Analysis: Mideast chaos, violence won't end with IS defeat

[webfact]

Analysis: Mideast chaos, violence won't end with IS defeat
By STEVEN R. HURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chaos and violence gripping the Middle East are not likely to evaporate even if the forces arrayed against the Islamic State group manage to crush the brutal army and its drive to establish an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria and beyond.

Why?

The national structures and boundaries created by European colonial powers after the Ottoman Empire was dismantled at the end of World War I are collapsing or already have disintegrated. That has unleashed powerful centrifugal forces that are melting the glue that was holding together increasingly antagonistic religious and ethnic populations.

The mix of Muslims — Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites — Christians and the big ethnic Kurdish populations in the north of both Syria and Iraq are a stew of ancient discontent, sectarian frustration and flagrant injustice.

Those social explosives were detonated by the upheaval unleashed by the U.S. war in Iraq and the civil war in Syria.

"The level of damage that has been done by the United States in Iraq and the civil war in Syria is probably irreparable," said Wayne Merry, senior associate at the American Foreign Policy Council.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his fellow Sunni Muslims — a minority in that country — ruled brutally over the majority Shiite Muslims. The United States removed Saddam and eradicated his Baath Party structures, most famously the army. Washington then oversaw the establishment of a new government that is fundamentally controlled by the Shiites. That new structure subsequently disregarded the needs and rights of the Sunnis.

While the U.S. military still controlled the country, radical Sunnis came together under the banner of al-Qaida in Iraq in a force arrayed against American forces, moderate Sunnis and the Shiites majority. Shiite militias formed to attack from the other side and a civil war erupted. That was only tamped down when Washington instituted the surge of more troops and began paying Sunni tribal leaders and their fighters to turn their guns on fellow Sunnis in al-Qaida.

With the departure of U.S. forces in 2011, al-Qaida regrouped in the Sunni regions of Iraq and became the Islamic State group, the extremist organization that spread as well into the void created in neighboring Syria by the civil war there, now in its fifth year. Estimates have put IS control of territory as high as one third of both countries. Particularly important is the terror organization's control over the cities like Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

For months, the United States has bombed IS positions with some success and now France and Russia have joined that effort. Russia turned its attention to IS after a bomb, claimed by the Islamic State group, brought down a Russian airliner over Egypt. The French reacted after the IS attacks in Paris.

Military and intelligence experts had said, before the airliner bombing, that Russia had primarily targeted opponents of Syrian leader Bashar Assad who are not allied with IS but deeply involved in the civil war, fighting to overthrow Assad. The Obama administration insists Assad must be removed. Russia and Iran say he must be part of a political solution, at least temporarily. Regional powers Saudi Arabia and Turkey want him gone.

Many analysts saw Russian involvement in Syria as an attempt to save the Assad regime. Syria was a last outpost of Russian influence in the Middle East, home to Russia's only Mediterranean port and a big customer for Russian weapons.

The appeal of IS in Syria grows from the same root as it does in Iraq. And that is the sense of Sunni disenfranchisement. In Syria, unlike Iraq, it is longstanding. Assad is an Alawite Muslim, a subset of Shiism. He and his father before him ruled brutally over the Sunni majority in Syria, much as Saddam killed and brutalized the Shiite majority in Iraq.

And none of that deals with the complication added to the chaos in both countries by the ethnic Kurdish drive for a homeland. The Kurds have big populations in northern Iraq, Syria and Iran. And they have periodically been at war with Turkey, where they live in huge numbers in the southeast of that country. The Kurds have been the strongest American partners in the fight against IS, battling — often with significant success — as a U.S.-allied ground force against IS.

They also have created a virtually autonomous, self-governed region in Iraq and control significant Iraqi oil reserves. U.S. backing for the Kurds puts the United States at odds both with NATO ally Turkey, which is also an enemy of Assad in Syria and the Shiite-dominated U.S.-backed Iraqi government in Baghdad.

Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that a military victory over IS will not end the chaos in the Middle East unless the United States, other countries in the region, Russia, Europe and Iran join together to create a "platform of political stability."

But how can such a platform be created in a region that has been unable to overcome a 1,300-year schism in Islam, the Kurdish drive to create a country that the ethnic group has never had and the attendant complications mixed in by a plethora of other religious and ethnic minorities. The defeat of IS, if it happens, will not solve those deep and underlying divisions.

A final political solution likely will require the resettlement of large populations driven from their home territories by the Iraq war, the Syrian civil conflict and the expansion of IS. It will require compromises that haven't been made for centuries. It is a huge mission that will take a long time to accomplish — if it ever can be.
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Steven R. Hurst is AP international political writer, was Baghdad bureau chief during the U.S. occupation and has covered foreign affairs for 35 years.

An AP News Analysis


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-24

[ezzra]

Three countries, Iran, Qatar and the Saudis, these are the main trouble makers and the shit stirrers

of the Middle east, each with it's won agenda, and each are allowed to do what they do with impunity and

apathy from the major players of the world, reasons being Oil and other business opportunities with

the Muslim/Arab world, US air force and army bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as Russia

doing the same in their efforts to keep their naval and air force bases in Syria, the vision of Obama

seeing Iran as a major player in the region and the nuclear agreements, and a long laundry list

why the world is sick and tried and at a loss as what to do with the middle east...

Edited November 23, 2015 by ezzra

[daoyai]

When humanism, atheism replaces tribalism and religion there will be peace, until then forget it.

[Jingthing]

When humanism, atheism replaces tribalism and religion there will be peace, until then forget it.

So basically ... forget it.

[jaidam]

The middle-east thrives on violence and chaos. Always has, always will. It's just the way they like to live out there, it's encouraged by their leaders, and glorified in their "handbook". One of the main reasons why they should remain in their own countries, and let the civilized (ie atheist) world get on with their task of peacefully working for the man.

[craigt3365]

Pretty good analysis. No single catalyst, but many. With religion being the #1.

[jacky54]

Good job they have the religion of peace, that's sure to be a unifer

[does]

Repeat after me: I am not a bigot. I will study history. I will stop deluding myself and insult others.

On the second point, you could start with All Roads Lead to Tehran. It's only about 2000 words.

The middle-east thrives on violence and chaos. Always has, always will. It's just the way they like to live out there, it's encouraged by their leaders, and glorified in their "handbook". One of the main reasons why they should remain in their own countries, and let the civilized (ie atheist) world get on with their task of peacefully working for the man.

Edited November 24, 2015 by does

[sanukjim]

Three countries, Iran, Qatar and the Saudis, these are the main trouble makers and the shit stirrers

of the Middle east, each with it's won agenda, and each are allowed to do what they do with impunity and

apathy from the major players of the world, reasons being Oil and other business opportunities with

the Muslim/Arab world, US air force and army bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as Russia

doing the same in their efforts to keep their naval and air force bases in Syria, the vision of Obama

seeing Iran as a major player in the region and the nuclear agreements, and a long laundry list

why the world is sick and tried and at a loss as what to do with the middle east...

Then go by The US Special Forces Motto in Vietnam " Kill Em All ,Let, God Sort Em Out.

[Berkshire]

Western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. Too late for that now as the US-led Iraq war decimated any possibility of peace (I'm American, by the way). So what to do now? Well, western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. But we never freakin learn.

[craigt3365]

Western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. Too late for that now as the US-led Iraq war decimated any possibility of peace (I'm American, by the way). So what to do now? Well, western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. But we never freakin learn.

I think there are some from Kuwait who were happy the West helped out.

[Berkshire]

Western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. Too late for that now as the US-led Iraq war decimated any possibility of peace (I'm American, by the way). So what to do now? Well, western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. But we never freakin learn.

I think there are some from Kuwait who were happy the West helped out.

Yes, but no one remembers that now. The US is practically required to be involved because of our relationship with Israel and the Saudis. But in a perfect world, the US would just let all these different factions sort it out on their own. Because the side that we take today will be our enemies tomorrow.

