Of Combat Boots and the Search for a Moderate Rebel in Syria!

Introduction:

Yesterday, September 18, 2014, the US Senate reaches a bi-partisan deal to allow President Barack Obama fund and arm Syrian Moderate Rebel Forces in its quest to conquer and eliminate the Islamic State Militants in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) saga. Noble as the initiative is, we cannot deny the fact that most Americans, including most members of Congress, do not know exactly who a Syrian Moderate Rebel is in the context of the new mandate handed to Mr. President. So who is a moderate rebel in Syrian, worthy of American trust and engagement? That is the issue. Unfortunately, the honorable lawmakers did not vouchsafe a definitive answer to assuage those nursing misgivings about the mandate. To arm is not the issue, but managing the goal and the outcome. We want to reinstate as we stated in our previous essay that in international diplomacy arena, there is a universally accepted belief that there are no permanent friends or allies, but permanents interests. Given that as true, there is no period, no history, and no situation more urgent than now for that principle to be on a full blast in Damascus at the instance of Washington, with a view to enabling unhindered channel for integrated logistics support for the dismantling of ISIS and everything that it represents. When President Obama made the declaration a few years ago that there won't be American combat boots on the ground in Syria, there was no ISIS, there was no beheading of American freelance journalists, or an American Aid Worker facing imminent death, and there was no suicidal match for experimentation with the idea of an Islamic Caliphate in another sovereign territory. In other words, the lives of innocent citizens, the interests of America or those of its allies were not at stake or threatened at that point in time. Today, it is a different story.  In every respect imaginable, this is a just war. Therefore, we cannot, and must not downplay the need for more combat boots on the ground in Syria. And on the issue of arming the Syrian Moderate Rebel Forces, though the efficacy of that proposal appears promising, we ask that the US Government tread with caution.

Understanding the Limitations of the Moderate Syrian Rebel:

From our usual common sense perspective, a Moderate Syrian Rebel is a member of the Free Syrian Army - an insurgent who came into the crisis scene in Syrian following the escalation of the "Arab Spring", imbued with a genuine sense of national pride, and with a goal to terminate the Assad's dictatorship, but not fully embroiled in the indiscriminate destruction of human lives reputed of ISIS and the Assad forces.

Without mincing words, I want to maintain that arming the Free Syrian Army, without the direct involvement of the coalition forces in the real combat, will not vanquish ISIS from the occupied territories as reasonably needed. In addition, the underlying grievances, mostly political and abuse of human rights and related issues must be addressed simultaneously with the quest to annihilate ISIS; otherwise, Syria will remain a vast land of unequal rights and justice, and a testing ground for every form of Islamic ideology.

The fact that the so-called moderate rebel forces are NOT at the moment engaged in forceful indoctrination of the unwilling or embarking on territorial expansion drive does not qualify them as moderate rebels, deserving of our arms and trust. It is not about vetting as some pundits and military experts are suggesting. It is about trust, and whether they are genuinely and favorably disposed to Western values, interests, and objectives.

Indeed the impulse to overthrow President Assad for all his past records of human rights violations is compelling, but we should take cognizance of the fact that a greater majority of his adversaries are unrepentant Islamic militants who, given the chance, will never and can never be salvaged, or expected to embrace Western secular culture and democratic values.

More troubling is the question of managing the liberation process - who will exercise jurisdiction over the occupied land, if eventually ISIS is defeated and evacuated.

Will the coalition forces and the moderate rebels, after the expected defeat of ISIS, turn their weapons on Assad and his forces, with a view to forcing Assad out of power in Syria?

Or will Syria degenerate into two mini-sovereign nations - one under the control and leadership of Assad, and the other under the control of the international coalition and the moderate Free Syrian Army?

It is not enough to defeat and vanquish ISIS, without addressing the civil war in Syrian that gave life to ISIS in the first case. Attention should be extended to how to manage the intended defeat as well as ending the un-winnable civil war. The isolation of President Assad and his troubled nation in the past years provided a fertile ground for Islamic fundamentalists to experiment with barbarism. That has to end.

From all indications, the so-called moderate rebels are not a formidable force, militarily. They couldn't withstand the military strength of Assad Forces and they have been similarly humbled by the more aggressive and brutal ISIS.

In other words, these are not the forces or a formidable group that, under the prevailing circumstances, you will expect to form a viable government in Syria after the defeat of ISIS or the unlikely capitulation of Assad.

