Iraq, Isis, and Intervention: Just What is Going On?
by John Chuckman
June 22, 2014
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 represents a religious minority (Shia), and 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.
ENDS