Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
Tuesday's attacks at Istanbul's main airport, which appear at this time to be the work of Islamic State, are the latest reminder that the United States should not downplay the group's rudimentary - yet effective - tactics.
Since the wave of Islamic State suicide bombings in May - killing 522 people inside Baghdad, and 148 people inside Syria - American officials have downplayed the strategy as defensive. Brett McGurk, the Special Presidential Envoy in the fight against Islamic State, said the group "returned to suicide bombing" as the area under its control shrank. The American strategy of focusing primarily on the "big picture" recapture of territory seems to push the suicide bombings to the side. "It's their last card," stated an Iraqi spokesperson in response to the attacks.
The reality is just the opposite.
A day after the June 26 liberation of Fallujah, car bombs exploded in eastern and southern Baghdad. Two other suicide bombers were killed outside the city. An improvised explosive device exploded in southwest Baghdad a day earlier.
Washington should know better than to underestimate the power of small weapons to shape large events. After Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld labeled Iraqi insurgents as "dead enders" in 2003, they began taking a deadly toll of American forces via suicide bombs. It was the 2006 bombing of the Shi'ite al-Askari Golden Mosque that kicked the Iraqi civil war into high gear. It was improvised explosive devices and car bombs that kept American forces on the defensive through 2011.
To believe suicide bombings represent a weakening of Islamic State is a near-total misunderstanding of the hybrid nature of the group; Islamic State melds elements of a conventional army and an insurgency. To "win," one must defeat both versions.
Islamic State differs from a traditional insurgency in that it seeks to hold territory. This separates it from al-Qaida, and most other radical groups, and falsely leads the United States to believe that retaking strategic cities like Fallujah from Islamic State is akin to "defeating" it, as if it is World War Two again and we are watching blue arrows move across the map toward Berlin. Envoy McGurk, following Fallujah, even held a press conference announcing Islamic State has now lost 47 percent of its territory.
However, simultaneously with holding and losing territory, Islamic State uses terror and violence to achieve political ends.
Islamic State has no aircraft and no significant long-range weapons, making it a very weak conventional army when facing down the combined forces of the United States, Iran and Iraq in set piece battles. It can, however, use suicide bombs to strike into the very heart of Shiite Baghdad (and Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and Turkey - as Tuesday's bombing reminds us), acting as a strong transnational insurgency.
Why does such strength matter in the face of large-scale losses such as Fallujah?
Violence in the heart of Iraqi Shiite neighborhoods empowers hardliners to seek revenge. Core Sunni support for Islamic State grows out of the need for protection from a Shi'ite dominated military, which seeks to marginalize if not destroy the Sunnis. Reports of Shi'ite atrocities leaking out of the ruins of Sunni Fallujah are thus significant. Fallujah was largely destroyed in order to "save" it, generating some 85,000 displaced persons, mirroring what happened in Ramadi. Those actions remind many Sunnis of why they supported Islamic State (and al-Qaida before them) in the first place.
Suicide strikes reduce the confidence of the people in their government's ability to protect them. In Iraq, that sends Shiite militias into the streets, and raises questions about the value of civil institutions like the Iraqi National Police. Victories such as the retaking of Ramadi and Fallujah, and a promised assault on Mosul, mean little to people living at risk inside the nation's capital.
American commanders have already had to talk the Iraqi government out of pulling troops from the field to defend Baghdad, even as roughly half of all Iraqi security forces are already deployed there. This almost guarantees more American soldiers will be needed to take up the slack.
Anything that pulls more American troops into Iraq fits well with the anti-American Islamic State narrative. Few Iraqis are left who imagine the United States can be an honest broker in their country. A State Department report found that one-third of all Iraqis believe the Americans are actually supporting Islamic State, while 40 percent are convinced that the United States is trying to destabilize Iraq for its own purposes.
In a country like Turkey, suicide bombings play out in a more complex political environment. Turkey has effectively supported Islamic State with porous borders for transit in and out of Syria, and has facilitated the flow of oil out of Syria and Iraq that ultimately benefits the group. At the same time, however, Turkey opened its territory to American aircraft conducting bombing runs against Islamic State. Attacks in Turkey may be in response to pressure on the nation to shift its strategy more in line with Western demands. Russia (no friend of Islamic State) and Turkey have also recently improved relations; the attack in Istanbul may have been a warning shot reminding Turkey not to get too close.
The suicide bombings - in Turkey and elsewhere - are not desperate or defensive moves. They are not inconsequential, even if their actual numbers decline. They are careful strategy, the well-thought out application of violence by Islamic State. The United States downplays them at great risk.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.