[dexterm]

The Middle East is a mess, because we in the West made it that way over the last 100 years, for our own self interest forcing artificial borders on different peoples and religions then foisting corrupt governments and dictators on them to suit our needs.

I suppose the chickens are coming home to roost now. I do not support the barbaric terrorist ISIS, and I hope the murderers of inncoents get their just deserts. But when (if?) the dusts settles perhaps we should treat the peoples of the Mddle East more fairly.

"There should be justice not just for ourselves or our enemies, but for the peoples of the Middle East who have suffered this past century from the theatre of dictatorships and cardboard institutions we created for them – and which have helped Isis to thrive"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-a-borderless-world-the-days-when-we-could-fight-foreign-wars-and-be-safe-at-home-may-be-long-a6741146.html

An extremely interesting article on the same subject as the OP

Edited November 24, 2015 by dexterm

[Wombat6]

I just hope at the end of destroying isis, any of the Jihadists that survived should be charged with war crimes and legally be sentenced to death by firing squad or hanged. radicals won't change

[NOWHERE]

Repeat after me: I am not a bigot. I will study history. I will stop deluding myself and insult others.

On the second point, you could start with All Roads Lead to Tehran. It's only about 2000 words.

The middle-east thrives on violence and chaos. Always has, always will. It's just the way they like to live out there, it's encouraged by their leaders, and glorified in their "handbook". One of the main reasons why they should remain in their own countries, and let the civilized (ie atheist) world get on with their task of peacefully working for the man.

Right or wrong, the above article is worth the read.

Thanks.

[Berkshire]

Repeat after me: I am not a bigot. I will study history. I will stop deluding myself and insult others.

On the second point, you could start with All Roads Lead to Tehran. It's only about 2000 words.

The middle-east thrives on violence and chaos. Always has, always will. It's just the way they like to live out there, it's encouraged by their leaders, and glorified in their "handbook". One of the main reasons why they should remain in their own countries, and let the civilized (ie atheist) world get on with their task of peacefully working for the man.

Interesting article. If historically correct, it basically lays a good deal of blame (i.e., the creation of radical Islam) on the Brits. Hmmmm.

[samuibeachcomber]

I just hope at the end of destroying isis, any of the Jihadists that survived should be charged with war crimes and legally be sentenced to death by firing squad or hanged. radicals won't change

there wont be that luxury...they will blow themselves up.Even if the west says"IS" are defeated,i believe they will morph into something else,and fix their attention on the 7 "stans" in S/E russia and onto western china(urghars),where finally they will meet their match.

[Krataiboy]

This is a David and Goliath struggle which has gone on far too long. ISIL could be taken out pretty quickly - probably within weeks - if the US and its partners, who obviously have the means, only had the will.

The first step should be to close the 60 mile wide corridor used by the jihadists for fleets of oil tankers supplying them from Turkey. The second essential is for the allies to join the Russians in a sustained bombing campaign - as opposed to the mainly cosmetic efforts permitted by Pentagon hawks anxious to keep their latest, head-lopping Frankenstein on a string, rather than a leash, at any price

Russia's President Putin needs to persuade the dithering Democrat in the White House that, despite all advice to the contrary, it would be folly to remove President Assad - authoritarian and ruthless butcher though he undoubtedly is - without having a coherent long-term plan to fill the resultant power vacuum (If Bush and Blair had devised one before toppling Saddam Hussein we would not be where we are today).

If ISIL can be halted in its bloody tracks and the Syrian protagonists persuaded to at least temporarily forsake the battlefield for the negotiating table, the flood of refugees across the Mediterranean will automatically dry up as the immediate threat to life and limb is suspended.

This will provide a much-needed breathing space for Eurozone nations hit hardest by the Middle East exodus to counter the threat to their political stability from resurgent nationalists and right wingers, while at the same time helping to heal divisions which have opened up between some governments with large and increasingly vulnerable and paranoid Muslim immigrant populations.

