The Threat Nexus: Combating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria

Combating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria 

      On September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was attacked by Al-Qaeda.  The 9/11 hi-jackers trained in Afghanistan, in camps funded by Osama Bin Laden under the protection of the Taliban.  While the attackers had a simple goal: to attack the pentagon, World Trade Center and either the White House or our Legislative building, their handlers had broader ambitions.  They sought to push westerners out of the Middle East, to restore the Caliphate and then strengthen Islam’s capabilities to expand out until it conquered the world and by sword brought the world’s population under submission to their god, Allah, enforcing a strict interpretation of the Qu’aran and Sharia Law.  For these jihadist, 9/11 was just the beginning of a protracted plan to bleed the economic might of the United States, to pull the weight of the United States against the secular oppressors of Islam in the Middle East, and to terrify the populations of the world away from their support of Israel, of military engagements in the Middle East, and to rally the support of oppressed Muslims everywhere.  Sympathy for the United States was aroused around the world, even from the governments of the Middle East, and UN authorization for actions against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were quickly authorized.  The popularity of the Bush Administration sky rocketed and sweeping legislation was passed to bolster the ability of our police and military to protect us from what the intelligence community saw as a direct threat and the start of a conflict that would last for decades.  The War on Terror was declared, and the invasion of Afghanistan soon began.  The invasion was highly successful, a few airstrikes and some CIA agents pulling together the tribes of the Northern Alliance quickly sent the Taliban running towards the hills of Eastern Afghanistan.  Focused efforts on this region with such massive international support could have secured a meaningful victory and democratic transition.  Coordination with other regional leaders could have effectively kept Al-Qaeda on the run, and decapitated its core capabilities.  These ends could have been achieved at minimal costs and significantly improved the security of the region, United States, Europe and the world.

      With the wind at the Bush Administration’s back; however, the neoconservatives and the coalition of military and security industries behind them looking to maximize their gains from the 9/11 attack sought a more aggressive response.  While their love of America, particularly their confidence in its economic and political system were authentic, they were largely ignorant of the realities of the Middle East, the varying ethnic groups and the strategic thinking of Al-Qaeda.  When 9/11 occurred, Rumsfeld and company saw it, as an attack by Islam at large, and wanted to pound all of the Middle East and North African trouble makers with an extensive arsenal of weaponry.  An emotional response to pound Islam and the tyranny of the Middle East with bombs; however, is not a winning strategy to advance US security interests.  The leading security experts identified a threat-nexus of Rogue Leaders, WMDs and Terrorist Groups after identifying the hole in nuclear deterrence presented by irrational leaders and terrorist networks that do not have populations that can directly be held accountable for their actions.  If a leader is belligerent to the world order, operating outside of international norms, pursuing nuclear weapons and has intelligence agencies that use terrorist groups to advance their national interests, then that is a legitimate threat to the safety of US citizens.  It’s a threat that a leader responsible for the security of our citizens is expected to address, militarily when necessary and peacefully when possible.  Military action, can be conducted on a multitude of levels and forms, and is only one approach to addressing such concerns as they relate to diplomacy.  Saddam Hussein had a history of using chemical weapons, even against his own Kurdish citizens, had clearly sought nuclear power, and was signaling that his WMD programs were farther along than in reality, now regarded as a bluff to deter Iran, but none-the-less accepted by western intel agencies as fact at the time.  There are unanswered questions and unquestioned answers to the origin of chemical weapons used by Bashar Assad's military (http://youtu.be/n2GPTqxf8rE). The CIA, based on the methods of deliver and positions of the Syrian army prior to the attacks, expressed a high degree of likelyhood that the chemical weapons were fired by military units loyal to Bashar Assad.   

