The BBC and ISIS: Dispelling Propaganda with Propaganda

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0j4x4hy

Within moments of turning on this BBC podcast I knew it was going to be a case of spin. There was from the onset a dishonest narrative about the origins of ISIS and the panel failed to probe or explain how the group grew out of al Qaeda and how its vision is different - the more extreme nature of the group is found in its apocalyptic understanding of the world.

Additionally ISIS played a critical role in the first phases of the Syrian Civil War. There's also a story of connection to Libya in terms of fighters and weapons. Far from frowning on all of this, the US encouraged the growth of this movement. It marked a fundamental and terminal shift in the War on Terror narrative. It's well documented with numerous Pentagon and White House figures speaking in terms of the US being allied with the Islamists - especially al Nusra which is a branch of al Qaeda. ISIS was at the time an affiliate of al Nusra (al Qaeda) eventually declaring its independence in 2013.

If the US is sharing goals with al Qaeda and providing even peripheral support for their fight, then the War on Terror was over - something only quietly admitted a few years later. Some in official circles knew this at the time but the media didn't really report this reality to the public. That's a story in itself and one that obscures the origins of ISIS.

Some might argue the ISIS war signifies that the War on Terror was still going into the Trump term. The reality is the ISIS affair was a postlude or epilogue, even a side-show. The official posture was already in the process of shifting toward 'Great Powers Conflict' - and in that conflict radical Islam will play a different role.

In the early days of the Syrian War, ISIS was doing the dirty work for the West and its attempted regime change operation. The Assad regime had been target back in the 1990's when Hafez al Assad was still president. The Islamist strategy was a way of rallying the Sunni majority. The hope was that later this could be spun into a 'democracy' narrative - hence the absurd efforts within the 'Free Syrian Army' - a group that was initially a fiction that later would be bolstered by ranks of Islamists. It was hardly the 'democratic' movement presented by some in government and media.

ISIS only became a real problem in 2014 when the notorious beheading videos began to appear and eventually the group expanded beyond Syria and starting conquering large sections of Iraq and devastating the Yazidi and Assyrian communities among others. Then the US flipped its strategy, re-introduced combat troops into Iraq, launched airstrikes and seized and occupied sections of eastern Syria - which it still holds to this day. Though ISIS has been reduced to a negligible status in Syria, the US keeps its troops and bases there, in the region that happens to contain Syria's oil supply.

As ISIS retreated in 2017, the US carried out a devastating air campaign on both Mosul in Iraq, and Raqqa in Syria - the two cities that served as key bases for ISIS. The cities were basically leveled - turned into wastelands akin to the bombing campaigns of World War II. The US role in this has been glossed over and covered up. Western reporters stand in the ruins and speak of the devastation but won't explain what happened and who did it - only focusing on the ground troops involved.

ISIS survives in a small pocket of Syria and in its cells scattered throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia - along with its sympathizers in the West.

The podcast wasn't too interested in fleshing out this tale, choosing instead to take shots at Russia by trying to draw a rather dubious and sloppy analogy between the Wagner Group and Islamic State. As with almost all stories these days in Western mainstream media, if it's possible to put an anti-Russian spin on it, they'll certainly try. But in this case it made little sense as even they had to admit. Why? Russia itself is one of the key targets of ISIS as Russia (along with Iran) played a vital role in saving the Assad regime and thwarting the plans of the West to overthrow him. Apart from the Kurds, the main force the West looked to for the overthrow of Assad was the Islamist groups like al Qaeda and for a season, ISIS.

At this point the 'experts' were deliberate in ignoring the elephant in the room, the fact that ISIS is (at this point in time) a natural US ally. The US frequently worked with Islamists during the Cold War and even into the 1990's in places like Chechnya (against Russia) and Bosnia (against Russian interests).

Again, the documentary-panel discussion just completely chose to ignore how the US and even Israel supported ISIS more than a decade ago. And I knew they would completely avoid some of the awkward discussions around groups like the White Helmets and the whole fantasy narrative that was put forward at the time - one that has not stood up very well.

As it stands, ISIS is a natural US ally in the contexts of Libya, Syria, Central Asia, and China - but most of all in Russia where the group has seemingly stepped up its attacks.

ISIS-K or Khorasan was mentioned but wasn't pursued. The fact that ISIS-K is actively engaged in fighting the Taliban is important as is the social and political situation in Central Asia. The contest over that region has given a group like ISIS-K fertile ground in which to work but this wasn't discussed.

I felt like the show was a spin job - misrepresenting what ISIS was and is, trying to take a few shots at Russia, and the after that the show degenerated into talk about 'bad guys' including a big wasted segment discussing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and how groups like ISIS might utilize it. This makes me wonder if governments will use AI in order to pin blame on groups like ISIS. At times it seems like whatever is being presented as what the enemy might do is actually a warning regarding what the media outlet or the state are preparing to do. On shows such as this when they say they're going to engage in straight talk and counter the spin that's out there - it usually tells me that they're going to spin the story and that's usually the case. I suppose the most brazen example of this (on the Right) was found with Bill O'Reilly's 'No Spin Zone' - a show that was nothing more than spin, the very opposite of what it purported to be.

As expected the end assessment of the programme was that it was a joke and the people involved (the BBC's Jihadist Media Monitoring Team) should not be taken seriously. In fact they need to be monitored.