The Tower Of Babel Comes To Paris: The Folly Of Obama's "War" On ISIS

By Tyler Durden
US imperialism was once a fearsome force - mainly for ill. Under the latter heading,
Washingtons 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 Obamas 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
soldierat 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 willingor even the bought. The best that the 26 odd signatories to
his communique could muster was a vague endorsement of Iraqs boundaries and a
pledge to support its still only partially formed, three-week old government by any
means necessaryexcept not by a single one of the means that are
actually available.
Lets 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. Obamas 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 CIAs 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 didnt even sign the
communique; wont deploy its
military against ISIS - despite its
adjacency and capability to demolish
the ISIS capital in short order; and
wont 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 Stalins 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 Obamas bombers, either. Owing to
express malice of forethought in Washington, the Iranians werent 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-J aafari 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 Americas 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
Irans purported two decade long program to acquire nuclear weapons is entirely an
invisible one - a phantom campaign that only Washingtons 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 timesunlike
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 - Hezbollahin 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 regions 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, Irans
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, Irans 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, Irans principle enemy on the Persian Gulfthe royal family of Saudi
Arabiadoes 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
Saudis 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 Saudis are not even welcome to drop bombs on ISIS in Iraq because the
newly installed governmentactually the same old, same old Shiite gang-wont
permit it. Indeed, the latter didnt even need to speak up. The Kurdish president of the
country spoke out preemptively:
Iraqs 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, its 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), Katab Hezbollah and the Madhi Army have warned that
US soldiers would be targeted. In this regard, the nemesis of Washingtons 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. [18]
The Mahdi Army largely disbanded after [19] 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. Sadrs 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 thats why the chirping cherubs on the CNN War Channel get it so wrong night after
night. They are pleased to report that Washingtons allies in Baghdad and Erbil have
answered Obamas 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
Obamas 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 [20] 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 Washingtons 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, Qatars 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 doesnt 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 groups 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 Assads 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 timebut 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 Qatars
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 Obamas 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 fanaticismthe octogenarian gluttons and Wahhabi
tyrants who occupy the throne in Riyadh.
Indeed, the Islamic States 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 Husseins support base
and dominated his regime.
In the hindsight of history it might well be asked what was Saddams 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, Saddams 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 Americas
security whatsoever. Indeed, 40 years on from the phony and failed oil embargo of 1973
it should be clear that it doesnt 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 todays
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 sheikdoms has been an invalid
excuse for intervention, but one that nevertheless suited the purposes of the
neocons and Washingtons 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 cant be out of fear that they will use
chemical weapons on their own citizens. By all accounts those are all gone. No,
Washingtons entire campaign is predicated on Syrias 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-Assads 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 Leupps 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.