ISIS, the Yazidis, the Kurds and US Intervention in Iraq

The situation in Iraq, which had already been pretty bad to start with, deteriorated further in the last week or two. First we learned that the extremists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or just Islamic State as they now style themselves, had succeeded in pushing back the well-trained but poorly equipped Kurdish militia, while next door in Syria their attempts to solidify control over parts of the country led to one of the bloodiest weeks in that bloody war. There had already been stories of how IS had forced out many Christians from the parts of Iraq they controlled (a Christian population that, like the similarly threatened one in Syria, is one of the oldest in the world, dating back to the first centuries of the religion), but now we learned of an even more terrible threat they posed to the Yazidis (also spelled Yezidis), members of an obscure but also ancient religion, one that amounted to attempted genocide. While various suggestions were made about how to stop IS in the long run, the imminent threat to the Yazidis, thousands of whom were trapped on a mountain by IS and faced starvation or slaughter, made immediate action of some sort necessary to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. So, despite a professed reluctance to renew American military involvement in Iraq, US President Barack Obama authorized air strikes against IS and humanitarian aid to the Yazidis (for more on the Yazadis and their situation, see here).

As might be expected, not everyone approves of Obama's decision. Many on the left are opposed to US military action of any sort for any reason, or at least they don't provide any examples of situations in which they think it would be acceptable. While I agree that military action should always be a last resort, I think that prevention of imminent genocide (or the slaughter of large numbers of civilians, if we prefer to avoid the loaded term "genocide") is one situation where it is appropriate. At least one organization has questioned the constitutionality of Obama's action, arguing that Congressional approval is necessary. They may have a case, though I suspect one reason Obama named protecting US personnel in the Kurdish capital as a reason for the airstrikes is to provide constitutional cover, as he can claim he is acting to stop an immediate threat to US interests. Frankly, I think this is by far the weaker reason for air strikes, as the few hundred US personnel in Ebril could easily be withdrawn if the only goal was protecting them. Stopping IS from massacring the Yazidis or anyone else is a much better reason, but unfortunately there is not as far as I know a specific legal basis for the President to order military action even to stop genocide if neither Americans nor US interests are threatened. I would certainly be in favor of making such a legal provision, even if it took a constitutional amendment to create it. I would even go so far as to say that if he or she can save thousands of lives by violating the constitution, he should at least consider doing so, though of course he should consider the long-range consequences of his actions as well as the short-range results. While rule of law is very important, ultimately it is even more important to do what is right (for the same reason I would in most cases be against punishing someone who stole bread to feed their family, and I would certainly support violating a clearly unjust law, such as one requiring people to report "subversive" speech). I recognize that there is a slippery slope here, and if we start allowing people (whether presidents or others) to violate the law whenever their conscience tells them to do so we open up a big can of worms, so it should only even be considered in very exceptional cases where it is obvious to almost everyone, not just the person taking the action, that there is a clear moral justification. In this case, I suppose we can be grateful for the constitutional fig leaf, even if it isn't much of one. Anyway, while allowing a president to unilaterally initiate military action of dubious legality sets a bad precedent, that precedent has already been set numerous times in the past, often for much worse reasons.

Of course even reaching the conclusion that taking military action is the right thing to do is not as straightforward as it may seem, even if we ignore the issue of legality and setting a bad precedent. The main reason is that it is impossible to be certain of the long-range consequences, particularly of prolonged military involvement. Would Iraq be better off now if Saddam Hussein was still in power? Would Libya have been better off today if France, the UK and the US had allowed Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to crush the rebellion against his rule, even at the cost of thousands of lives? Would Syria be better off now if the US and other countries had from the beginning actively supported the uprising against Assad, or, on the contrary, would it be better off if the outside world had simply closed its eyes and let Assad crush all opposition, however brutally? There is really no way to be sure. Personally I think no one should ever just ignore a large scale slaughter or suppression of opponents by a government, but that doesn't necessarily mean that military action by other countries is the best step to take to stop it, as it can often make things worse. In this situation, it is at least good that Obama made the point of saying that there is no "American military solution" to the conflict in Iraq, and what is really needed is an Iraqi political solution. If he and those under him keep that clearly in mind, and limit direct US involvement to preventing humanitarian catastrophes such as IS slaughtering the Yazadis or overrunning Kurdish territory (where many Yazadis, Christians, and others fleeing IS have already taken refuge), perhaps the US can at least ensure that is not making the situation worse. The decision to get involved in this case was no doubt made easier by the fact that it's hard to imagine what could be worse than IS, which seems to be competing with Nigeria's Boko Haram for the title of the world's most brutally evil group - even aside from their summary executions and crucifixions (and in one case, having one of their kids pose with a decapitated head), they reportedly even seized several hundred Yazadi women as slaves, much like Boko Haram's kidnapping of hundreds of girls in Nigeria.

Despite talking about long-range solutions, though, the US has in a sense created the current threat to the Kurds, Yazadis and others in the Kurdish-occupied parts of Iraq by its failure to arm the Kurds. This is foolish, to put it mildly. Kurdistan has for many years been the one real success story in Iraq. While it is far from perfect, in comparison with the rest of the country it is a bastion of peace and at least halfway decent government. The Kurdish peshmerga is the best trained, most disciplined fighting force in Iraq, and yet they are poorly equipped and fighting a group that ironically has lots of high quality US made equipment, captured from the Iraqi army. The American reason for failing to arm the Kurds - a fear of encouraging the dissolution of Iraq - is particularly idiotic. As I have argued elsewhere, it is ridiculous to insist that all national borders are set in stone for all eternity or that no country should ever dissolve, as borders have changed and countries appeared and disappeared throughout history, even in the recent past. Iraq itself is a relatively recent creation cobbled together by the British, one that really made little sense in the first place as it threw together diverse groups of people who don't get along well. While this doesn't mean that changes to national boundaries should be made casually or for questionable reasons (certainly not under pressure from large neighbors who stand to benefit, as in the Ukraine situation), acting as if they should be avoided at all costs makes no sense. Indeed, the story of the Kurds' difficulty in obtaining arms provides more evidence that they might well be better off without the central government, as even when the US, while insisting that all military aid go through the central government in Baghdad, did designate some arms for the Kurds, Prime Minister Maliki refused to transfer them. As I argued in a previous article, Maliki is largely responsible for the current situation in Iraq due to his divisive policies, and this is just another example of how untrustworthy he is (he is also proving himself very power-hungry, as he has refused to give up his attempt to secure a new term in the current wrangling over the position of prime minister, despite being urged to do so by numerous parties, including the Shiite religious leadership and reportedly even Iran). The best thing the US can do know, other than acting to prevent IS from killing too many more people, is to arm the Kurds, even if the ultimate result is an independent Kurdistan, while at the same time putting pressure on Iraqi politicians to form an inclusive government that protects the interests of the Sunnis as well as the Shiites and can encourage moderate Sunnis to join in the effort to defeat the extremist IS.