Obama Entraps Coalition Partners in Operation Inherent Resolve

From de Veer Magazine
Jump to: navigation, search
ISIL in Raqqa, Syria, in June. Courtesy: The Telegraph

By Ann-Marie de Veer
Saturday 18 October 2014

On Thursday 28 August 2014, as the international border between Syria and Iraq continued to dissolve into a red mist of death and destruction at the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Barack Obama finally pronounced on the issue, saying:

We don't have a strategy yet.

This rather short but nonetheless accurate phrase was an Obama euphemism: we created this monster to subvert the Syrian government but lost control of them some time ago. Of course, they are not a serious threat to US interests in the region so we don't have, or need, a plan for them.

That Obama's non-plan plan was a ruse to recruit and entrap coalition partners in joining the fray is obvious. What is not so obvious is the mission creep that will ensue once the US mid-term elections are over in November.

Nonetheless, the irony of Obama's statement on the 28 August was crystal clear, over a hundred airstrikes had already taken place in Iraq against the insurgents by then and yet the assembled media in the White House remained mute. In truth, his words were simply political fodder for an obsequious press because the issue had since gained a new urgency following the beheadings of western journalists: Obama could no longer do, or say, nothing.

Thus, as expected, his non-plan plan worked and a multi-national coalition began to assemble followed by others desperate to burnish their subservient and sycophantic credentials to the US regime.

Then, on the 3 September 2014, just before a NATO summit was held in Newport, UK, Obama vowed to:

Degrade and destroy (ISIL).

But refrained from giving any details exactly how this was going to be done.

As we soon discovered, a counter-insurgency coalition was quickly assembled and immediately began surveilling the area to gain a strategic awareness of its theatre of operations. Subsequently, hundreds of missiles and bombs have since rained down upon the ISIL insurgents to no avail and the world has started to question the efficacy of the US regimes non-plan plan: not least because the insurgents continue to gain ground in Anbar Province in western Iraq and now threaten the western suburbs of the capital, Baghdad. If ever there was a plan to counter the insurgency it has singularly failed thus far: but then that is exactly what the US has been hoping for.

The truth is: there was no plan and never has been a plan to counter ISIL.

That this is self-evident becomes obvious when, on the 14 October 2014, in a meeting of the Chiefs of Defense Staff in Washington, US, Obama was adamant that he was not going to let truth get in the way of an opportunity, when he repeated once again, the plan is:

To degrade and to ultimately destroy ISIL.

Which was simply a reiteration of his earlier euphemism: ISIL are not a serious threat to US interests in the region so we don't have, or need, a plan for them, yet.

That is, after over two months of counter-insurgency operations and very little to show for it, except for the wholesale destruction of Iraqi civil society and its descent into anarchy, there would be no change in the coalitions approach, let alone the formulation of a coherent plan. The fact that ISIL's success has helped the US regime to recruit more than sixty contributors and participants to the counter-insurgency coalition, far more than they had anticipated, has been a welcome bonus. Clearly this is sufficient evidence, if any were needed, that the US regime are running a far more nuanced campaign than a first reading of events would portray.

OK, so there is no plan for ISIL but what is the US regimes strategy?

Political Expediency

First and foremost is the US mid-term elections that are due in November: political expediency dictates that an announcement, or knowledge of, US military strategy in the middle-east would sound the death knell on the political aspirations of the Democrats hoping to retain or gain seats in Congress.

Retention and Expansion of Regional Interests

Second are its objective to regain control of, and expand, its geo-political and economic empire in the region: ISIL has taken control of oil fields in northern Iraq and eastern Syria, and although some of them have been rendered inoperable by targeted airstrikes, their lack of production is a loss of revenue for the US regime.

Syrian Coup d'état

As soon as the mid-term elections in the US are over, the Obama regime will be able start their policy of mission creep in Syria: the al-Assad government, an ally of Russia, will be accused, and evidence manufactured, of crimes that will justify the US, and its coalition partners, in carrying out a coup d'état in Syria.

Iranian Coup d'état

Once the Syrian government has been deposed the focus will shift to Iran who are also an ally of Russia: the US regime have long coveted the notion of carrying out another coup d'état in Iran in retribution for the 1979-81 hostage crisis. Subsequently, Iranian acquisition of nuclear technology, although a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, has irked the US who feel that the Iranians would dupe them like the Israeli's duped the US in the 1970's.

Long Term Regional Objectives

The US regimes long term objectives are to reduce the influence of the the Russians and the Chinese who have a wide range of interests in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Maldives, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan. The so-called pivot to Asia is, and always has been, rhetoric for public consumption given that the US has achieved containment of China by proxy and no longer needs to deploy significant military assets to the region.

In other words, we, the US, have carefully assembled this coalition on the pretext of mounting a counter-insurgency campaign against ISIL. However, we are not at all concerned about the ISIL threat as we can quickly deal with them when we have to. We are more interested in building a coalition who can, via mission creep, be easily manipulated into protecting our interests in the region and support our strategic objectives of subverting both the al-Assad government in Syria followed by the Rouhani government in Iran. Once these missions are complete we will then move on to the Russian and Chinese interests in Asia.

Vassal states of a crumbling Empire should be wary lest they find themselves buried in its rubble.
Ann-Marie de Veer