Who is godfathering ISIS?

The exponential growth of ISIS raises a key question, who is godfathering this most brutal group of killers?

The recent downing of a Russian plane by Turkey, a Nato member also made the talk louder that it is an indicator of proxy war between the US and Russia in Syria gaining further momentum.

It is also strongly believed that ISIS would have not become a phantom unless some of the countries not supplying funds, trained mercenaries and above all the most lethal arms.

The immediate reply has been provided by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who said that the US actions in the Middle East helped ISIS becoming the monster.

He also said that ISIS attained the present size due to irresponsible US politics that focused on fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of joining efforts to root out terrorism.

Lately, President Barack Obama said that Russia has to make a strategic choice as Assad can’t stay in power. This statement is a challenge to Russia who openly defies any and every attempt to depose Assad.

No one has a doubt that the US is godfathering ISIS; it has earlier godfathered al-Qaeda, which led to the armed assault against Afghanistan and Iraq. Ironically both the countries were not involved in 9/11 attacks in any manner what so ever.

Medvedev and Obama met in the Malaysian capital at the East Asia Summit that followed a week of talks and conferences in Asia dominated by the battle against terrorism. The UN unanimously endorsed a resolution calling the member countries to take all necessary measures to combat ISI in Syria and Iraq.

Obama said the US and its allies must go ahead with their battle against ISIS in Syria and Iraq with or without Russia’s cooperation.

Obama made two policy statements: 1) Russia has not officially committed to a transition of Assad moving out but they did agree to a political transition process and 2) we’ll find out over the next several weeks whether or not we can bring about that change in perspective with the Russians.

Medvedev has rightly said that global cooperation in fighting terrorism can only be successful if all actions are coordinated and sponsored by international institutions like the UN. He said this after a meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in Kuala Lumpur.

Ban urged Russia and the US to cooperate in fighting terrorism, adding he would unveil a plan early next year. However, Obama categorically said that the US and its allies will press ahead with their battle against ISIS with or without Russia’s cooperation.

The terrorist threat can only be fought jointly and arriving at few consensuses is a must. These are: 1) the US must accept its defeat in Syria, it has destroyed the country but could not overthrow Assad, 2) the US must also stop supplying funds and arms to the ISIS, 3) the US and its allies must also stop buying stolen oil from ISIS. If all these measures are not taken immediately than the world will e right in assuming that ISIS is ‘B’ team of CIA and pentagon.

 

 

US Proxy War in Syria

From the early days analysts have been saying that the United States is fighting a proxy war in Syria. It is not an attempt to dislodge Assad but to prove that the super power enjoys complete control in Middle East and North Africa (MENA). An article recently written by David Ignatius for The Washing Post gives more credence to this belief.

According to David the United States and its allies are moving in Syria toward a program of covert support for the rebels that look very much like what super power and its friends did in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In Syria, as in Afghanistan, CIA officers are operating at the borders, helping Sunni insurgents improve their command and control and engaging in other activities. Weapons are coming from third parties.

He even goes to the extent of saying that major financier for both insurgencies have been Saudi Arabia. In his view Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as Saudi ambassador to Washington in the 1980s worked to finance and support the CIA in Afghanistan and who now, as chief of Saudi intelligence, is encouraging operations in Syria.

As the proxy war in Syria is gaining momentum it is necessary to understand similarities/dissimilarities between Afghanistan and Syria. Afghan mujahedeen won their war and eventually ousted the Russian-backed government. CIA-backed victory opened the way for decades of chaos and jihadist extremism that are still menacing Afghanistan and its neighbors, especially Pakistan and Iran.

Therefore, before entering into any adventurism it is necessary to ask a question, will the intervention yield any result in case of Syria? The reply is evident if one keeps in mind the strategy of the covert war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The Saudis understandably would prefer that Sunnis who oppose autocratic rule should wage their fight far from the kingdom; Damascus is a far safer venue than Riyadh.

But there are hazards of fueling Sunni-Shiite dynamic in Syria, though rage against Shiites and their Iranian patrons has been a useful prop for the United States and Israel in mobilizing Sunni opposition against Assad, who as an Alawite is seen as part of the Shiite crescent.

But this is the most lethal and potentially ruinous sectarian battle, the kind that nearly destroyed Iraq and Lebanon and is now plunging Syria into the inferno. The Saudis want to fight Shiites but away from their Kingdom.

United States is also using the tribal card, which may be as crucial in Syria as it was in Iraq. The leaders of many Syrian tribes have been supported to wage war against Assad. It may be said that the engine of this insurgency in Syria is rural, conservative and Sunni.

David’s conclusion is thought provoking. He cautions the rebels fighting Assad deserve limited US support, just as the anti-Soviet mujahedeen did. The intervention will cause chaos and extremism that can take a generation to undo if the United States and its allies aren’t prudent.