THE ISLAMIC STATE : A BRIEF ANALYSIS
BY BRIGADIER AJIT NAIR (RETD)
The rapid rise
of ‘The Islamic State’ has brought a
disturbing paradigm shift into an already troubled Middle East. So who are
they, what are their Aims and Capabilities and what could the possible course
of events be, over the next few months and years ? Any analysis now would
require frequent revisions as events unfold on virtually a daily basis. But let
me try anyway.
The information we have about them or their Leader is scant, and from
diverse sources. To summarise – they comprise Sunni Muslims of Iraq and Syria,
sworn to establish an Islamic Caliphate, under their Supreme Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
now calling himself “The Caliph Ibrahim”.
They have been augmented by fighters from numerous Countries, including UK,
Germany, France, Holland, USA – and India, amongst others. All told, they today
reportedly number more than 10,000 fighters. They have captured arms (including
tanks/ICVs from the retreating Iraqi Army) and assets worth about $ 2 Billion,
making them the richest Jihadi organisation. Baghdadi is a fierce looking
fighter and tactician, which infuses in him
more appeal than has the Al Qaeda Chief – the mild-looking, bespectacled Ayman
al-Zawahiri, an Islamic theologian. Al Qaeda has condemned them – ostensibly
for their brutality, but in reality it’s more likely to be a turf war.
Started in 2003, to oppose the US invasion, they have steadily grown in
numbers and commitment, after they announced themselves in 2006 or so. So they
are neither a new nor an unknown phenomena. Just ignored. Their rapid ascent drew
strength (and Headlines) from the Israel/Hamas war, the Syrian rebellion and
the political turmoil in Iraq, although not directly linked to any of them.
They have reportedly declared the Hamas as Apostates and have vowed to destroy
them, before tackling Israel. They have harmed the rebellion against Assad by
attacking genuine Syrian rebels and thinning their ranks by getting recruits
into their own militia. Prime Minister Al Maliki’s obdurate refusal to run an
inclusive Govt in Iraq has considerably exacerbated the Shia-Sunni divide and
consequently Baghdadi’s development and short-term Aims. However, the new Govt,
led by President Fuad Masum (a Kurd) and Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi (a moderate
Shia) may be a game changer. While many key posts went to the majority Shia
community, Sunnis and Kurds were also well represented with Saleh al-Mutlaq (a
Sunni) being Dy PM.
Aim. Their long-term Aim is to establish an “Islamic Caliphate”, under a single
Leader, in the Levant. Their morphing name indicates how their Aim has evolved.
From AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) to ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) to ISIS (Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria) to ISIL (Islamic Sate of Iraq and the Levant) and on
29 June 2014, to ‘The Islamic State’.
It’s interesting to note that their Aim has now expanded out of the Levant, to
include the entire world. A measure of their confidence. Their short-term Aim
is to establish their dominance over other Sunni groups, especially those who
do not follow the extremist Salafist doctrine and to fight a sectarian war
against Shias.
The Levant. The Levant core region historically
comprised of present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Cyprus and
Hatay (a province in southern Turkey, on the Mediterranean coast). Expanded to
include the Sinai and Iraq and finally the entire territory of Turkey and Egypt.
Interestingly, the British had an English Levant Company, founded in 1581 to
trade with the Ottoman Empire.
Capabilities. Never assess an adversary on his Aim.
Assess him on his Capabilities. Aims can change overnight, capabilities cannot.
The ‘The Islamic State’ has about ten to twenty thousand fighters, captured
arms, adequate recourses and deep, almost fanatical commitment. Their well
trained Army has already routed the Iraqi Army and adversarial Syrian rebels. And
captured many major towns, including Raqqa in Syria (their HQ) and Mosul (the
second city of Iraq). So what can the they do today. Frankly, in their current avatar, with their current resources – not
much more. But their real threat lies in their ability to attract new
volunteers from all over the World, using their appeal and social media skills.
This will also cause disturbances in host Countries, as we saw in The Hague
recently. Open demonstrations, flaunting the black Islamic State flag.
So they’ve done a lot, since they burst out of their relative anonymity
in June this year. So what else can they do ? Let’s see their SWOT analysis.
Strengths. Firstly, their immediate resources of
committed fighters, captured arms and ammunition, equipment and vast wealth (if
they hold on to the N Iraqi oilfields). Secondly, their insidious appeal of
being able to attract large numbers of volunteers from across the World. And one
of the reasons is the promise of a Caliphate, with a charismatic Leader. And
the fact that they are actually holding territory and administering a virtual
Country, which no force is likely to be able to easily recapture.
Weaknesses. For the first time, a militant
organisation is fighting openly, a conventional war, confining themselves to a
geographical area. Which is easily attackable. From the ground and from the
air. This is their biggest weakness. While
the Al Qaeda’s terror tactics work because of their nebulous existence, any
terror attacks by The Islamic State outside their borders is likely to lead to
massive retaliation, by any number of enemies, of which they have created plenty.
