Iceland rests on both the North American and European continental rift. The home to the world's most northern capital is considered to be a European entity, but the United States has had an important impact on the sparsely populated nation since World War II.
Icelanders are fiercely independent and proud of their innovative, centuries-long history. Yet, a friendly behemoth lurks not far off its shores. You can fit the entire population of Iceland in a minuscule city in the U.S.; Iceland is often an afterthought in the U.S., but the U.S. is the benevolent if unpredictable elephant in the room in Iceland.
In 1940, Britain invaded Iceland in order to preempt a German invasion. The Allies also worried about a small but vocal segment of Iceland's population that were Nazi sympathizers. The U.S. took over the chore of occupying Iceland in 1941. The American force stayed on a military base at Keflavik on the Reykjanes Peninsula, a forty minute drive from Reykjavik. The Americans pulled out in 1947.
The uneasy relationship between the U.S. and Iceland didn't stop there. In 1949, Iceland, which doesn't have an army, joined U.S.-led NATO, a move that sparked uncharacteristically intense protests outside Iceland's parliament, the Alþingi. The U.S. reestablished itself at Keflavik in 1951 as a NATO ally in the fight against the Soviets. Iceland was viewed as an important strategic locale because of its position in the North Atlantic Ocean.
Amalia Lindal, an American who immigrated to Iceland, noted the tension between the American servicemen and the native Icelanders. The military men weren't treated with animus, but were viewed with suspicion as foreigners. At one point, Lindal noticed a serviceman unintentionally ordering in English an unusual and likely-unwanted dish at a restaurant. At the time- Lindal's book came out in 1962- English was not widely spoken in Iceland. Lindal knew what was happening, but chose not to reveal her Americanness in aid of the serviceman for fear of being viewed as an outsider in insular Iceland.
Lindal noticed the transience of the employees of the American Embassy. In 2014, the American Embassy, located in downtown Reykjavik is sternly protected. An Icelandic guard patrols the perimeter preventing passersby from taking pictures of anything but the top of the Embassy building. Iceland is so remote and quiet that the fear seems absurd.
Iceland has slowly warmed up to the American way. English is now widely spoken and most Icelanders are fluent. American culture influences the music scene and the American hipster style is prevalent in Reykjavik. The end of the Cold War relieved Icelandic fears of America's presence at Keflavik. The U.S. left the base in 2006, further easing any lingering discomfort.
In 2001, the billionaire owner of the Icelandic supermarket chain Bonus, Jon Asgeir Johannesson- an upstart who challenged Iceland's traditional wealthy class- bought a pair of dollar store chains in the U.S. Asgeir was part of a new wave of Icelanders, in addition to the singer Bjork, who helped the country rebrand itself to the U.S. and the world at large.
In 2008, a financial collapse created an economic crisis in the U.S. The crisis had far-reaching effects, including an economic implosion in Iceland. Asgeir's fortune was wiped out. Significant protests formed outside of the Alþingi for the first time since 1949. The value of the Icelandic Krona plummeted.
It is the end of 2014 and the two countries enjoy close relations. Iceland has since recovered from the 2008 crisis. Tourists fluidly pass between each other's borders via Icelandair. All is well for the time being. But as World War II, the Cold War, and the 2008 financial crisis have shown, Iceland's fate is tied to the U.S.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Syria's Civil War, Armed by the U.S.
The Republican argument against President Barack Obama's actions in Syria are little more than retroactive critiques. The Republicans contend that President Obama should have issued military strikes in Syria when Bashar al-Assad's regime first violently attacked the peaceful protesters in 2011. The Republicans, however, do not have a coherent forward-thinking strategy. It's not clear if the Party favors American boots on the ground at this point.
For his part, President Obama has ordered limited air strikes targeting at the Islamic State (also known as ISIL and ISIS). These strikes are meant to aid the Free Syrian Army's and the Kurdish Peshmerga's ground forces.
The Syrian civil war has been fueled by American arms already. Virtually all sides are massacring their enemies with American weapons. The Iraqi army is an American-trained and funded force. Under Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the army was essentially a Shi'a extremist militia.
