Obama does not have history in his favour

BYDEBASISH MITRA | SEPTEMBER 20, 2014 , 5 : 59 PM GST

Share

On the eve of 9/11 anniversary this year, US President Barack Obama
finally came forth with his plan to "degrade, and ultimately destroy"
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (Isis) through a "sustained counter-
terrorism strategy". And, indulging in self adulation, he claimed his
plan was "comprehensive". His supporters heaved a sigh of relief;
their president indeed finally gave the world a strategy to combat
Isis. Equally quick were his critics in denouncing his plan. They said
it was a "characteristic exercise in foreign policy minimalism" and is
essentially vacuous "calculated to shore up the public's sagging
confidence in Obama's stewardship of US foreign policy".

Well, whatever! The world wasn't much convinced. Neither are we too
sure if his plan will ultimately redeem the world of the biggest
threat to civilisation in post World War II era. His immediate
predecessor gave us a similar assurance almost a decade and half ago
to sell his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He pledged to defeat and to
eliminate Al Qaeda. Thirteen years later we are still far away from
achieving the objective.

Today, the successor goes into yet another lingering war in the Middle
East and the target today is Isis. Unfortunately, however, history was
neither with the predecessor nor is with the successor. And that makes
us all the more sceptic about the success of the fresh mission against
terrorism.

The mighty Roman Empire, which had conquered almost half the world by
sheer force of its army, suffered humiliating defeats against small,
numerically inferior Germanic tribes which eventually brought the
Empire down. Between 238 and 267 repeated attacks of the Germanic
tribes, the Goths, the Herulis and others shook the foundation of the
ancient empire and drove massive holes into the myth that the Roman
army was invincible. The Romans suffered a series of crushing military
defeats against the Germanic tribes.

History is full of records of how mighty states, kingdoms and empires
with much larger and organised military have been defeated by small
militant groups or non-state tribal forces. In fact, history shows us
that such small non-state forces with much smaller military strength
have traditionally fared and performed much better against larger
state forces having superior military strength.

There have been exceptions and one very recent example is the rout of
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka. But that was a
rare exception which still does not prove a deterministic phenomenon
of history.

Logic and chronicles of great military victories suggest that it is
very much possible for stronger, larger and sophisticated military
powers to defeat smaller enemies "with the right combination of
strategy, resources, and willpower". But can we refute the facts that
different Chinese ruling dynasties, the Roman Empire and the pre-
Islamic Persian Empire were all defeated by perceptibly smaller groups
with inferior military strength.

Genghis Khan's creation of Mongol hegemony or Mongol Empire began with
uniting many of the nomadic tribes of northeast Asia and leading them
into series of spectacular military conquests of contemporary kingdoms
having much superior armies. Invasion of the barbarians of Zagros, the
Gutians, led to the collapse of Akkad Empire.

These happened in the past. But, even today we see the phenomenon
happening. The United States and its Nato allies have failed to
defeat, dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda and Taliban. So has Pakistan
and India. They have no significant achievements to boast about in
their fights against extremist and militant insurgents. Even after
more than twenty years the Maoists, radical Leftist insurgents, are
still fighting the mighty Indian forces and have actually gained in
strength. In Pakistan, the Taliban fighters are now closer than ever
to over run the government and strike at will. Similar, if not worse,
is the prevailing situation in Afghanistan.

Isis, with much less firepower and numerical strength, has made
stunning inroads in Iraq defeating the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish
Peshmerga. Its military achievements and the speed with which it has
conquered a vast swath of land in Iraq and Syria establishing a
Caliphate Islamic State has surprised the world. Its fighting
prowess is now well established and this will certainly make the task,
the American president has taken upon himself, rather onerous.

One may argue that Isis' success and its growth into a powerful
fighting machine owes more to the popular support from the people of
the sect it represents. This is taking a simplistic view and does not
offer us the whole story. Isis, like the smaller groups that defeated
mighty empires and military powers in history, has in its favour what
the 14th century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun postulated asabiyyah.

Asabiyyah, as posited by Khaldun, is a strong bond of cohesion or
solidarity, religious and otherwise, found in "groups on the margins
of society" often called fanaticism by modern scholars. Well
whatever, there is no doubts asabiyyah offers the smaller groups a
greater sense of purpose which, through ages in history, has enabled
them to overwhelm bigger and stronger military forces.

And with strong asabiyyah Isis is today a formidable foe the US forces
may face in Iraq and Syria as it has already experienced in
Afghanistan. Obama says that this war against Isis will take years.
Indeed it will. But, there isn't any guarantee from his side that he
and his successors will win the war. If the United States wants to win
the war it will, more than just war strategies, need to either break
Isis' asabiyyah or to the US army has to develop that sense of
purpose.

The author is the Opinion Editor of Times of Oman. All the views and
opinions expressed in the article are solely those of the author and
do not reflect those of Times of Oman.