments like multiple trade summits, cooperation in counter-terrorism investigations, and regular regional meetings to address issues facing the two and their smaller neighbors.  This will take time, perseverance, patience, and restraint, none of which lend themselves well to the political arena.  Ultimately, the coming months will tell whether May 2014 was a new beginning or merely an aberration in the long-standing dispute.




Friday, August 8, 2014

Of Bombs & Air Strikes


What looks like a dust storm or the desert tracks of a very fast vehicle is actually the result of air strikes by American fighter jets on Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL) militants not far from Erbil, Iraq. Friday's limited strikes resulted in limited damage, but also intend to send a warning message. However, without clearer objectives - what do the strikes intend to do? - the strikes will fail to resonate. In fact, they could spur the militants to redouble efforts or even drag American forces into a protracted, albeit likely arms-length, engagement.

Is the United States concerned with the exploding humanitarian disaster in Iraq? Among other minorities being displaced, both as refugees and internally, the Yazidis have gained special attention due to being surrounded by IS fighters (see map below). American aircraft dropped humanitarian supplies - water and food - to the besieged minority. Was this a tactical move? How does this specific situation differ from what IS militants have done elsewhere in Iraq, or Syria for that matter? The "why now" question is one that American officials would be hard-pressed to have a good answer for. There is a humanitarian disaster throughout the Middle East, perhaps one of unprecedented scale, that the United States and much of the West has thoroughly ignored.

On the other hand, is the collapsing political situation the greater worry? IS controls a large share of Iraq today and atrocities perpetrated by its rank and file are making for gory headlines. The map below offers a glimpse into the scale the Iraqi government is faced with.

























Recent reports express concern over IS control over the Mosul Dam, which could wreak havoc downriver if compromised. Such control over water in the delicate region could impact IS' primary target - Baghdad. The complications multiply very quickly. Whether limited air strikes will do anything to change the situation on the ground is questionable. In 1999, the United States conducted a 78-day air campaign to make an impact on the ground in Kosovo. Are a few missiles and bombs here and there going to change much?

Is the United States simply grasping at straws to ensure its legacy? Should IS continue its advance into Kurdistan, will the United States assist, or abandon the Kurds as it has in the past? These are all critical questions that help answer the larger question - what is the objective here?