Even the mainstream press is acknowledging the fact that the
US is in a functional alliance with Al Qaeda. To qualify, I am not suggesting
that there's some kind of coordinated effort or that US agents are giving
direct orders to AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) commanders. For years
there have been some who have argued for this kind of direct relationship but I
don't believe there's much evidence to support it.
The relationship is one of practicality and it ebbs and
flows. At this point it is largely a proxy relationship filtered through Saudi
and Emirati (UAE) intermediaries who are paying off AQAP to retreat in some
cases and yet in other cases they are effectively letting them escape so that
they can fight another day. This suggests a degree of tactical coordination. To
call AQAP and the US 'friends' would be misleading. Under this arrangement the
US can attempt to maintain a posture of plausible deniability because their
contacts are indirect and yet as time goes on the nature of US involvement in
the Yemeni War is becoming painfully clear. The US is involved in every aspect
of it, intelligence, logistics, targeting and as was revealed earlier this
year, US Special Forces have been involved on the ground since at least 2017.
The War on Terror has never been a war on terrorism. This was
the pretense for a domestic and global agenda in which the United States would
seek to cement global unipolarity and establish a framework for controlling the
increasingly unwieldy domestic population in the face of economic and social
stress. The precursors to Al Qaeda had been US allies in the 1980's and even
into the 1990's. Then it became the convenient enemy for the better part of a
decade but over the past 5-6 years the global situation has changed and
increasingly in places like Syria and Yemen the many jihadists groups operating
under the banner of Al Qaeda are becoming functional and practical allies. They
are miles apart ideologically and antagonists in many ways and yet common
enemies and common short term goals have forged a functional alliance. The same
has been true with regard to ISIS in Syria and it's clear the US-Iraqi alliance
allowed ISIS fighters to escape from Mosul (back into Syria) just as later many
were allowed to escape Raqqa and have either been re-branded as elements of the
Free (or New) Syrian Army or have dispersed. Many seem to have headed either
toward Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia or other parts of the Middle East.
Once again in places like Chechnya, the jihadists share a
common cause with US interests. There's a mutual hatred of Ramzan Kadyrov and
striking him is a way to wound Putin as well. However this situation has been
complicated by the rapidly deteriorating situation with Turkey. Ankara long
facilitated US/NATO projects in the Caucasus region, including providing
logistics and shelter for Chechen fighters. This situation seems likely to
change.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban is presently surging, scoring
victories against both the Kabul government and ISIS fighters. They are trying
to strengthen their hand as they negotiate with Washington and the country
prepares for elections in the fall. Though it shouldn't seem particularly
strange many have been baffled by Kabul's seeming accommodation of ISIS
fighters and a willingness to help them escape annihilation at the hands of the
Taliban. Even the New York Times picked up the story.
How do we make sense of this? Why is the US-allied Kabul
government working with or at least facilitating ISIS? This could be a
coordinated effort on the part of Washington, akin to what has happened in
Syria and Yemen. Or, it could be a case of Kabul realising they're about to get
stabbed in the back by Washington and they're taking measures to strengthen
their hand against the Taliban, using demons to fight the devil as it were.
Or, ISIS operations in Afghanistan are part of a larger
build-up in preparation for a 'spillover' into Central Asia where ISIS will
wreak havoc on Russian and Chinese interests and through the Uyghurs will spill
over into Xinjiang. There are some in Washington who would not be displeased to
witness such a development. It certainly fits within a grand strategy that has
been in place for more than twenty years. There are already numerous Uyghurs
who have joined ISIS and are engaged abroad in terrorist attacks. It's only a
matter of time before ISIS starts to operate in Xinjiang itself, indeed it
already may be happening. China is leery of this and has initiated a massive
crackdown on the region, putting tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands into
what are effectively concentration camps. The region has already been affected
by Islamic terrorism and Uyghur militants have already been active in Syria as
well as Central and Southeast Asia.
Early forms of Al Qaeda (such as the MAK) were once American
allies until they became enemies. The relationship continually changes and
erstwhile enemies can form practical alliances for a season. ISIS, once
facilitated by the West in its war against Assad became an enemy and as the
situation changes, some elements within the larger umbrella can become useful.
The changing situation means these relationships will change
once more and then probably change again. ISIS can potentially destabilise
Central Asia and then the US can forge relationships with the governments of
those countries and subsequently wage war against ISIS. In the meantime the
interests of China and Russia will suffer... which really has been the larger
goal all along.
See also:
The US has had a track record with becoming an engine for theo-/politico-ideological consensus building. You see this phenomenon in relationships with Roman Catholicism, Gulen-style Sufi-esque pan-Turkism, forms of revivalist evangelicalism and, I'd say, Salafist, or just politicitized conservative Sunni Islam. I don't know if there was ever a self-conscious effort to intentionally wield these under the aegis of a strategy, but its clear that utilizing an ideology as an organizing tool can help wield peoples and organizations without direct supervision. Thus, control the Vatican and you can steer Roman Catholic political theology, or partner with the CIA creature Gulen, and you can mobilize Turkic Muslims.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to explain to someone the other day that overlordship does not usually come through direct control and rigid hierarchy, especially in the modern period. Managed chaos can be just as effective, if not even more so because it shrouds what is actually happening. So whereas the US is not necessarily directly ordering this or that, it has infected a command structure, perhaps even helping to build and sustain it from the very beginning, that can be guided one way or another. Given the breakdown of every Arabist, Baathist, or secular socialist country in the Arab world, it seems to be that the US has a particular infatuation with political, reactionary, Arab Sunni Islam that it has wielded to great success. However, ISIS-style Islam is not at one with the Gulenist movement, and it will be interesting to see if one will succeed the other in Central Asia, there will overlap, or if it will meltdown and result in blow back for the American Great Game 2.0.
Here is how this might play: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/central-asian-leaders-isil-threats-political-gain-180820221522285.html
ReplyDeleteThere's little about larger context for regimes using these threats, whether to carve out limited independence or to crush dissent, each depending on the Central Asian republic in question. But the tactics are the same: ISIS can be a stick to beat or be beat with.
I just watched that last night! I found it equally interesting. The threat of violence is at the heart of political power... whether wielded directly or as an organising threat-motif.
ReplyDeleteThis is in addition to all the fighting going on in porous Afghan Badakhshan which borders both Tajikistan and Xinjiang.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yahoo.com/news/tajik-russian-plane-bombed-afghan-border-area-takhar-063653359.html