Of Bombs & Air Strikes

(Source: Associated Press via Wall Street Journal)

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.

(Source: Associated Press via Wall Street Journal)

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?

Growing Pains in Iraq: Reconciling Federalism

Few people believed that Iraq was magically reborn following the departure of the remaining U.S. troops from Iraq in late 2011. After all, that withdrawal was years in the making, both politically and militarily. Even then, there was debate over how Iraq would be shaped, in 2012 and beyond. It was surmised that a Sunni-Shia rift would continue, fueled in part by insurgents pushing the boundaries of Iraqi security forces. At the same time, concerns about Iraq's president Nouri al-Maliki's (who is Shia) leadership also existed, in light of clear pro-Shia favoritism.

It seems that "messy democracy" is the favorite description of Iraq over the years; however, this description is really just an easy way to not say anything at all. It's a way to say Iraqi democracy is not the democracy of Norway (ranked #1 in the Democracy Index), but is also not the democracy of Zimbabwe (ranked #148). It is clear that Iraq is somewhere in the middle (#113 in 2012). But what direction is that democracy headed toward - Norway or Zimbabwe?

This is not a question that has an easy answer. Iraqi federalism has been discussed over and over gain. How will the country look? It has been debated whether Iraq can even hold itself together as a single unified country, given its history, colonially drawn borders, and somewhat diverse populations. What power-sharing structures will exist? That entails whether Iraq function as an open democracy where one viewpoint transitions power to another bloodlessly, or would a constitutional requirement for a constant mix of viewpoints be necessary. As well, the level of autonomy given to individual provinces - should Iraq even be a federation or a confederation? And in the end, who will fight who over what, and will that fighting be political or physical? To gain some insight into some of the issues that prevail today, from insurgent fighting in the West to Kurdish self-determination in the North, it helps to take a look at the political and religious boundaries in Iraq:

Religious makeup of Iraq (Source: NPR)

Political makeup of Iraq (Source: Wikipedia)

One province stands out in a grand manner: Al-Anbar in the West. On the one hand, al-Anbar is far larger than any other political division in Iraq, taking up as much as a third of the country. On the other hand, the province is sparsely populated and includes significant desert acreage. 

Al-Anbar is also the source of some of the worst fighting during the Iraq War, including the First Battle of Fallujah and the Second Battle of Fallujah. More recently, it is the location of Sunni protests, and the takeover of Iraqi cities (Ramadi, the capital of Al-Anbar, and, to some extent, Fallujah) by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which is associated with al-Qaeda.

In the past, gerrymandering was a possibility. This likely would have been an option early on when the politics of Iraq were still up for debate. However, with a Shia-led government that seemingly continues to clamp down on Sunni politics, this idea is likely off the table, or we will end up with the worst of American democratic traditions married to military conflict.

Within federalism, there exists some level of equality on a national scene, at least in the sense that everyone can, at some point, attain a leadership role and participate in national politics. Without that, there is no purpose to being part of a federalist structure. Both alienating a component of the national population and simultaneously allowing the growth of their own sub-state cannot lead to a solution.

It will take crucial and careful leadership to lead Iraq out of its federalist quagmire. It can't hurt to use the American example here as well: the United States operated under the Articles of Confederation between 1777 (informally) / 1781 (formally) until 1789, when the Constitution took effect. It took years to figure out a better way for the system to operate, and it may take years in Iraq. Focusing on the politics, and the compromises that come with politics, while avoiding warfare and open conflict, are key tenets that could lead to Iraq reconciling its federalism for a lasting state.

Unrest in al-Anbar and Iraq's Newest Crisis

You may have heard a tiny bit of news streaming out of Iraq this week (more important than the polar vortex) - there is trouble west of Baghdad. What kind of trouble? A group of insurgents, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), conveniently connected to al-Qaeda, took control of Ramadi and Fallujah in the al-Anbar province. Though the connections are tenuous and still not entirely clear, ISIL is also at the forefront of the rebellion in Syria. How far west of Baghdad? Pretty close - say 40 miles or so. Here is a map for reference to show Fallujah proximity to Baghdad:

Fallujah location (Source: Wikipedia)

The battles for Ramadi and Fallujah are remembered as some of the most entrenched, violent, and deadly of the Iraq War. That makes the towns not only strategic, falling on the road to Baghdad, but also symbolic.

