October 16, 2017--Whatever Happened to ISIS?

It wasn't very long ago that ISIS or ISIL or the Islamic State caused widespread fear in the Middle East and the West. Very much including in the United States.

Almost daily, for many months, ISIS would release a video of the hideous torture and beheading of captured Americans, Europeans, and Muslims. The map of the area showed ISIS's metastasis occurring as more and more territory fell before its brutal, seemingly unstoppable anschluss.

As recently as 2014, ISIS declared itself a caliphate. Which meant that they claimed religious, political, and military authority over all Muslims. All Muslins worldwide. In the region (beginning in expanding parts of Iraq and Syria) with visions of taking over all of the Middle East and ultimately at least as much of Africa and Europe as the previous caliphate of the 7th through 15th centuries occupied.

This terrifying aspiration did not seem far fetched. 

The Iraqis, torn by internal strife between the Shia majority and the Sunnis (who joined ISIS in large numbers), the Iraqi government and military felt powerless to resist. Syria was torn by a hopeless civil war and resisted becoming involved; and no one in the West, including the United States during the last years of the Obama administration, had a response that felt credible. 

And then there were the Russians who saw this divisiveness and chaos as an opportunity to exert influence and even dominance.

But then toward the end of the Obama years and continued and expanded during the early months of the Trump administration--yes, that administration--the U.S. military did two things that appear to have been decisive--somehow after more than a decade of frustration, we were able to train elements of the Iraqi army to actually fight effectively and supplied close-in tactical air support as they took on the previously unvanquished ISIS fighters. 

Slowly the map of the area controlled viciously by ISIS began to contract. As recently as last week the last of their caliphate strongholds, Hawija, fell to the Iraqis. Thousands while retreating were killed and then, rather than dying a martyrs' death, other thousands surrendered, mainly to Kurdish forces who have been in the mix as critical fighters.

A few things--

First--ISIS will continue to inspire and take credit for individual acts of terrorism. As hideous as this it, it's not a caliphate.

Then--though Donald Trump has a checklist of Obama initiatives and achievements that he has made his agenda--to obliterate Obama's political and historical existence is what more than anything else guides Trump. But in spite of this, in regard to ISIS, his military people saw an effective strategy and Trump doubled-down on it. Soon he will be all over Twitter and the media taking credit for "defeating" ISIS. What he boasted during the election campaign.

He is entitled to some of that credit. This is culminating on his, forgive me, watch. Maybe, doubtful, but maybe he will learn something from this--about the big things (war and peace) he might act more moderately than what many are fearing. North Korea a case in point?

Last--seemingly hopeless situations can at times resolve themselves. 

Hawija

June 1, 2015--Remapping

Over breakfast at Balthazar late last week with a well-travelled friend, despite our attempt to be optimistic about things, he couldn't resist asking what I thought was happening in the Middle East.

"You need to bring that up while I'm still enjoying my scone?" I said as playfully as I could.

"Well, in fact there may be things to feel good about."

"Really?" I was skeptical.

"Put in perspective."

"In perspective?" I was still skeptical.

"Very long term perspective."

"Again, really? How does that work?"

"Maybe what's happening has to happen. If we think about the long sweep of history, I mean."

Beginning to get was he was suggesting, I said, "I guess you could push me to make a very-guardedly optimistic case for the region if you gave me maybe a 100-year time frame to project things onto."

"Look," he said, "I'm British and am old enough to have seen massive changes in our position in the world. I had family members who worked for the Colonial Service in South Asia. When India was in effect a British colony. Some of of the change was bloody others more peaceful."

"More than 'in effect,'" I said. "Look, you're as old as I am--and that's pretty old--and though I don't remember from personal history about the changes in your empire as the result of the American Revolution, they were profound."

"Very amusing," he said, "The  very old business."

"The results of the Revolution changed the map for a large part of the Western Hemisphere. And led to even more change when France made its Louisiana Territory available for purchase."

"And later you follows grabbed from Mexico a large part of what is now the American West. California very much included."

"Yes as a result of the Mexican War during the 1840s and don't forget ten years or so after that the Gadsden Purchase which allowed us to flesh out our southwestern border. And then later still there was the bargain-basement purchase from Russia of Alaska."

"So project onto that what is going on right now in the Middle East."

"For some years I've been thinking about that and writing about it on my blog--how if one looks at the map of the current Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia for that matter, we see the remnants of big-power colonial domination and the national borders that were imposed on Arab people, as well as Persians, Jews, Turks, and others after, for example, the First World War. Newly constituted or created countries that still exist. On paper at least. Countries without borders that take history or culture or religion into consideration. So, once the colonial powers backed off--and that includes us in the U.S.--things began to unravel."

"That's an understatement," my friend said.

"So perhaps what we're seeing is a remapping. Is that your optimistic scenario?"

"For me as well very-guardedly optimistic. Yes. That's what I'm thinking."

"I've been thinking and saying that too. How what we are seeing is an assertion on the ground of various Islamic factions seeking violently to settle scores and slough off the boundaries that they have been forced to live with by the Western powers. Borders that ignored culture. And, through the support and cynical use of dictators such as Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and the Saudi royal family, among others, attempted to tamp down and contain nationalistic strivings and the natural forces of history."

