It's
understandable to assume that the violence in Iraq which began after
the blitz of ISIL last month won't subside anytime soon. But there are some realities to reflect upon.
All
Al-Qaeda categories are notoriously slack fighters, lacking in
leadership skills, discipline, battlefield strategy and worst of all,
rife with infighting for power and money as the prime goal. They
probably would never be able to capture Mosul despite the incompetence
of the Iraqi army if they weren't helped by Baathist forces and the
Naqshbandis. No Al-Qaeda group has yet been able to face a real army
alone without massive and steady assistance from the West via the GCC.
Since the inception of Al-Qaeda, not a single incident shows the
success of this organization when it stood and fought independently.
It tried to do that in Afghanistan in 2002 and was routed. Events in
Syria are no less discouraging for them. In spite of support and
benefits worth billions of dollars from the West and their gulf allies
for more than three years, none of the Al Qaeda franchises have yet
acquired a solid and widespread victory against the Syrian Army, much
less threatening the fall of the Syrian government. What we're seeing
is the mercenaries' hide-n-seek tactics with the Syrian forces and also
within themselves. ISIL's sudden decision to move away from Syria to
Iraq is basically the outcome of its poor performance and total lack of
success on Syrian battlefronts. If cornered in Iraq, rushing back into
Syria wouldn't be an ideal option either.
With
Iran and Iraq seriously planning to coordinate and the Syrian air
force already pounding ISIL hideouts along its border with Iraq, if the
US and EU decide to mind their own businesses for a change and halt
their subversive policies, ISIL would be in hot water. With that, the
incentive of the Baathists seeking alliance with ISIL would taper off
as well. The presumed cooperation of the Baathists with ISIL is more
an act of the former's bitterness against Shiia post-Saddam Iraq rather
than any ideological compatibility with the latter. Baathists have
always been staunch secularists who have never had a soft corner for
reactionary movements, let alone ragtag ones like ISIL promoting
Western interest.
As
is obvious, the US and EU are in no hurry to help Iraq repulse ISIL
just as they aren't in Syria. Why would they be? After all, ISIL is
their initiation and their brand of high-priority mercenaries. On
rainy days it's these obscurantists who do the rough-n-tough
assignments necessary for 'first world' expansionism. A friend in need
is a friend indeed. Coping with ISIL's tantrums is an indispensable
investment for the West. The West isn't considering to fight ISIL any
time soon. But just as long as it doesn't feed them might be enough
for the survival of Iraq as an entity.
Confronting ISIL in Iraq now depends largely upon the stance taken by Iran. According to recent reports Iran had expressed its willingness to help stop the advance of ISIL and decided to send an entire fleet of fighter jets to Iraq. Needless to say, Iraq isn't capable of handling the situation on its own. The $20 billion training imparted to Iraqi forces by the US was only on torture techniques, not combat skills. Iraq's dependency on the US would only make it weaker at the hands of ISIL.
United States' support for Shiia Iraq was on the rebound following the fall of Saddam. But that's water under the bridge. The story is altogether different at the moment. The United States (and Israel) now sees Iraq as Iran's ally. Consequently it has also acquired a partner of convenience within the various Salafist camps that are sworn enemies of Iran, Iraq and Syria. The need for promoting Zionist hegemony in the Middle-East has never been more for which Iran and Syria are seen as formidable obstacles. As it would be simple enough to gauge, United States is no longer interested in pampering the immediate successors of Saddam whom it brought into power after toppling the Baathists a decade ago.
With the Syrian Army and Hezbollah taking care of Levant and its borders with Iraq, now is the time for Iran to act jointly with Iraq. Otherwise there is a huge possibility that optimism could be lost sooner rather than later.
Don't you think the USA and Europe are enjoying breaking up Iraq?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's an added plus for them. Whether or not Iraq breaks up, what's important to Western leaders is that Iraq should be chaotic and weak, and ready for easy bargains so that they can have smooth access to the country's natural resources. A strong Iraq with friendly allies after kicking out foreign terrorists won't be in the interest of the West.
Delete