Syria and Iraq Explained

In order to determine a solution for Syria and Islamic State, we need to first understand what is happening there and why.  The Middle East has three factors which make it such a hot spot.  In no particular order, these factors are:

·         Oil

·         Israel

·         Two rival Islamic sects which have been fighting each other since Muhammad died in 632.

Everyone knows there is a large amount of oil in the Middle East but what few know is how that relates to the current situation.  In a nutshell, there is a war going on in the Middle East between the Shia and Sunni sects of Islam.  For the purposes of this discussion, you can think of these rival sects as North Islam and South Islam, at least in the region.  Syria represents the southern border of Shia influence.  Without Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq, what you have in the Shia camp is most of Iraq, Iran and Syria.  Meanwhile in the Sunni camp you have Saudi Arabia and the UAE.  Both sides have oil.  Both sides want to get that oil to Europe and both sides need a pipeline to get that oil there.  The problem is this.  Both sides need Syria for their pipelines.  Geographically speaking, Syria is important. 

North Islam, or the Shia school, want a pipeline traversing Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and from there to Europe.  Meanwhile Southern Islam want a pipeline to traverse Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Turkey before going into Europe.  I should point out that although Turkey is in the north, it is a secular state and probably more aligned to Sunni Islam than it is to Shia Islam though both are present there.  So my North-South simplification is not perfect.  Thus, Syria and Iraq are stuck in the middle.  Both sides want those territories for the same reason.  But of course, pipelines are not the only means by which oil can be transported.  The waters off the shores of Syria hold much promise of oil, though Syria itself is fairly oil poor compared to other countries of the Middle East.  When you factor in the ocean, then control of a shorter water route to Europe is also a factor.

When Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, he instituted a strong secular socialist state which, in theory at least, embraced everyone.  In reality, the minority Sunni Muslims in Iraq held more power, but Saddam was strong enough to keep Shia factions under check.  He also fought Iran, a completely Shia stronghold.  He occupied Kuwait (Sunni) precipitating the first Gulf War for two reasons.  First, it was a rival in terms of oil, but second and more important, Saddam felt Kuwait traditionally belonged to Iraq and he wanted it back.  That it is rich in oil was also a contributing factor. 

Because oil is so important, stronger powers also weigh in.  North Islam is supported by Russia and China while South Islam is supported by the United States and Israel.  Israel, of course, cannot directly support anyone there because that would spell the doom of whomever they support.  Despite appearances on the surface, Israel is more akin to Saudi Arabia’s leadership than you might think.  This is something Bin-Laden hated and recognized. 

Back during the cold war, the United States was a massive importer of oil and was dependent on the Middle East to keep the country going.  With shale oil, though, the game has changed.  The USA no longer needs Middle East oil as it once did.  But if China and Russia have their way in this region, their economic wealth will dramatically increase thereby weakening the United States.  So the United States does not want either of these rival powers to hold sway in the region.

Thus it is that Russia and China are allied with Bashar Al-Assad, the president of Syria, as well as with Iran.  Meanwhile the USA is allied with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.  We can throw Kuwait in as well.  In a nutshell, then, the United States is fighting a proxy war with Russia and China using Middle Eastern countries as pawns.  But of course, these pawns are extremely wealthy in their own right.

Saudi Arabia has two major problems.  One is its hostility to Shia Islam and the countries dominated by that sect.  The second problem it has is shale oil.  In the United States, extraction and refinement of shale oil is well advanced because the United States has the technology in place.  This is not so in other countries.  Were this to become so in other countries, demand for conventionally extracted oil would decrease.  This is why Saudi Arabia has dramatically increased production of oil leading to a massive fall in the oil price.

You might think the USA would be against this because shale oil costs more to produce.  A lower oil price means companies involved in shale oil make far less money because their profit margins shrink dramatically.  But the USA needs to balance this inconvenience against two factors.

·         A lower oil price stimulates the domestic economy in ways that are obvious.  Transport costs are down as well as manufacturing costs.  A lower oil price has been a large contributing factor in the US recovery.

·         A lower oil price means Russia and Iran make less money.  Russia is an oil exporter, and a lower oil price means less revenue from oil. 

Meanwhile Europe is oil poor.  It therefore needs oil.  Europeans are smart enough to realize they don’t want their oil to come from only one country.  Yes, they could get oil from Russia easily enough, but then they would need to dance on Russian strings.  And this is Ukraine in a nutshell.  Ukraine gets its oil from Russia pretty much exclusively.  If Russia doesn’t like something Ukraine is doing, they turn off the flow.  It gets really cold in the winter there and Russia holds all the cards.  Europe does not want this so they are keen to obtain oil from multiple sources.

Russia knows this as well as anyone.  While other sources of oil would weaken them economically, if they had control and influence over those other sources, then that negative factor would be removed and indeed reversed.

Russia has exploration deals off the shores of Syria.  If they find oil there, and the consensus is they will, this will prove very lucrative to Russian companies and to Russia itself.  This will also gain them more control and influence in the region.

So I think when you look at all of these factors, it is easy to see why Syria is so important and why so much energy is expended by everyone worrying about it.  At present, the United States is in a weak position because Russia’s ally, Bashar Al-Assad holds power.  Rebels against him include Islamic State which no one likes.

