While US officials are taking the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a major victory, analysts are saying it is unlikely that this will spell anything like the end to the ISIS organization, or its insurgency.
It is not immediately apparent who Baghdadi’s successor would be, as
little is known publicly about the inner workings of ISIS. His death
clearly means a leadership reshuffle, however, and for such groups in
the past, that has often meant worsening insurgencies as new leaders try
to put their stamp on the organization.
Indeed, with ISIS barely existing in Iraq or Syria anymore, it is
possible that ISIS leadership might come from a different region. ISIS
has active affiliates across Asia and Africa and becoming the new hub
for the group might give those groups a major shot in the arm.
Ultimately, some are seeing ISIS as potentially reinvigorated by
Baghdadi’s death, and even if that doesn’t happen, the individual
affiliates are likely to keep plugging away no matter who is in charge.
Nothing much changes when USA changes Presidents. Why would ISIS be any different?
Because ISIS does not exist any more. There are no mysterious empty places in Iraq or Syria that could hide ISIS soldiers, arms, vehicles — and unless a country is sponsoring ISIS telecom, they would not have any.
Just because there may be someone planning a terrorist act in their basemen — does not justify open-ended US presence in Iraq, and even less in Syria where US came uninvited.
And by the way — empty Rukban camp, or allow international presence to assess the conditions.
Actually, it’s next to impossible to get rid of a terrorist group once it reaches a certain size – and ISIS was quite large. Al Qaeda is still around despite being kicked out of Afghanistan.
What happens is that their influence and ability to carry out large scale operations wanes. But individuals and small groups will continue for the next twenty years.
But then terrorist groups are generally incapable of actually causing the change they want in the first place. So it doesn’t matter whether they existed in the first place. They are almost never an existential threat to a state or to a state’s citizens.
Unless, of course, they are supported by a state directly – such as the Gladio operations of the US in Europe or Israeli operations in the Middle East – not to mention the Syrian insurgency (supported by the US, the EU, Israel and Turkey) or the Ukraine insurgency (supported by Russia.)
9/11 isn’t even the exception. That was one relatively unimportant – if spectacular – attack which was mostly allowed to happen by the US – the “Pearl Harbor” the PNAC documents wanted – to justify its current twenty-year rage across the world. With a little more effort by the FBI – assuming that was desired – that attack could have been prevented.
Compared to state terrorism, “international terror” is mostly a joke.
Agreed. Any militancy on a territory of a sovereign state is ALWAYS state sponsored.
Kurds in Turkey do not have a capacity to produce weapons, yet always are armed and equipped, from military grade vehicles to telecommunications. They can always pay soldiers’ salaries.
ISIS has spread fast in Iraq because Iraqi government had very poor intelligence, leading to ambush and encirclement of its soldiers, and gruesome executions, scaring local population so no resistance to their taking large cities was possible. In Syria it was even easier. Since 2011 US and Saudi Arabia have funded and armed many anti-Assad groups, mostly Islamists. ISIS entry in 2014 was seamless. They established their capital in Raqqa.
Then look up the career of one Mohammed Bin Nayef, a son of a prominent royal family, from his early exit from US college, through years of FBI schooling , followed by Scotland Yard schooling. Then a meteoric rise in career, from Assistant Deputy Minister for Interior (FBI + Homeland Security equivalent), Deputy Minister and them Minister. He was the architect — along with Western counterparts, of the plan for destroying Syria — he in fact was in charge of Syria policy. It culminated in launching ISIS — with the intent of establishing Sunni entity straddling Iraq and Syria — and using Kurds as liberators in marginal areas to establish their statehood demands. In June 2014 ISIS was launched, by fall fall Mosul and Kirkuk fell, followed by absorption of Islamic militants between Euphrates and Iraqi border, and taking of Raqqa.
But in spite of massive funding, the project started failing shortly after Russia entered Syria. The first major change was pushing ISIS back from penetrating Syrian territory. Major loss for ISIS was Palmira, followed by push back across Euphrates. US has already made clear that Russia and Syria were no allowed to pursue ISIS past Euphrates, as that was US area of fighting ISIS.
At that time, US was only reporting of killing ISIS leaders.
It was not until in 2016 Iraq, Iran and Russia established an intelligence sharing center in Baghdad. The explosions were rocking the capital, and US was urging Iraq to move on Mosul. That was the first time that Iraq refused US intelligence, and went on ISIS in Falujah. From that point on, Iraq forces and militias went After ISIS making fast progress. By 2016 US with has abandoned Peshmerga Kurds in favor of Iraq PKK. US thus put PKK in charge of Senjar and Kirkuk — alienating Peshmerga.
