US and UK Blamed for Intervention in Libya and Iraq- Outcome Is Not Productive to West

Heavy artilleryforce ofPentagon was roamingAfghanistantosideline   ISIS kingpinsandplotterswho backed Saddamto destroyAmericanarmy. Western alliance and NATO raided metro cities in   Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.   Only objective of sending armed force to Iraq, Libya and Syria was to capture ISIS tuskers who attacked civilians surreptitiously.    However, the rationale of invading   Gulf regions and Libya also includes the possibility of launching   democratic government removing the insurgency.   What are other reasons of planning to deploy army to these countries?   At the same time, was Western alliance successful to fulfill the dream they nourished for long time?  Critics condemn the role of Tony Blair to spend billion dollars only for wiping out Saddam.  

Chilquot Report Blames Tony Blair to Deploy Force to Iraq

 US force had to occupy few pockets entering into Iraq to spot some terrorist outfits.  Saddam was troubling Pentagon in different ways.    Thoughit was notlegal to makeencroachmentto possesslandof Iraq, for the sake ofdemocracy, westernallies were compelled tobreak theinternational   law. Secondly, America was a hard nut-to-crack enemy to Saddam.   American missiles hit Baghdad and   other important cities like Mosul in Iraq.   Overnight bombing, repeated air strikes, surveillance and    spying were done by competent American officers.  However, critics have a long question tag for Obama about the necessity of attacking Iraq.   Even in Chilquot report,    The UK prime minister was strongly bottle necked with caustic allegations over the whimsical attempts to send   drones   for destruction.  Saddam was not a growing threat to the UK. He had no hidden or clandestine   plan to traverse Scud missile to intercept British fighter drones.     Then Tony Blair’s decision was not contextual   to the situation in which British soldiers had to shed blood. It was not a profitable war for British.   

In this connection, thecommentsgenerated byDavid Ignatius , a notedjournalist of WashingtonPost, need to be clearlyevaluated tohold thesnapshot   forreviewing.   David Ignatius has had glorified the American invasion to   demolish Saddam and his guerrillas for peace.   This was very much classic and Pentagon did a good thing to restore political stability in Iraq.    This abrupt   invasion to Baghdad was not driven by self-interest but an innovative ideology to renew democracy in   Iraq by overpowering rebels.  America used automatic weapons, missiles and laser bombs to kill enemies.   1991 gulf war claimed 40000 lives of soldiers with estimated 35000 deaths of civilians.  Over million people were wounded.  Dilapidated cities and towns in Iraq were isolated from the world.

To What Extent Nemesis of Gaddafi and Saddam Helpful to Western Alliance?

However, the background of the story is not same uttered by David.    Pentagon is not too much idealistic to airdrop troops on the ground of Iraq.   American economy needed energy to become powerful.   Recession stayed   long in America.   So this Gulf war definitely enabled White House to have   possession of lucrative oil rigs and gas reservoirs.   President of   America ensured the economic development   through this war.   Thirdly, US had another issue to tackle.  

After the   extermination of Saddam to end autocracy in Iraq, Al Qaida terrorists emerged to handle US soldiers.   This Al Qaida was not feeble as   it was financed by anti- Western allied force.   America designed a   post insurgent reduction   program to deactivate Al Qaida.  In a personal statement, Flynn, the chief of Pentagon, is not hopeful about the outcome   of expensive   Gulf war in Iraq and   the downfall of Gaddafi in   Libya.   According to him,  the nemesis   ofSaddam, assassinationof Gaddafi and thearrival of Al Qaida to fightISISare not incorporatedto enableUSforce tohavefruitsof success .  After Gaddafi’s regime in   Libya, insurgents have gathered to paralyze American troops.  It is a counter terrorism to knock down   American artillery completely.  So Pentagon should not celebrate gleefully after removing Gaddafi and Saddam for security.   ISIS   terrorists are typhoon and they are notorious with massive network in Middle East. ISIL, an extension of ISIS   is building up force against Western Allies.  

In America, ISIS commandos had launched destructive hooliganism and massacre.  Pentagon has to re-evaluate its strategy to detect failure. It was not a single and negligible error.   Western allies didn’t stop ISIL to open new military camps in Mosul and Aleppo.  They are terrific   to strike   American sleuths abruptly.    In Libya, people seem to be   helpless without any future.  Water supply is blocked.  Food is not available in backcountries.   Roads are not safe for Syrian ladies and children. American troops have been installed till the normalcy. However,   side effect of insurgency and ethnic clash must reduce the feasibilities of pacification in Libya.   

