Why a Coalition of Forces against IS?

In the first place who created this monster called ISIS?  American media have touted this honour to Hillary Clinton, calling her the grandmother of ISIS. The ISIS was given life by the Americans when they went in to kill Saddam Hussein and intervened in Syria. With Saddam gone, with Assad on the defensive, there is no Arab leaders or dictators with the stature and power to put a leash on the ISIS fighters. And they morphed into a new and more powerful military force with equally powerful appeal and mission. They have no need to call for a coalition or twist the arms of any country to form a coalition. The fighters went there voluntarily, fighting with their hearts.

The Americans are rounding up a coalition by force. They are demanding a coalition against the wills of other nations. The sickening thing was that when they bulldozed their way into Iraq and other Middle East countries to do their regime change and to kill their leaders, the Americans did not see a need to get any approval or agreement from their allies. They brazenly and rudely did what they wanted to do, even against the wishes of their allies, countries they are coercing to be part of the coalition now.

Why is there a need for a coalition when the Americans could do it on their own? Thomas Friedman had put it simply, that this war cannot be seen as the West attacking the Arab countries. This war cannot be seen as Christians against Muslims. The Americans need to camouflage this war as a war by a coalition of countries against the IS.

What are the implications or consequences to the other members of this unwilling coalition? In a simple analogy, the Americans are holding the hands of their allies to catch a poisonous snake. The hands could be beaten by the snake in the process. The Americans started a dangerous war, releasing a very brutal and powerful force, they branded it as an evil force. Now the American wanted other countries to participate in the suppression of this force.

If the Americans were to do it alone, they would be the one and only target for the IS to attack. By forcing a coalition of many countries, these countries will share the risk and also become targets of ISIS. To the Americans, it is spreading their risk.

To the members of this unwilling coalition, they are force to fight a war that they have nothing to do with and would end up as enemies and targets of ISIS. The weaker members of this coalition, especially those with a substantial Muslim population and with sympathizers of the ISIS, would likely to bear the brunt of retaliation by the ISIS. The attacks by ISIS would not be confined to Iraq and Syria. It could be anywhere or in any country, but likely to be in countries that are members of the coalition.

Welcome to the Coalition of the ‘Willing’ and share the risk.

Thomas Friedman’s latest article ‘Helping the Arabs to help themselves’ revealed an American hard truth. I quote ‘But then he asks: “(Is the Islamic States) really a problem for the US?  The American interest is not stability, but the existence of a dynamic balance of power in which all players are effectively paralysed so that no one who would threaten the US emerges….’

Now, would the Arabs understand what the Americans are doing to them? Would the rest of the world understand the intent of the Americans around the world? Thank you Tom for this hard truth that many Afro Asians are too dumb to appreciate, refused to see, or wanted to know.

Tom Friedman has a good advice for the Americans in Washington, let the Arabs fight and defend themselves. They have bigger stakes and interests to protect themselves if only the Americans take their hands off their problems. What Tom forgot is that the American war industry would want to be involved and would want Washington to be involved. That’s where the money is.

Should Singapore be part of this coalition?

Kopi Level - Yellow