Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
Sunnistan: future US strategy in Iraq
Material posted: Pankratenko Igor N.Publication date: 11-11-2014

Official US plan to combat "Islamic state" is approved and adopted. It remains only to understand how the publicly stated goals of Washington in the fight against terrorism relate to the real objectives of U.S. policy toward Iraq. The American propaganda machine once again proves its effectiveness. US actions in Iraq are considered today by most browsers, exclusively in the context of the fight against "Islamic state", although the more — the more obvious that the goal pursued by Washington and glubinnoe much bigger than the defeat of the jihadists, nothing serious in the military-political plan of itself is not.

Externally, the plan of the military campaign the U.S. and its allies seems quite logical. According to "new York times", it consists of three stages: the first air strikes on the jihadists. The second is the participation of American troops in the "reform" of the Iraqi army, in the creation of the armed forces of Iraqi Kurdistan and in the formation of the militia of the local tribes, a kind of "second edition" strategy "awakening of Anbar" (the so-called Sunni triangle, located to the North and West of Baghdad), American forces carried out during the occupation of the country. And finally, the third stage, which involves active steps in Syria — the liberation from the control of Islamic state jihadists captured the districts of this country. Moreover, the official representatives of the White house hinted that the third stage is a long process, and the implementation of this part of the plan of the military campaign, possibly, will happen during a new American President.

For a nominal adoption of this plan, whose author is a former assistant to Obama and Deputy Advisor to the President for national security Anthony Lloyd, the current occupant of the White house had to "break me" by the Pentagon, whose leadership has proposed a completely different solution to the problem of the "Islamic state".

The U.S. Central command insisted on intensive military strikes and subsequent ground operation, during which 12-15 thousand American troops backed by local militia and U.S. allies in the antiterrorist coalition in a month carried out a "sweep" of strategically important objects and inhabited localities from militants of the "Islamic state". The desire to delay operation against the jihadists, US defense Secretary Chuck Hagel a memo from the Obama called "a gross mistake and thrust of the presidential adviser on national security Susan rice to undue political combinations".

"The Pentagon's rebellion" was suppressed, at a cost even without the retirements. The military explained that the speedy defeat of the "Islamic state", which, incidentally, is a serious threat to U.S. interests in the middle East at the Washington offices is not considered may hinder the plans for "reformatting" of Iraq. But because military planning must adapt to the political planning and not Vice versa.

With this approach, the criticisms of the ineffectiveness of air strikes on positions "Islamic state" is really meaningless. The average number of aircraft attacks against jihadists in Iraq and Syria — about five a day. In 2003 during operations against Iraq, the rate was about 800 attacks per day in 2011 during operations against Libyan — 50 attacks. And while such low intensity, the U.S. military explained to "high performance", now right, as did ray Odierno, chief of staff of the U.S. army recognize that "the airstrikes give us more time for other tasks. They are not designed to solve problems with the "Islamic state", because it must deal with the ground forces".

To create these forces, in fact, need one and a half thousand American soldiers, about the direction in which Iraq announced recently Barack Obama. It is planned that the American contingent will deploy a training camp in Northern, Western and southern parts of the country, which will be intensive training of nine Iraqi army brigades, three brigades of the armed forces of Iraqi Kurdistan and a militia formed from the tribes of Sunni Arabs.

Everything seems to be going according to plan, but then again, according to plan "military" because "political" plan the US fight against "Islamic state" is associated only in that the anti-terrorist operation against the jihadists is a very convenient excuse for the partition of Iraq into three parts — an independent Kurdistan and two others — the Sunnis and the Shiites.

In his TV interview last weekend, Obama pointedly said that "the first stage of our policy in Iraq was to create a government of unity and trust, and we have achieved this". The U.S. and its regional allies, primarily Saudi Arabia, believed that former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki turns the country into a kind of "Iranian protectorate". To the fact it had no relationship but is the perfect excuse to now create in Iraq a new balance between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, which will be easier to divide the country into three parts, than to maintain a single state. Training camp that will be deployed by the Americans in the near future, is the development of full-fledged armed forces and independent Kurdistan, and "Sunnistan" that will be a decisive argument for the partition of Iraq.

The economic base for a Kurdish independence war with "Islamic state" not only hurt the income of the regional government in Erbil has increased, as announced recently by the Minister of natural resources Hawrami Asti, almost 60%. Mostly due to the fact that take advantage of the weakness of Baghdad, Kurds were able to establish control over the oil fields of Kirkuk and to ensure continuous sales through the Turkish Ceyhan pipeline. All appeals of Baghdad to the international community, the governments of the USA and Turkey that these sales are illegal, remain "a voice crying in the wilderness." Going to sound naive question about whether Erbil to regain Central government control over the fields and willing to share the sales revenue with the authorities in Baghdad after the end of the fight against "Islamic state".

Equally dramatic are the relations of Central government with the tribes in the "Sunni triangle". Tribal leaders accuse Baghdad right in the fact that the authorities do not provide them any support in the battle against the jihadists. Sheikh Naim al-Gaoud, the leader of the largest and most influential tribe in Alba Nimr, made accusations against the Shiite leaders of Iraq, claiming that they deliberately "set up" the tribes under attack by jihadists, detaining arms and refuse to equip four thousand men, which the tribes sent to training camps near Mosul and Irbil. "Taking the offensive "Islamic state" Shiite Baghdad intends to weaken the Iraqi Sunnis that it has no obstacles to establish their dominance on our lands," said al-Gaoud. And his words reflect the true attitude of Sunnis to what is happening in Iraq, the tribes sincerely believe that it is they who bear the brunt of the fight against "Islamic state", and therefore now insists on the political and economic "compensation" for their efforts.

A major problem of the future "Sunnistan" is that the creation of a centralized authority in the tribal areas — it is very time-consuming and more likely to fail. How will this be addressed? Paradoxically, here the Washington strategists rely on the "Islamic state". After suffering a series of military defeats, "builders of the Caliphate" suddenly now engaged in administrative reform on the controlled territories. Strengthened local governments, and is widely used the experience of the Afghan Mujahideen of the 80s, who created an effective "shadow government", the official alternative to the Kabul. Establishing mechanisms for social support, taxation, created the administrative apparatus. In fact, a system, which by and large do not care who's in charge today in the capitals, but which effectively regulates everyday life on the ground. Leave the "Islamic state" — the system will continue its work under a new flag.

After all, "ideology" in the East — thing is as thin as the East. Just look plexus of relationships and the persons involved in the middle East combinations of the U.S., as it becomes obvious that all these al-nusra, igili, Emirates and other "liberation army" — the leaders and commanders, the remaining overs of publicity, are almost the same. the only difference is the flag, and is changed solely for tactical reasons: the day before yesterday they were talking about "an uncompromising struggle against the bloody dictator Assad", yesterday — about the liberation campaign against Shiite dominance in Iraq, today is waving the banner of the Caliphate, and threaten to destroy all infidels, if the U.S. and its allies will take control of a particular territory.

The U.S. strategy in Iraq is aimed at partition of the country, and two main points of this plan have already been implementing under the guise of fighting with "Islamic state". The next point in U.S. middle East policy — the "final solution of the Syrian issue". But this is a subject already other articles.

Igor Pankratenko, Eastern edition of IA REGNUM


RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security