ISIS – terrorism used for diplomacy?

The ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) threat has been around for months. Why was it not nipped in the bud?

Obama’s response in the course of a conversation with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is revealing. “We did not start airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as the ISIS came in because that would have taken the pressure off Nouri al-Maliki,” the then Shia Prime Minister in Baghdad.

In other words, Obama’s immediate priority was to get rid of Nouri al-Maliki. According to this logic, a terrorist outfit like the ISIS can, on some occasions, play a useful role. That is why Obama allowed the ISIS to grow in size to frighten the obstinate prime minister in Baghdad. Here the president of the US is giving an example of how terrorism can be placed at the disposal of diplomacy.

In the early stages of the insurrection in Syria, US Ambassador to Damascus Robert Stephen Ford and his French counterpart drove around the country’s major trouble spots – Derra, Homs and Hama. In each city they contacted opposition leaders.

In Damascus some of us exchanged views with a veteran US diplomat and Arabist, Edward Lionel Peck, who was privately visiting the country. He was astonished at this new, aggressive style of diplomacy, akin to special operations.

After returning to the US, Peck wrote about what he described as an unsettling subject”. He wrote: “I have been dismayed by the accolades and support given to Ambassador Ford, our man in – and now out – of Syria, for stepping well out of the traditional and appropriate role of a diplomat and actively encouraging the revolt/ insurrection/ sectarian strife/outside meddling, call it what you will. It is easy to imagine the US reaction if an ambassador from anywhere were to engage in even distantly related activities. I fear my country remains somewhat more than merely insensitive, and is sliding into plain rampant and offensive arrogance”.

Naqvi is an Indian political commentator, his views are personal.