"So in your remapping scenario," my British friend said, sipping his morning tea, "you agree that this is something that has to happen? That's inevitable?"

"Yes. In history, there has been a lot of remapping. That which is the result of warfare where the victors impose new boundaries. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions are examples as is the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I."

"Other examples are the result of the invasions of exploding empires--the Roman Empire and Islamic Caliphate that dominated most of north Africa and western Europe. And of course our British Empire. The one where the sun never set."

"We could go on. The point being that what gets left behind or imposed as the result of these powerfully aggressive movements result in unnatural affiliations where people of very different backgrounds are forced to think about themselves as Iraqis or Syrians or Libyans. Big picture--there is no such thing as an Iraqi. Nationalities of this kind have been constructed by conquerers. This goes against the history of these peoples where they think about themselves as Sunnis or Shia or Kurds, not Iraqis. And as a result, what we have wrought are powder kegs throughout the region waiting for some spark to ignite them. And we're seeing those sparks all over the world. Very much including the emergence of ISIS."

"Thus my optimistic thought," my friend said. "As I said, perhaps there has to be this movement toward the reestablishment of cultural borders. Maybe even a few that are fluid since some of the people who live in the region are nomadic. Also, in some cases this may not even involve the concept of 'country' or 'nation.' And this of course doesn't mean that peace will break out. There will still be disputes and incursions but hopefully not at the level of all-out warfare."

"Sounds good to me, though, if you're right, I won't be around to see it."

"There you go again about being old. In the meantime, can I treat you to another cup of coffee and maybe some toast?"

September 2, 2014--ISIS

Most objective historians contend that George W. Bush and, before him, Bill Clinton ignored the many early signs that Al-Queda represented a deadly threat to the U.S. homeland.

Famously or infamously, President Bush was cutting brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and didn't want to be disturbed by a National Security memo that warned of an imminent attack by Al-Qaeda on America.

It was a failure to "connect the dots," both critics and apologists said retrospectively. It was at least that. Worse--why did citizens and our government have to learn about the reach and power of Al Qaeda for the first time on 9/11?

Which brings me to today to ISIS, the even more radical successor to Al-Qaeda.

ISIS, the jihadist faction that has recently swept out of Syria, where it was incubated, and is rampaging through central Iraq, slaughtering Shiites, Kurds, and Christians as it expands the borders of its self-procliamed Caliphate is now commanding the attention of Western leaders. President Obama as well as British Prime Minister Cameron cut short their vacations to pay more attention to this dangerous movement.

Where did they come from seemingly so quickly? How did they develop the capacity, apparently overnight, to take on first Syria's army and then roll back Kurdish and Iraqi armed forces? Armies that we equipped and trained for years to be self-sufficient retreated across Iraq with hardly a fight in the face of ISIS's self-trained militias.

Why does it appears that the president and other world leaders are just now learning about ISIS and finally taking action to halt its advance? Including, President Obama implied late last week, seeking them out at their sanctuaries in Syria.

Did we again forget to connect the dots when we began to notice that scores of Americans and hundreds of Europeans were making their way to Syria to join the rebels fighting the Assad regime and then to enlist in ISIS's brigades?

It is understandable that we did not want to get directly involved in arming the rebels in Syria much less supplying air cover or, worse, boots on the ground. The situation is a quagmire, best to remain uninvolved; but if we had evidence that the situation there was an incubator of jihadist terrorists who might ultimately threaten us directly, maybe we should have reconsidered keeping our hands off.

Perhaps we should have learned some lessons from our own history of involvement in the region. First, how we intervened in a surrogate Cold War confrontation with Russia in Afghanistan. How we armed the Mujahideen who in turn defeated the Russians and then, without pausing to thank us, using our weapons, transformed themselves into the Taliban who shortly thereafter supported and provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda fighters. As a result there was 9/11.

A version of the same thing is now happening in Syria-Iraq.

After we brought down Saddam Hussein, with the full participation of the American occupying forces, we agreed with the Shiite majority to rid the government and, more importantly, the military of any Sunni Muslims who were members of Hussein's Baathist Party. We took the lead in the de-Baathification of the country and placed our support behind the Shiites who, in the process, disenfranchising this talented group of government officials and military leaders, also doing all they could to publicly humiliate them.

So it should come as no surprise to find them now in leadership roles within ISIS. A major reason ISIS is so effective, so able to fight with discipline and precision, is because of their Baathist allies, who, as in Afghanistan, have taken possession of massive amounts of American arms and weapon systems that they seized from the retreating Shiite forces.

As a consequence, again because of inept American and European leadership, expect to see us engaged soon in various forms of combat in the lands now controlled by ISIS--in Iraq, Kurdistan, and even Syria, where, as a result, ironically, we may wind up helping Bashar al-Assad to keep his grip on power.

