Obama Will Not Defeat Islamic State

“We will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy,” said Obama, his eye on the prize of the November congressional election, showing he can be a “tough guy” in response to the accusations of indecision in the face of jihadi terrorism.

The Pentagon has labeled the group, which calls itself the Islamic State (referred to as ISIL by the Obama administration), an “imminent threat” to the United States, despite the fact that of the 21,490 civilians murdered in terrorist acts in Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Afghanistan last year, only 16 were Americans. Nonetheless, videos showing the executions of two compatriots have achieved their objective: Most people are now in favor of military intervention in Iraq and Syria. And once again it’s, “here comes the bogeyman!” and the age-old formula: “Fear equals obedience.”

How can an Islamic caliphate exist without the recognition of the international community? The state declared by the Taliban in 1992 was only recognized by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, and subsequently disappeared. The Islamic State group, like the Taliban and the Nicaraguan Contras, is a creature manufactured by the Pentagon, and few in the United States would deny it. The justification for the planned conflict is the same for al-Qaida terrorists: The situation has gone beyond our control, say Pentagon officials. But these are the same people who, perversely, labeled the decapitators and crucifiers in Syria “rebels and dissidents.” All of a sudden, those same rebels and dissidents are now portrayed as a galaxy-wide threat — just as al-Qaida and the Taliban were reinvented a few years ago.

The majority of Democrats and Republicans support the war, even without the approval of Congress, though there are a number of exceptions. Republican Senator Rick Santorum, a potential presidential candidate, prefers not to inherit this war, which Obama insists will go on for years. Senator Bernie Sanders has questioned the sense of waging “a perpetual war, decade after decade, in an incredible morass of the Mideast,” while “tens of millions of Americans today are struggling to keep their heads above water.”

Obama’s Plan

Obama has formulated, not just a strategy, but a plan to combat the Islamic State. His plan involves forming an international coalition, albeit in name only, under the auspices of which America would launch air strikes on Iraq and Syria, as well as strengthening the Kurdish militia and the Iraqi army to use as ground troops to “defeat and eliminate” the Islamic State. This would mean, in effect, not supplying the Islamic State with any more arms or money, killing tens of thousands of armed men or expelling the rest from the vast territory which they have occupied in who-knows-where, all as if the Islamic State held a monopoly on committing atrocities. Bombs “made in the U.S.A.” have left Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians lacking the manpower and time to bury their loved ones. The 150 recently declared air strikes that have been carried out on alleged Islamic State positions have killed so many civilians that the new Iraqi prime minister, Haidar al-Abdadi, today ordered his country’s air force to halt the strikes.

Obama will need to send troops to Iraq, as well as bomb Syria, if he is to fulfill the aims of his ill-conceived plan. On the other hand, the Kurdish strategy and arming loyal Kurds could lead to the “soft partitioning” of Iraq and provoke an enormous crisis in the region, above all in Iran and Turkey, within whose borders live some 20 million Kurds.

A Nonexistent Coalition

The Obama administration, impelled into a new round of the war on terror, has been unable to form a real coalition in support of its warlike intentions until now. Consider the following:

• Russia: Washington has invited Russia to join on the pretext that “ISIL really represents a threat to them, too,” though in reality the invitation is intended to neutralize Russian opposition in the United Nations to the prepared attack against Syria and make Russia an accomplice in this war. The Kremlin has already warned that an attack without the consent of either Syria or the U.N. Security Council would be a flagrant violation of international law, which only permits the use of force either to defend against an immediate attack or, with the authorization of the Security Council, in response to a threat to world peace and global security. Syria is, by law, at peace with the U.S., so clearly neither of the above is applicable here. Russia has not forgotten Obama’s sleight of hand in using the no-fly zone over Libya to take out the Libyan head of state, Colonel Gadhafi, one of the bitterest enemies of Saudi jihadism.

• Israel: Israel is opposed to Obama’s current policy and agrees with Henry Kissinger, who in a recent appearance pointed to Iran as the biggest problem in the region, labeling the Islamic State as no more than “a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology.” How is that for a coincidence? The jihadis have similarly declared that the struggle against the Shiites — by which they mean Iran — is their top priority, not Israel or Palestine. Could it be true that the Mossad is behind the training of those decapitators in Jordan, using some of the millions of dollars it religiously receives from the U.S.?

• Turkey: Turkey is “in,” both as a member of NATO and in its own right through its intelligence-sharing networks. Turkey provides all manners of support to the Islamic State and other factions of the anti-Assad insurgency. President Erdogan is rubbing his hands with glee at the fact that, finally, Obama is to attack Syria and fulfill the promise of his “Assad must go” rhetoric while he, who claims his hands are tied by the 49 Turkish hostages held by the Islamic State, will not antagonize the group with any attack.

• Saudi Arabia: If he really wanted to put an end to Sunni terrorism, Obama would take action against the Pentagon and Saudi Arabia, which — according to WikiLeaks and Hillary Clinton — have been funding it. No terrorist group can survive without funding. How else could the Islamic State be in possession of M79 anti-tank missiles purchased by Riyadh? The Saudis play the innocent, just as they did with the Afghan mujahideen, the Taliban and al-Qaida. It is only natural that the Saudi royal family would agree to collaborate with the coalition against the Islamic State. The House of Saud must disassociate itself from those homicidal maniacs who decapitate people anywhere, at any time — quite unlike the Saudis, who carry out public beheadings only on Fridays, and in a central public plaza. Clearly, the Saudis are not about to destroy this ingenious creation, which has done away with Gadhafi, thwarted Iran, destroyed Iraq, and is now going to give them the head of Assad on a platter. But they will not be very pleased with Obama’s pointing to Sunni extremism, rather than Iran, as the biggest threat to the Arab regimes.

• Jordan and Egypt have adopted the most honest stance. They will not join the coalition, but they will continue to fight terrorism. Whose terrorism? That of the Muslim Brotherhood, rivals of the Saudi Arabian Wahabis?

• Syria: The Syrian president will allow incursions into Syrian airspace on behalf of the “coalition,” provided these are coordinated with Damascus. Can he really be so ingenuous? Someone show him the videos of how Saddam and Gadhafi died! Equally astounding is his disregard for the lives of the thousands of civilians who would be killed by those bombs in the extensive populated areas currently held by the Islamic State. Washington has no intention of reinstating Assad, even if his government is the principal force fighting the Islamic State. The U.S. has funded and trained anti-Assad jihadis as part of a strategy to support the enemy of the enemy. Now, seeking legitimacy among the victims of the Islamic State — who hate the U.S. for having created it — the U.S. is delegitimizing its real enemies and any other forces opposed to a U.S. military presence in the region. In doing so, it is dividing the population, maintaining a breeding ground for new moneymaking wars, and aggravating the factors which gave rise to the emergence of the Islamic State.

• Iran: The Iranian military is taking advantage of the hospitalization of its supreme commander, the Ayatollah Khomeini, to strengthen its grip on power. In an overt challenge to President Rouhani, it is using an increasingly provocative tone against the U.S., asserting that the Islamic State is a CIA creation and that Obama’s rhetoric is mere double talk. Tehran is already reinforcing the Iraqi army against the Islamic State, which means it is already part of the coalition.

Obama’s credibility gap has created a crisis among his allies. He omits to say whether he wants to overthrow Assad — or whom he would put in his place — or what he will do about the response from Russia and Iran. If terrorism carried out by militant groups — the governmental kind is another story — is ever to be eradicated, there would need to be a policy to strike at its political, economic, social and cultural roots. Such a policy would be a lot to ask of the United States, which only knows how to draw its weapons. For every family murdered, dozens of young people will take up a weapon and destroy whatever they find in their way. No, the war on terror has not failed to deliver, but Washington refuses to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by relinquishing a foreign policy devised to maintain its military superiority at wartime levels.

And Obama is not an indecisive president: His hand is steady when it comes to sending drones and killing civilians by the thousand. Nor does he blink an eye as he resuscitates the Bush-Cheney war on terror, showing that he can be a tough guy and lead the “war party.”

Incidentally, the biggest problem facing humanity is starvation, which kills around 6,000 people every day.*

*Translator’s Note: The figure is likely nearer 24,000, according to the U.N. Millennium Project.