A few months ago, not many Americans — in fact, Europeans as well — knew that a Yazidi sect existed in northwestern Iraq. Even in the Middle East, the Yazidis and their way of life have been an enigma, shrouded in mystery and stereotypes. Yet in no time, the fate of the Yazidis became a rallying cry for another US-led Iraq military campaign. It was not a surprise that the small Iraqi minority found itself targeted by fanatical Islamic State (IS) militants, who had reportedly carried out unspeakable crimes against Yazidis, forcing them to flee to Dohuk, Irbil and other parts of northern Iraq. According to the UN and other groups, 40,000 Yazidi were stranded on Mount Sinjar, facing an imminent “genocide” if the US and other powers didn't take action to save them. The rest of the story was spun from this beginning. 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. Since NATO's intervention in Libya, which killed and wounded tens of thousands, the country has fallen prey to a ruthless conflict involving numerous militias, armed and financially- and politically-backed by 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 realised that the Yazidis had either been rescued by Kurdish militias, or were already living there. They found less than 5,000 Yazidis, only half of whom were 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 received little coverage in the media, which had used the original claim to create support for Western intervention in Iraq. We all know how the first intervention worked out. Not that IS's brutal tactics in eastern, northern and central Iraq should be tolerated. But a true act of genocide had already taken place in Iraq over nearly two decades, starting with the US war in 1990-1991, a decade-long embargo and a 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 Shia-led government oppression over many years. That context is hardly relevant in the selective reporting on the current violence in Iraq. It goes without saying that US policymakers care little for the Yazidis, for they don't serve US interests in any way. However, experience has taught us that such groups only become relevant in a specially tailored narrative, at 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 had 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. Minority groups there faced and continue to face genocide. Yet, somehow, the horrifying bloodshed there was not only tolerated but even encouraged. 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 lining 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 [the 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 11 September 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 “wherever they are” until the US ultimately destroys the group, as supposedly it has done 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 being indecisive and his presidency of being weak. His Democratic Party could possibly lose control over the Senate in 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 genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Over 2,150 were killed, mostly civilians, hundreds of them children, and over 11,000 wounded, the vast majority being civilians. Not an alleged 40,000, but a confirmed 520,000 were on the run, and along with the rest of Gaza's 1.8 million were trapped in an open-air prison with no escape. But that was not an act of genocide either, as far as the US, other 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 democratise. Other acts of genocide are to be encouraged, defended and financed. But as far as 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 rearrange the region. The US experience in Iraq also taught us that its efforts will only exacerbate an already difficult situation, creating still more disenfranchised groups, political despair and greater violence. The writer is managing editor of Middle East Eye.
