Will the Obama administration’s military intervention in Iraq be “discreet” or “discrete”?
That is, does it mean to keep a low profile to avoid offending anti-interventionism at home, or is it simply making a limited show of force?
Vice President Joe Biden and other administration big shots used “discrete” to describe the president’s decision to order air strikes against the jihadists in northern Iraq.
Yet many Iraqi leaders at first assumed Washington meant “discreet.” They thus assumed Washington would remain committed to Iraq at least until the Islamic State (or Daesh) forces had been flushed out of Mosul, the country’s third largest city.
Taking heart from a presumed US commitment, the “discreet” party moved to speed up the formation of a new government. Iraq’s new president, Fuad Masoum, named Haider al-Abadi as prime minister-designate and asked him to form a new government.
Abadi is from the same political party, Dawa, as outgoing premier Nouri al-Maliki, the largest party in the parliament, with 20 percent of the seats.
By the start of this week, it seemed as if Maliki’s efforts to keep his job were leading nowhere.
An informal coalition of Shiite and Sunni parties joined by the Kurds was in a position to back Abadi. In an early vote, only three members of parliament backed Maliki.
Then word broke that the Obama team used the word “discrete” — i.e., stand-alone or isolated. In other words, Obama meant its actions to be a military version of a one-night stand.
The “discrete” intervention was not part of something bigger — for example, a strategy to create a coalition of the willing including several threatened Arab states under US leadership to defeat the jihadists.
It also suggested that Washington won’t help arm the Kurdish peshmerga forces or those units of the Iraqi army that are willing and able to fight — that Obama will make only a token investment in saving Iraq from jihadi chaos.
“Discrete” just meant a few bombings to produce impressive TV footage and foment the illusion that Obama had acted decisively.
Encouraged by the “discrete” news, Maliki and his handful of partisans decided to make another bid to sabotage Abadi’s formation of a government, demanding the courts prevent a transition.
Meanwhile, he sent word to Sunni and Kurdish leaders that he’d step aside — provided he kept control of key ministries, among many other demands.
After Abadi secured the backing of Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani and two former prime ministers, Ibrahim al-Jaafair and Iyad al-Allawi, Maliki finally resigned Thursday.
“Discrete” also helped boost morale of Daesh forces, who’d suffered a severe shock when the Americans bombed them on their way to Erbil, the Kurdish capital.
Daesh has now modified its strategy, trying instead to cut off the Kurds from the rest of Iraq, leaving them far more vulnerable to Daesh attacks inn the medium-term.
The trouble is that the struggle in Iraq can’t be dealt with in a “discrete” way.
Daesh is part of a global jihadist movement determined to redraw the map of the Middle East on the basis of a 7th century ideology expressed in its most bloody, aggressive style.
Daesh seeks ethnic cleansing inspired by religious hatred. It means it when it says it wants to “purify” the House of Islam by driving the “infidel” out.
Fear that Washington is unserious has also affected the Arab states. Even US allies such as Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have begun to waver in their resolve to stand up against Daesh.
Ten days ago, when Arab capitals believed that Washington meant to be “discreet,” they toughened their tone against Daesh and even put forces on alert for intervention against it. Saudi Arabia closed its border and beefed up its forces along its border with Iraq.
The discovery that America meant “discrete” has also led to European Union failure to agree on arming the Kurds and Iraqi forces to fight Daesh. With no US commitment, few will stick their necks out against movement that recognizes no rules except its own.
Obama’s comments Thursday did not raise many hopes. He promised to “continue airstrikes,” but only to protect “our people and facilities in Iraq,” along with unspecified “delivery of military assistance” to those opposing the jihadis.
Forces allied to Daesh are already actively setting up another enclave in Yemen and a third one in Libya near to the Egyptian border.
The Islamic State’s allies already control chunks of territory in Somalia, Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Mali and Nigeria. They have sleeping cells in Latin America, Western Europe, the Balkans and in several Arab countries.
An archipelago of terror is taking shape around the world. The fight in and over Iraq will determine its future.
If we don’t fight this small war now, even if in a “discrete” manner, we may have to return to fighting a much bigger war across the globe.