Local Forces Who Defeated ISIS in Syria Defend Their Territory
December 29, 2018
The outcry against Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria reveals an
appetite for regional hegemony, writes As'ad AbuKhalil. It also minimizes
the capacity of native militia to defend territory for which they fought and
died.
A Wise and Rare Decision
By As`ad AbuKhalil
Special to Consortium News
President Donald Trump's announcement that he will withdraw 2000 U.S. troops
from Syria has caused great alarm in elite circles. The New York Times and
The Washington Post both warned it would leave Israel "abandoned" and
"isolated" and would embolden enemies of the U.S. Martin Indyk, a former
Mideast envoy for Democratic administrations, complained that Trump did not
factor in the national security interests of Israel.
Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who lost the presidency to
Trump, tweeted: "Actions have consequences, and whether we're in Syria or
not, the people who want to harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is
weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous. Playing into Russia & Iran's hands
is foolish. This President is putting our national security at grave risk."
Hollywood celebrities have also jumped into the act.
The strong reaction to Trump's decision (which fulfills a campaign promise
to disengage militarily from the Middle East) highlights his gap with a
mainstream media and foreign policy establishment that supports a more
aggressive U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. The only time
these detractors ever strongly supported Trump was when he ordered the
bombing of Syria. Establishment spokesman Farid Zakaria, a favored CNN host
and pundit, said Trump had finally become "presidential." The only
reservation was that the bombing should have been more massive.
Clinicians treating injured rebel fighters and civilians in Aleppo; Oct. 5,
2012. (Scott Bobb)
The latest civilian death toll in Syria is over 107,000. The media has, by
and large, disregarded the extent to which U.S. bombs have contributed to
this enormous loss of life. When the history of the Syrian war is written,
it is very likely that the destruction of Raqqa will be categorized as a
U.S. war crime-to be added to the many war crimes committed by all sides in
the protracted war.
Exaggerations of US Role
The outcry against Trump's withdrawal announcement include exaggerations of
the role that 2000 U.S. troops played in defeating ISIS (which exclude
personnel involved in covert actions).
In a Tweet, Rukmini Callimachi of The New York Times oddly attributed the
loss of 99 percent of ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq to the work of the
U.S.-led "coalition" (so broadly defined to include Sweden and Bahrain among
others). This estimate typically ignores the contributions and sacrifices
of native Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi fighters, many of whom are foes of the
U.S.
While it can't be determined mathematically the extent to which the U.S. and
others contributed to the demise of ISIS, it is certain that the bulk of the
fighting against ISIS-and the dying-was done by locals, the majority of whom
opposed the U.S.
This was the case in Lebanon, where the fight against ISIS and al-Qaida,
over the last two years, was carried out almost single-handedly by
Hizbullah, which the U.S. State Department designates a terrorist
organization. Similarly, Russia and its allies in Syria did most of the
fighting against ISIS despite the contributions of pro-U.S. Kurdish militias
and some rebel groups.
The economic power of ISIS-in terms of the oil trade-was largely destroyed
by Russian, not U.S., bombing. In Iraq, the virtual collapse of the
U.S.-trained Iraqi Army in June 2014, when Mosul was overrun, was a major
factor in the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria and beyond.
Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards. (Wikimedia)
In Iraq, the process of mobilization and recruitment against ISIS began with
the formation of Hashd, or "mass," militias formed at the behest of
Ayatollah Sistani, the senior Iranian Shia cleric based in Iraq. Qasem
Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
became directly involved. While these natives fought back and destroyed ISIS
in Iraq the U.S. provided air cover. Locals did the fighting and the dying.
Trump's agenda poses a danger to the U.S. and the world. But the global
agenda of the Democratic and Republican (establishment) is even more
dangerous. It would expand wars in the Middle East and beyond. It would
intensify U.S. enmities to places such as Russia, China, North Korea and
Iran and abort any attempts at reconciliation. It would prevent the U.S.
from leaving a military occupation. It would challenge the enemies of the
U.S. and Israel with direct U.S. military projection of force throughout the
Middle East.
Presidents Obey the Military
Trump's fault, in the eyes of those who criticize his decision to withdraw
troops from Syria, is that he did not follow the advice of his military. The
notion that a president must follow military orders is entirely
undemocratic. But since Sept. 11, 2001, it has been established-especially
by Democrats-that the commander in chief should do just that.Thus, President
Barack Obama went against his own views and agreed to expand the U.S.
military presence in Afghanistan.
Due to its strong popular support, the U.S. military often operates outside
the reach of congressional supervision or public accountability. By
occasionally challenging the generals, as with this decision to withdraw
troops from Syria and Afghanistan, Trump has proven more politically
courageous than Obama, who was afraid to defy the brass. (While Obama
resisted his own foreign policy advisors' pressures to intervene more deeply
in Syria, the U.S. military at that time was less enthusiastic about
intervention.)
Israel was clearly unhappy with Trump's announcement of troop withdrawal
from Syria, although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was one of the few
world leaders briefed by Trump before announcing his decision. (Is there a
matter of any significance over which the U.S. president-whether Bush or
Obama or Trump-does not brief Netanyahu?)
Clinton: Promised Middle East hegemony. (Gage Skidmore on Flickr)
To satisfy Israel, the U.S. must deploy troops in all Arab countries and to
join Israel in its unending wars against the whole Arab world.
(Paradoxically, Israel is loathed by the Arab people while cruel Arab
despots in the Gulf-such as those leading Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE and
Qatar-race to establish relations with Israel and often try to ingratiate
themselves with the U.S. president and Congress.)
Israel, through its powerful lobby, has been agitating for the U.S. to wage
war on Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and the Palestinian territories. And Western
media-no matter how much Israel accumulates by way of its massive arsenal of
WMDs, and no matter how much Israeli gives itself the right to bomb at will
in Syria and Palestine-still treats Israel as a vulnerable entity in need of
permanent U.S. military protection.
All of this explains why Clinton is more popular than Trump. She had
promised more military hegemony in the Middle East. And she was just as
enthusiastic as Trump about propping up Middle East despots. For instance,
as secretary of state, Clinton supported Egyptian dictator Husni Mubarak at
all costs. When Mubarak fell she wanted the head of the secret police, Omar
Suleiman, to be his successor.
The underlying causes for U.S. withdrawals from Syria can't be known and
some wager it won't pan out. But it is unlikely that it's part of a large
geo-strategic scheme on Trump's part. Nor is the move likely to predict a
U.S. strike on Iran. After two years in office, Trump is showing more
self-confidence in his foreign policy decisions than when he started. It is
likely that he will follow his original isolationist instincts. Those
instincts are at odds with the bipartisan consensus in D.C., which has
heaped an avalanche of criticism upon one of the rare wise decisions of an
often rash president.
ISIS is indeed on the run, and it has lost the bulk of its territorial base.
It retains some fighters in its remnants in Eastern Syria, but its ability
to expand is drastically limited. The major enemies of ISIS-those who drove
ISIS from most of its territory-remain on the ground in Syria, Iraq and
Lebanon. While overlooked by Western reporters and columnists, they are
ready to go to war again to fight back an ISIS offensive.
As'ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at
California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the "Historical
Dictionary of Lebanon" (1998), "Bin Laden, Islam and America's New War on
Terrorism (2002), and "The Battle for Saudi Arabia" (2004). He tweets as
@asadabukhalil