Given that as true, the international coalition must strive to integrate the political solution with a military approach. The political turmoil and ethnic intolerance in Iraq in the past three years are crucial enough for a guide

Dealing with Tribal Loyalty and Minority Agenda:

Syria is not Egypt. Egyptians rebelled against the Mubarak Administration collectively as a people. There was no tribal warlord taking advantage of the pro-democracy protest to inflict maximum damage on President Mubarak and his administration for years of domination. And there was no visible tribal or ethnic group fighting on the side of President Mubarak to frustrate the purpose of the pro-democracy movement.

With regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, it was a different story – they were neutral all through the nights and days that the protest lasted in Cairo, waiting patiently to occupy the vacuum expected to be created in the lead following the demise of The Mubarak Administration.

As expected, being the most viable and well-organized group existing then, the Muslim Brotherhood was able to mobilize its followers within a record time, cashing in on the anti-Mubarak momentum to win the Presidential election that was called by the interim Military Government. But the newly elected President Mohamed Morsi got it all wrong. He did not let go the Islamist in him, and he was vanquished.

Granted Egypt is predominately a Muslim country, truth is, President Mubarak was not overthrown because he is secular-leaning or a tribal warlord. He was overthrown because Egyptians wanted a taste of real democracy. Not a dictatorship or an Islamic Government that President Morsi was incubating.

In a similar vein, the people of Tunisia were fed up with an oligarchy that lacked socio-political agenda aimed at improving the well-being of its people.

With respect to the Algerians, they simply had enough of corrupt political leaders and successive governments that notoriously lacked any clue on how to manage its vast oil wealth and overcome the concerns of the proletariat.

(By the way, my term paper in the "International Petroleum and Comparative Law and Policy" class - one of the classes that I took when I was in graduate school - was on the 2005 Algerian Hydrocarbon Law, as amended in 2006. So the statement above referencing the Algerian oil wealth and corruption is not guesswork. Sonatrach, the Algerian state oil behemoth, and the most powerful state-owned oil company in Africa, before it was dismantled, was more powerful than the state).

In sum, the anger, the joblessness, and the feeling of anti-establishment in Tunisia and Egypt that led to the evolution of the “Arab Spring” were not motivated by tribal or ethnic or religious factors as we saw in Syria and Libya.

Therefore, President Obama and the international coalition must tread softly in arming the so-called moderate rebels inside of Syria. Because when it is all over, you will still have a substantial member, if not a majority, of the Syrian people backing President Assad.

To put it succinctly, a minority rule or regime in Syria is not sustainable. America cannot afford to 'babysit' another adolescence regime - Islamic or secular - in hostile territory.

It is now left to Mr. President and his security team to separate the wheat from the chaff with a view to avoiding creating another Afghanistan’s mujaheddin funded by America in the 1980s during the Afghan war with the old Soviet Union.

Conclusion:

I want to hesitate to conclude that the international community headed by the US Government, is resisting the inevitable. Undermining the political angle to the civil war in Syria is not a smart move. The ISIS phenomenon, though overwhelming, is a collateral issue in the Syria saga. Ending it does not automatically eliminate the underlying grievances that compelled the civil war in Syria.  In addition, Syria is not Gadhafi’s Libya where the pro-government forces collapsed under intense pressure from the international community. President Assad has real and highly motivated followers who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their President. The facts on the ground speak volumes to that. If President Assad is vulnerable he would have since long gone, given the multi-dimensional attacks his forces and administration have received from ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, the international community as well as other interested parties in the past three years. Liberation of ISIS-held territories will not completely eliminate the political crisis in Syria. Same way as the defeat of Assad forces, if ever it happens, will not enshrine the elusive peace in the polity. The situation requires concerted and well-coordinated military and political solutions – an inclusive government or complete dismantling of the country into multiple independent states along tribal boundaries. I rest my case.

- Mr. Alex Aidaghese.

A Timid World: Confronting the Dogmas of ISIS and Religious Radicalism Around Us!

“The American people are so much stronger, so much more resolved than any enemy can fully understand. We don’t forget. We take care of those who are grieving and when that’s finished, they should know we will follow them to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice because hell is where they will reside.” Vice President Joe Biden.

