Indian Defence Review

Over the decades, US policy across West Asia has been devoid of vision and foresight. President Obama has recently conceded that his administration does not have a strategy to combat the ISIS. What would be the appropriate military response in a given zone? Who could be called upon as coalition partners? What kind of financial resources under given budgetary and political constraints can be apportioned to troubled areas? All these remain a big question mark. Acting unilaterally without a coalition of partners would steal policy objectives of their legitimacy. Not being able to balance the level of proximity with the enemy’s enemy (the Bashar al Assad regime, or Iran) is a lump in the throat. Glaring examples of the above are clearly visible with regard to its strategic planning, or lack of the same, pertaining to Iraq and Iran.

Iraq was invaded in 2003 by the United States and its allies on the pretext that it was holding weapons of mass destruction, which imperilled the security of its neighbours. That this charge was without any substance was acknowledged by none other than the UN, besides the US itself.

Iraq’s invasion happened on 19 March 2003. Ten years later, a comprehensive analysis has startled even diehard conservative estimators of the magnitude of human and monetary loss resulting from the invasion. According to findings revealed in a report, the war has killed 190,000 people, including men and women in uniform, contractors and civilians, and has cost the US $2.2 trillion, a figure that far exceeds the initial 2002 estimates by US Office of the Management and Budget of about $60 billion.1

The significant mistakes the US made during early months of occupation – according to another report – were not being able to provide sufficient security for the system to work smoothly and transferring power to Iraqis in a way that it gives them unquestioned legitimacy, thus giving those with the newly acquired power an axe to grind, feather their own nests and promote their own agendas.

This report counselled against disbanding the Iraqi army (a move which has brought in wide criticism of the Bush administration); instead, it proposed that the uppermost leadership be removed – while maintaining the bulk of Iraq’s military. This, in effect, promoted the sectarian divide within the military.

With respect to governing Iraq, the panel cautioned against imposing a post-conflict government dominated by exiled Iraqi opposition leaders. Yet, ignoring the above advice, the Bush administration fashioned a ‘transitional consultative body’, i.e., the Iraqi Governing Council stacked with Iraqi exiles, who were viewed by ordinary Iraqis as largely unrepresentative.

The drafters of the above report had also recommended measures to upgrade the decaying oil sector so that the resulting increased profits could be equitably disbursed among the citizens at large. However, this was not done.2

A Misreading of Iran 

As regards Iran, it was the CIA, in conjunction with British intelligence, which masterminded the overthrow of the then Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh and the consequent regime change which installed Shah Mohammed Reza Pehelvi (popularly titled the Shah of Iran). This reign, over the decades, brought about an intense hatred for the West among common Iranians, eventually leading to the Shah being exiled to Egypt.3

Iran has been designated by the United States as an ‘axis of evil’ and one stubbornly resisting to honour its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty (NPT). Ironically, it was none other than the US that signed with Iran the US-Iran nuclear agreement for civil uses of atomic energy as a part of Eisenhower’s atoms for peace programme. The accord helped Iran procure from the US several kilograms of enriched uranium, which, in fact, became the turning point for Iran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, which the international community is now attempting to stem.4 It was President Gerald R. Ford who authorised the fabrication of US-supplied material into fuel in Iran for use in its own reactors. The then US secretary of state Henry Kissinger had no qualms in encouraging Iran’s nascent nuclear programme.

Could Iran have achieved the level and sophistication of nuclear technology without the initial help and encouragement of the US? Perhaps not. But the important point is the US has consistently and completely ignored what it perceives, even today, as its ‘geostrategic futuristic concerns’ by helping Iran tread the path it did and years later pressurising Iran to reverse course.

Iran has all along fielded a formidable power block along with Syria and Hezbollah to protect its geostrategic concerns. To counter this, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar have suitably fire-walled themselves. Egypt has, depending on its regime and exigencies of the situation, either sided with the US or not found favour with it. The Abdel Fattah el Sisi regime, for example, before the current Iraqi crisis, was the bête noire of the US since it was perceived by the US not to have been in perfect consonance of what according to the US constitutes democracy.

However, now when the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has gone from bad to worse, there appears to have been no better interlocutor facilitating negotiations than Egypt and, therefore, it has become the recipient of US accolades.

The Baath Party under the leadership of Saddam Hussain was an effective check for what is seen as Iran’s hegemony in the region. If Tehran and its militias could, at that time, be kept at bay by Baghdad, it was solely due to the political craftsmanship and an inclusive style of governance by him, though on many occasions, it turned ruthlessly cruel. The radical departure in the structure and style of governance from that time till Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki took charge in Iraq was detrimental, to say the least, to its composite character, and from then on, to the present, when prime minister Haider al Abadi has assumed office, augers well. Though incidents like an attack on a Sunni mosque in Diyala province, which took several lives, could put parleys for an inclusive government into jeopardy.5

The US and its allies are responsible for the birth of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now referred to as the ‘Islamic State’.

The Bush administration relentlessly followed its intentions to curb Iran’s efforts in checkmating US Sunni allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. In pursuance of the above objective, the US encouraged the flow of militants, arms and funds to Syria, Iraq and Lebanon to contain Iran and Hezbollah. Hence, to all intents and purposes, the ‘Islamic State’ is a creation of the US and its Persian Gulf allies, even if by accident and not design.

Donor’s in Kuwait have taken advantage of the country’s weak financial structure to channel hundreds of millions of dollars to a host of Syrian rebel brigades according to a December 2013 report of the Brookings Institution.6

Further, to undermine Iran and Syria, the Bush administration had no qualms in cooperating with Saudi government-promoted radicals based in Lebanon.7

The fact that the Nouri al Maliki government had permitted its airspace to be used by Iranian aircraft to dispatch military supplies to bolster the Assad regime, besides sending Shia militias to Syria, had also irked the US. US intelligence officials have disclosed to the US Congress that Lebanon will continue to experience sectarian violence among Lebanese and terrorist attacks by Sunni extremists and Hezbollah, which are targeting each other’s interests. Increased frequency and the lethality of violence in Lebanon could erupt into sustained and widespread fighting. The civil war in neighbouring Syria is destabilising Lebanon. According to the UN high commissioner for refugees, nearly 1 million Sunni refugees have fled to Lebanon.8

Al-Qaeda and the ISIS

The ideological incongruities between the al-Qaeda and the ISIS are insignificantly superficial in order to be exploited by elements that want a united Iraq (the US being one such). The ISIS was primarily formed to take on the Americans after the latter invaded Iraq. This outfit was initially called al-Qaeda in Iraq, but their indiscriminate violence against fellow Muslims alienated them from a reviled al-Qaeda.

However, the underlying Salafist-Wahhabi Islam binds them together. Their hatred for Shias is no less than for non-Muslims – both being ‘infidels’.

Interestingly, Kurds, even though with a different ethno-cultural strain, are several notches higher in their esteem.

The rampaging blitzkrieg of the ISIS has united its Syrian-dominated areas with those in Iraq. American intelligence officials are convinced that the ISIS could never be defeated without an attack on its Syrian bases. The ISIS posted a video depicting the grotesque decapitation of the US freelance journalist James Foley, for whose release a ransom of $132 million was made. This episode has startled even the US defence secretary Chuck Hagel, who has said:

‘They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything we have seen.’9

Another US journalist Peter Theo Curtis, being held captive by Jabhat al Nusra, was more lucky. According to Al Jazeera, this gentleman owes his life to Qatari mediation. It had all along been feared that he would meet the same fate as Foley.

The fact that Qatar played a crucial role in the release of Curtis has reinforced the US strategic rationale of its proximity to Sunni nations. President Obama has ordered surveillance flights over Syria in order to gain intelligence over the activities of the ISIS. Cities such as Raqqa are ideal an ‘attack launch pad’ for ISIS strongholds, and they will attract greater reconnaissance. However, the US initiative as regards aerial attacks in Iraq were a trifle late since this delay permitted the mass forced conversions and massacre of the Yazidis, Christians and Shias in ISIScaptured zones.

ISIS scounts and recruits in India 

An utterly disturbing news broadcast by a TV channel has revealed that the National Investigation Agency has prepared a dossier which reinforces the much-feared apprehension that the ISIS has already recruited some 300 young men from the states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka. The recruits are being indoctrinated and trained by the Tehreeke- Taliban Pakistan under the oversight and supervision of Ansar ul Tawhid. This group promotes global jihad and is the main source of inspiration for the ISIS. These trained foot soldiers will be used in terror/fidayeen attacks not only in India but also in Syria, Iraq or any part of the ISIS-proposed Caliphate. The newly inducted recruits are routinely whisked away from India via Singapore. India, therefore, runs the risk of multiple devastating terror strikes unless it meticulously intensifies its intelligence.10

A worrying characteristic of the Islamic State leaders is mass indoctrination and extensive use of the social media. The outfit has networked so extensively that many nations across Asia, Europe, Africa and North America, notably the United States and Canada have contributed to its cadres. How this outfit has scouted for women and children (many of whom are being used as suicide bombers) is a cause for significant concern internationally. Oil revenue from conquered zones is an important source of funding, other sources being extortion, ransom, loot, etc.