Nations with deep interest in what happens in Iraq are not quite sure what to do. The United States has ruled out sending ground forces. The United Kingdom has similarly indicated that it would not send troops. Even Iran refused the idea of sending troops. All are willing to send aid to Iraq - military aid. In fact, the US is stepping up military shipments in an attempt to support the Iraqi government and avoid fighting from spreading much further. If there's a war brewing, it always helps to just arm at least someone with more weapons and better ones too.

Nonetheless, beating back the insurgents militarily presents a hypocritical dilemma both for Iraqi and American leadership, who have stood their ground on neighboring Syria, expressing the need for political rather than military solutions. Were Iraq to forego political options and resort to military ones solely, it would surely lose its legitimacy in criticizing Syria's response. It would also not look great for the United States, who is therefore simultaneously pushing for Iraq to employ political pressures through Sunni moderates.

Al-Maliki, meanwhile, is pretty much just throwing things out there to see what sticks. Although locals would surely prefer good governance and open business, tribal and religious distrust exist between those in al-Anbar and al-Maliki's Shia-led central government. For example, al-Maliki ordered Iraqi troops to not strike neighborhoods in Fallujah. Well, "neighborhoods" is certainly not easy to define, while it also provides insurgent troops clear cover and complicates urban warfare immensely. He has also urged residents to expel the insurgents, though without clarifying how they should do so, or why they should stick it out with the central government. Though these may be simply placeholder statements to stave off military options while political ones are attempted, they don't come off as too impressive.

Al-Qaeda has a vested interest in destabilizing foreign influence and bringing territory under its control, but al-Qaeda-backed insurgents don't just show up in town and everyone else suddenly becomes anti-government. There is a significant backstory here, centering on the potential consolidation of power by Iraq's president Nouri al-Maliki, who is Shia, and the central government's seeming mistreatment of Sunnis. The Sunni-Shia rift goes back ages, but recent history reflects the dominance by the Sunni minority of the Shia majority under the reign of Saddam Hussein (who was Sunni). Even more recently, al-Maliki's arrest of his Sunni vice president in 2011, and his attempted arrest of a Sunni member of parliament and removal of protest camps in al-Anbar in late 2013 directly contributed to the current crisis.

What happens now? A military conflict is inevitable, regardless of the acrid political aftertaste for Iraq and the United States. It is hopeful, though, that it will be short-lived. What is critical is that Iraq's Shia-led government begin to pay better attention and give greater care to its Sunni minority. It's hard to imagine, but democracy is not a zero-sum game and win-win results are possible. The long-term solution is all-but political and that would involve compromise with various factions and the extensive inclusion of moderates. Al-Maliki is right in encouraging the citizens to expel the insurgents, but words must be tied to actions, and the government's efforts must be tied to explaining why it would be to the benefit of those in al-Anbar to be pro-government rather than anti-government.

Ukraine Protests Grow, Government Wavers, World Begins to Take Notice

Evidence of a split within the Ukrainian populace has not felt so clear as it does during the current protests in quite a while. Even government officials are failing to keep a coherent front, with differing claims of a complete lean toward Russia and a continued lead toward Europe. Moreover, pro-government protesters are being bused in from the East and South, which may only lead to further societal divisions. No matter - the faux protests are no match for the 200,000 rallying of their own accord.

Meanwhile, under all the protests, what comes next is still a question. Foreign Policy points out the waning influence of Russia's geopolitical energy strategies. This has been a concern for several years now, as Russian oil production has begun to collapse and its natural gas strength challenged by the early development of an international market (led by new technological development out of the United States).

Russia has not really developed a mixed economy, so were its geopolitical arsenal to weaken, it could become increasingly unpredictable politically. Has Ukraine become a battleground? Well, there's little other reason for current United States Congressmen to be addressing Ukrainians in Kiev, is there?

From Albania to Norway, and everywhere in between

The saga of Syria's chemical weapons continues. It took ages to get Syria to admit to using banned weapons (though Syria never signed the ban) on its own population during the civil war. Now, with much work done, the question of how to dispose of and destroy the weapons remains unanswered.

