After 9-11 when the US was on the
brink of attacking Iraq, part of the so called Axis of Evil that included Iran
and North Korea (and I am still not sure how North Korea got into this mix), I
was worried. What was I worried about? I was not worried about
toppling Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi armed forces were no match for the US.
We were simply better trained and certainly much better equipped.
They could not match us on land, sea, or air. Given our resolve, it
was a fait accompli.
My worry was what would happen
after we toppled Saddam and this worry was two fold. First, I guess that
the Iraqi army would never engage the US army in the open battlefield. I
thought they would melt into the background and after our forces “took over”
the country, the real war, a guerilla war would start. I was, sadly, spot
on. The Iraqi forces did not engage the US. The takeover was easy.
I, like many others, felt ominous when President Bush gave his famous
“Mission Accomplished” speech. In reality, the harder part of the mission
was just beginning. Shortly after, the
insurgent or guerrilla war began.
Secondly, I wondered what kind of
government we would install. The plan was to create the kind of democracy
in Iraq that would be the envy and model for the rest of Arab world.
Yeah… that didn’t quite happen either. We grossly underestimated
the divisions between Shiites and Sunnis as well as the between Arabs and
Kurds. We grossly underestimated the wishes and influence of Turkey, Saudi
Arabia, and Iran in Iraq. We grossly overestimated the presence of Al
Qaeda in Iraq but went about create a fertile ground for their entry and growth
in the country. Lastly, we grossly overestimated our ability to manage
the country after the regime change. I will not even address the gross
lack of intelligence regarding the Weapons of Mass Destruction.
This is not hindsight on my part.
I was concerned about these very issues and expressed them to family and
friends when we were rattling our sabers and preparing to go in. It was
not something I wanted to be right about. I would much rather be writing
a piece on how wrong I was in these regards.
As a result, around 4,500 US
soldiers were killed and a greater number injured. We were good at
counting our numbers. I was a bit amazed and a tad upset that we did not
give the Iraqi deaths and casualties the same air time. We kept claiming
that our mission there was to help the Iraqi people. Given that we barely
talked about the 100,000 to 200,000 that were killed (the number is not clear).
This just gave me the impression that we did not really care about the
Iraqi people as much as we were claiming to care.
After 9-11, when it was certain
that we would be invading Afghanistan and then Iraq, there was a brilliant
article in either the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. It was
long and it talked about the experiences and history of other Western
Countries, namely England and perhaps France, in Iraq. While they were
able to achieve initial military victories and advances, they were equally
ineffective in bringing any significant change to the region in their attempts
to either westernize or civilize them. As I recall, there was a great
quote from, I believe, T. E. Lawrence that said something along the lines of
over time the sands of Arabia will swallow you. The article confirmed my
feelings that we would win the war and lose the peace.
The article was very good. I
am almost certain it was in the WSJ because it I recall thinking this was not
the conservative hawkish viewpoint I would have expected from the WSJ. I
did not save the article. I remember sharing it with my cousin David who
also found it quite interesting. Of course, I have tried to find this
article numerous times in the past few days. I searched in Google as well
as on the NYT and WSJ websites. I searched all variants and combinations
of Iraq, Afghanistan, War, Preparing for War, Lessons from History, T. E.
Lawrence, sands of Arabia or Araby, and the years 2001 and 2002. There
was nothing to be found. I would have like to have re-read this article
as I collect my thoughts for this June letter.
After we ousted Saddam, we set to
create a new government. This was to be the government that would lead
Iraq from dictatorship to the model democracy that has so eluded the Arab Islam
World. We organized elections in which Nouri Al-Maliki was elected as
Prime Minister. Did he have any chance of creating a stable inclusive
government? Could any leader have led Iraq to the model democracy we were
looking to create? Is it that the various factions of Shia, Sunni, Kurds,
and more will never get along? Saddam Hussein held it together but as
tough and often vicious dictator. Was the US doomed to fail? Was al
Maliki doomed to be ineffective? I believe the answer to all of these
questions was and is a resounding… yes.
Now a new leader and new movement
has emerged. The leader is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the organization/ movement/army
is called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS is fundamentalist
and brutal. They have suddenly and quickly taken a large swath of Iraq
beginning in the oil rich regions and are headed toward Baghdad. Abu Bakr
was originally part of the insurgency after the US toppled Saddam. He was
captured and spent several years in custody where, apparently, his radicalism
and resolve was hardened by association with seasoned Al Qaeda prisoners.
Upon his release from prison he honed his skills and rose in the ranks of
ISIS. He became the leader of ISIS in 2010 when his predecessor was
killed by US and Iraqi troops. The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and
the war in Syria provided an opportunity for Abu Bakr and ISIS to grow in
numbers and become a deadly revolutionary force killing everyone who not only
stands in their way but also those who might be a bystander. ISIS has
been called too extreme by Al Qaeda and ISIS claims Al Qaeda is ineffective.
ISIS claims that they are the true successors of Bin Laden. In
their current march across Iraq, they are emphasizing this with extreme
brutality.
The closest thing to a profile on
Abu Bakr is a June 15, 2014 Aljazeera artice: The
fierce ambition of ISIL's Baghdadi. Note that ISIL stands for Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant. Here is an excerpt:
Not since Osama bin Laden has a leader been
held in such reverence among Sunni fighters, scored such stunning and shocking
victories, and threatened so much of the established order.
But unlike Bin Laden, whose vast wealth aided
his elevation to the "sheikh", Baghdadi has literally fought his way
from ordinary beginnings in northern Iraq to lead what is perhaps the Middle
East’s most feared irregular armed force.
So emboldened by his success on the
battlefields of Syria and Iraq, Baghdadi has challenged the very leadership of
al-Qaeda, denouncing them publicly as deviating from the cause and stating he
is the true heir to Bin Laden's legacy.
But his methods are extreme and his actions
repugnant to many - captured enemy
fighters are shot
or decapitated and their deaths recorded for the internet.
Other armed groups in Syria are attacked as
ISIL expands territory and influence, and a strict interpretation of Islam is
implemented in the regions under its control - internet videos abound of thieves
having their hands severed and adulterers, smokers and those who fail to attend
prayer being publicly whipped.
There is a school of thought that
we precipitated the current mess in the region. If we had not invaded
Iraq neither Iraq nor Syria would be in the dire straits they are now
experiencing. This may be true. In our attempt to bring regime
change, democracy, and stability to the Iraq, we may have fueled Al Qaeda which
spawned ISIS which is now a juggernaut to create a Caliphate. It is also
possible it may have happened anyway maybe not as soon. Nothing galvinizes
jihadi radicalism like an invasion from a “Christian” or non-Islamic army.
In one of his first speeches after 9-11, George W. even called the coming
military invasion a Crusade. There was a
pretty passionate response in the Muslim world to the use of that term.
I am oversimplifying things.
I have no choice. I am not a scholar or state department employee
whose job it is to study every nuance of what has gotten us to this point in
Iraq. My view is rather, what we call a 30,000 foot flyby. It
seemed fairly obvious before we invaded Iraq and more obvious in hindsight,
that creating the post-Saddam Iraq was the real challenge. The consensus
now is that we failed at this part. Those that are not big fans of Bush
and Cheney blame Bush and Cheney for all this. Others that are not
particularly fans of Obama blame Obama. There is plenty of blame to go
around. I believe Bush and Cheney got us into a war that had very little
probability of succeeding. I believe that Obama withdrew our troops
prematurely (if there was never going to be a right time, then he probably did
the right thing). The blame game is definitely partisan. Tom Toles, the
cartoonist for The Washington Post,
captured this perfectly in his June 24, 2014
cartoon. Both parties have united by
saying, almost in unison: “I told you
so.”
What is bothersome on one level is
that we have very smart people in the State Department and the Military.
How could they not know the risks? The only logical thing I can
think of is that there was a lot of money to be made in if there were a war.
What are the numbers?
·
The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical
care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than
a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.
the United States has spent almost $2 trillion already for the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those costs, she said, are only a fraction of the ultimate price tag. The biggest ongoing expense will be providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of the two conflicts. ~ www.washingtonpost.com 3/28/13.
the United States has spent almost $2 trillion already for the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those costs, she said, are only a fraction of the ultimate price tag. The biggest ongoing expense will be providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of the two conflicts. ~ www.washingtonpost.com 3/28/13.
·
Ten contractors received 52 percent of
the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published
Tuesday.
The No. 1 recipient?
Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.
The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg. ~ rsn 3;20/13
The No. 1 recipient?
Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.
The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg. ~ rsn 3;20/13
ISIS has made gains in Iraq and in
Syria. At first, it looked like they
were going to roll across Iraq and then perhaps Syria. Since their initial gains their progression
has been slowed. Their opposition in
country was caught flatfooted at first but have since organized aided by US Military
advisors, Russian jets, and the Shiites in Iraq literally fighting for their
lives.
ISIS believes that
the Shiites are apostates and must die in order to forge a pure form of Islam.
~ NYT
6-25-14
This is extreme hatred within the
same faith. It exists in the same
country and leaves no wonder why our mission to create that model democracy was
doomed to fail. It seems unlikely there
is strong public support for another large military invasion of Iraq. Those
that profited from our most recent invasion are probably in favor.
Perhaps the Russians will step in
and try to take control and bring some stability to the region. They are already committing aircraft. Perhaps they have forgotten the lesson they
learned thirty years ago in Afghanistan
On June 29, ISIS took a bold step
and made the following declaration:
BEIRUT, June 29
(Reuters) - An offshoot of al Qaeda which has captured territory in Iraq and
Syria has declared itself an Islamic "caliphate" and called on
factions worldwide to pledge their allegiance, a statement posted on Islamist
websites and Twitter said on Sunday.
The move poses a direct challenge to the central leadership of al Qaeda, which has already disowned it, and to conservative Gulf Arab rulers.
The group, previously known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and also known as ISIS, has renamed itself "Islamic State" and proclaimed its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as "Caliph" - the head of the state, the statement said.
"He is the imam and khalifah (Caliph) for the Muslims everywhere," the group's spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani said in the statement, which was translated into several languages and read out in an Arabic audio speech.
"Accordingly, the "Iraq and Sham" (Levant) in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration," he said.
The move poses a direct challenge to the central leadership of al Qaeda, which has already disowned it, and to conservative Gulf Arab rulers.
The group, previously known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and also known as ISIS, has renamed itself "Islamic State" and proclaimed its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as "Caliph" - the head of the state, the statement said.
"He is the imam and khalifah (Caliph) for the Muslims everywhere," the group's spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani said in the statement, which was translated into several languages and read out in an Arabic audio speech.
"Accordingly, the "Iraq and Sham" (Levant) in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration," he said.
I will close with the following.
My friend and Middle East scholar Professor Elyse Semerdjian posted the
following on Facebook. It was a tweet posted by Khaled Diab, a
Belgian-Egyptian journalist and writer. "ISIS have no idea what
restoring the Caliphate actually means. In Baghdad, it'd involve booze, odes to
wine, science... and a gay court poet." The Caliphate referred to is
the Abbasid Caliphate which ruled a the majority of the Moslem world from 750 -
1258. Baghdad was the capital city of the Abbasid Caliphate. The
gay court poet was “Al-Hasan ibn Hani’ al-Hakami ad-Dimashqi (757-815), known
under the name of Abu Nuwas was a contemporary of Caliph Harun ar-Rashid, the
renound Caliph of the Arabian Nights tales.” ~ Gay
Poet at the Court of Harun Al Rashid.