The Tower Of Babel Comes To Paris: The Folly Of Obama’s “War” On ISIS
by David Stockman • September 19, 2014
US imperialism
was once a fearsome force—-mainly for ill. Under the latter heading,
Washington’s savage destruction of Vietnam four decades ago comes
readily to mind. But now the American Imperium has become just a gong
show on the Potomac—even as its weapons have gotten more lethal and its
purposes more spurious and convoluted.
There is no more conspicuous proof than Obama’s quixotic “war” on
ISIS. The quote marks are necessary, of course, because the White House
insists that this is merely a counter-terrorism project that is not
really a war; that the campaign to “degrade, disrupt and destroy” the
Islamic State will not deploy a single American soldier—at least not
one with his or her boots on; and that the heavy lifting on the ground
against the barbaric ISIS hordes will be conducted by a “broad
coalition” of so far nameless nations.
In truth, the whole thing is a giant, pathetic farce. There will be
no coalition, no strategy, no boots, no ISIS degradation, no gain in
genuine safety and security for the American homeland. This is an
utterly misbegotten war against an enemy that has more urgent targets
than America, but a war which will nonetheless fire-up the already
boiling cauldron of Middle Eastern tribal, religious and political
conflict like never before. There is no name for what Obama is
attempting except utter folly.
Even before Secretary Kerry brought his medicine show to Paris, it
was evident there is no coalition of the willing—or even the bought.
The best that the 26 odd signatories to his communique could muster was a
vague endorsement of Iraq’s boundaries and a pledge to support its
still only partially formed, three-week old government “by any means
necessary“………except not by a single one of the “means” that are actually available.
Let’s start with the neighboring nations which should fear ISIS far
more urgently than the citizens in distant places like Lincoln NE and
Spokane WA. The short answer is not a single one of them want to help,
can help or will be invited to help. Obama’s putative coalition consists
of the invisible (Germany), the indisposed (Turkey), the indecisive
(the UK), the ineligible (Iran), the unwelcome (Saudi Arabia), the
insolvent (Egypt) and the incensed (Russia), among others.
Thus, the heartland of the newly emerged Islamic State is in the
upper Euphrates valley of Syria centered at Raqqah. That is, the
fearsome threat against which Washington wants to mobilize two dozen
nations sits cheek-by-jowl along a 560 mile border with Turkey. And
the latter possesses the largest and most potent air force and army in
the region—-a force of some 600,000 including reserves or 25X the size
of the CIA’s most recent, and undoubtedly exaggerated, count of ISIS
fighters.
Moreover, against the several score of tanks and armored vehicles
that the jihadists seized from the retreating Iraqi Army, the Turkish
military possesses 3,500 tanks, 9,000 armored fighting vehicles, 700
multiple-launch rocket systems, 2,000 towed artillery pieces and 1,000
aircraft and helicopters—-much of this right out of the latest US
military specs. Finally, by virtue of its membership in NATO, it also
happens to host one of the largest US air bases in the world.
But Turkey didn’t even sign the communique; won’t deploy its military
against ISIS—despite its adjacency and capability to demolish the ISIS
capital in short order; and won’t even permit US bombers to operate
against ISIS out of the Incirlik air base–notwithstanding that 60 years
ago it was that very facility which allowed Turkey to avoid Stalin’s
clutches.
Instead, it seems that the Islamist Sunni regime in Ankara has more
urgent fish to fry than the medievalist Sunni sect encamped on its
border: Namely, its far higher priority is deposing the secularist
Alawite branch of the Shiite tribe represented by the Assad regime in
Damascus. Yes, ISIS has 50 Turkish hostages, but that only guarantees
that in the immediate neighborhood of the purported
greatest terrorist threat ever, according to the US Secretary of
Defense, there will be no war of Sunni-on-Sunni.
That means, of course, that the nation with the next largest army in
the region ought to step right up because Iran is, after all, the
epicenter of the worldwide Shiite community. And it is exactly the
1300-year old “heresy” of that confession which is the real target of
the ISIS butchers. To be sure, the latter now find the freedom of young
people in distant Buffalo NY to hang around strip malls listening to rap
music and drinking beer to be evil incarnate, but their sword is meant
first and foremost for the age-old infidel in their immediate environs.
Yet there will be no Shiite boots to mop up behind Obama’s bombers,
either. Owing to express malice of forethought in
Washington, the Iranians weren’t even invited to Paris. Needless to
say, that was no small disappointment to the new government of the very
nation we are attempting to rescue.
“We had insisted for Iran to be there and we regret their absence,” Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said in Paris, adding that Tehran had provided his government with “significant support” in fighting Islamic State.
In fact, Iran is the indispensable ally if Washington really means to
takes sides in this latest eruption of an age-old Sunni vs.
Shiite religious war that has virtually nothing to do with America’s
legitimate security interests. But two decades of neocon and Israeli
propaganda have deposited a thick vapor of lies throughout the
entire beltway—-spurious claims that Iran is an aggressive, terrorist
nation hell-bent on getting nukes, and that, therefore, it cannot be
consorted with under any circumstance.
Yes, the mullahs are doctrinaire theocrats who rally the masses with
thundering denunciations of the far enemy in Washington and the near one
in Tel Aviv. But Iran’s purported two decade long program to acquire
nuclear weapons is entirely an invisible one—-a phantom campaign that
only Washington’s neocon sleuths have ever been able to detect and which
involved only a few small experiments that even the CIA says were
abandoned a decade ago.
And, of course, Iran has never invaded another country in modern
times–unlike Washington. As for supporting “terrorism”, that consists
of thoroughly open and plausible alliances based on political and
religious affinities with the elected government of Syria and the
dominate, elected party—Hezbollah–in Lebanon. Before Washington went
hysterical about “terrorism” those sorts of relationships used to be
called foreign policy.
So the irony of the neocon demonization of Iran is that the one real
political and military barrier to the expansionist ambitions of the
Islamic State—- the so-called “Shiite Crescent” of Iran, the Assad
regime in Syria and Hezbollah—is not even admitted onto the
battlefield. Indeed, instead of facilitating the organizing and
strengthening of the region’s indigenous opposition to ISIS, Washington
continues to strangle the Iranian economy with brutal sanctions
and attempts to overthrow the one regime with enough boots on the
ground to actually halt the ISIS expansion.
Least there was any doubt that the Shiite Crescent is out of the ball
game, Iran’s supreme leader, the ayatollah Khamenei quickly made it
clear that it would not have gone to Paris even if invited. Thirty years
of unrelenting enmity from Washington has its consequences, after all.
“I said we will not accompany America in this matter because they have got dirty intentions and hands,” Iran’s most powerful figure said in a televised address. “They see pretexts to interfere in Iraq and Syria, just as they did in Pakistan, where [the U.S.] can commit any crime it wants.”
On the other hand, Iran’s principle enemy on the Persian Gulf–the
royal family of Saudi Arabia—does want to help. That is, they want to
help as long as it only involves dropping bombs from high altitude
fighters or hosting desert training camps populated by non-Saudi
mercenaries.
But there are some real problems with that sort of “help”. In the
first place, the Saudi’s have made it very clear that the only bombs
they intend to drop in Syria would be those meant for the
incapacitation of Alawite soldiers in Damascus, not ISIS fighters in
Raqqah.
Secondly, the Saudi’s are not even welcome to drop bombs on ISIS in
Iraq because the newly installed government—actually the same old, same
old Shiite gang—-won’t permit it. Indeed, the latter didn’t even need to
speak up. The Kurdish president of the country spoke out preemptively:
Iraq’s president insisted that Arab powers Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia do not need to join airstrikes against the Islamic State group. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, President Fouad Massoum said, it’s “not necessary”.
But that delimiting of outside help by the Iraqi government
involves more than just the exclusion of Sunni Arab air power. The
Shiite politicians and militia strongmen who dominate the south do not
want to see the sight of any American boots on the ground— even should
Obama relent.