It was originally thought that a neutral nation would allow the careful and systematic destruction of chemical weapons on its soil by a competent team of experts. Clearly, this assumption has proven naive. The NIMBY (not in my backyard) complex is extremely strong when it comes to sensitive topics such as chemical weapons. And with 1,300 tons of weapons to destroy, this is no simple or quick task.

Although a proponent of peaceful resolution in Syria and the destruction of the chemical weapons, Norway was first to say no. A flurry of other European nations have followed suit, including Germany, France, Albania, and, last but not least, Belgium. Neither Russia nor the U.S. are willing to do the dirty work (U.S. law, in fact, prohibits this). It seems, that no one may be willing.

Now, the weapons may be dismantled and destroyed at sea. This is a risky operation, though technically possible. It would involve significant precautions and security. More unsteady is the logistics of setting up this operation. Nonetheless, it may be the only option.

Unthinkable? No. Unprecedented? No. Ignored. Yes. - Syria Today

The disaster that is Syria continues to unfold and capture the world's attention. The United States, led by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, have begun to use some of the harshest rhetoric of late in describing the calamity there in a bid to garner political support for military action against Syria. The trigger, late in coming, is the all-but certain use of chemical weapons. It is questionable whether the trigger may be too late.

Before touting the latest news, it is important to recognize that this chemical attack would be only the latest atrocity in a civil war that has dragged on and has been ignored. The Economist wrote an excellent piece on the disintegration of Syria as a nation-state and its impact on regional and international affairs back in February of 2013. For a conflict that has already lasted years, the question that certainly arises is: why now? what makes this so different?

Is this the unthinkable? No - there were chemical weapons atrocities throughout the twentieth century, and even during the Syrian Civil War reports as far back as early this year suggested chemical weapons use. In fact, a response in Syria would be the first of its kind, following the Chemical Weapons Convention (of which Syria is not a signatory).This latest attack was simply too public and too brazen to ignore is the line of thinking.

Is the scale of Syria Civil War unprecedented? This is certainly arguable. This is Homs this year:

                                          (Source: Daily Mail)

Meanwhile, this is Hama in 1982:

                                          (Source: Wikipedia)

Recent United Nations reports also point to an approximate two million refugees and massive camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. An addition four million are internally displaced, though this gets much less news much like internally displaced persons get much fewer rights than refugees. While the scale in terms of the total population is much higher, the overall scale is not much different from the Democratic Republic of Congo civil war. This is an all-out war. Whoever wins, it will take decades to rebuild Syria.

What has happened, and what often happens in these situations, is that the entire conflict has largely been ignored from the foreign policy of Western nations. Countries and international institutions have noted their opinions, counted the dead, but not acted. The reality is that no one wants to repeat Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the US has likely eliminated any considerations of infantry use for the foreseeable future. It is unsurprising that a significant part of the US plan involves improving the Syrian resistance. In itself, this is problematic, with portions of the Syrian resistance being directly affiliates with al Qaeda. Meanwhile, Pentagon estimates suggest it would take 75,000 troops to control the ground in Syria.

None of this paints a pretty picture (nor is it meant to). Is action in Syria needed? Probably. Would it have been more useful months and months ago? Probably. The question now is most certainly - what kind of response will occur. Will it drive Assad out of power, or will it simply lead to a repeat of the two Gulf Wars?


Previous Illexum Posts on Syria:

• UN good at counting; everything else - not so much (June 13, 2013)
• Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)
• Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
• The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
• Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
• Annan Resigns, Endgame Approaches? (August 2, 2012)

Unreliable Energy Focus: Liquefied Natural Gas & International Gas Markets

The first energy shock of the 21st century has most certainly been the Phoenix-like revitalization of United States energy production. An expected decline has morphed into an increase in production, turning the energy world on its heels. Previously, it was expected that the United States would not only continue to be dependent on foreign energy imports, but that those imports would increasingly dominate the economy and, to an extent, foreign policy. In fact, the turnaround has shown the United States is moving toward energy independence. Energy independence would allow one of the world's most powerful nations to operate with limited influence on foreign policy from countries who have hitherto sold it its energy.

More so, it may even allow it to undermine the resource-based economies of those nations. An aftershock is most certainly coming: liquefied natural gas (LNG). Unlike oil, which can be stored in barrels, put on vessels, and transported around the world easily, natural gas is not so portable. Natural gas pipelines are costly to maintain and can only traverse the land so far. Once the land ends, pipelines become even more difficult to develop and maintain. These limits to natural gas portability lead to closed markets and differences in gas prices around the world.

So far, most cost-effective method of transporting natural gas involves transforming it into a liquid, transporting it, and then regasifying it. In a nutshell, this is the LNG process. There are a limited number of LNG liquefaction and gasification plants in the world right now. However, an increasing number are being planned and built. In a sense, the glut in the market that is in the United States right now, has the very potential to undermine prices and energy market structures around the world. With a freer market, resource-intensive economies reliant on high-priced earth-based exports will have their influence on the foreign policy of other nations severely diminished.

Coup? What's a Coup?

...our month-long summer hibernation is over...

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government (Oxford Dictionary)

Coup: a change in government that is not in the nation's interest, when we decide that it's not, and not any sooner (United States government definition)

There is, of course, a formal definition likely somewhere buried in the government's glossary, but it's not quite relevant. It is clear in everyone's eyes that Egypt's change in government was a coup, whether or not the United States supported the change.

Since the overthrow, the United States has been on the "what do we do!?!" fence for what has seemed like an eternity. Formally labeling the change in government a coup leads to all sorts of ramifications, domestically and abroad. Namely, the US aid agreement with Egypt would likely be invalidated by the coup definition. This could complicate matters with the silent, but reciprocal aid given to Israel to avoid a perception of favoritism in the Middle East. Save for Afghanistan, Egypt and Israel are at the top of the list for United States military aid, and largely have been so since their 1979 peace treaty. At home, the government could be on the hook for the contracts that would terminate as a result of halting aid to Egypt - and the price is not cheap.

Quietly, over the past week, reports have leaked that aid to Egypt is not only under review, but may have already been suspended. Of course, this could be a technicality with a time lag - purchases already made for the fiscal year could be in the past and the looming cut so far in the future that it is still under discussion. Other funding tranches may simply not yet be due. Nonetheless, the positive side is sending a signal. The mess needs to be cleaned up and in an orderly fashion - not with civilians bleeding in the streets. Egypt may turn out, after all, to be a comparison against the change in regime in Iraq. What path is the one that leads toward a better future? Only time will tell.

Egypt Mini-Update: Tacit US Support

It's no question that the United States was never a huge fan of Mohammed Morsi and his relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood. There was always an underlying fear within government policy circles and analysts alike that Morsi's rule was not aboveboard and was growing less and less democratic, both in the way it was conducted and the way it was founded. In a sense, it was felt that Morsi was given a chance, and then blew it.

It is surprising, however, that the United States may have bankrolled some anti-government organizations in Egypt. It almost seems as if the US is funding revolution by trial and error. However, it's important to note that this investigation has been sharply criticized. The channels of US funding have nearly always been a mystery.

More telling is the story of the F-16s. In 2012, the US agreed on donating F-16s to Egypt as part of an aid package. That's right - not a typo - donating and aid package and F-16s. Some in Congress sought to derail the delivery, but that attempt failed. And now, the US is ready to deliver the first of these fighter jets, amid a military coup, growing unrest, and another revolution. What could be more timely?

Is Canadian Oil Dirty?

While vociferous debate has sprung up in the United States over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a different kind of debate is brewing, starting in the European Union. The big question being being asked in Brussels is whether fuel should be taxed based on the level of pollution it produces as a byproduct. Moreover, how severe should that penalty be?

Although the tar sands may hold 170bn barrels of oil, getting it out is tricky, complex, and messy. The operation in Canada's back country is already considered by many to be an ecological and environmental disaster of historic proportions:

Prominent scientists even warn that the impact of tar sands oil production on climate change could outstrip nearly all other known contributors.

The European Union is on the verge of classifying fuel that comes from Canada's wild tar sands as dirtier than other types, thereby making it more expensive over time. Canada is pleading with the EU and even going through intermediaries in the United Kingdom to water down the proposal or scrap it altogether, even though Canada currently exports no oil to Europe.  Canada has gone so far as to threaten to take its case to the WTO.

The fear is not of Europe itself, but a precedent-setting international domino effect. Canada, the country of great environmental beauty, may actually end up on the wrong side of the climate change debate. This could spell the end not only of Canada's resource-intensive economy, but also the economic driver that has held Canada high during the recently leaner economic times elsewhere. It is, in a sense, an existential crisis that Canada has drummed up, all on its own.

