The ISIS Diffusion: Policy and Diplomacy

More than Assad, the US’s agenda of globalism and interventionist foreign policies are direct reasons for the rise of ISIS.

The Syrian pathos has turned into everyday haunting episodes of agony and distress. Help seems to be farther and farther away for the country that is in the shambles of war since more than half a decade. The ISIS has become one of the top three foreign policy headaches for the US, next to Russia and Iran.

The origin of ISIS has been from multiple geopolitical and diplomatic miscalculations, precisely of the US, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt. The group sustains and finances itself through oil production and sale, extortions, selling antiques, robbery, taxes, and other unrighteous and immoral acts of violence. Now that the problem has arose unexpectedly, it makes sense to introspect about the entities, nations or intentions responsible for the rise of this overtly organised terror organisation.

Perhaps understanding ISIS from a historical perspective would help us understand the workable solutions to problems. The rise of ISIS is identified in the US invasion of Iraq, during George Bush administration. Bush left office in 2008, with American troops still strong in Iraq. Obama, objecting to this, immediately announced gradual withdrawal. Contrary to Bush, who wanted to delay military withdrawal until a secured regime was established, Obama blamed American policies towards Muslims and Arab nations for growing anti-Americanism. Early withdrawal of American troops from Iraq eased liberal movement of Iraqi citizens, of whom many were released detainees. Many believe this early withdrawal from Iraq as the reason for the origin and rise of ISIS.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS, was also one of the detainees released from American detention camps. Before founding ISIS, he was one of the leader of ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’ (AQI), a terror organisation founded by Al Zarqawi. After US forces eliminated Zarqawi in an air strike, Baghdadi became the sole leader of AQI, who, after breaking allegiance from al Qaeda, formed the Islamic State. This perspective indicates the roots of ISIS in the erstwhile al Qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 incident. Added to such a situation was the inclination of military rule in many Arab nations, which formed a silent revolt against the rulers, Assad included. Similar situations in Libya, Egypt, and Iraq led to the amalgamation of rebel groups that conjoined to put a collective opposition towards self-declared rulers, like Assad.

There were an assorted number of connected events at this juncture. There are claims that the US’s contribution in the creation of al Qaeda was zero, and there are also opinions that the US prevented Russian influence on Arab nations to spread the Marxist ideology, and through CIA, gave birth to Osama bin Laden and fed him and his terror organisation. This infers that the seeds of ISIS were sown in the US’s agenda of spreading globalism and resisting the spread of Russian socialism. In addition, constant vocal calls by Obama and his European counterparts to have the Assad government dissolved and be replaced by a new establishment, ignited the low-lit fire of rebels who were all prepared for external support. Arming the rebels with weapons was one of the most disastrous decision of Obama and Clinton, which escalated tensions to an extent that many US made weapons are now used by the ISIS.

As for Assad, he is not exonerated in the ISIS creation. Syria has been under emergency rule from 1963 to 2011, after which massive protests culminated into the Syrian civil war. Assad’s self-appointed presidential position, which remains constitutionally doubted, and his tyrannical governance, have contributed in silence to the growing opposition to his regime.

The creation of ISIS is a product of multiple foreign policy and democratic deficiencies. In proportion to the extent to which Assad is projected for the creation of ISIS, the US and its CIA tactics, its historical aversion to Russian socialism and its dissemination, clubbed with its obnoxious interventionist policies of regime change and nation building, are seen more as direct reasons.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*