Nato’s ISIS shift
Nato’s ISIS shift
he later is more lethal as far as the United States long-term strategic objectives are concerned, and in no less than 100 days since the ISIS started pouring into Iraq from Syria, it has proved beyond any doubt that it is an anti-thesis to Pan-Americana.
The NATO’S military focus is no more Europe-centric. Nor is it anti-Russia in essence. Rather, it is gradually tilting towards the Middle East as around 100,000 militants are bent upon redrawing the geography of the region. Few had a fair idea at least when the transatlantic alliance was created after World War II that one day it would be fighting a battle in the Middle East. If history is any criterion, then the Americans have come full circle as they manoeuvred to keep the region from Israel to Afghanistan under their influence by hook or crook, and are now seen engaged with at least two dreaded enemies. One: the Al Qaeda, and two; the ISIS.
The later is more lethal as far as the United States long-term strategic objectives are concerned, and in no less than 100 days since the ISIS started pouring into Iraq from Syria, it has proved beyond any doubt that it is an anti-thesis to Pan-Americana. That is why the Wale Summit was bogged down with the issue of how to confront a unique enemy of foot soldiers, which doesn’t have a state, nor a formal military gear but merely an ideology to browbeat the West into a tight corner.
The ISIS, according to intelligence experts, is one of the richest terrorist organisations in the world, and has access to oil and other minerals in Iraq and Syria, and surprisingly enough is in international trade through its cahoots. This disturbing nexus was enough to sideline the scheduled agenda as Nato leaders met in Britain, and rightly the need was underscored to concentrate on the ISIS, rather than upping the ante with Russia over the crisis in Ukraine. As a blessing in disguise, however, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the Russian czar, Vladimir Putin, had agreed on the terms and conditions of a formal truce, inevitably making the way for a political agreement in days to come. Thus there was hardly any steam left in the gas chamber to castigate Moscow and indulge in point-scoring debates at the cost of antagonising Kremlin.
The shift of focus on the ISIS had much to do with the concerns that were personally conveyed to the West by regional leaders in the Middle East and the Gulf, stating that if the ISIS triumphs, then it will be a negation of post Westphalian order. US President Barack Obama, who was more inclined this time to woo the Baltic States in a strategic duel against Russia, as he toured Estonia, was apparently forced under the advice of his aides and generals to focus on ISIS. This, coupled with Obama’s Asia Pivot doctrine, puts Washington in a decisive corner as upheavals unravel in this part of the world. It remains to be seen how it tackles the ISIS, after having failed to exterminate Al Qaeda even after 14 years of direct warfare.
Views expressed in Opinion columns and articles are those of our contributors and columnists.