Introduction:

The much-orchestrated invincibility and financial muscle of the Islamic State Militants in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), if at all, are not insurmountable. They are overhyped. The world defeated Hitler and decimated Nazism. The problem is: those who are in a position to take action against ISIS are finding it difficult to absorb the trauma and overcome the feelings of hopelessness, defeat, and near capitulation accumulated from witnessing the gruesome beheading of freelance journalists - innocent journalists undeservedly wasted like a sacrificial lamb for an unfathomable cause. It took President Obama, yes, President Barack Obama who brought down Osama bin Laden, decimated al Awlaki, rescued the Horn of Africa from the grip of rampaging pirates (no mean achievements), three attempts to hit the right note on what to make of ISIS. So it was more of a relief, when Mr. President, earlier today, September 05, 2014, declared in no uncertain terms that “we are going to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, the same way that we have gone after Al Qaeda.” How soon, and at what scale or magnitude are still being defined. Whatever the goals are, NATO and the international coalition must act swiftly and decisively, mindful of the fact that ISIS is an enemy of civilization - a bunch of barbarians, basking in bloodbaths to mask their vulnerability. And like the Nigerian Boko Haram, ISIS has no attributes of statehood that would require reconstruction after its annihilation. It is not Iraq, and it is not Afghanistan. Therefore, the attacks must be massive and all-encompassing, with extinction as the main goal. As long as the objectives are to decimate the group and rid the occupied territories of every remnant of Islamic fundamentalism, the exit strategy will be less arduous to execute.

The Concept of Faith.

Great Britain is the number one training ground for Islamic fundamentalists. On the eve of the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, there was a video clip, if I remember correctly, broadcast by CNN or CNN International, involving about four or five members of an Islamic religious group in London, England that was more of a shock than educational. In the interview, one of the participants, clean-shaven, and arguably the youngest of the group, stated unequivocally, and with a sense of bravado, that America deserves what it gets - stating further that those who carried out the bombing acted in good faith. The interview was conducted inside a restaurant - their restaurant, more of a bakery.

For a British citizen or a Green Card holder for that matter, to be so adamant, so vociferous, and so prideful of his unrighteous endorsement - pervert and abhorrent as the endorsement may be to ordinary folks - of a crime that took the lives of thousands of innocent men and women, and to do so on camera, reflects the temple of the hate-filled and worthlessness of human-life kinds-of-teaching that permeates places of worship in the United Kingdom. In addition, it manifests the readiness of most UK-based immigrants of the Islamic faith to sacrifice their lives and the lives of others in the name of religion.

These radicalized adherents of the faith as well as their revered teachers live in their own “invented world” inside of Great Britain - perverting religious freedom, preaching hatred and destruction of America and everything Western, with unbridled arrogance and insensitivity.

About a year ago a British soldier, Lee Rigby, was viciously stabbed to death, almost beheaded in broad daylight by two members of this group in Woolwich, South East London. To be so brutish and unrepentantly heartless to take their disillusionment and hatred of governmental institutions and civil society straight to the streets of London, and in broad daylight, explains the extreme nature of the indoctrination and brainwashing they imbibed inside places of worship. It further explains the level of detachment between them (all the underwear and shoe bombers) and the civil society on the one hand, and the hatred they harbor against government and law enforcement agencies on the other.

The comatose state of the political system the world is witnessing in Iraq, Libya, and Syria today is an export of that "invented world" incubated and nurtured to full bloom inside of Great Britain – with followers now spanning the length and breadth of the globe. So, the earlier the whole world comes together with a concerted resolve to decapitate ISIS and everything that it represents, the better and safer for everyone.

To cut off the head of another healthy human being who did not commit any crime has no legitimacy in the Qur'an. It doesn't add value to a cause.

To invade a boarding school at night, tied up the hands and legs of innocent students behind their backs, and slits their throats, leaving them to bleed to death as Boko Haram did at a boarding school in Benue State, Nigeria is not an achievement that any Muslim would want to be proud of or be part of. As we write, more than 200 Chibok School Girls are under captivity somewhere in North Eastern Nigeria, held without their consent, and for cause or causes unfathomable to discerning minds. 

Also, I do not think that millions of peace-loving Muslims all over the world who watched the videos of the gruesome execution of Steven Sotloff and James Foley as well as videos of battered and bullets ridden bodies of fellow Middle-Eastern Muslims, Shiites, and Christians, victims of firing squad style of execution, would want to be seen or be celebrated as brethren or sympathizers of ISIS.

This piece is not just on how to rein in the instructors and teachers of hatred and Armageddon as the world has come to know them all over Great Britain, Middle-East, and Nigeria, but on how to, in line with what the world did to Hitler and Nazism, permanently decimate ISIS, their affiliates and those they have already recruited and indoctrinated in the act of jihad and martyrdom.