In Syria. US partnered with Syrian version of PKK, YPG. With Iraq moving on Mosul and liberating it on the ground by the end of 2016, ISIS only in Syria was not viable.
On the wings of ISIS success, Mohammed Bin Nayef becomes Crown Prince in April 2015. But by the end of 2016, project was in trouble. Trump’s ascent to power meant the end of American commitment to Sunni region, and Trump was already making it clear that he will fight ISIS. Saudi Arabia was left with bills, global condemnation of Wahhabism and possibly many ISIS fighters causing problem. This, and the success of Iraqi Army and militias, and success of Russian intervention — brought the end of Nayef’s rule in a palace coup in June 2017, and appointment of MBS. This marked the end of ISIS support and the dnd of any other Sunni Islamist group support in Syria or Iraq.
Now, with the exception of Al-Nusra that initially called itself Al-Qaeda — there are no Islamic militants left in Syria nor Iraq.
As for Al-Qaeda that changed name three times — it is a Western sponsored outfit along with White Helmets. There are groups associated with HTS — but they would rather leave for Turkey patronage.
This is still STATE sponsored — US and UK taxpayers.
At present — it is on back burner.
By the end of this month thirty something anti-ISIS coalition is meeting. To do what? To resurrect phony ISIS just as they toyed with Al-Qaeda ling past its expiration game. Only this time— there will be no underwriters in Gulf. US has been pushing Iran confrontation — while it still wants to maintain Iraq-Syria ISIS tale.
It all costs money.
Squeezing Gulf will not work again.
Indeed. Good points all.
“Kennedy’s death unlikely to end US insurgency”
Sometimes I feel like Alice in Bizarre Land.
What ISIS? Where is it — name ONE location, one village in Syria and Iraq that is hosing at present ISIS forces? Is ISIS any more real? Once it had multiple states’ support, providing them with weapons, vehicles, salaries for soldiers, housing for families,food, medical facilities, administrative support, computers, satellite telecommunications. It had support of religious establishment that provided their local religious leaders that distributed regular charities and ran what schooling they had.
Where is this all now. Point the place where any of this — even small cells — is located. There are no empty paces in Iraq or Syria — and somebody will know of the existence of some militants in their world.
The whole drama of killing the leader has ONE purpose. To resuscitate now entirely fictional ISIS. If there is any ISIS left it would be in the super secretive refugee camp under US control in Al-Tanf. Rukban camp is guarded by approximately 300 militants WE PAY called Revolutionary Commando Army. Inside camp are the most wretched refugees that are NKT allowed to leave — even though escapes have begged US government, Syrian and Russian Governments for help to get their families out. Why the secrecy and why no access is allowed? Because according to those that escaped ISIS fighters that left Raqqa are there.
Besides ISIS under our skirts — no other area controlled by Syria, Iraq or Turkey has any ISIS forces.
For there to be ISIS — it will have to have a state support, and the necessary infrastructure for fighting and communications. Somebody must pay soldiers. Some terrorists plotting attacks in somebody’s basement, or a barn — does not necessitate US posturing of such proportions.
All this is about rationale for staying in Syria and Iraq, and preventing economic development of the region — by creating an excuse of perennial warfare, blocking infrastructure development between Europe, Turkey, Levant, Iraq and Gulf nations on Indian Ocean, and Iraq link to Iran, Central Asia, and Russia on one side — with China on another.
Blocking others is an old fashioned way of imperial control. Today, there are infinitely more ways for the globe to interconnect — then there are resources necessary for blocking.
This strategy will make us poor. Others will be slowed down, but with solidarity already arising among them, it will over time become a powerful network of resources. Solidarity and mutual help over time rebuild cultural ties that existed in the old world, before industrial revolution and shipping reoriented directions of global trade. There are always unintended consequences.
ISIS = Israeli Secret Intelligence Services.
At least, the USA tried to confirm Baghdadi’s death by DNA evidence (via his underpants) before dumping his body at sea. In the much more mysterious killing of an old guy in Pakistan (purported to be Osama Bin Laden -also immediately dumped at sea- we had only the word of top officials – I guess OBL didn’t wear underwear.
They only killed this guy three times now right ?
We know that generally after the leader is killed the more ambitious number 2 ramps stuff up to establish his bona-fides. The headline should read Bagdaddies death likely to increase violence.
Duh.