Iraq

After The ISIS War There Will Be No Peace In The Middle East

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS War has become a huge public relations problem for all the interested parties, as the definition of “winning the war” is becoming more elusive over time.

The U.S. is in a precarious position because the president said ISIS would be defeated. Most believe this means the terrorists will be killed and will no longer threaten the Middle East.

It is not happening up to this point. ISIS is recruiting new fighters and selling more commandeered oil every day to finance its operations. Everybody (including the president and his aides) knows that effective ground support for U.S. bombing sorties is not going to materialize. Winning the war without boots on the ground will be impossible.

President Obama said no U.S. ground forces would be deployed. Frankly, Americans cannot stomach another occupation and inevitable casualties, so it is easy to appreciate the decision to withhold soldiers. However, the mission is to kill off ISIS, but that’s not realistic because ISIS fighters will annihilate ground troops supplied by any of the countries in the region. Sadly, the American people have been misled, once again, about the rationale and resolution of yet another conflict.

So, what’s next for America? Hostilities will likely continue so long as the U.S. continues to bomb ISIS forces. At some point, the U.S. will retreat and allow the Arabs to fight it out. This eventuality extends the current losing streak to four in a row for the U.S., Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq twice.

Iraq is also a loser no matter what happens to ISIS. The country, or what will be left of it after ISIS annexes large chunks of it, will experience a continuation of the year’s old civil war pitting embedded Shiites (supported by Iran) against the rebel Sunnis (supported by Saudi Arabian insurgents).

Syria will also be in total confusion after the ISIS crisis. Currently, Bashar al-Assad and rebel Sunnis are busy fighting ISIS. If they survive the onslaught, they will reengage with each other in civil war. The rebels will likely receive support from Turkey, maybe the U.S. and other Arab countries. Assad will be aided by both Iran and Russia. It’s unclear how this imbroglio will play out.

Nothing will change for Israel after the war ends. Arab nations are united in their hatred for the Jewish state. The Israelis will continue to battle with Palestinians in perpetuity and refocus on Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear capability.

Some say Iran is obsessed with the wrong issues. It wants the U.S. to rescind economic sanctions and increase flexibility relating to nuclear material in exchange for support against ISIS. Rather, Iran should direct its efforts towards ISIS exclusively, as it is already close to its border. The ability of Iran’s military to repel an ISIS invasion is not a sure bet. Iran does not have a good track record in overt conflicts. Its specialties are insurgency and internal security.

The major concern is that Israel might attack Iran if the U.S. is too lenient with Iran. The development of a nuclear bomb is the only way that Iran can gain parity with Israel militarily. No way will Israel allow this to happen, in the opinion of many.

Turkey is a wild card. It hates ISIS, Syria (and Assad) and Kurds. Its president, Erdogan, has stated publicly that each of these situations is of equal importance to his country. In effect, fighting three individual wars will dilute Turkey’s strength and its diplomatic clout. It has been a totally unreliable ally of the west and not deserving of NATO membership. The Turks should recalibrate their focus on ISIS, which is mustering its strength in nearby Kobani.

The final piece of the puzzle is Saudi Arabia. It represents the biggest prize for ISIS. It’s not clear what countries would come to Saudi Arabia’s rescue if ISIS approaches the country. The disruption of an overthrown regime on oil reserves would be devastating globally.

ISIS will soon redraw the map of the Middle East because of the lack of commitment to destroy it by the U.S. and its allies. When the ISIS war ends, hostilities will continue as old feuds, resentment and threats are responded to. The Middle East will not see peace for at least another generation. Unfortunately, allowing ISIS to grow and finance itself has created grave new concerns.

Iraq And Iran May Be The Keys To Stopping ISIS

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Iraq and Iran may the keys to stopping ISIS. Both countries, along with Syria, are at the greatest risk from logistical and religious perspectives, but they both possess military capabilities that could stem the tide of the terrorists. The big question is whether they will do what is necessary to assist the U.S.-led coalition.

Iraq’s participation in the ISIS war is going to be hampered by its fluid and contentious religious issues. Before Iraq was invaded and occupied by the U.S., Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, oppressed the Shiite majority. Since his downfall, democratic elections enabled the Shiite majority to take control of the government and exclude Sunnis from key political positions. Iraqi Sunnis and Sunni insurgents have been conducting terrorist activity in protest and opposition to the sitting government ever since the fall of Saddam.

ISIS has temporarily diverted Iraqis from their civil war. The situation is interesting because the government has asked Sunnis throughout the country to resist the interlopers. But, Iraqi Sunnis have not been enthusiastic about assisting the Shiite-controlled government.

Exacerbating the problem is the competence and loyalty of Iraqi forces needed to fight against ISIS. In earlier battles, many Iraqi soldiers laid down their arms and deserted. Was this because of fear or Sunni/Iraqi soldier solidarity with the ISIS Sunnis? No one can be sure. But, the ability of Iraqis to provide ground support for U.S. airstrikes seems dubious at best.

If ISIS is successful, the Shiite government of Iraq will fall and be replaced with a Sunni-dominated group, possibly consisting of some Iraqi Sunnis. This will result in a new chapter of the civil war. If ISIS is defeated, Iraqi Sunnis together with insurgent supporters will enflame sectarian violence that could eventually destabilize the government.

Iran is dominated by Shiites, and it is generally supportive of all Shiites in the region, supporting governments and terrorist groups.

Iran must be concerned with the advances of ISIS as the terrorists are but a stone’s throw away from the Iranian border. Yet, Iran has not shown any inclination to enter the fray, probably because the U.S. is leading the effort against ISIS. Iran’s attitude is also greatly influenced by its desire to secure Bashar al-Assad’s position, the president of Syria. The U.S. wants Assad to step down potentially causing another rift with Iran.

It is inconceivable that Iran will not link any support of the coalition with a decrease in economic sanctions. And, Iran will also be seeking “flexibility” relating to its nuclear program. Many people around the world, including Israelis and Sunnis in the region, are concerned about the existential threat of an Iranian nuclear capability. And so, they hope President Obama does not rescind sanctions or make it easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for Iran’s support in fighting ISIS.

Iraq and Iran are probably going to be critical in the war against ISIS. Individually or together, they could provide ground troops needed to fight the terrorists, although Iraq’s contributions are not expected to be great for the foreseeable future. Iran, on the other hand, could provide significant resistance to ISIS advancements immediately.

The questions are if and when will Iran decide to move against ISIS. An invasion of Iran would certainly inspire a military response, but ISIS leadership knows this. So, although Iran is surely on their hit list, ISIS must be careful not to move too soon.

In the meantime, the U.S. is dropping bombs and making little progress. The president’s mission is not proceeding well.

New Surge In I’m

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

Several U.S. presidents in recent decades have eagerly entangled America in conflicts around the world with limited success. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama were unable to control the urge to get into the fray when they saw tyranny, violence and human rights violations.

There’s no doubt that the U.S.’s unofficial role of world peacemaker has been an expensive habit that is generally unappreciated by the global community of nations. Our government is quick to spend money for armaments and troops to support the exploits of struggling governments. This altruistic spirit is once again on display as President Obama has authorized a “redeployment” of troops into Iraq.

Obama spent his entire 2008 presidential campaign bashing George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the existence of Gitmo and the war on terror. Yet, the new president didn’t keep his promises to end the Iraq conflict honorably (whatever that means), close Gitmo or control the spread of terrorist activities throughout the Middle East.

Ironically, after ordering combat troop withdrawals from Iraq, the president decided to send  advisers to the war-torn country to evaluate security issues, estimate the strength of the government’s opposition and a develop a plan to temper sectarian violence. Re-infusing new troops into the country, according to the Obama administration, is not a new surge. It must then be a dribble.

The war between Shiites and Sunnis has been under way for centuries. Just like the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, there is no quick fix. Insurgents from Shiite-dominated countries (principally Iran) and Sunni-dominated countries (principally Saudi Arabia) seek ways to disrupt their opponents. Every country in the region is at risk of provocative attacks.

Iraq is the perfect battlefield because it is dominated by Shiites, but is has a large Sunni and Kurdish population as well. The dispersion of ethnic groups is regional. The Sunnis and Saddam Hussein loyalists are in the northern part of the country. Recently, Al-Qaeda fighters from Syria  invaded Iraq and were welcomed by resentful native Sunnis. The capture of several cities has been a cakewalk because most of inhabitants of areas overrun by Al-Qaeda are of the same religious sect.

What does the U.S. government think it’s going to accomplish in Iraq at this point? Will this dribble of soldiers end the sectarian conflict that is a continuation of a very old feud? No. Will it encourage real democracy in Iraq? No way. Will it result in the ouster of the Iraqi president? Probably not. Will it end the fighting and violence that the insurgents are precipitating? No. Will Iraq’s Shiite government embrace Sunni participation? No. So what’s the game plan?

Maybe it’s politics. Even this cynical perspective by Obama haters makes no sense. The vast majority of Americans don’t want U.S. troops in Iraq. Is it national security? It depends upon your definition of the term. Will U.S. involvement with a mere 300 troops, a hundred or so drones and fighter jets ameliorate the threat to Iraq’s oil assets? It’s doubtful.

The only conclusion that can one can draw is that Obama wants to dazzle the Sunni insurgents with some firepower and convince the American people that he isn’t a wimp. Both of these objectives are inane, wasteful and representative of poor leadership. It’s time we ended the loss of any more American lives and treasure in Iraq’s new civil war. We should allow the two religious sides to fight it out by themselves.