Guthrie
Mayor
Part 1
President Obama’s announcement of a dual bombing strike against ISIS in Syria and Iraq surprised virtually no one. But those advocating the strikes should be aware of some key facts.
Creating ISIS
We all know that ISIS is a splinter group of Al-Qaeda that formed as resistance to the US invasion of Iraq. Indeed, the CIA told Bush that invading Iraq would be “exploited by Al-Qaeda terrorists.” The intelligence community warned that invading Iraq would allow Al-Qaeda “to establish the presence in Iraq…that it did not have prior to the invasion.” The report, entitled “regional consequences to regime change in Iraq” warned that “A US led war and occupation of Iraq would boost political Islam and increase popular sympathy for some terrorist objectives.” (1)
The reasons were made rather clear by high level intelligence officers. The regimes that the US supports are “ineffective political systems ruled by entrenched elites” that “offer most Middle Easterners little promise of a more prosperous life.” Their honest at least. (2)
The US anticipated eventual popular uprisings aimed at both the US and our local allies out of “widespread popular distrust of the United States and disappointment with US polices in the region.” However, the assessment was confident that “local security forces probably would be capable of containing popular uprisings and have taken measures to increase their readiness.” Thus, fear not that the Arab world will be inflamed, as our local dictator’s stand prepared to crush them. (3)
They expressed an understanding that there would no doubt be a substantial rise in the form of radical Islamic groups and ideologies. Though the Bush administration was aware of “strong opposition to a US war in Iraq” in the Arab world they were reassured that their dictatorial allies would “prevent attacks against US assets or interests” while simultaneously avoiding “being labeled US puppets.” The invasion would validate in many Arab minds “Al Qaeda's most effective message” that “the United States is out to enrich itself at the expense of Muslims.” They also stated that “funds for terrorist activities would increase.” (4)
Perhaps most importantly, “the lines between Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world could become increasingly blurred” as they united in a common theme against the US presence. (5)
On a side note, the report predicted devastating consequences for the Iraqi population including disrupting food supplies, the health care system, etc. This was of course no concern in a country we were supposedly liberating.
Another national intelligence report, released around the same time, warned of much of the same. The report predicted “quick and possibly brutal repression” of a Shite lead government. While acknowledging that though “for the most part Iraqi Shia and Sunni have lived peacefully together and do not have a legacy of sectarian strife” an invasion would dramatically alter that. (6)
In a remarkable spot on prediction, “rogue ex-regime elements” would “forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations…to wage guerilla warfare against the new government or coalition forces.” Additionally, “4.9 million Iraqis” could be easily pushed to the brink of starvation by the war. (7)
Thus, as predicted, the war “metastasized” Al-Qaeda and spawned a new generation of Jihadists looking to establish and Islamic Caliphate.(8)
Al Qaeda and ISIS
The split between ISIS and AL Qaeda in 2013 reveals much about the current conflict. Initially, AL Qaeda was using its franchise the Nusra front to fight against Assad in Syria. Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, started by operating out of Iraq. When Baghdadi moved into Syria and attempted to put Nusra under his command, Zawahiri, head of Al Qaeda, ordered Baghdadi back to Iraq. After Baghdadi’s refusal, Zawahiri ordered the split. Fighting broke out between the Al Qaeda controlled Nusra front and ISIS. The split was complete.
So who are the moderate Syrian rebels? Articles in foreign affairs and time magazine suggest that prior to the Al Qaeda -ISIS split the Syrian rebels represented a broad, albeit tentative, alliance between moderate an extremist groups. According to foreign affairs “ISIS overreach led to backlash, from a variety of secular and Islamist groups” in Syria and that its brutality generated “Resentment among the opposition Syrian camp.” 9 In part the articles cite this resentment as reason for Al-Qaeda disowning ISIS. Thus, it implies prior to this that the alliance between the so-called “moderate Syrian rebels” and Al Qaeda in is not so loose.
Similarly, according to Time Magazine, “ ISIS’s savagery and draconian interpretations of Islamic law alienated many Syrians and drove a wedge between rebel groups.”(10) But this was in January 2014, and the United States had already been arming Syrian rebels well before in CIA programs, before recently doing so in public. Thus it seems that the US was arming the Syrian opposition despite the fact that it included Al-Qaeda operatives. Additionally, to reaffirm how murky the waters are, according to military officials in the wall street journal, “Shifting alliances in Syria and Iraq among Sunni groups have complicated the picture in recent weeks” making it difficult to arm “moderate Syrian rebels.”(11) Its vortuatlly impossible on a day by day basis to even know what alliance is with who.
President Obama’s announcement of a dual bombing strike against ISIS in Syria and Iraq surprised virtually no one. But those advocating the strikes should be aware of some key facts.
Creating ISIS
We all know that ISIS is a splinter group of Al-Qaeda that formed as resistance to the US invasion of Iraq. Indeed, the CIA told Bush that invading Iraq would be “exploited by Al-Qaeda terrorists.” The intelligence community warned that invading Iraq would allow Al-Qaeda “to establish the presence in Iraq…that it did not have prior to the invasion.” The report, entitled “regional consequences to regime change in Iraq” warned that “A US led war and occupation of Iraq would boost political Islam and increase popular sympathy for some terrorist objectives.” (1)
The reasons were made rather clear by high level intelligence officers. The regimes that the US supports are “ineffective political systems ruled by entrenched elites” that “offer most Middle Easterners little promise of a more prosperous life.” Their honest at least. (2)
The US anticipated eventual popular uprisings aimed at both the US and our local allies out of “widespread popular distrust of the United States and disappointment with US polices in the region.” However, the assessment was confident that “local security forces probably would be capable of containing popular uprisings and have taken measures to increase their readiness.” Thus, fear not that the Arab world will be inflamed, as our local dictator’s stand prepared to crush them. (3)
They expressed an understanding that there would no doubt be a substantial rise in the form of radical Islamic groups and ideologies. Though the Bush administration was aware of “strong opposition to a US war in Iraq” in the Arab world they were reassured that their dictatorial allies would “prevent attacks against US assets or interests” while simultaneously avoiding “being labeled US puppets.” The invasion would validate in many Arab minds “Al Qaeda's most effective message” that “the United States is out to enrich itself at the expense of Muslims.” They also stated that “funds for terrorist activities would increase.” (4)
Perhaps most importantly, “the lines between Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world could become increasingly blurred” as they united in a common theme against the US presence. (5)
On a side note, the report predicted devastating consequences for the Iraqi population including disrupting food supplies, the health care system, etc. This was of course no concern in a country we were supposedly liberating.
Another national intelligence report, released around the same time, warned of much of the same. The report predicted “quick and possibly brutal repression” of a Shite lead government. While acknowledging that though “for the most part Iraqi Shia and Sunni have lived peacefully together and do not have a legacy of sectarian strife” an invasion would dramatically alter that. (6)
In a remarkable spot on prediction, “rogue ex-regime elements” would “forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations…to wage guerilla warfare against the new government or coalition forces.” Additionally, “4.9 million Iraqis” could be easily pushed to the brink of starvation by the war. (7)
Thus, as predicted, the war “metastasized” Al-Qaeda and spawned a new generation of Jihadists looking to establish and Islamic Caliphate.(8)
Al Qaeda and ISIS
The split between ISIS and AL Qaeda in 2013 reveals much about the current conflict. Initially, AL Qaeda was using its franchise the Nusra front to fight against Assad in Syria. Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, started by operating out of Iraq. When Baghdadi moved into Syria and attempted to put Nusra under his command, Zawahiri, head of Al Qaeda, ordered Baghdadi back to Iraq. After Baghdadi’s refusal, Zawahiri ordered the split. Fighting broke out between the Al Qaeda controlled Nusra front and ISIS. The split was complete.
So who are the moderate Syrian rebels? Articles in foreign affairs and time magazine suggest that prior to the Al Qaeda -ISIS split the Syrian rebels represented a broad, albeit tentative, alliance between moderate an extremist groups. According to foreign affairs “ISIS overreach led to backlash, from a variety of secular and Islamist groups” in Syria and that its brutality generated “Resentment among the opposition Syrian camp.” 9 In part the articles cite this resentment as reason for Al-Qaeda disowning ISIS. Thus, it implies prior to this that the alliance between the so-called “moderate Syrian rebels” and Al Qaeda in is not so loose.
Similarly, according to Time Magazine, “ ISIS’s savagery and draconian interpretations of Islamic law alienated many Syrians and drove a wedge between rebel groups.”(10) But this was in January 2014, and the United States had already been arming Syrian rebels well before in CIA programs, before recently doing so in public. Thus it seems that the US was arming the Syrian opposition despite the fact that it included Al-Qaeda operatives. Additionally, to reaffirm how murky the waters are, according to military officials in the wall street journal, “Shifting alliances in Syria and Iraq among Sunni groups have complicated the picture in recent weeks” making it difficult to arm “moderate Syrian rebels.”(11) Its vortuatlly impossible on a day by day basis to even know what alliance is with who.
