by Dr. Reuven Berko
The success of the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (abbreviated "ISIS") in chasing the
Iraqi army out of the country's southeastern cities, as well as its
steady advance south toward Baghdad, has exposed the hollow vessel that
is the United States' Iraq strategy. ISIS fighters have shown their
clearly superior combat skills fighting the conservative Iraqi army,
which was trained by the U.S. according to the norms and ethical codes
of earlier wars.
A dangerous, contiguous
territorial corridor has been established between Iraq and Syria, which
connects Islamist territories in eastern Syria with most of Iraq's
south and west provinces. These territories have been conquered by
terrorist Sunni groups, which, just like al-Qaida and its proxies, are
bent on realizing the vision of a modern Islamic caliphate.
The brazen, armed guerrilla groups' predilection for advanced weaponry and radical Islamist
ideology as Shiite troops flee in all directions has become
conspicuously apparent as the clashes continue to unfold. Interestingly,
the hit-and-run tactic was also used by Muslim conquerors in the
seventh century C.E., during the era of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. For
the next several hundred years, that tactic was precisely what allowed
ragtag gangs of wandering marauders armed with little more than
scimitars to overcome the imperial armies of the time.
The road to hell is
paved with America's good intentions. The U.S. has spawned chaos in
Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and across Africa.
American adventurism nearly cost Israel dearly in the Golan Heights and
Judea and Samaria. The U.S. itself has paid a high price for its
recklessness in countless deaths, substantial capital, sworn allies and
weapons that disappeared amid its various enterprises. Battered and
torn, the U.S. has withdrawn to policing the world from history's back
seat and, as we all know, back-seat driving is a surefire recipe for
disaster.
American officials were
quick to proclaim the need to stop ISIS' efforts. Meanwhile, the U.S.
is forced to maintain twisted ties with "friendly" Islamist nations,
which provide weapons and money to such radical Islamist groups, because
they help counter Iran, the bitter Shiite enemy, and Iran's proxies,
such as the Maliki government in Iraq, Syria's Assad regime and
Hezbollah in Lebanon, although they fear these "infidel" movements'
threats against them, too.
The U.S., in its state
of confusion, has equipped the "good, moderate Muslims" with advanced
weaponry to fight the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad while
being defeated on the battlefield. Thanks to Islamist mobility and
loyalty, that U.S. aid has boomeranged, emboldening the likes of
al-Qaida and ISIS.
The Islamist code
demands that al-Qaida and ISIS focus their attention on battling the
enemy that is near first, saving the distant enemy for later. This is
precisely why the modern caliphate's military leaders are stuck in a
predicament: whether to finish off the work that the Arab Spring
started, overthrowing heretical Sunni-dominant governments in Egypt,
Yemen, Jordan and the Gulf states, then turning their attention to the
great Shiite enemy in Iran -- or continuing to confront Iran's
Revolutionary Guards along bloody lines in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.
As part of U.S.
President Barack Obama's commitment to his allies,the Americans must
stop dithering, uphold their values and keep the Islamists from
reaching the border with Jordan, the Golan Heights, the Arabian
Peninsula and the Gulf. It must leave the Iranians (who, de facto,
control Iraq anyway) to deal with the Sunni threat by themselves.
Or, on the contrary, if the
Iranians want American aid against Sunni terrorists in Iraq and Syria,
then they should pay in "nuclear currency," so to speak. If not, the
U.S. ought to simply watch from the sidelines.
Dr. Reuven Berko
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=8735
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment