5 July 2014

Advent of Islamic Caliphate Propaganda coup changes geopolitical picture

S Nihal Singh

Shia volunteers secure the area from Sunni militants in the desert region between Kerbala and Najaf, south of Baghdad, on July 3. Reuters

WHILE the political stalemate in Iraq continues, the propaganda coup of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) by declaring the chunks of territory in Syria and Iraq it controls as the Islamic Caliphate is not lost upon the principal actors inside and outside the region.

The truth is that the three-year-old civil war in Syria and the rapid advances the Isis has made in Iraq by a former al-Qaida associate more fundamentalist and brutal than the traditional extremist forces have resulted in a frightening scenario. For one thing, it represents a failure of American policy, the adventurism of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in asserting the newly empowered Shia power at the cost of Sunnis and Kurds and the space these developments have given for a force such as the Isis to flex its muscles.

There is no doubt that the Isis has overreached itself and will ultimately lose. But the costs Iraqis, Syrians and regional and outside actors will have to pay are immense. Although the Iraqi army that turned tail and took flight, instead of fighting the Isis, has been bought back to the battlefield with a stiffening of Shia militias, the loss of face of an American-trained and equipped force will be difficult to live down.

Even while battles rage and the propaganda war on both sides of the Syrian equation intensifies, the political stalemate is far from resolution. Mr Maliki refuses to step aside while elements inside the Shia community, apart from Sunnis and Kurds and much of the rest of the world would like him to go before a more inclusive government can be formed.

Second, a reluctant US President Barack Obama seems to be going down the slippery slope of a military re-engagement in Iraq by adding more American military advisers, apart from seeking half a billion dollars to arm the moderate Syrian opposition, thus far receiving limited clandestine support from Washington.

President Obama, after all, was elected and re-elected on his promise to end the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has followed a cautious policy in Syria, despite the continuing carnage and the flight of millions of Syrians to neighbouring countries. But with the advent of the Isis and the declaration of the Caliphate, the first after the Ottoman Empire bit dust, has changed the geopolitical picture.

Thus far, the US has been keeping back military supplies promised to Iraq such as F-16 planes to exert pressure on Mr Maliki to form a more inclusive government, without much success. Iraq has sought to fill in its deficiencies by going to Moscow. Whether the US will succeed in removing Mr Maliki remains to be seen, but the American strategic community is sufficiently concerned over recent developments to reformulate their plans.

Iran is an important regional player in Iraq and Syria because it is a supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as of the newly empowered Shias in Iraq, thanks to the 2003 US invasion. Iran and the US are negotiating an agreement on capping Tehran's nuclear programme while seeking to co-ordinate their merging interest in keeping the Isis at bay. Iran is assisting the Maliki regime to fight off the Isis even as it has been supplying military equipment and giving support to President Assad.

The question on everyone's mind is the extent of US military involvement in Iraq and Syria because Washington now believes that its core interests are on the line, given the nature of the Isis's advances. Every US official is aware of how American involvement in South Vietnam began with the sending of military "advisers".

Much will depend upon how soon the Iraqi political crisis is resolved, with a break-up of the country into Shia, Sunni and Kurd entities staring the domestic actors in the face. Sections of Sunnis and ex-Baathist officers are supporting the Isis in the North-west to get even with Mr Maliki for marginalising them. The Kurds have benefited the most by capturing the oil town of Kirkuk after Baghdad's troops abandoned their posts there. Tellingly, Iraqis have been fleeing the Isis advance to take refuge in the Kurdish-administered areas,

In political terms, Mr Maliki has become toxic and is a main hurdle to a resolution of the crisis by digging his heels in. Although the advance of the Isis has been halted short of the capital Baghdad, Baghdad troops have not been very successful in taking back territory it has lost. Is Washington now prepared to use strong measures to seek Mr Maliki's exit? The Sunnis are demanding it in exchange for not supporting the Isis, and Kurds are against the Prime Minister too.

The Gulf monarchies, which have been playing a crucial role in the regional crises, are also sufficiently alarmed by the advance of the Isis in trimming their monetary support to the extreme Sunni opponents in Syria. But they remain wary of the political rapprochement between the US and Iran over checkmating the Isis.

The new US resolve to support the moderate Syrian opposition by fresh military supplies, once approved by the Congress, will take time to make a difference on the ground. Perhaps the weight of a regrouped Iraqi army and the military support being extended by Iran and US "advisers" will make a difference.

In any event, the US administration is sufficiently alarmed by the Isis phenomenon to take a more activist role in Iraq and Syria. Significantly, it did not leave any troops behind when it left Iraq. And President Obama's great aversion to get involved in the Syrian tragedy, despite the catastrophic loss of lives and the misery inflicted on millions of Syrians. Indeed, President Obama has been emphasising his more limited view of American military interventions in the world.

Even as the Isis has won its propaganda war and is tempting fate by its hyperbolic rhetoric, the geopolitical scenario has changed. How far the US takes its new military intervention in Iraq and Syria is an open question.
 http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140705/edit.htm

No comments: