ISIS – The outcome of U.S. interventions

04/11/2014


In response to advances by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (abbreviated ISIL, ISIS, and also called the Islamic State) militants in June and July 2014, many states began to intervene in the ongoing civil wars in Syria and Iraq. Rapid territorial gains from ISIL military operations in Iraq and Syria in the first half of 2014 combined with internationally condemned brutality, reported human rights abuses, and fear of further spillovers of the Syrian Civil War caused many countries to consider interventions. The United States started sending (non-operational) troops to Iraq in the midsummer of 2014, and began a large-scale air campaign over the region starting that August. With different agendas and political considerations in a complex situation, countries have approached intervening in the two civil war conflicts in different ways, and to different degrees.
Here, we don’t talk about future of this war but let’s dig into its roots which, in my opinion, is U.S. interventions.
The Carter Doctrine set the United States on the course of increased military intervention in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular. Carter’s successor Ronald Reagan continued funding and arming the Islamic fundamentalist forces in Afghanistan, including the founder of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.6 He also backed Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran that, while it ended in a stalemate, led to the slaughter of well over a million people.
In 2003 of President George W. Bush conducted war strategy which aimed to overthrew the stable government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who had never attacked or threatened this country, based on lies that president told the American people and the world that the Iraqi leader had “weapons of mass destruction” which threatened the United States. No such weapons were ever found.
Obama called the Iraq War, which at one time he opposed, a “success,” and “an extraordinary achievement.” He bragged that it left behind “a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” In reality, the US wasted $3 trillion, 4,500 soldiers, and another 30,000 wounded to wreck Iraq. One million Iraqis’ lives were sacrificed for the sake of imperial control over oil. The war left behind a Shia dictatorship ruling over a society rent by sectarian conflict, and the region on the verge of an even deeper crisis.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was supposed to bring about democracy and improved rights for Iraqi citizens – or at least bring cheap oil access to George W. Bush’s corporate friends. An important target was to overcome the “Vietnam Syndrome” – to get the U.S. population used to new military adventures to secure profits for U.S. corporations all around the globe.
Now, Iraq is divided into three: Kurdish forces control the north; the Iraqi government  – with the help of Iran – controls the south and west, which are deeply divided between Shia and Sunni people; and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, sometimes referred to as IS or ISIL) holds the remainder. This is a nightmare of bloody sectarian, religious, and nationalist divisions for the people and a complete failure even from the cynical point of view of those who started this war for oil. As the Committee for a Workers International said in 2003, the invasion of Iraq would represent the beginning of its dismemberment. This process now seems irreversible. Instead of overcoming the aversion of the U.S. population to imperialist wars, there is now a new “Iraq Syndrome,” with a huge unwillingness of U.S. workers and youth to fight the capitalist elite´s wars.
The beheadings by ISIS have shocked the world. The brutal acts of ISIS, condemned by socialists,  have also forced President Obama’s hand, and the U.S. and other Western powers have hastily drawn up a three-year plan to yet again carry out military actions in Iraq. But the growth of ISIS directly flows from the bloody history of U.S. intervention. In attempting to create stable, friendly regimes, U.S. imperialism has conjured up a nightmare for the people of the region and created new monsters it can´t control.
This radical so-called “Islamic” front was created by Western interests is widely known among Arab scholars. “Missing (from the outrage over ISIS’s actions) has been any acknowledgement of the integral role of covert U.S. and British regional military intelligence strategy in empowering and even directly sponsoring the very same virulent Islamist militants in Iraq, Syria and beyond, that went on to break away from al-Qaeda and form ‘ISIS,’ the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or now simply, the Islamic State.
The fact can’t be refuted. ISIS was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria. This Frankenstein-like experiment of arming the alleged freedom-seeking Syrian opposition created the monster that roams the region. ISIS and the U.S. have a curious relationship—mortal enemies that, at the same time, benefit from some of the same events. The U.S. is being played.”
In a long speech on the Senate floor, the Kentucky Republican laid out his foreign policy vision, and took transparent swipes at members of his own party. Rand Paul criticized both the Bush and Obama administrations for interventionist tendencies, blaming the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on past meddling in the Middle East. “Intervention”, he said, "toppled secular dictators, leading to the radical jihadist groups of today in places like Libya.There were no weapons of mass destruction, that Hussein, Qadhafi, and Assad were not a threat to us. Doesn't make them good, but they were not a threat to us. Assad is not a good guy, but he’s a thousand times better than these Wahabis, jihadis, salifists, and this ISIS group.”
"Intervention created this chaos," he said. "To those who wish unlimited intervention and boots on the ground everywhere, remember the smiling poses of politicians pontificating about so-called freedom fighters and heroes in Libya, in Syria, and in Iraq. Unaware that the so-called freedom fighters may well have been allied with kidnappers and are killers and jihadists."
It is the political consensus between informed and disinterested parties almost everywhere that whatever America does in this latest conflict, it will not bring order or solve the basic problem. Even if IS can be destroyed, its destruction will be meaningless because America has no intention of filling the resulting a vacuum and is reluctant to allow the rise of any state that can.
The U.S. established itself as the dominant capitalist power, and as “the world’s policeman.” It was able to use its military and political power to influence other nations and enrich the U.S. ruling class. However, recently the U.S. government has not been able to exert its influence to the same extent and has faced a number of humiliating setbacks./.
Chia sẻ bài viết ^^
Other post

All comments [ 10 ]


Lê Tín 4/11/14 17:40

That's what U.S. democracy and human rights values would bring. Don't be deceived by them, be yourself and you'll be ok.

Quốc Cường 4/11/14 17:43

ISIS militants are so brutal and barbarous, and what could the great U.S. policeman do? Nothing, just air strikes and watch!

Huy Lâm 4/11/14 17:47

A fact can't be denied that ISIS was born of U.S. and Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria.

Quốc Kiên 4/11/14 17:49

Assad is not a good guy, but he’s a thousand times better than these Wahabis, jihadis, salifists, and this ISIS group.

Phạm Hiếu 4/11/14 17:51

The U.S. now is afraid of getting bogged down in another war in the Middle East.

Hùng Quân 4/11/14 17:53

Intervention created this chaos and aware that the so-called freedom fighters may well have been allied with kidnappers and are killers and jihadists.

Vân Nhàn 4/11/14 17:55

The U.S. finally gets tired of involving in other countries' internal affairs, so stop getting your nose into others' home, Uncle Sam!

Hoàng Lân 4/11/14 17:56

whatever America does in this latest conflict, it will not bring order or solve the basic problem. Even if IS can be destroyed, its destruction will be meaningless because America has no intention of filling the resulting a vacuum and is reluctant to allow the rise of any state that can.

Huy Quốc 4/11/14 17:57

The U.S. has had a lesson for their owns from that.

Quân Hoàng 4/11/14 18:02

For those who still believe in American dreams of democracy and human rights, that ISIS is a gift for them.

Your comments