Al-Qaeda was substantially defeated in Iraq back in 2006. Or so we thought. Now, al-Qaeda in Iraq has been rebuilt (and rebranded) as ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – or, as they prefer to be called now, just the “Islamic State”. And they are competing with the core al-Qaeda for dominance as the most serious terror threat to emerge from the last decade+ of violence and instability in the Middle East.
Moreover, ISIS has managed to do what many thought was unthinkable under President Obama – drag the U.S. back into an open-ended conflict in the Middle East. And while President Obama has deliberately and carefully crafted a limited military campaign, the saying goes, “the enemy gets a vote” … time will tell how this conflict evolves (or, perhaps better put, “metastasizes”).
The ISIS goal is to form an extremist Sunni caliphate – based on a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam from the time of the Prophet Mohammad – without regard to national borders or opposition. They currently control an large swath of northwestern Iraq and northeastern Syria, and they are strategically expanding their reach in order to gain control over a number of major oil fields, transportation routes and population centers. Their plans are to expand even further, across the region – with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Turkey and Israel all watching their moves carefully (and all supporting, more or less, President Obama’s coalition against ISIS). Their ambition is currently larger than their ability, but ISIS is deadly serious.
There is a lot of blame being thrown around as to who is responsible for their ability to gain power so quickly over the past few years. Some say Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s hard line against Iraqi Sunnis has been the major contributor. Others point to the release of US/Iraqi held prisoners as adding formidable power to their ranks.
What seems to be more directly influential in the rise of ISIS is the instability in Syria. While the country was in chaos, ISIS was able to secure much of the northeast portion of the country, which borders Iraq. They were thus able to find secure ways to make money, accrue weaponry, and create escape routes from a number of battlefields. Like the Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistan, ISIS used the portions of Syria it controlled to stage raids and then “conquer and hold” offensives into Iraq.
A lot has been made of the group’s economic base. They earn money primarily through collecting local taxes for electricity and extorting the general public, including humanitarian groups. With a major bankroll, they pay better than other armies and rebel groups in the region, creating stronger cohesion as well as contributing to mass desertion of potential opposition forces.
This helps to explain the major advances ISIS has made in Iraq considering the disparity of the forces. ISIS has at least 7,000 gunman, with some reports suggesting they may control almost 30,000. Iraq putatively has a quarter million under arms, and that does not include the Kurdish militia or other anti-ISIS forces in the region. However, Iraq’s forces aren’t as organized or motivated as ISIS, who in some battles sent Iraqi forces running despite a 40-to-1 outnumbering.
The crisis in Iraq isn’t as simple as a two-sided conflict between ISIS and the Iraqi government. There are militias on both sides, some quite large. Iran is also joining the largely Shia forces of Iraq to prevent ISIS from gaining more power. Moreover, ISIS is partly composed of former Baathist officers from Saddam Hussein’s era.
It will be a long time before we know how this conflict will play out. What we do know for sure is that there will be a great deal of suffering before it is over.
from Don Mathis & Foreign Policy http://ift.tt/XwihaZ
from http://ift.tt/1u2B6wM
No comments:
Post a Comment