It is make-up-your-mind time for the allies. One big swing of the sword to fell the deranged upstart David we call ISIL . . or a Middle East in constant turmoil, with increased terrorist activity in Europe and the possible breakup of the EU?

No contest, you might think - until you remember what happened, as he dithered, to the original Goliath.

[Credo]

One of the logical solutions is to give the Kurds a large swath of their traditional homeland in Turkey and give them independence. Although the Kurdish factions are prone to fighting, they have in the past demonstrated a willingness and the ability to self-govern.

Of course that solution, like almost all solutions can't be implemented because Iran, Turkey, Iraq and what is left of Syria will be howling like mad dogs at the moon.

The chaos in the ME cannot be stopped and ISIS an army and it is also an ideology. What needs to be done is to at least get some areas of stability in the region.

[ravip]

Western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. Too late for that now as the US-led Iraq war decimated any possibility of peace (I'm American, by the way). So what to do now? Well, western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. But we never freakin learn.

And how would this effect the current scenario? >>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-%E2%80%98if-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-work-they-deserve-it-anyway%E2%80%99/ar-BBnnbDV?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=mailsignoutmd

[Berkshire]

Western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. Too late for that now as the US-led Iraq war decimated any possibility of peace (I'm American, by the way). So what to do now? Well, western powers should simply just stay out of the Middle East. But we never freakin learn.

And how would this effect the current scenario? >>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-%E2%80%98if-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-work-they-deserve-it-anyway%E2%80%99/ar-BBnnbDV?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=mailsignoutmd

Trump is a nutbag. I'm not sure if anyone outside the US is listening to him. But if they are, it can't be good for American reputation overseas.

[eldragon]

This is a David and Goliath struggle which has gone on far too long. ISIL could be taken out pretty quickly - probably within weeks - if the US and its partners, who obviously have the means, only had the will.

The first step should be to close the 60 mile wide corridor used by the jihadists for fleets of oil tankers supplying them from Turkey. The second essential is for the allies to join the Russians in a sustained bombing campaign - as opposed to the mainly cosmetic efforts permitted by Pentagon hawks anxious to keep their latest, head-lopping Frankenstein on a string, rather than a leash, at any price

Russia's President Putin needs to persuade the dithering Democrat in the White House that, despite all advice to the contrary, it would be folly to remove President Assad - authoritarian and ruthless butcher though he undoubtedly is - without having a coherent long-term plan to fill the resultant power vacuum (If Bush and Blair had devised one before toppling Saddam Hussein we would not be where we are today).

If ISIL can be halted in its bloody tracks and the Syrian protagonists persuaded to at least temporarily forsake the battlefield for the negotiating table, the flood of refugees across the Mediterranean will automatically dry up as the immediate threat to life and limb is suspended.

This will provide a much-needed breathing space for Eurozone nations hit hardest by the Middle East exodus to counter the threat to their political stability from resurgent nationalists and right wingers, while at the same time helping to heal divisions which have opened up between some governments with large and increasingly vulnerable and paranoid Muslim immigrant populations.

It is make-up-your-mind time for the allies. One big swing of the sword to fell the deranged upstart David we call ISIL . . or a Middle East in constant turmoil, with increased terrorist activity in Europe and the possible breakup of the EU?

No contest, you might think - until you remember what happened, as he dithered, to the original Goliath.

Great analysis, mate. To me, the key question is "How do we make Islamic fundamentalist stop killing what they see as infidels?" B/c if it's not IS, it's gonna be some other group over there, not to mention all the nutjobs who have apparently infected every nation on Earth.

[arjunadawn]

Repeat after me: I am not a bigot. I will study history. I will stop deluding myself and insult others.

On the second point, you could start with All Roads Lead to Tehran. It's only about 2000 words.

The middle-east thrives on violence and chaos. Always has, always will. It's just the way they like to live out there, it's encouraged by their leaders, and glorified in their "handbook". One of the main reasons why they should remain in their own countries, and let the civilized (ie atheist) world get on with their task of peacefully working for the man.