To Do What Feels Necessary

Reports early this morning indicated that Israel had struck inside Syria, though details were slim. At first, there was speculation that the Israelis had struck a chemical weapons site. This would have changed the dynamics of the Israel-Syria relationship, which remains in a technical state of war. Despite espousing concern over Syria's chemical weapons over the past month, Israel has not ventured into the conflict itself, likely at the behest of the United States, who belatedly continues to review and grow concerned with the atrocities inside Syria.

It seems, later reports indicate, that Israeli planes did not enter Syrian airspace (though they did enter Lebanese airspace) to conduct the airstrike. In fact, the target was another weapons convoy to Hizbullah, much like the previous strike in January. Therefore, in fact, as the day has gone on and the details have come out, this story has died down. It is not a new phase in the war, but Israel's continuance of doing what is necessary in order to keep itself secure.

The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD

Are they or aren't they? And who is they - the government or the rebels? The only known known, as Donald Rumsfeld would eloquently put it, is that the mess in Syria is turning into a quagmire.

Rumblings of chemical WMD use in the Syrian conflict are not new. New images seem to strongly suggest that conventional weapons are not solely in play. Moreover, American intelligence affirms this position and indicates that sarin has been used, but on a small scale (Syria denies this American "lie"). Unfortunately, as with previous evidence, it doesn't seem that any country, with the United States in particular, is really willing to do anything about it other than utilize euphemisms for further investigation and delayed action. In a sense, the United States is saying that there's evidence, but not clear-cut proof. Figure that?

It seems that the line in the sand, which seemed so clear in the past based on American statements, has blurred with the wind. Given recent history and even considering older military history (dating as far back as World War I), the United States is visibly shaken by the potential problems of confronting chemical weapons militarily. While those weapons pose significant threat to Americans, putting soldiers on the ground to eliminate them seems to be a line in itself. It seems doubtful that in all this time, no special force has been organized and trained to tackle such an obvious concern.

Despite all this, it is time to take a position, whether it be showing force (regional deployment) or showing presence (drones). Something must be done. Or will the world stand by as another civil war drags months into years and death and destruction into the everyday? Just in the past few decades, the world watched Somalia, Congo, and Yugoslavia - do we really need another example? Where are the massive protests about inaction? Where is the public outcry? It seems that the Syrian conflict's human toll has gone overlooked in the face of political calculations.

It's important to remember that sometimes the war we try to avoid is the war that drags us in. Perhaps we can truly preempt such a calamity by taking a stance now and beginning to end the madness.

Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons

President Obama's visit to Israel this week would be an excellent opportunity for some serious, evenhanded discussion on what's going on in Syria. In fact, the President should pull in  his national security team and ask Benjamin Netanyahu to do the same. Frankly, the testy relationship between the two leaders is reflected in the countries' differing statements on Syria's use of chemical weapons.

See, the Israelis are affirming reports that Syria has begun to use chemical weapons. The Syrians, of course, blame it on the rebels. As does Russia. The United States, however, is not so sure and is not jumping to any conclusions so quickly. In fact, the United States is "deeply skeptical," which of course sits none too well with Russia and Syria, who are demanding an investigation.

What seems likely is that someone used a chemical (or biological) agent of some sort. Given the levels of frustration and the severity of factions in rebel forces, it is impossible to rule out rebel use, perhaps even to attempt to trigger larger retaliation. President Obama's line in the sand will perhaps turn out to be a moving target. Does it truly mean only if government forces use them? Do dirty agents count, or only official ones? All these questions gloss over the point - the line in the sand is meant to protect the people. If anyone uses chemical agents to any extent, the line has been crossed. Moreover, continuous retreat is seen as a sign of weakness in the region (as well as elsewhere). One must hold their ground if resolution is truly a desired result. Lastly, the relationship between the United States and Israel could further be strained if they are unable to agree on the events and repercussions of those events in Syria, much like how the relationship has been strained over Iran.

Therefore, the time for action, on some level, is on the horizon. Even nominal air support, with drones perhaps, would indicate that the United States' position is firm and the line in the sand doesn't move with the wind. Such action will, in time, bring Syria closer to resolution, as well as likely continue to repair the relationship with Israel. It is not the time to let technicalities get in the way.