The Concept of Strength:

Thanks to the swift intervention of the United States of America, when Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, under force-occupation, defying Kuwaiti sovereignty, the much-hyped ‘Mother of All War’ promised American forces by President Saddam Hussein, came to an abrupt end in less than a week into the escalation of the "Desert Storm.

What am I saying? ISIS, militarily, is not invincible; it has no standing army with the capacity to withstand sustained and well-coordinated air and ground attacks from international coalition forces. So the coalition should not waver in its resolve to take the fight to the ISIS stronghold.

In spite of the alleged vastness of its occupied territories as well as the alleged vastness of its volunteered fighters; we cannot deny the fact that a greater majority of the volunteered fighters are not your regular trained or seasoned army. Shooting POW from behind is not a show of strength.

The World cannot afford to watch another gruesome video of non-combatant journalists or of Shiites and moderates Muslims hacked to death in isolated locations where there are no friendly forces in sight to initiate rescue operations. That, unfortunately, was the plight of James and Steven. Even Prisoners of War and enemy combatants are protected under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. ISIS has no scruple shooting from behind captured members of the Syrian Armed Forces in their custody. 

ISIS is unlike Afghanistan or Iraq where the burden of building a brand new government in the form of a political system, Army, or statehood after the defeat and evacuation of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein by the US Armed Forces became daunting and protracted. Here, there is no new State to build.

ISIS, like Nigerian Boko Haram, is a product of a demented faculty. They are on a false mission - building an Islamic Caliphate that will not meet the test of time; killing and maiming in the process to strike fears around the world. They are manipulating social media and striking fears in the minds of world leaders, riding on their accessibility to the Internet to bamboozle gullible recruits. Above all, they have no territory vested by laws or a nation-state respected by any UN Article or Charter. Simply put, they have no subjects willingly paying allegiance in observance of real or perceived statehood.

The inability of ISIS to defeat the Syrian Armed Forces and compel Assad to relinquish his throne or kingship, tells on the weakness of ISIS in terms of military command structure, skills, and organization.

That it captured some Iraqi territories is understandable. It is not proof of military strength as most Security Experts and pundits are trumpeting on TV stations. Iraqi Armed Forces are in the formative stage, compounded by a weak President who did not enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of his people and law enforcement agencies.

Beheading unarmed journalists, killing innocent civilians, and executing captured enemy combatants from behind in a most gruesome manner for propaganda and recruitment goals do not meet the definition of military strength or invincibility. Simply put, they don’t have it.

Yes, ISIS has succeeded in seizing and appropriating a sizable volume of captured weapons belonging to Syrian and Iraq as well as vast oil fields. The truth is they cannot acquire more than what they have at the moment. It is not enough to acquire an oil field in the absence of a ready market for the final products. Blocking existing markets or trading partners is a good start. In addition, they don't have the technological or military wherewithal to keep and maintain the seized weapons in a deployable state.

Assad is still standing; in spite of the much-orchestrated invincibility of ISIS. It is that frustration - their inability to conquer Syria and create an Islamic Caliphate - that is propelling the ongoing brutalities. Be that as it may, ISIS cannot withstand ground and air bombardments by the coalition forces. The time is now for that bombardment.

The World fought a brutal Second World War for the sake of humanity. If the rest of the world, specifically, if the United States of America, had intervened in the War earlier than it did, more lives would have been saved and Holocaust would have been averted to some degree.

Slavery, the worst form of man’s inhumanity to man lasted for as long as the Union delayed the declaration of war on the later-formed, Confederate States, which were not ready to jettison the slavery culture or relinquish their hold on freed Blacks. Eventually, the Emancipation Proclamation came, and the “world” of Blacks was made better.

And between 1992 and 1995, the whole world vacillated while the people of the former Yugoslavia endured a brutal and televised campaign of ethnic cleansing perpetrated on each other by tribes and clans that once paid allegiance to the same flag. In the end, thousands of lives were lost and a once beautiful multi-ethnic nation-state tumbled down into obscurity like a pack of cards in the name of religion.

On a similar note, in 1994, the Hutus and Tutsi genocidal conflict was first considered an internal affair, a tribal rivalry within a sovereign State (Rwanda) by the world, until a whole tribe (Tutsi) was almost wiped out from the face of the earth.

The world and the international coalition forces must unite, show strength and vanquish ISIS. We cannot afford to experience another Rwanda or another Holocaust. 