The Islamic State, a group formerly affiliated with al Qaeda, acquired American weapons from the Iraqi army when it fled in the face of IS's onslaught into Mosul, Iraq. IS is a Sunni extremist group designed to brutally combat the Shi'a extremism of the Iraqi regime.
The U.S. had hoped to fund rebels battling the Assad regime in Syria and are arming them through a program based in Jordan. But the rebels are made up of hundreds of different groups with disparate aims. The Islamic State is one of those groups fighting Assad, a follower of Shi'a Islam. Even Assad has been the beneficiary of a significant amount of economic aid from America in happier times.
The U.S. has chosen to support the Free Syrian Army, a shadowy group that dubiously argued the Islamic State is an Assad plot. The FSA is essentially the least bad option for an American government under political pressure to act.
Without the torrent of American weapons in the region, the Syrian civil war would quite likely have been far less bloody. Considering the number of hostile extremist groups operating in Syrian and Iraq, the U.S. should not have flooded this volatile region with arms. It was an explosion of uncontrollable violence waiting to happen. But, as the Republican know all too well, it's easy to say what we should have done.
We should learn from our mistakes. Throwing more gas onto the fire isn't going to put it out. The U.S. should not take any military action in Syria or Iraq. The arms that we give to our allies in the region often end up in the hands our enemies. We've also seen that today's friend is tomorrow's enemy in the region. We cannot be seen as backing one extremist Islamic sect over another, a strategy the U.S. has continuously and contradictorily invoked throughout the Middle East.
The violence in Syria and Iraq is incredibly sad. The U.S. must act and the goal must be to limit deaths. The U.S. can do so by accepting Syrian refugees and better funding refugee camps in neighboring countries. Throwing more weapons into the bloody stalemate is not the answer.
For his part, President Obama has ordered limited air strikes targeting at the Islamic State (also known as ISIL and ISIS). These strikes are meant to aid the Free Syrian Army's and the Kurdish Peshmerga's ground forces.
The Syrian civil war has been fueled by American arms already. Virtually all sides are massacring their enemies with American weapons. The Iraqi army is an American-trained and funded force. Under Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the army was essentially a Shi'a extremist militia.
The Islamic State, a group formerly affiliated with al Qaeda, acquired American weapons from the Iraqi army when it fled in the face of IS's onslaught into Mosul, Iraq. IS is a Sunni extremist group designed to brutally combat the Shi'a extremism of the Iraqi regime.
The U.S. had hoped to fund rebels battling the Assad regime in Syria and are arming them through a program based in Jordan. But the rebels are made up of hundreds of different groups with disparate aims. The Islamic State is one of those groups fighting Assad, a follower of Shi'a Islam. Even Assad has been the beneficiary of a significant amount of economic aid from America in happier times.
The U.S. has chosen to support the Free Syrian Army, a shadowy group that dubiously argued the Islamic State is an Assad plot. The FSA is essentially the least bad option for an American government under political pressure to act.
Without the torrent of American weapons in the region, the Syrian civil war would quite likely have been far less bloody. Considering the number of hostile extremist groups operating in Syrian and Iraq, the U.S. should not have flooded this volatile region with arms. It was an explosion of uncontrollable violence waiting to happen. But, as the Republican know all too well, it's easy to say what we should have done.
We should learn from our mistakes. Throwing more gas onto the fire isn't going to put it out. The U.S. should not take any military action in Syria or Iraq. The arms that we give to our allies in the region often end up in the hands our enemies. We've also seen that today's friend is tomorrow's enemy in the region. We cannot be seen as backing one extremist Islamic sect over another, a strategy the U.S. has continuously and contradictorily invoked throughout the Middle East.
The violence in Syria and Iraq is incredibly sad. The U.S. must act and the goal must be to limit deaths. The U.S. can do so by accepting Syrian refugees and better funding refugee camps in neighboring countries. Throwing more weapons into the bloody stalemate is not the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)