The Syrian Bear Trap Part 2.

“He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties….”

You might be thinking that this is an excerpt from an Obama press conference citing the reasons for a strike against Bashar al Assad’s Syria. Yet, these words were spoken by George W Bush at the United Nations on 13 September 2002, and the above quote ends with…,

“Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.”

Some things never change.
With the UN weapons inspectors pulling out of Syria with the “possible” evidence of chemical attacks, it seems that the US is hell bent on attacking Syria and “punishing the country for using chemical weapons”. It must be noted that the weapons inspectors would only have evidence concerning the occurrence of chemical attack and not who did it. This leaves the field open for the US to assert its “moral authority” to attack Syria based on its own “reliable” intelligence. The possible US attack on Syria would again throw the region into geopolitical turmoil the likes of which can only be matched by the Iraq invasion disaster.
But the US is not alone. France –fresh and confident from its adventures in Mali and Libya- is ready to assist the US in “punishing” Syria for using chemical weapons. The UK’s parliament has thankfully voted against any intervention.
The American public, in a latest poll, has voted against any intervention in Syria. 53% say that they are against US military intervention in Syria, though it must be acknowledged that the numbers were higher in the previous week (60%).  Even the officers in the US military have doubts regarding the wisdom of attacking Syria when they are already coping with the economic and military battering that the US has received from both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian and Hezbollah threat is always present. Thus, the case against any intervention in Syria is strong.
So why is the American administration hell-bent on engaging in another military adventure which nearly everyone thinks will probably end like another Afghanistan?
The answer can be sought in the preparations that the jihadis in Syria are making for the coming American strike. Many jihadist organisations are shifting bases, evacuating headquarters, moving equipment and even finding safe hiding places in the mountainous terrains. They think that the coming US attack would also be aimed at jihadist organisations that control vast swathes of land in the northern and eastern provinces of Syria. In a statement, the jihadi outfit Fatehul Islam has said that,

“For every US missile that hits a regime target, another will strike a jihadi base.”

The bread and butter of any standard jihadi outfit depends on how well it fights and speaks against US hegemony. This might be a heaven sent opportunity for the jihadis to entangle the US in another war.
It must be asked that who will benefit if the US destroys President Assad’s military strike capability.
The only winner in that case would be Jabahat-al-Nusra and other jihadi outfits who have travelled all across the world to take part in the war. Indeed, it is now becoming increasingly evident that if President Assad falls and when the Syrian civil war is over and done with, Jabahat al Nusra would eventually fall out with Free Syria Army (FSA) (endorsed by the US and NATO and is the official rebel army in Syria) and with seasoned fighters coming from Iraq and other neighbouring battlefields, it would eventually succeed in stopping the FSA from gaining further power and quite possibly open the way for bringing the Syrian war into Iraq against the Shiite government over there, led by Nouri Al Maliki. The Syrian war would spill all over the middle-east and the chemical weapons that Assad allegedly possesses might fall into very wrong hands.
This might be reason as to why the US wants to have a presence in Syria; to stop the jihadists from gaining any further control and chemical attacks were only an excuse. Other than that, we only have the “USA has a moral duty” explanations, and no one in the post-World War II history has ever bought that.
The US might find itself caught in a bear trap that it laid for the Soviets.

This blog of mine was  published on Express Tribune on August 31, 2013. http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/18694/the-us-war-on-afghanistan-is-over-syria-is-the-new-project/

The Syrian Bear Trap

It seemed an unlikely alliance, an unholy matrimony, when Syrian rebel Jihadis and USA joined arms to get rid of embattled Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. Jihadis and USA maintained a tacit alliance, rebels didn’t disturb USA and USA returned the favor by not disturbing them despite clear indications that Al Qaida was behind them. All of that was kept under the table and it seemed that we were back to the good old days of Soviet-Afghan war where jihadis had the blessings of CIA. Jihadi rebels became more effective, car bombings increased, suicide attacks multiplied but NATO and USA remained mostly mum.

All of that now, unfortunately (sarcasm intended ) , is set to change as the most fundamentalist and undoubtedly successful Syrian jihadist group, Jabahat-an-Nusra’s leader Abu Mohammed Al Jawlani has  publically declared allegiance to Ayman Zawahiri’s Al-Qaida, thus placing the organization –literally-at Israel’s doorstep. Al Qaida’s “official” presence is now a cause of headache for both Israel and USA, as it is the very last group on planet Earth that Israel needs nearby. USA formally declared Jabahat-an-Nusra as a terrorist organization last year but didn’t take any action.

For jihadis that are now pouring from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Palestine, Lebanon, Australia, Chechnya, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, France, Iraq and Spain etc.  into Syria, it is now a golden opportunity to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in Syria (as has been their demand) and on cue Al-Qaida’s wing in Iraq, Islamic State in Iraq has announced to merge with Jabahat-an-Nusra to create a caliphate consisting of Iraq and Syria called Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), in the style of the 7^th century Islamic caliphate.

For the Americans and their regional allies, Jabahat-an-Nusra’s formidable fighting force of 5000 men along with undercover operatives and suicide bombers presents a serious challenge to the already fragile security apparatus in the Middle East.

It is now becoming increasingly evident that when the Syrian civil war is over and done with, Jabahat An Nusra would eventually fall out with Free Syria Army (FSA) (endorsed by USA and NATO and the official rebel army in Syria) and with seasoned fighters coming from Iraq and other neighboring battle fields, it would eventually succeed in stopping FSA from gaining further power and quite possibly open the way for bringing the Syrian war into Iraq against the Shiite government over there, led by Nouri Al Maliki. The battlefield of Syria is waiting to be spread all over, the chemical weapons that Assad possesses might fall into very wrong hands.

