On the Effort to Exonerate Team USA for the Rise of ISIS

Assad is primarily responsible for the rise of ISIS. No one else is even close, with the possible exceptions of former Iraqi presidents Maliki and Hussein. That’s the predictable message of the State Department and its proxy reporters at outlets like Vox and Buzzfeed. The propaganda can be crude to the point of absurd. In Mad Max’s world, Iran bears more blame than the United States for ISIS, and George W. Bush would surely take comfort in analysis like this and this:

But on the question of Assad’s responsibility and the corresponding responsibility of his imperial opponents, there’s apparently a real debate to be had among thinking humans. In Jacobin and Salvage, leftists go a long way toward siding with State and the BuzzVoxxers.

While more or less holding the United States to account for its ISIS-creating actions in Iraq pre-2011, they exonerate the US and its regional allies for ISIS’s emergence as a force in Syria, which they attribute solely to Assad. In so doing they erase the war on Syria, which honest analysts would acknowledge even if they believe Assad to be a monster of Hitlerian proportions.

Both Jacobin and Salvage claim that Assad’s releasing jihadists from prison in 2011 contributed mightily to the rise of ISIS. Salvage, the magazine founded by Richard Seymour and his comrades, says Syria’s ex-prisoners are one of the three primary forces within IS, along with Iraqi Baathists and foreign fighters. It didn’t deign to provide any evidence, so I went looking for some.

This post by Kyle Orton says that, “In May and June 2011, the regime turned loose from its prisons violent jihadists.” But he links to two articles covering the Syrian’s government granting of general amnesty, which the press depicted at the time as an attempt to placate the opposition. The opposition itself received it as such. “Too little too late,” said one member of the opposition.

Nonetheless, Orton goes on to say that in 2011 the Syrian government released future jihadist leaders Abu Musab, Hassan Abboud, Zahran Alloush, and Ahmed Abu Issa. I suppose I’ll take his word for it, but these bad men didn’t join ISIS. They joined Al Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Sham, and Suquor a-Sham, respectively. These groups are indeed brutal and reactionary—and they are proxy forces of US client states trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

This article at Huffington Post — “There Would Be No ISIS Without Assad — likewise promises to establish a connection between Syria’s ex-prisoners and ISIS but manages only, via a link to a Politico piece, to connect them to Al Qaeda.

I’m not saying ISIS contains no people released from prison by the Syrian government, but if they made up a significant part of its leadership or rank-and-file — if they represented, as Salvage alleges, one leg of the stool supporting ISIS — evidence would surely be easier to come by. Aron Lund, who seems to be one of the more independent-minded of the popular Syria analysts, has this to say:

We know, by contrast, that all 12 of the judges who preside over ISIS’s court system in Raqqa are Saudi. They’re perhaps some of the hundreds of extremists Saudi Arabia has allowed to fly to Syria out of the Riyadh airport. (The Kingdom also reportedly sent more than a 1,000 death row inmates to go fight in Syria in exchange for commutations.) ISIS also includes many fighters from the Caucasus, Afghanistan, North Africa, and Europe, and that many, if not most, of these have entered Syria through Turkey.

Yet the ISIS-creation stories from Jacobin and Salvage include none of this. Not only do these leftist outlets pass along imperialist propaganda about Assad’s “giving” ISIS hundreds of fighters by opening his prisons; they ignore the role of US allies in funneling ISIS-bound fighters into Syria.

In fact, the words “Turkey” and “Saudi Arabia” appear nowhere in the Salvage piece. In Jacobin, Adam Hanieh, who elsewhere has written solid stuff, doesn’t mention Turkey’s role and dismisses the idea that “ISIS is a tool of the Gulf States,” because “there is little convincing evidence that ISIS is directly funded, or armed, by Saudi Arabia or any other Gulf state.” Leaving aside the fact that if Saudi Arabia directly supported ISIS, it would do so covertly (“ISIS, in fact, may have been a major part of Bandar’s covert-ops strategy in Syria,” writes Steve Clemons), there are other steps Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey have taken with the encouragement of the United States to strengthen ISIS.

There is, in fact, a fairly impressive compilation of evidence pointing to the role of Turkey in the rise of ISIS. It includes video and audio evidence of a meeting of an ISIS affiliate in Istanbul and allegations from an array of sources—opposition politicians in Turkey, intelligence services of other countries, and Kurdish officials in Syria—who claim that Turkey has allowed ISIS militants and weapons to go back and forth across the border and even directly armed and trained ISIS fighters. The case is circumstantial in places, to be sure, but compared to the case against Assad, it’s a smoking gun.

And it’s a fact that, on top of the aforementioned funneling of militants into Syria, US client states allowed wealthy individuals to fund ISIS. Did the governments themselves finance ISIS? In 2014, once ISIS had become a force, General Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that, yes, US allies had directly funded ISIS — as assessment that Lindsay Graham seconded. In any case, the funding was no secret — Kuwait was a hub for ISIS financing — and US allies didn’t little to nothing to crack down on it.

These governments also sent in weapons that ended up the hands of ISIS. Was the arming direct? Regardless, to send weapons to the opposition was to arm ISIS, both because ISIS routed groups and took their weapons and because early on opposition groups collaborated with ISIS.

Aping US government officials, who barely mentioned ISIS until mid-2014, US press accounts of the group’s rise in Syria tend to ignore its formative months (although they flashback to 2011 for the purpose of indicting Assad.) They pick up the narrative when the groups officially backed by the United States and its allies were fighting ISIS. To read the BuzzVoxxers, or some socialist outlets, you’d have no idea that ISIS ascended in Syria partly due to the collaboration and conciliation of other opposition groups. Josh Landis details these alliances and calls them the “real” reason for ISIS’s rise in Syria:

— “The most prominent case-in-point is Colonel Oqaidi, who used to head the Aleppo FSA military council. Oqaidi constantly downplayed the idea that ISIS constituted a threat, describing his relations with ISIS as “excellent”…The other rebel groups that assisted ISIS in the wider conflict here included Liwa al-Tawhid, Ahrar ash-Sham, Suqur ash-Sham, and FSA-banner groups such as Liwa al-Hamza, Ibn Taymiyya (both Tel Abyad area) and Liwa Ahrar al-Jazira al-Thawri…Contrary to what ISIS members and supporters claim, there was no pre-planned ‘sahwa’ against ISIS. Till the very end of 2013, IF and its constituent groups tried to resolve problems with ISIS peacefully.” —

The FSA, remember, was the official American proxy so the United States was arming a group that it knew was collaborating with ISIS. In 2013, ISIS leader Abu Atheer told Al Jazeera that his group had cordial relations with the FSA and bought weapons from them.

Yet in popular ISIS creation narratives the myth of American innocence persists. The more intrepid western reporters will touch on the role of US client states yet exonerate the United States, as if Saudi Arabia and co. act wholly independently of the world’s most powerful country. And even if you believe that clients states have the desire and capacity to go rogue, there’s no evidence suggesting that US government officials tried to deter their ISIS-empowering actions during the group’s all-important early months in Syria. Biden’s tepid yet much-discussed criticism of allies for supporting ISIS came late in 2014 when ISIS was replacing the government as the primary, official rationale for US military action in Syria. As Biden was traveling around to apologize for his remarks, engaging in client management, no reporter thought to ask why no US official had said or done anything about their empowering of ISIS in the months and years prior.

The media complicity persisted despite last year’s declassification of a 2012 military intelligence memo showing that the United States had determined both that its allies sought to create a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria” and that sectarian reactionaries — “The Salafist, The Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI — were the “driving forces” in the opposition. Apologists responded predictably to the document: they challenged the most expansive interpretations and ignored the smaller yet still-damning ones.

It’s not so much the memo itself that exposes US culpability but the memo combined with the subsequent actions (and inactions) of the United States vis a vis its allies and the Syrian opposition. More confirmation that revelation, the memo shows what was already clear: 1) that the United States was content for its allies to try to destroy Syria by fueling the most extreme elements of the opposition, including ISIS, 2) that because extreme elements dominated the opposition, to support it was to empower these elements, including ISIS, and 3) that the United States, no bystander to this effort, contributed to it.

It’s not hard to understand why the BuzzBeasters exonerate the United States, even if doing so means ignoring reports in their own publications. The motive of socialists is a little harder to discern. Or perhaps not. Their purpose, it seems, is to pin all the blame on Assad, not just for ISIS but for all of it: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the millions of refugees, the staggering suffering. The true story of the rise of ISIS, in context, exposes the degree of aggression against Syria, and once that comes to light, it’s hard to cling to the view that this war is, at its core, a battle between a tyrant and a progressive revolution.