21 Comments
Login to comment
Moonraker
Don't a whole bunch of Americans believe that too? A lot of the tin-foil hat brigade? It's hard to keep up with their narratives.
u_s__reamer
The well-known spectacular displays of brutality and cruelty perpetrated by the Sunni Isis group are a mirror-image of that of the Iraqi Shia militia whose atrocities are unreported in our Western media for obvious political reasons, which makes it impossible for the indifferent, difficult for the uninformed, but easy for the hypocrites in denial, encapsulated in a cozy media cocoon, to understand the reality by joining the dots that lead back to the hornets' nest broken open by Bushblair's illegal attack on Saddam Hussein's regime. Once again the lessons of history were ignored for the sake of short-term profit and personal gain at the expense of the common weal and world peace.
kurisupisu
Amazingly, the US military has not brought peace to the Middle East. Now, there are Syrians, by the millions displaced and dying fleeing to Europe. What is ISIL? The weapons, the training camps,, the high grade military explosives and the long lines of Toyota trucks would seem to suggest major funding from......?
Turkey was buying oil from Syria and obviously there is pressure from others not to do so.
Turkey tried to have its cake and eat it but now is getting indigestion......
Moonraker
I am sorry, u_s__reamer. I don't generally think of myself as indifferent, uninformed or in denial, and I am highly critical of the media and Bush and Blair, but you might have some patience with me and explain what are the "obvious political reasons" that these atrocities are unreported.
ozziedesigner
Kurisupisu, Spot on again !
Wc626
Because of Obama's irresponsibility to identify it properly in the first place. When you catch a common cold, you say to yourself (I have cold, I might want to go out and get some "cold" medicine).
Surely, you don't call it something else and go out to buy something for hemorrhoids.
dcog9065
This article is spot on, even retaking all of IS territory won't end them, and perhaps may even transform them into something far worse. Already they are showing they can strike almost anywhere which will further turn world opinion against Muslims, which will further strengthen the ultra hard core base of these terrorists
u_s__reamer
Moonraker, I'm surprised that you appear to take my comments personally, but I'm happy to oblige, especially as I often find much to agree with in your posts. To elucidate: Noam Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent" would be a good place to start for those who swallow the propaganda dressed up as "news" emanating from mainstream media. The take-away from reading Chomsky would be to hold a more skeptical view of information coming from government and corporate institutions. Many people are too busy or lazy to make the effort to go behind the headlines by reading books or getting information from alternative sources. Thus, a solid knowledge of history is the best intellectual self-defense against the dishonesty and lies that adulterate the grains of truth to be found the media mix. Last year NHK broadcast twice a foreign documentary explaining how ISIS originated as a result of the Iraq war when the Shia majority tacitly supported by USUK military forces perpetrated horrendous atrocities on the vanquished tribes of the Sunni minority. The Arab is equal to the American in his thirst for revenge and thus the explosion of violence from Sunni ranks under the ISIS brand is perfectly understandable to all except the naive and uninformed. This chink of the light into the truth of the situation afforded by one short documentary has in the main been obscured by the vast bulk of reporting from mainstream media which has served only to justify the meddling of the so-called "international community" in the Middle East. Those in positions of power who know "the truth" or the reality of things have a vested interest in not disclosing what they know to the general populace. To doubt the "official version" of events is beyond the capacity of the lazy and would threaten the hypocrite's sense of self hiding behind the makeshift shield of denial. To doubt means one must search for an alternative version of the truth which takes time and energy and is the reason why most people simply can't be arsed. "What's on TV tonight?" Anyone who has understood what I have just written should be able to get the gist of the phrase "for obvious political reasons": western corporate media has always downplayed the enormity of the illegal war of aggression against Iraq. There have been no "Nuremberg Trials" for the war criminals (unless Corbyn becomes P.M. and sends Bliar to the Hague) whose conspiracy to wage a war of aggression has resulted in the loss of over a million Arab lives and many millions more lives scarred and ruined. The repercussions have now started to reach European shores threatening the social stability of the continent. Meanwhile the threat of ISIS is handled in the media as a simple terrorist group in a vacuum, divorced from its origin in the Iraq war and its links to other regions of destabilized dominos by Big Power Realpolitik, and to merely be wiped out by us "for obvious political reasons".
Wc626
This is what is scary. Because the peaceful muslims won't come out and publicly criticize the extremists. We've seen global terror escalating more than any other time in modern history. Peaceful muslims, moderates, extremists, sunni, shiite, zealous mullahs etc. . . in the end, still ALL one common denominator -Islam.
SenseNotSoCommon
u_s reamer and Moonraker, keep this exploration up.
The masses are polarised, be they black/white, Catholic/Protestant, Hindu/Sikh, Sunni/Shia, left/right, metropolitan/parochial, Trait X/Trait Y.
Why the hell do we still fall for this in the 21st century?
Moonraker
Ok, u_s__reamer, I see what you are saying now. Thanks. Maybe I had assumed that everyone knew the phenomenon of blowback by now; the most clear example being the creation of the mujahideen, and thence the Taliban and Al Qaida, in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion by US meddling. I thought it obvious to all and sundry that the US invasion of Iraq had created the conditions for the rise of Islamic State. No arguments with that. The point beyond which I was reluctant to go was to believe that the US created and/or maintains Islamic.
sangetsu03
The beans were spilled when Bush invaded Iraq, and they were kicked widely around when Obama decided to pull out of Iraq without some kind of plan to maintain stability.
Also, since the "Arab Spring" began with the coups in Egypt, Libya, and nearly so in Syria, America has largely sat on it's hands. Obama would prefer to see the collapse of the region rather than sign his name to orders sending in American troops.
Unfortunately, not treating the disease at it's source has allowed it to spread, as far as Europe and America. And unless real actions are taken, the spread will continue.
Wc626
Heck, that moron cannot even identify the disease let alone do anything about it. The disease is radical islam. He says it is something else.
AgentX
When the U.S. went into Iraq (the 2nd time) without a mandate, flouting international law, under a pretense that had no basis and removed the man (Hussein) who had (albeit paradoxically) brought more peace to the region than it is has experienced ever since - what did America think they were creating? Best friends around the globe? Did they seriously think there would be no consequences to their sickening actions? Reap what you sew, people... Unfortunately, it always was, and still is, mainly innocents that are caught up in the mess and ultimately pay for it.
Stewie
The US kept poking the bear, and what exactly did they think would happen? (apart from certain people making a financial killing out of it). No point in closing the stable door after the horse has already bolted.
Nessie
The author makes the mistake of assuming that what the U.S. says is what the U.S. thinks. In politics, the two are rarely the same--in international diplomacy, even less so.
chisineko
To change a culture, its morals and drives, takes well in excess of 70 years. The carrot and stick principle is the only effective principle. Give a reason and reward for the desired positive change, and not just reckless monetary disbursements. Use extreme punishment for failure. Immediate response is necessary. Delay precipitates confusion. The road toward cultural change is very long, but once the journey begins there are no time outs, frequent rest stops, or foolish diversions. DO IT OR DON'T START.
Yubaru
Just curious, besides point fingers at the problems and people how about some new ideas or suggestions on how to deal with and possibly eliminate them?
Everyone with half a brain knows there have been screw-ups across the board, media and journalists love to point fingers and lay blame. But I don't hear too many, if any, of these experts coming up with ideas or plans to change or improve the situation.
badsey3
These "Isis/iSiL/"McCain's Army"" terrorists are repeatedly let go once under arrest to continue their chaos and bombing(s).
sangetsu03
That was then, this is now. George Bush has been out of office for almost 8 years now, and what has been done during those 8 years in an attempt to make things better? Nothing at all. Of course if you are from the UAE or Saudi Arabia, you would say that America has done less than nothing.
If you want to blame previous administrations for problems in the middle east, you can go back much further than Bush. You can blame Bill Clinton; it was he who insisted most loudly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, listen to the speech Clinton made on December 16th, 2008 after his military strike on Iraq, it's on Youtube. And when Bush took office, Bush's only knowledge of Iraq and Saddam Hussein came from the Clinton administration, and the CIA director and apparatus which had worked for Clinton for the previous 8 years. You can blame Reagan for arming Saddam in the first place. You can blame Carter for allowing the Shaw of Iran to be overthrown, you can blame Truman for allowing Israel to be established, you can blame Britain for subjugating much of the middle east into their empire. Bush is gone, Bush is no more, we can't blame Bush any more.
The middle east has never been a peaceful place, and nearly every middle east policy or action has been like kicking a hornet's nest. The best thing for everyone involved would be to leave the region to those unfortunate enough to live in it. But sadly, this region ended up with one of the world's great sources of energy, and as such, has become the focus of attention of the powers-that-be. One day, the oil will be gone, and when that happens, the middle east will likely return to the iron age.
FizzBit
Why not? After all, the US's recent psyop campaign against "terrorism" started with just that. And the headline is about terrorists, right?
You sound like fascist to me. Have you lost all sense of freedom?