In fact, the leaders of Iraqi Shiite militias allied with Iran such
as Asaib Ahl al-Haq (“League of the Righteous”), Kata’b Hezbollah and
the Madhi Army have warned that US soldiers would be targeted. In this
regard, the nemesis of Washington’s first occupation of Iraq, firebrand
Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, leaves nothing to the imagination:
Failing the threat of unrest keeping US troops off Iraqi soil, Sadr warned that they could find themselves once again a target of his allied militias, declaring “if you come back, we will be back too.”The Mahdi Army largely disbanded after the US pullout, but Sadr has kept ties with its leadership, threatening regularly to bring them out of retirement if the US tries to return to the country in a military role. With the ISIS war looking to do exactly that, they could quickly be another foe for the US in its ever-expanding conflict.
Mr. Sadr’s ingratitude might seem a trifle grating—after all among
the infidel heads that ISIS would love to sever, his would surely rank
high on the list. But actually his seemingly impudent remonstrations say
it all—-namely, that there is no longer an Iraqi nation or Iraqi army
and no possibility that it can function as an ally on the ground in
destroying ISIS.
What is left in the ancient land of Mesopotamia is only what was
there before the last European empires still standing in 1916 drew lines
on a map and declared it a nation—that is, sectarian enclaves and
obstreperous militia that are more than able to defend their own
territories, but do not want to be rescued by the Washington war
machine.
And that’s why the chirping cherubs on the CNN War Channel get it so
wrong night after night. They are pleased to report that Washington’s
allies in Baghdad and Erbil have answered Obama’s call to arms, but have
not figured out that this has nothing to do with degrading or defeating
ISIS.
Stated differently, the Kurdish militias will doubtless effectively
and ferociously defend Iraqi Kurdistan east and north of the Tigris
river, but when it comes to the upper Euphrates valley where the Islamic
State is actually embedded, there is a considerable problem. Namely,
that Turkey considers most of the Kurdish militias which operate
there–such as the PKK affiliated groups—-to be terrorists and mortal
enemies.
Likewise, the Shiite militias would be completely toxic in the Sunni
lands where Obama’s bombers will need boots on the ground to accomplish
anything except wanton destruction and hellacious blowback. In fact, it
is not at all clear that they are any less barbaric than the ISIS
fighters. As the New York Times noted, under a surely understated file
called “Shiite Militias Post Challenge For US in Iraq”, militia justice
is simple. As one fighter explained,
“We break into an area and kill the ones who are threatening people,” said one 18-year-old fighter with Asaib Ahl al-Haq, a Shiite militia that operates as a vigilante force around Baghdad.
In fact, the Shiite militias have been no less ruthless in Sunni
neighborhoods than have the ISIS killers in the territories they occupy.
As the NYT further noted,
At the end of July, a report from the research and advocacy group Human Rights Watch said it had documented the killings of 109 Sunni men — 48 in March and April, and 61 between June 1 and July 9 — in the villages and towns around Baghdad. Witnesses, medical personnel and government officials blamed Shiite militias for all of them, and “in many cases witnesses identified the militia as Asaib Ahl al-Haq,” the report said.
Well, that leaves Washington’s favorite delusion—the Free Syrian
Army(FSA)—-as the only available boots. At the end of the day there is
no place else to go. Certainly, the peripheral Arab nations are not
candidates.
Qatar, for instance, is aligned with the Muslim brotherhood and is
therefore proscribed by Egypt and the Saudis. Besides, Qatar’s
overwhelming objective is putting a natural gas pipeline though
Syria—something that Assad has decisively rejected in deference to his
Russian patrons, but which for a price the Islamic State would
likely embrace in a heartbeat. So it is not even clear which side the
Qataris are on.
Likewise, the UAE has no soldiers—just money—while Egypt has a lot of the former but none of the latter.
And, yes, there is a roadblock with the so-called moderate rebels
and FSA, too. Notwithstanding that the House GOP has already approved
$500 million of funding so long as each and every fighter first submits a
fitness and suitability report card to the House Armed services
committee, it turns out that like Leroy, the reluctant running back of
football lore, FSA doesn’t even want the ball.