It is very possible that in the run up to the invasion, Saddam slid his arsenal to his Ba’athist political kin, Bashar Assad in Syria.  While he had connections with some terrorist actors closely linked with Al-Qaeda, their connections were limited, and his record suggested a recognition of the threat they levied, and his brutal fashion of rule was conducive to their suppression.   Still, in Anbar province today, we see many members of Saddam’s old Ba’athist regime working with the terrorist group ISIS showing that when interests converge all alliances are possible.  While hindsight is twenty/twenty, it is clear that there were numerous serious mistakes in our occupation of Iraq, it is not clear however, that our willingness to use force was strategically misguided in its entirety or unethical.  While there may have been political and economic calculations on the part of the Bush Administration, the United States of America correctly identified Sadam's Iraq as a threat: appropriately making a threat assessment that identified our key threat as the nexus of rogue leaders, terrorist groups and WMDs; however, it made substantial errors in its occupation that have caused success in Iraq to remain elusive.

         President Barack Obama routinely mentions with lawyerly vagueness, the lessons of Iraq.  I am a democrat, and appreciate his authority, but think that he misunderstands the real lesson of Iraq.  As a master of science in security, my job is not to be political, but to be scientific.  I agree that as things are, we would have been better off staying out of Iraq and instead relieving sanctions against Saddam, which had according to the Ba’athists regimes reports to the UN lead to over a million deaths.  We could have instead worked with the Ba’athist regime to crack down on terrorist networks, share intelligence while using the UN to confine Iraqi biological, chemical and nuclear research programs into manageable risks.  America could have significantly reduced the price tag for its war on terror and invested more military resources, state department technocrats and funds into securing a Taliban and Al-Qaeda free Afghanistan. Admittedly, as 20 year Political Science student open eared to the pundits of Fox News and CNN in 2003, I did not foresee such, and gullibly believed the politicized intelligence being quoted by the Bush Administration in their effort to sell the war to the public.  In my opinion, bringing a nation to war for personal or political profit should be a crime, and it is a crime for which the Bush Administration is guilty.  America’s security situation is worse today than it was before our invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, despite tremendous successes under the tenure of Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton to improve the situation and provide measurable improvements in the global security situation, the security situation has deteriated even further under Defense Secretary Hegel with the decision to pull out of Iraq pre-mature and the failure to garner immunity for US troops being inexcusable in hindsight and achievable with only moderately sterner negotiations and a more serious military commitment. There is plenty of blame to go around, what is important is that we overcome the political divide to pursue the best strategies moving forward and come together as a nation in defense of our posterity.

      There is way too much politics in intelligence and while the purchases of yellow cake plutonium by the Iraqi regime from Africa cited in George Bush’s State of the Union speech was misleading, it is not to say that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear ambitions and that the war with Iraq was not without its successes. The Invasion of Iraq, was unquestionably an astonishing military success.  The United States was able to quickly capture territory, displace the regime and within several months capture and prosecute Saddam Hussein, while killing his sons with airstrikes.  Looking ahead long-term, Saddam’s sons were clearly psychopaths and one could speculate that the prevention of their inheriting of Saddam’s state could in itself have justified US intervention.  Suggesting that Iraqis and other Middle Eastern countries under oppression are incapable of democracy, is somewhat racist and Islamophobic.  Cooperating Middle East tyrants may be the exigent and suffice means of meeting short-term security and economic concerns, but beyond Darwinian survival and Machiavellian realism, hardly ethical by higher moral standards of society.  The United States was indeed successful in holding democratic elections, and allowing for Iraqis to choose their leaders and control their future.  While years of oppression and deep ethnic divides have plagued Iraq and pushed it towards civil war, it has experienced its first successful change of power from Al-Malaki to Al-Abadi.  The aggressive military action of the Bush Administration prompted Iran to abandon its nuclear program for a number of years and caused Gaddafi in Libya to surrender his nuclear arsenal.  The action also secured widespread regional cooperation with America as it related to the war on terror from a multitude of regional leaders positioning to stay in power and avoid the wrath of America. While it is true that at times, regional leaders used the war on terror as an excuse to oppress their own political rivals, often without regard for more progressive political, civil and human rights, it is also true that Al-Qaeda and other related insurgent groups were forced to work underground, were on the run and for the most part successfully suppressed.  Saddam Huesein was a Baathist hitman who became dictator, his sons and heirs were ruthless psychopaths, and the tyranny of Saddam unquestionably caused immense human suffering to the Shiites and Kurds his Sunni group ruled.  He did also however, hold the country of Iraq together, keep basic services working and maintain a basic degree of law and order.  His ouster, was a success, but democratic elections facilitated the transition of power to Al-Malaki, whose favoritism towards his Shi’ite faith brought Iraq closer to Iran and alienated Sunni portions of the population.  He largely continued the tyranny of Saddam, simply directing it away from the Shi’ites and towards the Sunnis.  Eventual the Sunnis would become dissatisfied and open rebellion would ensue, democratic legitimacy would mean little to a population facing incompetent governance, the oppression of the Iraqi army, unfulfilled promises resulting from a gridlocked political process and a lack of basic security, utilities or prospects for the future.  The pacification of Anbar province that resulted from the Sunni Awakening and the Surge proved ephemeral and when the US military left, the situation on the ground began to steadily decay. 

     The Arab spring brought promise to the region, the liberalism of Barack Obama illustrated by a speech in Cairo helped light the flames of revolt, a revolt the global media and journalist’s helped spread, the Arabs of North Africa and around the Mediterranean took to the street.  Tunisian and Egyptian autocrats resigned, Libya and Syria erupted into Civil Wars, Western partners in Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Yemen faced a near siege.  Iran prompted Shi’ites to rise up in Sunni controlled states while the US backed rebels in rogue states.  Egypt held elections and the Muslim brotherhood came to power as Morsi’s Truth and Justice Party, but disagreements with liberals instrumental to the revolution and gridlock from protests continued and lead to Morsi being overthrown and the systematic oppression of the Muslim Brotherhood by General Sisi and the Egyptian Army.   Tunisia held elections and the Islamists won, but let go of the legislative process and allowed for the creation of a liberal state.  In Libya, the Benghazi’s garnered international support in the form of a no-fly, no-tank zone, providing adequate cover to successfully oust Gaddafi, ending his 42 year despotic reign.  Libya elected a liberal government, but the militias refused to relinquish control of the streets, leading to clashes between Islamists and more liberal brigades.  The rapid economic growth during the aftermath of the civil war slowed and the situation has worsened, with a Langley allied Libyan General working to combat Ansar Al-Sharia brigade and bridge democratic transition by strengthening the rule of independent courts and establishing a sensible constitution.  Syria spiraled into a bloody and prolonged civil war where over 191,000 people have died, the talk of democracy and liberalism from the rebels proved more talk than promise, as Bashar Assad’s large military opted for the most brutal and oppressive tactics, including chemical weapons and publicly broadcast torture, along with bombing civilian populaces and efforts to starve out the population causing the resistance to radicalize further, prompting experienced Islamic fighters to enter the region. The Al-Qaeda aligned Al-Nursa Brigade, and Al-Qaeda offshoot Islamic State in Levant’s (ISIS – Islamic State in Syria /ISIL – Islamic State in Levant, now Islamic State) clever tactics and ample funding marginalized the liberal western supported brigades caught between Bashar Assad’s forces attacking from the sky and North West with the Islamic State of Levant attacking them from the East and South East, with Hezbollah making forays from Lebanon to attack them from the South West.  The fighting soon spread to Iraq and into Anbar province, where large portions of the oppressed Sunnis welcomed the Islamic State as liberators.  Iraqi security forces proved incapable cowards, abandoning their posts as the Islamic State took town after town with their leader declaring himself Caliphate after the seizure of Mosul.  Enemies have been terrified by the brutal tactics of ISIS broadcast across the internet and picked up by Western Media, while Islamist sympathizers have been inspired by their propaganda campaigns promising the restoration of Muslim dignity.  Attacks were thwarted in Malaysia shortly after threats directed at the US were levied in a video depicting a US freelance journalist, James Foley, reading the statement, “America is the real killer,” just before being beheaded. http://youtu.be/grb_HHBGhoU

    Genocide and humanitarian crisis finally prompted US action, with limited humanitarian air drops, air strikes and military support for the Kurdish Pesh Merga forces and Iraqi National Military.  US air support has helped the Pesh Merga retake a crucial dam on the Tigris River, but the Obama administration has yet to make clear statements as to what plan of action he has in mind, but left open the prospect of extended air strikes.  Matters have been complicated by Barack Obama taking a two week vacation to Martha Steward’s vineyard, but he has continued to field briefings on the matter and made several appearances clearly showing his concern relating to the threat. 

      The United States appears to have widespread support for military action within the region, in a rare occasion when the Iranians and Saudi’s are both welcoming US military action.  Clearly, allowing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and ISIL to remain in power will lead to a zone of control where they can grow their war chest, recruit jihadists and coordinate attacks around the world.  The internet makes anyone a potential target to turn and activate; the proliferation of student visas and refugees from these regions make the threat even more pronounced.  While we ended the color alert system, if it were still in use today we would certainly be on red alert.  An Iraqi student on such a visa who participated in Homeland Security courses shared a video of an Al-Qaeda jailbreak in the region and informed me in conversation that there is a rumor that Saddam in fact had a small nuclear arsenal of two or three warheads that American occupation and al-Malaki government has never been able to locate.  While this rumor cannot be confirmed, ISIS militants were able to garner 90 pounds of Uranium from a Mosul Research facility.  While the Uranium was not enriched to weapons grade, it could possibly be used in a dirty bomb; within which radioactive material is fastened to more traditional explosives such as dynamite.  While the radiological threat is minimal, it does increase the risk of radiation poisoning substantially in a radius of several blocks and can lead to wider hysteria and panic, common goals of terrorist organizations.  It is also important to remember that Israeli warplanes bombed and destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.  The collapse of the Soviet Union, particularly its central Asian holdings, coincided with illicit sales of its military arsenals and it is certainly possible that a well-funded nation state such as Iraq could have purchased a few warheads at the time.  To be clear, this is highly speculative and cannot be confirmed, it cannot be entirely dismissed either in consideration of the threat posed by the Islamic State.  

       The Islamic State has gained popularity in part because they have recruited and welcomed technocrats, prioritizing the provision of basic services in the territories they have entered, providing electricity and medical care in regions that have often been without since the US lead invasion. 

Could this disaster have been averted?

      Had the US lead occupation of Iraq kept the Iraqi Military intact, kept the career technocrats of the Ba’athist regime in place and pushed for a constitution federating Iraq into three largely autonomous states, I believe that the initial invasion could have transitioned to a successful occupation free from insurgency.  If the US would have prioritized the provision of basic government services there could have been a calm acceptance of the US liberators.   Instead, Paul Bremer chose to fire technocrats with roles ranging from Hospital Administration, Electricity, water, plumbing and waste management who had been doing their jobs effectively for twenty years, who had no part in the atrocities committed by Saddam’s Red Guard and Secret Police.  Instead of keeping the young men, who largely surrendered without a fight employed under the military’s chain of command, he dismissed the Iraqi military sending these men home with their guns and no promise of a future paycheck.  Furthermore, he tried to impose a winner-takes all political system centered out of Baghdad, establishing the country as a Parliamentary Federal Republic with the meager compromise that the President would be Kurd, the Prime Minister a Sunni, and the Vice President a Sunni.  The Shi’ite Prime Minister Al-Malaki ordered the arrest of the Sunni Vice President, and relations quickly deteriorated as the Shi’ite Prime Minister used his large number of Shi’ite elected seats within Parliament to govern his religious sects benefit, with little regard for the significant Sunni populations of the Anbar province, who largely boycotted the election further reducing their voice in the legislative process.  Further worsening the situation, the Sunni Tribes that facilitated the routing of Al-Qaeda in the Sunni Awakening were never paid and integrated into the Iraqi Security apparatus as promised by Malaki at the time, with Malaki instead using loyal Shi’ite components of his Iraqi National Army to brutally put down civil unrest. 

      The Islamic State cannot be underestimated, while it has shown itself to be foolishly ambitious, with rhetorical threats to Baghdad, Jerusalem and New York, and its terror tactics provoking unanimity in the need to eradicate its existence by undeterred Security Professionals, it has gained cooperation from the populaces it occupies by employing the old Ba’athist technocrats, focusing on providing basic government services and recruiting a meritocracy.  As the coalition working to oust ISIS gains strength, it is going to need to possess some delicacy in its ability to recruit back the Sunni Tribes allied in the Sunni Awakening and keep some of the meritocracy providing basic services if it wishes to avoid cyclical uprisings in the region.  Additionally, the radicalism of ISIS, or at least the young men fighting under its banner, need to be understood in the context of the Syrian Civil war, the prolonged horrid living conditions and appalling repression the fighters have been subjected to.  Many are simply fighting for survival, with Abu Bakr offering substantial financial rewards from his war chest of over 2 billion dollars for loyalty, and imposing death, slaughter and mass executions against all opposition. Anilating caravans of their fighters as they attempt to wage lighting strikes on civillian populations incapable of defending themselves is an unfortunate neccessity. Indiscriminate bombing of stong holds, without teams on the ground verifying their presence and absence of civillians is another matter.    

      While the Western allied leadership of the Free Syrian Army was never a disciplined command structure, and many of the fighters were Islamists making alliances of convenience to garner the guns and cash necessary to continue their fight against Bashar Assad, there were indeed acceptable partners within these groups, but let us not pretend that very many of them were after democracy, market economics and western notions of law.  From the beginning of this conflict they sought to oust the Allawites from power, restore the Sunni’s to power in what they believed would restore the natural order.  To be fair, while Bashar Assad has been foolishly brutal and outright evil in his tactics of oppression while waging his civil war against both ISIS and other more moderate rebel groups, he has made efforts to protect Christians and other minority groups from the Xenophobic leadership of ISIS, which is highly likely to engage in genocides directed towards rival religious sects. After what happened to the Yezidis of Mount Sinjar, its hard to argue that the Islamic State would avoid genocide if it were to come to power.   Bashar Assad, also complied with his agreement to relinquish his Chemical Weapons arsenal according to the Russian brokered plan. This is not to defend him or offer an alliance, but to contend, that as far as security conerns goes, he presents less of a threat to the US and our allies than does ISIS.  

     While it is clear that breaking the Syrian State is only going worsen matters, Bashar Assad relinquishing power and either accepting a more ceremonial role or a comfortable and wealthy asylum could help bring in more of the moderate rebels to the side of Damascus.  Sadly, Bashar Assad has primarily targeted the moderate rebels while buying oil from ISIS, providing it resources for terror so that it could point to ISIS as evidence that all of the rebels are terrorists and criminals as he initially claimed.  As I argued immediately following the Serine Gas attacks carried out by Assad, that the US should use targeted bombings against those specific Syrian brigades while fostering mutiny within his ranks, to co-op the Syrian military into alignment with moderate rebels turning both the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian army against ISIS and Al-Nursa.  If the only two options are to keep the Syrian State as lead by Bashar Assad or gamble by breaking it militarily, I suggest keeping it is wiser for the sake of global security.  I'm not convinced; however, that those are our only two choices. It would be better if we could seize control of Bashar Assad’s apparatus by fermenting a coup d’etat lead by generals in contact with the West, looking for the backing of our immense military arsenals and banks.  With the development of logistical air bases in the Kurdish controlled zones of Iraq, ongoing air strikes and support to the Pesh Merga the US can facilitate ISIS being pushed back into the confines of the Anbar province as the new unity government in Baghdad conducts the outreach and deal making to sideline the authority of Abu Bakr and his Islamic State, with the goal of taking back Mosul before November.  Coordinated, ongoing technical and air support for the Pesh Merga, Iraqi National Army and Sunni tribes could dislodge the Islamic State while bolstering credibility in deterring Iranian Nuclear aspirations.  Turkey is going to need assistance in monitoring their border, preventing the influx of weapons to the Pesh Merga from bleeding to the PKK in Turkey.  A combination of air surveillance and metal detectors and other modern border patrol equipment can help mitigate this threat, while bolstering their ability to help deter the Islamic States crossing from Syria to Iraq and inflow of Islamist Jihadis from around the world.  

