Of war and peace

Speaking after the attack, General John Nicholson, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said: “The enemy had created bunkers, tunnels and extensive minefields, and this weapon was used to reduce those obstacles so that we could continue our offensive in Nangarhar.” But local officials questioned the necessity for the strike, which killed an estimated 90 ISIS militants (the official estimate of the death toll has not been released).

This came days after the US fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a facility in Syria believed to play a role in the reported deployment of chemical weapons against civilians by the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

That action was supported by a range of countries including the UK, Germany, France, and Japan.

The Syrian despot last week replied by condemning the action and denying — a 100 percent fabrication he termed it — any chemical weapons had been used.

Former Nato Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis put it this way, “It sends a pretty important strategic message that the United States is unafraid to use force; will continue to be in the game in the Middle East; and let’s face it, part of the audience here is not just Russia, Iran and Syria, part of the audience is President Xi Jinping (China’s leader).” But the audience — for both actions — also arguably included North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The response? More shows of force.

Yesterday, North Korea paraded a display of reportedly new long-range and submarine-based missiles as part of what was ostensibly a commemoration of the country’s founding father Kim Il Sung. Kim Il Sung Square was flooded with soldiers and weapons amid concerns that the secretive state is possibly preparing its sixth nuclear test in a decade or a rocket launch of significance.

The use of proportionate force is justifiable in clear circumstances involving the violation of international laws, such as the use of chemical weapons. However, the line between action grounded in moral and legal legitimacy and force pure and simple is not always easy to demarcate.

The use of a bomb on ISIS militants is welcomed if it has been a measure that was targeted and that effectively weakened that network. However, all military interventions must be balanced with the risk of endangering innocent civilians. ISIS is notorious for its use of human shields — footage obtained by the BBC appears to show such militants grabbing a hold of mothers and children for this purpose.

There is also the need to consider the long-term repercussions of each use of force. Such attacks are not isolated events but, over time, set precedents and open the door to full-fledged warfare.

Pope Francis has long declared us to be amid World War III in relation to ISIS, and now it seems US President Donald Trump is not afraid to fly perilously close to that state when it comes to a range of international actors.

The heat is being felt by the Chinese and South Koreans who justifiably sense a war brewing between North Korea and the US.

If such a war happens there will be considerable risks given questions over the capacity of North Korea to deploy weapons. Will there be any winners? Can force be avoided? Rather than wait and see, we should muster all the diplomatic resources available to avoid a conflagration. Trump’s brashness and inexperience do not help.

His advisers must temper him.

And friendly countries must become intermediaries. Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley must be well-prepared on these issues if or when the White House comes a-calling.