As widely covered in the middle eastern press but hardly mentioned in
Washington, most of the rag-tag remnants of the moderate rebel
alliance have announced a truce with ISIS on the grounds that their real
enemy resides in Damascus, not Raqqah.
The Free Syrian Army has announced that it will not sign up to the US-led coalition to destroy Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq and Syria. The group’s founder, Colonel Riad al-Asaad, stressed that toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is their priority, and that they will not join forces with US-led efforts without a guarantee that the US is committed to his overthrow……The announcement comes a day after a ceasefire was signed between another rebel group, the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), and IS fighters in Damascus. The details of the truce agreement, published by Arabic news site Orient Net, showed that the two sides had agreed not to target each other. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that IS and the SRF had agreed that Assad’s government and the forces allied to it are the principal enemy.
If there appears to be a pattern here, there is. Washington is
trapped in a strategic cul-de-sac. Without troops on the ground in the
40% of Syria occupied by the Islamic State, US drones, tomahawks and
bunker busters will simply turn these Sunni villages and cities into
Gaza-On-Euphrates—-that is, a wasteland which will breed ISIS fighters
prolifically rather than degrade and destroy the jihadist threat.
But fielding a moderate rebel fighting force in Syria depends on
eliminating the Assad regime first—-an obviously fraught undertaking. It
would result in not simply a two front war—-with the Shiite Crescent
and ISIS at the same time–but for all practical purposes a three front
war, including Russia.
Perhaps the amateur warriors running the show in the Obama White
House have not noticed, but their foolish campaign against Russia over
the Ukrainian civil war is a direct threat to the only thing that keeps
the Russian economy alive—its gas and oil exports to Europe. At the same
time, elimination of the Assad regime would almost surely compound that
threat by opening up a new gusher of competition for the European
energy market in the form of a pipeline through Syria and Turkey for
transport of Qatar’s now stranded but massive deposits of natural gas.
So to the nameless coalition of the willing, add an existentially
motivated champion—-Russia—-of the status quo in Damascus. Indeed, were
Obama to actually recognize that the route to regime change in Raqqah is
through Damascus first, the resulting thunderous confrontation at the
UN Security Council would be one for the ages. Putin would be banging
his shoe in behalf of the sanctity of sovereign borders in Syria, while
the Obama Administration would be reduced to saying that the
international rules allegedly at issue in the Ukrainian civil war apply
always and everywhere…….except when Washington finds them inconvenient.
At the end of the day, of course, the White House will flinch—there
will be no overt campaign to militarily eliminate the Assad regime, and
therefore no boots on the ground, either. The peace candidate from the
school of Saul Alinsky will become the Curtis Lemay of the 21st century.
He will attempt to bomb back to the stone age a freakishly retrograde
regime that would prefer to be there anyway.
And that points to the final folly of Obama’s war on ISIS. A band of
medievalist butchers has seized power in the Sunni uplands of the
Euphrates river because for 20 years Washington has been on the wrong
side of the Islamic religious divide. It has consistently opposed
secularizing Arab regimes in Iraq and Syria while coddling the
nursemaids and bursars of Sunni fanaticism—the octogenarian gluttons and
Wahhabi tyrants who occupy the throne in Riyadh.
Indeed, the Islamic State’s astonishing military success is almost
solely attributable to the vast deposits of advanced weaponry that
Washington has dumped into Syria and Iraq in its befuddled campaigns to
destroy the Baathist regimes of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad. In a
recent brilliant exposition in the socialist forum called Counterpunch,
author Gary Leupp crystallized the giant strategic error:
George “Dubya” Bush gleefully destroyed the Iraqi state. He smashed a state in which Christians served in high posts, women attended college and felt free to leave their heads uncovered, rock n’ roll blared from radios, liquor stores operated legally, and there was even a gay scene. He replaced it with an occupation run by clueless cowboys literally marching around Baghdad in cowboy boots, issuing orders—most notably the orders of dissolution of the Baathist Party and the Iraqi Army…….. These were secular institutions, not tools for the propagation of any theology. Their dissolution was an attack, not on a religious belief system (about which the Occupation could have cared less), but on the Sunni community that had provided Saddam Hussein’s support base and dominated his regime.
