IRAQ, ISIS, AND INTERVENTION: JUST WHAT IS GOING ON?
John Chuckman
As so often is the case in foreign affairs, we will never
know with precision what is happening in Iraq. The governments involved have
reasons to disguise what they are doing, and a number of governments are indeed
at work there. The press doesn’t spend the resources needed to discover the facts,
thus saving government considerable embarrassment and themselves a good deal of
work. But, if you look carefully, there
are enough bits of information scattered around to gain an adequate picture of
events, just as you might detect what people had been eating from the crumbs
and splashes left on a dinner table.
From columnists and editorials, you can find almost any
explanation of events in Iraq you care to find, all of them together yielding
precisely a huge muddle. My favorite example of confusion is the story which
made its way around about the way the United States and Iran were coming
together to stop ISIS, each of them having their own reasons for doing so. As
it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth. Iran, indeed, cares
deeply about stopping ISIS. The United States makes a good deal of noise – what
else can it do when pictures are published, intended to inflame public opinion,
of prisoners being violently murdered? – but it does nothing of substance
because it does not want to do anything.
The less-than 300 troops America sent to Iraq are only for
embassy protection, not fighting, the monster embassy the United States forced
on occupied Iraq being a private city of spies and communication and resources,
totally out of proportion to a country the size of Iraq – if you will, a Middle
East branch plant for CIA headquarters in Virginia. Now the United States talks
of sending 300 advisers to Iraq’s army. Advisers? Since when does the United
States send advisers to a besieged area where it has vital interests? So, too,
the matter of air support: Prime Minister al-Maliki is reported to have asked
for air support, and the United States is reported to have responded that it
will be sent if he resigns. That is a very odd response for a government
supposedly having common cause with Iran.
Yes, ships with planes have been sent to the region, but I think
they may well be used in a different fashion than how the press speculates.
ISIS (aka ISIL) is often called a powerful and frightening
force, but that is almost laughably inaccurate. All estimates of its manpower
range from 7 to 15,000 – that is not a lot of soldiers by any standard and no
larger than some American street gangs. The Iraq military, in the last numbers I
saw, had approaching 300,000 on active service and more than half-a-million
reserves. You can find pictures on the Internet of ISIS forces on the move, a rag-tag
bunch with small arms riding around in Japanese pick-up trucks. They would be
scary for any individual or village, but they wouldn’t stand a chance against even
a single division of a modern army. Iraq’s government has many hundreds of
armored combat vehicles, including more than 200 heavy tanks, a mix of American
M1A1s and Russian T-72s, and several billion dollars’ worth of other high-end military
equipment.
So why does Maliki seek American help? The Maliki government
is not popular in Iraq, as proves the case so often with governments set up by
the United States after its colonial wars. It has all the faults found throughout the Middle East of cronyism,
nepotism, etc. And in a country with
great divides of ethnicity and religion – Arabs, Kurds and Sunni, Shia – plus
still other regional divides – oil-producing, agricultural, plains and
mountains, urban and rural - any central government is bound to suffer
unpopularity. Democracy has no history here, so popularity is not necessarily
even a relevant criterion. But Maliki also is not popular with his original
benefactor, the United States, almost certainly a far more relevant fact.
On the other hand, the Maliki government has become quite well
disposed towards Iran, far more so than the United States, Saudi Arabia, and
Israel like. Some earlier observers of America’s handiwork in Iraq said that
the ultimate beneficiary might just prove to be Iran. Israel, in one of the
more informative statements made about the situation, said that Iran was far
more a threat to the region than ISIS. Maliki’s government forms an important
link in an arc of Shiite power through the region from Iran through Syria
(Assad is Shia) to Hezbollah in Lebanon (also Shia). The Shia are viewed by
many in the Muslim world, which is overwhelmingly Sunni, much the way
Protestants in the 17th century were viewed by the Catholic Church,
as a minority which has broken old traditions, cultural patterns, and loyalties.
All of the great reformers of Protestantism were viewed by the Catholic Church
as heretics, and as many Protestants as possible were disposed of in bloody persecutions
like the Holy Inquisition or the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. It is actually
the politics and attitudes of the Shia,
rather than this or that minor difference in theology, which makes them
unwelcome to the folks running Saudi Arabia, much as was the case with the
Reformation and Rome, the rulers of Saudi Arabia being in general about as
genuinely religious as many of the old hedonistic popes in Rome.