A case in point is the increased US strikes in retaliation to the killing of the
two US journalists. They have no known sources of replenishing their arms,
ammunition and equipment, since they’re shunned even by the Al Qaeda. A self-declared
Sunni Caliphate, they are surrounded by Shia ruled Countries. In the West by
Syria, a Shia (Alawite) dominated and ruled Sunni majority, (however, even the
Syrian Sunnis are fighting them) in the South by a Shia dominated and Shia majority
Iraq and in the East, by Shia Iran. The first two have an Army of about 250,000
each and Iran of 800,000. With plenty of tanks, artillery and a reasonably
modern Air Force. And in the North, they have Turkey, a formidable NATO member.
And the Iraqi Kurds, with their Peshmerga (militia) are their immediate
Northern adversaries. Fighting an active war on three fronts (less the Iranian
one) is an impossibility, even with enhanced resources.
Current enemies. Currently, The Islamic State is actively fighting
only the Peshmerga, who are aided by US air power, with skirmishes in Syria and
Iraq. In Syria, there are three forces fighting each other – that is, the
Syrian State vs the Syrian rebels and The Islamic State. This stalemate can
only be broken by Assad, if he chooses to do so. He is more likely to wait and
watch his Sunni rivals fight and weaken each other. The Iraqi Govt has lost
much of its US support and till their political squabbles are over, can make no
positive move. However, they are unlikely to be pushed any further South. Their
Army, aided by Shia militias is likely to secure Baghdad and areas around,
witness the bombing on 22nd August in a Sunni Mosque in Diyala.
Skirmishes will continue. Iran is plagued by problems of its own and is
unlikely to make any move, for the present.
Current backers and financiers. No Country overtly supports The Islamic
State. Their covert financiers are reportedly wealthy individuals, mosques and
charities in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and possibly Qatar. However, their
declaration of a Caliphate with a credible Leader appeals to Sunni Muslim
fundamentalists worldwide. And there are numerous pledges of support from
Indonesia to Kashmir to Saudi Arabia and from Europe and the US.
US Options.
The US have two major restraining factors – one, their decision not to
get actively involved in Iraq again (no “boots on the ground”), and two, a
commitment to bring stability to a united Iraq. The latter is a virtual
impossibility, since the chances of a Shia-Sunni rapprochement in Iraq (or for
that matter, in Syria) are extremely bleak and the Iraqi Kurds have virtually
declared independence. But that is the stated position of the US and they will
stick to it unless the situation changes dramatically. Any major increase in
air/drone-strikes, which causes “collateral damage” to civilians will turn the
entire Sunni population against them and by inference against the Iraqi Govt.
Enemies of your Friends and
Enemies of your Enemies. Are
your friend’s enemies automatically your enemies? And do enemies of your bitter
enemies automatically become your friends? In the Arab world, as the US is
finding out –not necessarily. Their biggest enemy in this region used to be the
Syrian Govt under Assad and they were about to assist the rebels against him
and to start air attacks against him. Till the Islamic State suddenly surfaced.
So they dropped that plan and instead are attacking the Islamic State, who
include many Syrian rebels, who they were about to arm ! Which anyway would
have been a disaster, since the rebels were infiltrated by foreign fighters, at
the behest of the Al Qaeda. Right now, the US is helping the Shias against the
Sunnis, which is frowned upon by their allies – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
Bahrain (though not if they keep their actions strictly restricted to fighting the Islamic
State) and applauded by Iran and Syria – their sworn enemies.
They are also helping the Peshmerga (Iraqi Kurds), which is frowned upon
by their NATO ally Turkey, who are worried about a demand for a more inclusive
Kurdistan by Turkish Kurds, who they have been repressing for decades. A Kurdistan
in this area would be appreciated by Europe and Israel, who have a large
Kurdish diaspora (about 1.5 million), who presumably would migrate there. All
told, there are about 30 million Kurds (who are basically Iranian Sunni
Muslims), distributed in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Russian Federation, Europe
and Israel. Any significant success by the Peshmerga would open yet another can
of worms in this troubled region.
For the US/UK, to look at this conflict from an American or NATO
perspective (which they are currently doing) would be short-sighted indeed and
the problems in the Middle East would mutate and acquire new and dangerous
dimensions and complexities, so-far unseen and unanalysed. The only Super-power
should behave as a World leader and not as a protector of American interests.
If they want to take a world leadership position. The US is at an important
cross-road here. They’ve left a mess in Afghanistan and Iraq – will they do it
again?
Verily they are faced with a Hobson’s choice. Every option is fraught
with larger unforeseen implications. Extreme caution and introspection is
needed here. Diplomacy before military action. Any “Coalition of the Willing” (formed
after the NATO Summit in Wales), which has only NATO Countries is meaningless.
It has
to include the Arabs and Iran. A
holistic right-brained solution is needed, instead of a bits-and-pieces
left-brained military/strategic one. The consequences for the World are
enormous. We wait with bated breath.