In the hindsight of history it might well be asked what was Saddam’s
offense—–surely he was no more autocratic and barbarous than the regime
in Saudi Arabia. During the last month alone the latter has accomplished
23 beheadings and, as a matter of general policy, it suppresses
internal dissent with ruthless brutality and enforces barbaric medieval
religious practices like stoning alleged adulteresses.
In truth, Saddam’s real offense was to pick a fight with the
gluttonous emir of Kuwait—the proprietor of another artificial enclave
drawn-up by Messrs. Sykes and Picot in deference to the interest of
British Petroleum—-that had no bearing on America’s security whatsoever.
Indeed, 40 years on from the phony and failed oil embargo of 1973 it
should be clear that it doesn’t matter which set of dictators and
tyrannical rulers control the various hydrocarbon deposits along the
Persian Gulf. Sooner or latter they produce and ship the oil because
they need the revenue.
Likewise, international market prices have a proven, remarkable
capacity to cause consumer economies to adjust to whatever price regime
materializes from the rough and tumble of global political and economic
developments. Just 15 years ago, the world oil price was under $20 per
barrel and Chinese demand was only one-fourth of today’s level. In the
interim, the price of oil has been to $150 per barrel and part-way back
and there has been an explosion of new investment around the world in
both conventional, deep off-shore and alternative energy forms—-to say
nothing of on-going material gains in energy efficiency across nearly
all major economies.
So protecting the economic obscenity of the Gulf sheikdom’s has been
an invalid excuse for intervention, but one that nevertheless suited the
purposes of the neocons and Washington’s warfare state machinery. Yet
what it did in the case of the destruction of the secular Baathist
regime in Iraq was to open-up the gates to sectarian hell—a consequence
that is played out nearly every day as Christian, Yazidi, Kurd, Sunni
and Shiite villages take their turns at ethnic cleansing and retaliatory
revenge.
So why is Washington promoting a repeat in Syria? After all, the
Assads have been no more brutal and selfish than the House of Saud. It
can’t be out of fear that they will use chemical weapons on their own
citizens. By all accounts those are all gone. No, Washington’s entire
campaign is predicated on Syria’s choice of foreign policy
alignments—that is, its alliance with Tehran.
So having demonized the relatively enlightened theocrats of Qom and
Tehran, Washington would now root-out another Baathist regime that would
otherwise stand in the way of the Sharia fundamentalism of ISIS. To
quote Gary Leupp again:
The Alawites of Syria have never been interested in establishing a religious state but rather have used the Baathist party to establish religious inclusiveness and prevent the emergence of a Sunni-dominated religious state. Bashar al-Assad’s father even attempted to change the constitution to remove the stipulation that the Syrian president be a Muslim. (This occasioned a massive Sunni uprising in Homs which he brutally crushed in 1982.)
So what we have now in the middle east is a replay of the
bloody religious wars that once traumatized the West when
Protestants accused Catholics of being idolatrous heretics and the
latter returned the favor by putting Protestants to the stakes and the
racks. In the present instance, the real war being waged by ISIS is not
against the liberties which pertain on the streets of New York City,
but in Leupp’s words, “against the Shiites, Christians, Yezidis,
secularists, and others it sees as unbelievers and as stooges of the
west. But its primary target is the Shiites”.
Needless to say, since Washington has either destroyed, debilitated
or marginalized the natural opposition to Sunni fundamentalism—that is,
the Baathist regimes and the Iranian-Shiite alliance—-the Islamic State
has gained more territory and momentum than would have otherwise been
remotely possible.
One way or another, however, 200 million Turks, Iranians, Iraqis,
Jordanians, Syrians and Saudis, along with their leaders, will find ways
to contain and ultimately eliminate a few thousand medievalist
butchers. In the interim, America can remain vigilant at home—which is
the only way to deal with the threat of terrorism anyway. Certainly, the
confused disciple of Curtis LeMay currently occupying the Oval Office
should put his bombs away at the very earliest opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment