FORMULATING a reasonable and rational international response to the several crises in Iraq and Syria is a geopolitical challenge of immense complexity requiring some quite incredible diplomatic twists and turns.
Enemies become friends; old hatreds are lost in the sands of a region in which the secret world has no rules or at best the trading traditions of the Levant.
This is a time for opening a dialogue with Russia in order to produce a wider international response to Isis rather than simply a western response (with its difficult imperial/pro-Israel legacy in the region). No country outside of the Middle East has more fighters involved in the IS army than Russia through its Chechen rebels ("Foreign fighters in Middle East wars threaten West", The Herald, August 22). Russia has a critical role to play. Indeed, Russia's soft southern borders are a major threat to Moscow, and so there is a strategic common interest in some form of mutual anti-Jihadist strategy linking the West, Russia and indeed China. China has concerns with its own Muslim insurgency and might see its interests being served through a more global alliance against the violent extremism of ISIS and its cohorts.
The danger is that the West under the self-important influence of ancient and contemporary realities will seek to lead the charge and ignore new global realities.
TM Cross,
18 Needle Green, Carluke.
IN 2003 there were no al Qaeda in Iraq and no massacres taking place there. A majority in the US and Britain were persuaded to support war anyway. Today the Islamic State, an offshoot of al Qaeda, has its own state in large parts of Iraq and Syria. It is massacring anyone who is of a different religion from its extreme version of Sunni Islam. Unlike al Qaeda, it has a strong conventional military.
It's understandable that the Iraq war has made us less willing to get involved in wars in the Middle East. The last Iraq war let al Qaeda into Iraq. Along with the arming of Sunni rebels in Syria by Nato and the Saudis, these allowed the rise of the Islamic State (IS).
There is now an overwhelming case for going to war on IS. Morally can we let Iraqi and Syrian minorities be massacred? Is it in our self-interest to let a group as extreme as al Qaeda carve out a bigger state and a more powerful military and gain control of oil revenues?
We must learn the lessons of Iraq, by not going to war unless there is a good reason; and Syria, by being careful about who we supply arms to; stopping promoting arms as a government-subsidised export industry; and co-operating internationally to close down the black market in arms.
Funding the pay of new non-sectarian Iraqi units that must contain members and officers from all religious and ethnic groups, and providing arms for them, could provide forces that could fight IS, without the kind of repression of and atrocities against Sunnis that have created support and allies for it in Iraq and Syria.
Backing these up with air strikes and special forces means increased risk of terrorist attacks in our own countries, but that risk can be justified.
At the least we must continue to provide aid to refugees fleeing IS forces, and air lifts and air strikes to help them escape.
Duncan McFarlane,
Beanshields,
Braidwood,
Carluke.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article