 

And to support this doom laden conjecture, out came Assad himself giving a dire warning to the western nations that the current support of USA and its allies to Syrian opposition groups will turn Syria into the next Afghanistan where the 1980’s support of jihadis by USA led to the rise of AL Qaeda and Taliban. ‘West will pray a high price’ he exclaimed in a state television interview.

Could, the rise of Alqaeda in Syria trigger western intervention?

Possibly so. 

The US now sensing the danger (again created due to its apparent folly)  has decided to put 200 intelligence, logistics and operations specialists from the Army’s 1st Armored Division in Jordan to help check violence along the Syrian-Jordanian border, help in ‘humanitarian aid supplies’, and plan for potential military strikes inside Syria. Chuck Hagel, the new US Defense Secretary  (highly unpopular with AIPAC) said that military option will be the last resort, but the worsening situation in Syria is showing no signs of betterment and Assad’s forces, despite  the repeated rebel onslaughts have largely withstood their ground with aid from Iran.

Obama is wary and doesn’t want to drag USA into another war which is showing every possible sign of being as costly as the Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures, if USA really decides to physically intervene. 

But the American intervention will only strengthen Jabahat as its branding as a terrorist organization by the US in 2012 only increased its jihadist credentials. Also, it is an established fact that Al-Qaida and its affiliates thrive in violence. Given this scenario, is Al Qaeda using Syria as a bait for US to come into Syria and hence drag the whole region into chaos? 

It’s a theory that another Al Qaeda affiliate, AQAP (Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula) is putting into action, as it stated last year that it wanted to drag USA into another “bleeding war”. Could this be the strategy that AL Qaeda is employing in Syria as well? Would USA take the bait? Could this prove to be the same ‘Bear Trap’ that USA had laid for the Soviets in Afghanistan years ago and which Al Qaeda is laying for US? Only time will tell.

The New Iraqi Civil War. Oil and Fruits of Syrian Civil War

As the civil war continues to ravage Syria, another civil war looms over its neighboring country Iraq. Instead of looking towards heavens, the answer to the reason of the impending civil war may be found in the oil fields of Iraq.

After the fall of the Saddam regime in 2003, the Kurds have been gearing towards achieving independence from Baghdad and already run a semi autonomous region known as Kurdistan Regional  Government  which has its own ministries and a parliament with its capital city being Erbil ( also called Hewler in Kurdish language). Oil is one the reasons that keeps the Kurds at loggerheads with Baghdad and this time the situation has reached  a point where war between the two sides might be declared on the very slightest provocation.

The provocation it appears is the planned excursion of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies into the Kurdish region to drill for oil. The Iraqi government has said that if Exxon or any such company comes to the disputed Kurd territories, then they “will face the Iraqi Army”.  On November 20, 2012, the Iraqi government dispatched thousands of troops and reinforcements to the front lines of the disputed Kurd territory when a shootout between Iraqi and the Kurd Peshmarga forces, over an unpaid gasoline bill, took place in the town of Tuz Khurmatu. Tensions have been high ever since.

Ever since Saddam’s fall, the Kurdistan government has been maneuvering to distance itself from the main Iraqi government and projects itself as a safe a haven for the world oil companies and all the signs show that the western oil companies are taking the bait. With the declining security situation in Iraq, car bomb explosions, sectarian strife and the fact that the Syrian Civil War might soon spill into Iraq, it only appears logical for the western companies like Exxon, Chevron, Mobil and even some Turk and UAE based companies to come into the Kurd region for oil exploration.

The situation is not helped by the fact that the Iraqi oil contracts are toughest in the world offering low returns, problems that are further compounded by the security issues and deteriorating infrastructure that has suffered from the ravages of decades of war.

Even though, companies are racing towards the Kurd region because of lucrative contracts offered by the government, the southern Iraqi region stills remains crucial to global oil supply. However, it is the events on the ground that are shaping the future.  Iraq’s government led by Nouri Al Maliki is striving to maintain closer ties with Iran, a move that has earned the displeasure of Washington D.C. In addition, that the Iraqi government has made little or no effort in stopping the arms supply from Iran to the President. Assad led Syrian government, furthermore in a sign of increasing independence from the US; the Iraqi government freed a key Hezbollah leader Ali Moussa DaqDuq, considered by the Americans as a threat to their interests in the region. All these issues, it seems, are compounding the already complex security situation and if Iraqi government continues to seek closer ties with Iran, the US and its NATO allies might be forced to rethink their arms and economic aid to the fragile Iraqi democratic government.

The western powers certainly do not want Iraq to have any ties with Iran and Iran on the other hand wants to woo Baghdad as the Assad led government is nearing its end and might be replaced by a conservative Sunni government, which might not be very friendly with Tehran. The Shiite government of Iraq is already on the hit list of Al-Qaida’s chapter in Iraq (AQI) and the Iraqi government fears the influx of Sunni fighters from Syria into Iraq. This has been confirmed by the fact that AQI (in a hugely ironic twist) has actually benefited from the American backed Syrian civil war and has increased its terror activities in Iraq.

If Al-Qaida actually establishes itself in Syria, then Iraq would face a security crisis that would be reminiscent of Bush era occupation with IEDs, suicide attacks and car bombings becoming a daily feature. All this would ultimately affect oil supply from Iraq and ultimately world oil prices. Hence, the western and Middle Eastern oil companies are so interested in the Kurd oil fields, and Iraq is wary of this as it would mean loss of precious oil revenue in the future and increased security concerns and that is why it does not want the Kurds achieving autonomy over the oil fields in their areas.  The Syrian civil war has given new impetus to terror activities in the Middle East and it appears that the effect would be felt outside region too.