Convenient Genocide: Another Failed War to Re-Arrange the Middle East
By Ramzy Baroud
A few months ago, not many Americans, in fact
Europeans as well, knew that a Yazidi sect in fact
existed in northwest Iraq. Even in the Middle East
itself, the Yazidis and their way of life have been an
enigma, shrouded by mystery and mostly grasped through
stereotypes and fictitious evidence. Yet in no time,
the fate of the Yazidis became a rally cry for another
US-led Iraq military campaign.
It was not a surprise that the small Iraqi minority
found itself a target for fanatical Islamic State (IS)
militants, who had reportedly carried out unspeakable
crimes against Yazidis, driving them to Dohuk, Irbil
and other northern Iraqi regions. According to UN and
other groups, 40,000 Yazidi had been stranded on Mount
Sinjar, awaiting imminent "genocide" if the US and
other powers didn't take action to save them.
The rest of the story was spun from that point on. The
logic for intervention that preceded the latest US
bombing campaign of IS targets, which started in
mid-June, is similar to what took place in Libya over
three years ago. Early 2011, imminent "genocide"
awaiting Libya's eastern city of Benghazi at the hands
of Muammar Gaddafi was the rally cry that mobilised
western powers to a war that wrought wanton killings
and destruction in Libya. Since NATO's intervention in
Libya, which killed and wounded tens of thousands, the
country has fallen prey to an endless and ruthless
fight involving numerous militias, armed, and
financially and politically-backed by various regional
and international powers. Libya is now ruled by two
governments, two parliaments, and a thousand militia.
When US Special Forces arrived to the top of Mount
Sinjar, they realized that the Yazidis had either been
rescued by Kurdish militias, or were already living
there. They found less than 5,000 Yazidis there, half
of them refugees. The mountain is revered in local
legend, as the final resting place of Noah's ark. It
was also the final resting place for the Yazidi
genocide story. The finding hardly received much
coverage in the media, which used the original claim
to create fervour in anticipation for Western
intervention in Iraq.
We all know how the first intervention worked out. Not
that IS' brutal tactics in eastern, northern and
central Iraq should be tolerated. But a true act of
genocide had already taken place in Iraq for nearly
two decades, starting with the US war in 1990-91, a
decade-long embargo and a most destructive war and
occupation starting in 2003. Not once did a major
newspaper editorial in the US bestow the term
"genocide" on the killing and maiming of millions of
Iraqis. In fact, the IS campaign is actually part of a
larger Sunni rebellion in Iraq, in response to the US
war and Shite-led government oppression over the
course of years. That context is hardly relevant in
the selective reporting on the current violence in
Iraq.
It goes without saying, US policymakers care little
for the Yazidis, for they don't serve US interests in
any way. However, experience has taught that such
groups only become relevant in a specially tailored
narrative, in a specific point in time, to be
exploited for political and strategic objectives. They
will cease to exist the moment the objective is met.
Consider for example, the fact that IS has been
committing horrific war crimes in western and northern
Syria for years, as did forces loyal to President
Bashar al-Assad and militants belonging to the various
opposition groups there. Hundreds of thousands of
Syrians have been killed and wounded. Various minority
groups there faced and continue to face genocide. Yet,
somehow, the horrifying bloodshed there was not only
tolerated, but in fact encouraged.
For over three years, little effort was put forward to
find or impose a fair political solution to the Syria
civil war. The Syrians were killing each other and
thousands of foreigners, thanks to a purposely porous
Turkish borders were allowed to join in, in a
perpetual "Guernica" that, with time, grew to become
another Middle Eastern status quo.
Weren't the massacres of Aleppo in fact genocide? The
siege of Yarmouk? The wiping out of entire villages,
the beheading and dismembering of people for belonging
to the wrong sect or religion?
Even if they were, it definitely was not the kind of
genocide that would propel action, specifically
western-led action. In recent days, as it was becoming
clear that the US was up to its old interventionist
games, countries were being lined up to fight IS. US
Secretary of State John Kerry was shuttling the globe
once more, from US to Europe, to Turkey, to Iraq to
Saudi Arabia, and still going. "We believe we can take
on ISIL (previous name for IS) in the current
coalition that we have," he said. But why now?
In his speech on the eve of the 13th anniversary of
the September 11 attacks, Obama declared war on IS.
Obama's tangled foreign policy agenda became even more
confused in his 13-minute speech from the White House.
He promised to "hunt down" IS fighters "whenever they
are" until the US ultimately destroys the group, as
supposedly, it has down with al-Qaeda. IS, of course,
is a splinter al-Qaeda group, which began as an idea,
and thanks to the US global "war on terror", has
morphed into an army of many branches. The US never
destroyed al-Qaeda; but it inadvertently allowed the
creation of IS.
"That means I will not hesitate to take action against
ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core
principle of my presidency: if you threaten America,
you will find no safe haven," Obama said. Of course,
he needed to say that, as his Republican rivals have
accused him of lack of decisiveness and his presidency
of being weak. His democratic party could possibly
lose control over the Senate come the November
elections. His fight against IS is meant to help
rebrand the president as resolute and decisive, and
perhaps create some distraction from economic woes at
home.
That same media has also cleverly devalued and branded
conflicts, and acts of genocide in ways consistent
with US foreign policy agendas. While the Yazidis were
purportedly stranded on mount Sinjar, Israel was
carrying out a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Over 2,150 were killed, mostly civilians, hundreds of
them children, and over 11,000 wounded, the vast
majority of whom were civilians. Not an alleged 40,000
but a confirmed 520,000 thousand were on the run, and
along with the rest of Gaza's 1.8 million, were
entrapped in an open-air prison with no escape. But
that was not an act of genocide either, as far as the
US-western governments and media were concerned.
Worse, they actively defended, and, especially in the
case of the US, UK, France and Italy, armed and funded
the Israeli aggression.
Experience has taught us that not all "acts of
genocide" are created equal: Some are fabricated, and
others are exaggerated. Some are useful to start wars,
and others, no matter how atrocious, are not worth
mentioning. Some acts of genocide are branded as wars
to liberate, free and democratize. Other acts of
genocide are to be encouraged, defended and financed.
But as far as the US involvement in the Middle East is
concerned, the only real genocide is the one that
serves the interests of the west, by offering an
opportunity for military intervention, followed by
political and strategic meddling to re-arrange the
region.
The US experience in Iraq also taught us that its
effort will only succeed in exacerbating an already
difficult situation, yielding yet more disenfranchised
groups, political despair and greater violence.
- Ramzy Baroud is a PhD scholar in People's History
at the University of Exeter. He is the Managing Editor
of Middle East Eye. Baroud is an
internationally-syndicated columnist, a media
consultant, an author and the founder of
PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father
Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto
Press, London).