        The combination of allied air support, technical expertise, weapons and humanitarian relief has shown itself to effectively turn the tides in fighting.  A positive outcome in governance in the aftermath; however, is largely dependent on the abilities of governmental leadership.  Here, the Iraqi and Syrian States are going to need to learn a few things from the Islamic State, and perhaps employ some of their partnered civil servants.  If attacks on US soil, or surprises on the battle field require a US or Western troop presence beyond that which is clandestine, I caution the importance of avoiding a fulfillment of ISIS biblical prophecies anticipating “Roman attack” from what in modern times would the Turkish Syrian border, instead carving out air fields between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to land troops and take control of the farm lands that supply the regions cities and towns controlled by IS.  By controlling these areas we can effectively divide ISIS and ISIL forces while weakening the populations support for IS, drawing our enemy out of the cities and into fights in open fields that would limit US casualties.  An effective administration strategy that provides basic utilities such as energy and water, assigns housing, provides medical care, that develops a market place and creates paying jobs to Sunnis looking to rejoin the Baghdad Unity government is the only means of ensuring that Insurgency, Khalifa lead or otherwise, never again returns to the region.  A similar strategy will also need to be simultaneously coordinated in the North East of Nigeria to combat Boko Haram and in Eastern Libya where Ansar Al-Sharia brigade has attempted to establish an independent Emirate.  

        With a four month extension to negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program already initiated, the question of Iran’s efforts to garner nuclear weapons along with its continued support from proxy terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, bring the threat nexus of nuclear weapons, rogue leaders and terrorist organizations back to the forefront of our national dialogue.  While our calculus needs to be adjusted according to our better understanding of the nuanced ethnic and religious rivalries crisscrossing the Middle East and additional realism as it relates to the aftermath of destroyed states and challenges of nation building, the war on terror needs to continue to be fought with energetic resolve.  The challenge for our Pentagon and related agencies is to develop more cost-effective combination of diplomatic and military strategies, operations and tactics to address the threat nexus of rogue leaders, wmds and terrorist networks beyond massive occupations, air bombardments and drone strikes.   Nation building, gambles at democracy and providing weapons to cooperating parties was an unaffordable and ineffective panacea that has failed to improve the quality of life or security for peoples everywhere.  The United States of America and our Allies need to formally move our strategy in the Middle East and North Africa to one of “managed transition to democracy” where the focus, is not on one man, one vote, but developing the known pre-requisites for successful democracy.  America, had an extended period as a representative Republic before it became a true representative democracy and the European democracies had extended periods where law and state existed before electoral norms evolved.  The lesson of the second Iraq war is that peace and order can only be achieved through strength and competence.    

For inquiries please email johnson.theo@gmail.com

<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<!-- Leaderboard -->

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

     style="display:inline-block;width:336px;height:280px"

     data-ad-client="ca-pub-6745527771157108"

     data-ad-slot="4484198275"></ins>

<script>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script>