New Conflict in Syria – Russia’s Appearance Not Productive for West

In Syria, Assad is a preferable person to Putin. Russia gave a timely backup to Assad for handling   his dissidents.    Western allies still continues firing at the borders of Aleppo where ISIS terrorists   have the big arsenal with sophisticated chemical weapons.   

At present, Russia   has already withdrawn troops from various regions   located in Syria.  Syrian government must be formed to enhance the settlement, peace, prosperity and stability.   However NATO backed western force has an old tussle with Russia over   Black Sea issue.    Americahas shared friendship with NATO todo reconnaissanceandpatrollinginBlackSea togiveinstantsafeguards toTurkey,  Romania ,  and Bulgaria .  Western force will not beoffered   gobletsofred wine and breadif   NATOarmy usesgun powderto challengeIskander M missile ofRussia. So, Western allies must have   critical situation to face.  Russia has ICBM intermediate missiles with nuke warhead trains to overtake US missile defense system. 

Arrival of ISIL with New Logo to Continue Carnage

ISIL has historical background. It connects with Jihad and Tawhid.  It follows Sunni principles and religious   rites.   ISIL terrorists became strong contestants to fight for preventing American raids with the termination of Saddam way back to 2003. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the spokesmen of Tawhid outfit announced that there would be a renaming process replacing the former name of militancy outfit.    However,   he was not accepted by many Iraqi fundamentalists.   On the other hand, the death of Zarqawi inspired ISIL leaders to   rename or rebrand the logo by opting for ISIS organization.  

Omar al-Baghdadi was projected as a competent leader to operate this international ISIS organization.   In 2010, this terrorist was shot dead by US force. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was selected unanimously to operate this terrorism group. 

Baghdadi decided to go for a partnership with Nusra   Front through collaboration.   His commandos will undergo expeditions under the brand name of ISIL.  However, Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al Qaeda denied such merger   because of misunderstanding   and difference in concepts. 

In 2014, ISIL commandos struck Iraq severely.   It was a do-or-die mission to possess several cities like Mosul, Tikrit, Fallujah and Ramadi.  Slowly, ISIL established headquarters in Mosul to pounce upon Western allied force.  ISIL is anorganizedmilitancyoutfitwhichgets financialaids fromindividual admirers,  sympathizersand   secret agenciesto do vast carnagein the world.  

However,   Arab World directly charged Iran for powering ISIL to heighten up the insurgency in Gulf. Saudi Arab is one of the members of Arab World and this country warned Tehran not to pamper the counter insurgency and tension in   Gulf.   ISIL terrorists should not be welcomed for negotiation until they are lenient to surrender.  

These ISIL terrorists must be disarmed to make Gulf region completely peaceful.    Kurdish elements are garnered at the Iraqi borders   to give a sudden resistance for successful operation against ISIL in Mosul, Tikrit and Ramadi.  Kurdistan is the main slogan of Kurds.   Western force is not getting priority in Middle East due to its limitation and   indifference   to settle   imprecised dispute in Syria, Iraq and Libya.  Gaddafi was tyrant in Libya.  His government was not a perfect administration to reduce crime in the country.  However, Gaddafi was not cripple or weak to accept everything offered by militancy groups.   

Gaddafi and Saddam were erased. HoweverAmericaand NATOalliance   didn’tfind the bestadminto regulate thegovernment inLibya   or   Iraq.  Local fundamental powers were on steady rise to accelerate caustic massacre.  

When Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were alive, ISIS was not visible.  Only al-Qaida organization was functional.   American administration didn’t formulate new anti- insurgency strategies for side cornering ISIS terrorists.    Pentagon tried to give training to local youths in Libya and Iraq to defeat extremists.  However, still local people are not able to combat with trained militants. 

Conclusion

Western countries  have to backtrack with least interest in trouble ridden states in Middle East. Well there is another productive alternative for White House to gain some popularity by   emulating the Taif Accord or reconciliation agreement signed up in Lebanon.   This reconciliation agreement empowered    Christian, Muslim and other religious communities equally. However in 1989, Taif accord was slightly refurbished by minimizing the power of Christian missionary.   

In   Libya, Syria and Iraq, same power distribution mechanism can be applied   to prioritize the value of various fundamental groups.