The airdrop paradox

Its decision to airdrop weapons over the Kurdish territories, in collaboration with the local authorities, in a bizarre attempt to help the minority community confront the dreaded militia is fraught with serious consequences. Though it is part of war strategy to annihilate the enemy somehow, it is inappropriate and counter-productive in the long run. A section of arms might be used to fight the ISIS, per se, but more of it could end up in the wrong hands. The possibility is that this airdrop could lead to civil fissures in the northern areas, where there is no dearth of opportunist elements that could exploit the cache to further their vested interests.

This has happened in Afghanistan where the Mujahideen indulged in civil strife, and Balkanised the war-weary country, rather than fighting the Red Army. Taking into account the vulnerability of Iraq, this flawed strategy of dropping arms and ammunition from the air could result in breaking up the republic into war-centric zones of Kurds, Sunnis and Shias — thus literally weakening the writ of Baghdad over defence and foreign affairs. The less said the better about the degeneration that these arms will have on the social mosaic of the Mesopotamian civilisation.

While there are no two opinions in fighting and exterminating the ISIS, the United States and its allies have to carefully choreograph a policy, which should not result in fragmenting the Arab country. The fact that Kurds are inhabited all across the region and divided in three countries, namely Iraq, Syria and Turkey, this arms bonanza can also become a point of destabilisation taking into account the checkered history of secessionist tendencies in the region.

Apparently that is why Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has distanced himself from this American approach, and categorically said that he will not allow such arms to reach Kurds on his side of the divide. The US seems to have opened a Pandora’s box by resorting to airdrop of arms, and this is in addition to the policy confusion that is in vogue as far as dealing with the anti-government militants in Syria. Absence of clear-cut policy in dealing with the surge of ISIS in the region is perhaps compelling Washington to opt for piecemeal measures that are, at times, immature and devoid of logic. If the rationale of arming Kurds is taken as a policy prescription, then the US will have to emulate it elsewhere as well where the militia is making inroads. Such an action will be suicidal in essence — and will not serve the purpose of defeating terrorism. The Middle East sits on a ticking bomb, which is rented with sectarian and ethnic divisions, and it would be naïve to believe that the arms-for-all strategy will in anyway come to strengthen the peace regime.