Of Compromises and Permanent Interests:

In the international diplomacy circle, there is a universally accepted belief that there are no permanent friends or allies, but permanent interests. There is no period, no circumstances more urgent than now for that principle to come to play given the facts on the ground in Syria and Iraq. When President Obama made the declaration in the past that there won't be American combat boots on the ground in Syria, there was no ISIS then. Also, there was no beheading of American freelance journalists. In other words, the interests of America or those of its allies were not at stake or threatened at that point in time.  Today, it is a different story - cannot, and must not downplay the need for more boots on the ground in Syria.

In light of the unchecked bombing, coupled with the inability of the governments in Syria, Libya, and Iraq to exercise absolute control over the civil society as well as ensure territorial sovereignty, put into question the feasibility of democratic dispensation indiscriminately pursued all over the Middle East by the West. Without any doubt, one can certainly declare that you don’t deal with these people with kid gloves.

Today, Iraq and Libya are worse off than they were under the alleged dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi. Libya, like Syria and Iraq, is a geographical expression. They are not monolithic entities like Egypt or Morocco. Libyan, Syrian, and Iraqi people are more sympathetic to the concerns and safety of their respective ethnic groups or enclaves. Tribal loyalty trumps national pride. 

America and its allies must make a hard decision on how to end the civil war in Syria. According to a popular Nigerian saying, “the devil you know is better than the angel you don’t know.” Given ISIS antecedents, it is reasonable to argue for a political solution to the lingering civil war in Syria, while systematically providing some form of military support to President Assad and the new integrated forces, with a view to overwhelming ISIS from all fronts.

If I may add, President Assad, to a certain degree, is seemingly vindicated in much of his arguments in the past about the civil war in his country - the majority of the insurgents fighting to oust him from power are not the type America and the West would be willing to align with. In other words, they are remnants of radical elements and Islamic fundamentalists from all over the world with one goal only: kill Assad and turn Syria and part of Iraq into a radical Islamic Caliphate.

And if you don't know; these are the Islamic militants who took advantage of the protest in Benghazi on September 12, 2012, to invade the US Consulate and kill four US Diplomats, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Now it is becoming clearer why it has become of an enormous challenge to build a stable government in Iraq and Libya since the demise of their leaders. Therefore, it is a hard choice for America and the West to make: work with Syria to dismantle ISIS, or stay aside and watch ISIS turn the Iraqi desert into a slaughtering field for innocent journalists.

In sum, ISIS is vulnerable. It cannot acquire more than it has presently in terms of finances and weapons of war. A massively enforced military blockade from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan would make it practically impossible for them to engineer reinforcements in terms of weapons and volunteer fighters.

In a similar vein, military blockade from Cameroon, Niger, and Chad would, no doubt, incapacitates Boko Haram in the Northeastern part of Nigeria, making their defeat easier to execute, if only Nigerian politicians desist from funding the sect and frustrating the efforts of the military.

Conclusion:

Now is the time for the West to show strength, waging an all-out land and air bombardments of ISIS and Boko Haram-held territories. To put it in Nigerian Pidgin English “the pikin wey say 'im mama no go sleep, 'im too no go sleep. That has always been President Obama’s own military doctrine – overwhelming and disorganizing enemies of the United States, taking the fights into their bedrooms by any means necessary. Placing them under sustained harassment and on the defensive would irredeemably diminish their valor and appeals. An insurgent running for cover will not have the time to gyrate with captured military weapons or the time and space to record propaganda messages. The world has been deep down in sleep over ISIS's reign of terror. It is time to wake up and do what is right – match them towards the gate of hell where they rightly belong as Vice President Joe Biden declared yesterday.

NB:

What is so intriguing about Boko Haram and its reign of terror in Nigeria is that Bornu State, its proposed Caliphate,  is landlocked. It has no access to the sea or any known seaport. In addition, the neighboring countries, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger are supposedly hostile territories.

Yet, Boko Haram has an unhindered supply of arms, vehicles, fuel, foodstuffs, and clothing. How is that possible? That is a question for the present administration, under whose watch the insurgency escalates unabated. Not left out of the indictment are the northern political leaders and, specifically, the loquacious elders who, on record, opposed the proscription of Boko Haram by the Federal Government, and at the same time, were known to be consistently and openly sympathetic to the sect. In spite of everything, it is my fervent prayer that what I think of Boko Haram is not true.