Right or wrong, the above article is worth the read.

Thanks.

Wrong! And the article is not worth the read. I labored to read and reread because I slowly realized this was not a new perspective on common history, this was total nonsense. Not much of what this guy says other than historic threads have any relation to reality. So why is it not worth the read?

Only a ridiculous conclusion can be reached from retarded premise. Only in a very selective, isolated, and historically narrow world can it be said radical islam began in 1979. "All Roads Lead to Tehran" makes a good punchline for a virtually plagiarized byline- "Which Path to Persia" (Brookings Inst.), but it is only true for the narrow bandwidth the author seeks to tease. If bastardizing the NeoCon playbook "Which Path to Persia" is the aim, he should have cited this. He is, in essence, attempting to do this but is singularly unarmed in his task.

This essay is actually sophomoric, high school level work. The author does not even seem to realize Iran and Tehran are not different places; this could hardly be a typo because less than a 1/2 dozen of counties or capitals are mentioned. After meandering through a history lesson on Western meddling since Reza Phalavi (correctly) the author then concludes the capstone of this meddling was the Iranian Revolution of 79 (also, partly correct), but then builds upon this causation all the subsequent sunni islamic jihad. "Then came the Iranian Revolution. Bottle-up resentment against the Shah and his Western sponsors sparked an Islamic fire that would ignite the region. The Western world was rattled by a new phenomenon: Islamic fundamentalism, Holy War and suicide bombers, culminating in 9/11."

Shia/Iran had nothing to do with the subsequent acts; sunni developments in large part had different precursors but a shared time-frame only. The collapse of the bipolar world and the rise of the information age are the common threads, not the shia motivating the sunni. Contemporary Persian history did not create AQ. One more example, and that's enough legitimacy loaned to this rubbish of an essay. If an article like this is the centerpiece of any deliberative response or analysis than the reader is more confused than the author. The following is only one sentence away from the above quote- one sentence!

"The turning point came in 2013, with the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi, the first democratically elected openly Islamist leader in the Middle East. The overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh had marked the beginning of the misguided Western policy in the Middle East, the overthrow of Morsi marked the beginning of the end. The Egyptian coup, probably planned when Morsi visited Iran after a trip to China, [1] met no resistance from Western governments."

Ah hem (clear throat)- the West backed Morisi, the radical islamist Muslim Brotherhood actor. In fact, more Egyptians turned out to depose him than turned out to oppose Mubarak, hardly a coup; more a revolution. The author clearly suggests Morisi was deposed by Obama, but quotes Blair to prove his point- Blair. In fact, Obama seriously leveraged upon al sissi by threatening to withhold billions but GCC steped in ASAP and promised Cairo billions outright to unseat Morisi and stay true to outlawing the MB; the GCC anticipated Obama's unwaivering support and pressed upon al Sissi not to waiver, and to continue outlawing the MB. Obama aid and abetted the MB (and bankrolled them) and fought tooth and nail not to lose Morisi, their 'man in Cairo.'

In any event, instead of employing the worn and tired tactic of calling other people bigots, perhaps you should check the western self loathing and do so real homework. You could possibly be correct in your assessment; I dont think you are. But the ignoramus who wrote the link provided does not make any case at all to support you. He has some historical facts correct but a monkey could pull those off a shelf and if given enough time organize them. It requires actual knowledge to weave meaning from facts, the author does not do this.

Iran is not the birthplace of radical islam; Mecca is. What a ridiculous comment. Its totally divorced from reality. Jihad might have an immediate instigation in Sykes-Picot but the real reason this region will have violence is the underlying tribal and religious and in the scriptures arab supremacism and faith are married. These overlapping layers of injunction to violence both mutually nourish the other in a uniquely self perpetuating cycle of violence. It has always been this way here. One must exit from a cave to declare with confidence regional violence here is from "Tehran" alone or better and newer still, "Climate Change," or the "Iraq War." Nonsense.