Some observers, early in the American occupation, predicted
that Iraq would crumble into three rump states, and to some extent their expectations
have proved perceptive. It is not clear that America would have been entirely
averse to that development since it would have eliminated a state which might
one day again possess the strength to oppose Israel. Saddam Hussein held Iraq
together through ruthlessness towards any who were opposed or questioned his
central authority, but he did represent more than a simple bloody dictator. He
was also building something of a modern secular society with public
institutions serving welfare needs, more rights for women, and the advance of education
and science – in many ways, his Iraq was the most advanced state in the Arab
world, and undoubtedly the growing middle class his policies helped create
would have brought democracy one day after his death. The American invasion
smashed all of that, leaving little of which to be proud and three regions pulling
in different directions. To the degree Maliki has again tried to impose a will
on the situation, he naturally has not been popular. And his efforts to work
with Iran, a natural and powerful regional ally for him to turn, have made him
loathed in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
ISIS, whatever the exact paths from its origins, represents
just one more of the rag-tag groups that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, working under
the close eye of the United States, introduced into Syria to topple Assad in an
engineered civil war. We have many reports of ISIS members with British or
American passports. The past Benghazi, Libya fiasco, never explained by
Washington, was part of these efforts, the murdered American ambassador running
a black operation to collect weapons and radical fighters to ship to Turkey for
insertion into Syria when he was caught in what intelligence agencies call
“blowback,” a group of those with whom he was dealing turning on him, viewing
an available American ambassador as perhaps a more worthy target than Assad.
ISIS has expanded its horizons to include Iraq, and it has been encouraged and
assisted to do so by the Saudis.
Why do jihadist types hate Assad enough to go there risking
their lives? Apart from the natural attractions for some young men of
adventure, war, and escape from rules, it is because Assad, like Hussein,
actually represents some progressive, modern developments in a large Arab
state. He has at his disposal fewer resources, not being a major oil producer
like Hussein’s Iraq, but, within the limits imposed on him, Syria exhibits
secular tendencies and some openness to modern trends. The great irony of the
region is that the very states with which Israel keeps the best relations are
absolute ones doing all they can to dampen social progress, places like Saudi
Arabia or Egypt.
ISIS is a perfect mechanism for two American goals, the
first being to assist in the disposal of Maliki, something which would make
Israel very happy because it would cut the Iran connection. Second, ISIS can be
used as an excuse for American air attacks into Syria, perhaps even the
insertion of limited ground forces there. Assad and the Syrian army have foiled
the elaborate secret effort to topple him, and a great opportunity, from
America’s point of view, stands to be lost if some additional effort is not
made. ISIS being chased into Syria by American jets and Special Forces may just
be an opportunity not to be missed: attacks on Syrian forces staged as hot
pursuit of repulsive ISIS fanatics. And the fanatics, having served their
purpose from America’s point of view, will be slaughtered too. Of course, none
of this has anything to do with the welfare of the Syrian people who have endured
countless horrors as though their country were a dump site for the toxic wastes
of some great corporation.
ISIS has been given waves of publicity for its ferocity and
barbarism, but as with all such publicity, we must make allowances for inflated
claims. We do have reports that in villages where residents ran from ISIS, they
are returning and being treated decently. Would anyone return to place occupied
by a wild band of cutthroats? If such a force shows up at a town or village
where there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Maliki government, it
is not hard to see how the locals might run, but how do we explain reports of
those who ran away being welcomed back?
The key factor as to whether Maliki can stop ISIS is the
loyalty of the army as well as local populations, and that is not certain at
all. It is extremely likely that strategic payments to soldiers and others are
being made to secure results like those of the early ISIS victories, the funds
coming from Saudi Arabia. Soldiers running and leaving behind modern tanks when
confronted with a mob in Japanese pick-ups are not credible otherwise. Remember,
Iraq is a place where pallet-loads of freshly-printed United States’ hundred
dollar bills disappeared in countless payments and bribes to silence various
groups active in the violent wake of America’s so-called victory. It is the way
the place has worked for a decade of corrupt American influence.
A high Israeli official was quoted recently saying it was
Iran’s influence that is most dangerous in the region, not that of ISIS. Of
course, that should tell us a great deal. In this part of the world, Israel’s
views count for far more than those of all the other countries put together, at
least, so far as the United States’ government is concerned, the ridiculous
lopsidedness in that reflecting the best Congress campaign funding can buy.
