Apparently Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS (the group that swept across Northern Iraq and quickly took over several key towns last month) made it to Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential List. I admire Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney for recognizing a clever, elusive guerrilla commander like Baghdadi. A good solider knows his enemy well, says Sun Tzu. Now, with the nearly $500MM in cash that ISIS fighters stole from Mosul, they’re probably the richest "terrorist" organization in the world.
Many disaffected Sunnis, former Saddam loyalists and Baath party sympathizers are already joining the ranks of ISIS. They're not fundamentalists like ISIS but they're all Sunnis and now Baghdadi has the dough (and the clout) to recruit. ISIS – stands for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Their goal is to turn the Levant (Iraq/Syria/Lebanon) into an Islamic Caliphate. They’re devoutly committed to global Jihad and so I’m not sure anything could have prevented this. It was bound to happen but perhaps Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s policy of politically purging Sunnis has accelerated the process of radicalizing them. Battle-hardened from fighting Bashar al Assad’s troops in the rebel strong-hold of Aleppo, ISIS fighters are pouring into Iraq in their numbers to join the fray.
But then, can who can blame Maliki for his anti-Sunni stance? After all the Shias suffered decades of repression under Saddam, who is from Tikrit, in the Sunni North (one of the first towns to fall to ISIS last month). This whole problem began with the 2003 Iraqi invasion. But then maybe NOT. Maybe it began way before that. Maybe in 1918? – after the allied victory in World War I ended the Ottoman Empire and resulted in its partition into the Republic of Turkey and several “new” Arab states in the Middle East.
You see, much of what is today’s Arab world was part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries. During World War I, a lesser know theater of the war began with the so-called “Arab Revolt”. The continuing ruthlessness of the Ottoman Turks led to simmering Arab Nationalism within the Empire. It eventually culminated in the Arab Revolt which drew support from Britain (via Lawrence of Arabia). By the end of the war, the Germans and the Ottoman Turks were all but defeated and the world powers were faced with the task of creating new sovereign states from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. While this was no easy task, Britain and France botched this effort in disastrous fashion. Instead of granting freedom to the Arabs (as promised) after their revolt helped defeat Germany and its Ottoman allies, Britain and France secretly drew up plans to divide up the Arab remnants of the empire and share them between each other.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement was one of the worst examples of imperial greed and folly. These guys carved up the land with no regard for the sectarian differences on the ground. The French took Syria and Lebanon, the British took Iraq and Palestine (which later became present-day, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza). The Ottoman possessions in the Arabian peninsula became the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Yemen; and those in the Persian Gulf became several small kingdoms (UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait) that are ran by western puppets. To show the unconscionable nature of Sykes/Picot’s actions, let me give you a few examples of the sectarian fault lines that have haunted these nations from the the day they were formed.
Iraq for example is about 65% Shia, 20% Sunni and 17% Kurdish. Syria is the exact opposite –it’s about 15% Shia/Alawite, 70% Sunni and 10% Kurdish. Lebanon is about a third Sunni, a third Shia and a third other sects (Maronite Christians, Druze, Catholics). Bahrain is similar to Iraq (more than 70% Shia, and about 10% Sunni) but it’s different in one fundamental way - it’s a Gulf kingdom ruled by the Sunni al-Khalifa dynasty. There are Maronites, Catholics and Druze in varying numbers in most of the region but they’re mostly a minority. Adding another layer of complexity to the region is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. But that is a subject worth a separate discussion.
As the Sunnis and Shias battle each other in Iraq (and Syria), the Kurds (the indigenous people of the region) are carving up more land. The chaos in the region has actually been good for the Kurds as they are gaining more autonomy in both countries. Assad's troops and the Syrian rebels alike, both stay away from Kurdish-controlled areas inside Syria. ISIS does the same in Iraq. I guess I am “happy” for the Kurds, as they've endured the most suffering and displacement in the region for centuries due to Ottoman rule and European interference. As an African, whose people have endured centuries of slavery and European colonization, I am very sympathetic to the Kurdish cause. Long before the so-called Arab spring of 2011, which resulted in Syria's civil war, the Kurds were fighting the injustice of Bashar al Assad's regime. Long before ISIL took over northern Iraq, they were fighting Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And they've been fighting for autonomy in Turkey for decades. They are brave and battle hardened. And I believe they will be the only credible force that can defeat the scourge of ISIL.
What does all this mean for the region? Well, for starters if the violence continues, the whole region could dis-integrate along the sectarian fault lines that have existed for centuries. We’re already seeing signs of the Kurdish minority in Iraq and Syria getting close to their dream of an autonomous Kurdish homeland (referred to as Kurdistan) as they continue to defend their territory and even capture more land. In addition, as the beleaguered Maliki government continues to lose control of Iraq, more radical Shia elements will step in, garner populist Shia support and that will ultimately lead to more bloodshed. The last thing you need is a war between fundamentalists on both sides of it.
However, everything seems to be headed in that direction – the radical Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army (famed for their long battle with coalition troops during the 2003-2011 Iraq war) is already rallying his troops to make a stand, should ISIS decide to march on Baghdad. Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the highest ranking Shia spiritual leader in Iraq, has also called on all Shia to defend their homes against ISIS. It won’t be long before al-Sadr and Sistani call on their Shia brothers in Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime to come to their aid. There have already been reports of Iranian fighter jets being deployed within Iraq’s armed forces to bomb ISIS held areas in Mosul, Fallujah and Kirkuk. If the fighting intensifies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Sunni kingdoms in the Gulf will continue sending piles of cash to aid the cause of ISIS and their Sunni brothers.
The outlook for the region is very grim – perhaps the best prospect for lasting peace is for Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Druze, Christians and all the peoples of the region to come together and live in harmony. But that hasn’t happened for centuries. Will it ever happen?