August 25, 2014--Rona al-Assad

Just between us do we think Egypt is a better place since Hosni Mubarak was ousted? What about Libya? Muammar Gadaffi is gone but what has taken his place? Chaos and civil war.

And would Jordan be an open society if King Abdullah were overthrown, or would Saudi Arabia suddenly become democratic with women allowed to drive without the Saud-family absolute monarchy in iron-fisted control? And we know what would result if and when Bashar al-Assad is killed or chased into luxurious exile.
       

Then, there is Rona's favorite example--Iraq.

For a moment it felt good to see Saddam Hussein captured and even executed, but what is his legacy? More civil war and unrelenting brutality and killings. She quipped some time ago, even before ISIS invaded and took control of a central swarth of Iraq, declaring a caliphate, that it's too bad Saddam is dead because in order to keep Iraq from splintering we need a tyrant to keep a lid on things. Sure Iraqi Shiites not a part of the Sunni ruling elite would again be discriminated against, and often worse, but compared to the number of killings and executions and beheadings currently going on, Saddam's rule seems benevolent.

So it is not entirely surprising that officials from governments in one way or another involved with Iraq and Syria would be wondering out loud if it might be a good idea to encourage and enable Bashar al-Assad to defeat the militants operating from within Syria, jihadists who are leading the effort to overthrow him as well as crossing back and forth across the Syria-Iraq border in order, day-by-day, to take control of much of Iraq and Syria, the heart of their new caliphate.

Rather than calling for his ouster, perhaps, based on the Libya-Egypt-Iraq experience, it may be in the best interest of Western parties to see al-Assad triumph and in control again of all of his country. Most of the killings would then stop, perhaps some rebuilding would occur, and minimally our interests would, in their own hypocritical and tortured way, be protected.

In that region the old status quo had many advantages.

Speaking the unspeakable, in Britain, a former foreign secretary and defense secretary suggested that though Bashar al-Assad is "unsavory," he should be used against the even greater evil, ISIS.

As reported in the New York Times, former secretary Malcom Rifkind said the beheading of journalist James Foley (by a Brit) required a forceful response from the West. The militants "need to be eliminated and we should not be squeamish about how we do it."

Speaking the language of realpolitik, he went on, "Sometimes you have to develop relationships with people who are extremely nasty in order to get rid of people who are even nastier."

Rona couldn't have said it better.

Understandably, the current foreign secretary rejected the idea out of hand. In polite society one does not speak so frankly. Especially not in public.

June 20, 2014--Persia

I am having second thoughts about our working in tandem with Iran to push back against the jihadist ISIS forces that are threatening to fully overrun Iraq and implement a holocaust against Shiite Iraqis and impose sharia law. They are already massacring thousands in parts of Iraq they have seized

These really are bad people. Even Al-Qaeda has renounced them as too violent. When you have Al-Qaeda pronouncing you to be too violent that qualifies as violent.

Already openly engaged in talks with Iran about its nuclear program, something that would have been difficult to imagine just a year ago when the drumbeat in Israel and among militarists in our own country were pressing the Obama administration to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran; as ISIS fighters stormed across northern and central Iraq, the US and Iran, again openly, began to talk about the possibility of coming to the assistance of the Iraqi government, as ineffective and exclusionary as it is, because the prospect of ISIS controlling most of the country, and the region that includes Syria, was too apocalyptic to contemplate.

There are at least three possible scenarios for the tormented Middle East--

Perhaps most likely is decades of interminable warfare ranging from small scale internecine civil wars between ethnic, tribal, and religious rivals to region-wide strife. Libya is an example of the former while what we are now seeing across Syria and Iraq is characteristic of the latter, with ISIS already proclaiming that what they are up to is not just the imposition of sharia law but the reestablishment of the Caliphate of the 7th through 15th centuries.

Second is the reemergence of a class of local tyrants who can, through force and terror, suppress the aspirations of the region's fractious peoples. Saddam Hussein in Iran, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the Shah and ayatollahs in Iran, the royal family in Saudi Arabia, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and currently Bashar al-Assad in Syria are all examples of leaders who were or have been for decades successful at keeping the lid on discontent and political rivals.

Third, though ultimately unlikely, is the scenario I have been reconsidering--the emergence with subtle U.S. support--of three or four regional powers that reassert their historic leadership roles across the region.

Egypt would need to see its revolution concluded to again play its dominant role among Arabs. Turkey would have to see it influence spread among moderate Muslims. Saudi Arabia would have to open its society further and come to play a greater regional role. And Iran would have to again become Persia.

Some have argued, for example, that Iran's nuclear aspirations have less to do with developing atomic weapons to use against Israel than an expression of national pride. For a people with an ancient and proud history to see itself overshadowed by the Saudis and Israelis is deeply humiliating. To again be able to play an influential role in the region might satisfy those national ambitions.

Of course the likelihood of any progressive scenario advancing is remote. The Sunnis and Shia have been murderous rivals since the death of the Prophet 1,400 years ago and Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran eye each other venomously.

But perhaps our trying to find a way to bring Iran into the family of moderate nations is worth a try. Everything else seems too depressing to think about 24 hours before the summer solstice.