Posted in Blog
13 comments on “On the Effort to Exonerate Team USA for the Rise of ISIS
  1. Louis Proyect says:

    Mizne, nobody could have joined ISIS in 2011 because it was only formed 2 years later. You need to read Hassan/Weiss’s book or maybe just read the Wikipedia entry on ISIS.

  2. Georges says:

    If ISIS did not exist till 2013, how could Assad’s release of prisoners be part of some kind of strategy to boost ISIS to the detriment of “moderate” rebels ? Desperate nonsense from Proyect, who loves those neo-con (Hassan/Weiss) analysts.

  3. Louis Proyect says:

    You are as uninformed as Mizner, Georges. Assad’s goal was to enable jihadism not a particular group. Although not as feral as ISIS, Nusra is an obstacle to the goals of the FSA and the civic resistance. Thankfully, the media activists in Kafranbel were not killed by Nusra yesterday. The media activists have to deal with two kinds of thugs, the ones wearing neckties and adored by Mizner and the ones wearing beards. As it turns out, the ones wearing neckties are responsible for 7 times as many killings.

    • DaMizner says:

      That’s precious, coming from a Nusra booster like you. https://twitter.com/LouisProyect1/status/647763922347524098

      As for your previous comment, yeah, ISIS hadn’t been formed in 2011 – that goes without saying (and I didn’t need to have to read a book by neocon Weiss to know it.) What’s more, that fact supports my point: that contrary to the claims of Jacobin & John Kerry, Assad didn’t empower ISIS by releasing extremists from prison.

      • Louis Proyect says:

        Sort of sad that people like Mizner and Patrick Higgins are being iced out of Jacobin now that it has obviously lost its appetite for writing Assadist propaganda. Maybe you should consider submitting your next Baathist apologia to National Review that has joined Donald Trump, Pam Geller, David Horowitz, Alex Jones, Zizek, Tariq Ali and the rest of the gang.

        • Lidia says:

          We joke that Putin is a deity of Ukrainian Nazis because they see his almighty hand anywhere, but looks like USA “liberal” imperialists have recently joined the warship of Putin LOL

  4. Georges says:

    So you agree then Lou, Assad did not contribute to the rise of ISIS. He released prisoners who went on to join other fundamentalist terror groups; groups which the FSA was quite happy to cooperate with. That’s some revolution you support!

    BTW, your Kafranabel “media activists” received funds from the US government, but of course, you have no problem with that.

    • Louis Proyect says:

      BTW, your Kafranabel “media activists” received funds from the US government, but of course, you have no problem with that.

      Yes, it was all a conspiracy. All these Arab Spring people were getting their marching orders from Samantha Power, George Soros, Nicholas Kristof, John McCain and the Queen of England. Just ask Tony Cartalucci and Lyndon Larouche.

    • DaMizner says:

      Yeah Al Qaeda Lou supports my argument and doesn’t even realize it.

      • Lidia says:

        Yeah, this left boot of USA imperialism Louis Proyect likes to claim that it is not NATO bombs, Saudi money and Zionist colonizers’s help which disempower” Arabs, but our pointing to this very well-documented facts.
        By the way, pointing to USA/EU openly managing “Maidan” and using Ukrainian Nazis as extras means “diempovering” Ukrainians

  5. Mizner’s logic shows why the anti-war movement is dead in the water. Mizner doesn’t like my close textual analysis of a document, so labels me an “apologist”.

    Delegitimizing those who disagree with you by assigning labels is both bogus and — after decades of over-use — ineffective, even laughable.

    It is also a lie. In 2003 I wrote my first article opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have written 313 since (plus more on our other post-9/11 wars).

    • DaMizner says:

      You ignored — and are still ignoring — the significance of the document, choosing instead only to debunk an easily debunked claim: that it shows the US created ISIS. “Close textual analysis,” my ass.

  6. Lidia says:

    The well-known “informed” scoundrel who now lies that he was NOT very happy with NATO rape of Libya (thank you for the reminding of it, by the way) ie Prof Cole, claims that it was Bush who made ISIS, and not Obama.

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "On the Effort to Exonerate Team USA for the Rise of ISIS"
  1. [...] US foreign policy, with a focus on the Middle East. This article was first published at his blog, Rogue Nation, and is reproduced here with permission of the author. His writings can be found at Jacobin, Salon, [...]

Leave a Reply to Georges Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>