Communist Party of Australia  

Home


The Guardian

Current Issue

PDF Archive

Web Archive

Pete's Corner

Subscribe

Press Fund


CPA


About Us

Why you should ...

CPA introduction


Contact Us

facebook, twitter


Major Issues

Indigenous

Unions

Health

Housing

Climate Change

Peace

Solidarity/Other


State by State

NSW, Qld, SA, Vic, WA


What's On

Topical


Resources

AMR

Links


Shop@CPA

Books, T-shirts, CDs/DVDs, Badges, Misc


 

Issue #1648      July 23, 2014

Who is responsible for the ISIS?

The ISIS has been active in conducting terrorist activities for over a decade. However, the mainstream western media only started to report news on it in the past a few months. What are the logics and intentions under the surface of this phenomena?

The ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or translated as the ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, is a notorious extreme Islamic fundamentalist Sunni terrorist group that belonged to the Al-Qaeda global network. Since its founding in 2003, the ISIS has been active in organising a number of terrorist attacks and the recent brutal massacre of 1,700 prisoners of war on June 14 in Iraq.

The ISIS gained control over several provinces in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It has approximately 12,000 well-armed men equipped with weapons from the US occupation. The current leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced the establishment of a Sunni caesaropapist Islamic state on June 29. He claimed sovereignty, including most Muslim-populated Mediterranean countries (including Spain), the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of the Indian Peninsula.

US imperialism

The US had launched two Iraqi wars within three decades under the name of protecting and promoting its capitalist version of “democracy” and “peace”. America’s war on terrorism is nothing but an excuse to convince its citizens to support wars and to cover its true intention of maintaining the US’s global interests.

Do we simply believe that the US’s intelligence service was so incapable of gaining useful information on the ISIS and failed to assess the development of the growing terrorist group? Or do we believe that the US would do nothing if the ISIS did not help America’s strategic plan? I am inclined to believe the latter, as it is more realistic and logical, and it reveals one of the US’s tactics on its global “peacekeeping”.

This is not the first time the US has used such tactics; for instance, the US secretly financed Bin Laden and supplied him with US weapons in the 1980s to fight the Soviet’s peace keeping in Afghanistan. This time, the Iraqi government has found information and made a statement condemning Saudi Arabia and Qatar because they support the ISIS. It is obvious that the US instigates its military allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar to do its dirty business.

The essence of these tactics is to create political division by intensifying and provoking ethnic, religious and territorial conflicts and disputes. This is not a new tactic; British and French imperialists in the first half of the 20th century did exactly the same. For example, they created divisions and disputes, provoking civil wars in countries such as Sir Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Vietnam.

If we can learn something from history, it is that when an imperialist power starts to employ the divisive tactics, it shows the great weakness of its declining power, and it reflects its incapacity to maintain its imposed order and authority.

The US withdrawal from Iraq has shown the decline of its imperialist power and indicates that the history of the decline of French and British imperialism is being repeated. The US realises that only a divided and destabilised Middle East can allow it to hold sway and keep its power over other states in this region. That is why the US turned a blind eye toward the ISIS.

Furthermore, there are two other strategic concerns of why a divided Iraq and Middle East could serve the best interests of the US. First, the disabling of the region will benefit the US’s proxy state Israel, to expand its power and authority into Palestine’s Gaza and the West Bank. Second, it allows the US a pretext for making a permanent military presence in this region in order to serves its geopolitical strategy that includes containing Russia and China.

Next article – MH17: Some conclusions and questions

Back to index page

Go to What's On Go to Shop at CPA Go to Australian Marxist Review Go to Join the CPA Go to Subscribe to the Guardian Go to the CPA Maritime Branch website Go to the Resources section of our web site Go to the PDF of the Hot Earth booklet go to the World Federation of Trade Unions web site go to the Solidnet  web site Go to Find out more about the CPA