Originally, the US thought their policy with respect to Syria was a simple one.  Support the rebels against Assad.  That one rebel faction consisted of ultra-fanatics, came as a surprise, though I suppose it is possible the USA knew this, then underestimated their potential.  In fact, the whole Arab Spring consisted of pro-Saudi groups rebelling against their respective governments.  This has largely failed and now we have Islamic State causing so much trouble in the region, that the USA and Russia both want them gone.

The trouble is, if Islamic State disappeared tomorrow, the US position would be even weaker in the region.  This is because their defeat would leave a power vacuum in mostly Shia Iraq.  Islamic State is Sunni.  In an ideal world, for the USA at least, Islamic State would disappear and a separate Kurdish state spanning parts of Iraq and Syria would be created.  Kurds are primarily Sunni and have worked with the United States on a number of occasions for various reasons.  A Kurdish state would be a thorn in Iran’s side and also curb Russian influence.  Of course, the non-Kurds in the region would object because Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey have persecuted the Kurds for centuries.  Another benefit of a Kurdish state would be that Kurds are diverse religiously even though a majority of them are Sunni.  They have always been freer and more tolerant, however, and this would align better with western ideals.

The major barrier to such a state is Turkey.  Turkey is an ally of the United States and Israel, and has been for decades.  Yes, Turkey and Israel have a strong friendship that has lasted for many years.  Turkey would most definitely not want a Kurdish state.  Since Iraq is more or less a vacuum now, however, perhaps this is the best opportunity to create a Kurdish state.  Iraq’s borders are somewhat artificial anyway.  A Kurdish state would be smaller than what the Kurds would like, because Kurds live in Iran and Turkey as well, but at least it would be an independent state.  A Kurdish state with no territory belonging to Turkey could work though people would have to jump through many diplomatic hoops to get it through.  The only downside of such a state is border tension with Iran, turkey, and Syria.  This is a significant downside, but I think the upside is stronger.  A Kurdish state would provide stability.  It would give an often persecuted and butchered people independence, and it would provide a check on Russia, Iran, Syria and China which have the upper hand in the region at present.  Essentially, such a Kurdish state would exist in parts of Iraq which at present are either ruled by them anyway, or are ruled by Islamic State, which no one really wants.

So this is the situation in a nutshell.  In this corner, we have the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait.  In the other corner we have Russia, China, Iran and Syria, with a lot of sympathetic Iraqis.  Syria and Iraq are the strategic center of all this.

Now we understand the situation, we can discuss solutions to that situation.  President Obama’s goals are exactly in line with what the United States wants.  They are also probably only achievable in Disneyland but we should at least realize Obama does want what is in the USA’s best interests.  He wants Assad gone.  He wants Islamic State gone.  He wants a strong Iraqi government which embraces all of its groups in a more or less secular state, and he wants Saudi Arabia to win its “war” against Iran.  Low oil prices plus sanctions because of Ukraine will put the squeeze on Russia.  Indeed, this is already happening.  Meanwhile Russia wants control of Syria for economic reasons, and that means its friends Iran would have influence in Iraq which is mostly Shia just as Iran is.  There is a lot of oil there which means a lot of potential revenue.  This will also make China stronger because it will have friendly sources of oil without US meddling. 

At present, Russia’s ideal state is more realistic than that of the United States because one way to get rid of Islamic State is to support Assad.  Meanwhile the USA needs to find a way to get rid of both, which is much more difficult.    The US could allow Assad to stay in power even though that would be a thorn in its side, but in order to counter this, it would need to create a strong Iraq or a strong Kurdish state.  This would maintain the balance of power.  Realistically, this is the avenue the United States should pursue.  It is the most realistically obtainable solution on the proviso that the US is willing to commit resources to the region yet again, but this time, make sure things are done right there. 

The Mordred Principle and Flight MH-17

The story goes that in a last ditch effort to avoid civil war, King Arthur and his bastard son Mordred held a peace conference.  Both armies occupied their ground and the two contenders for the throne met in the middle, each with a few retainers.  The armies were given instructions not to make any hostile move unless they saw one of the parties in the middle draw his sword.  As father and son tried to reconcile their differences, one of the soldiers saw a snake and instinctively drew his sword to slay it.  As soon as both armies saw this, and being ignorant of the cause, they rushed at each other believing peace talks had broken down.  The battle was joined and a mass slaughter ensued.  Arthur killed Mordred but was mortally wounded.  Only three survived the battle.  After the slaughter, the Saxons, who had been waiting and watching, were able to take over Britain unopposed.

Did this actually happen?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  But the principle we learn from this story is a simple one.  One of the main ingredients of war is chaos.  In fact, if there is any major crisis, chances are one of the main ingredients is chaos.  Chaos in this context is caused by many things.  Foremost among these are panic, and miscommunication.  I think it is fair to say that miscommunication is always present.

Just think about the Boston Marathon Bombing.  At first it was a gas explosion.  Then maybe not.  Then perhaps it was a terrorist attack, and on and on.  It was a while before the chaos cleared and for a while, no one really knew what had happened.  I thought my sister Susan was at the finish line because she sometimes helps out.  That’s the kind of person she is.  I was frantically trying to reach her but phone traffic was so congested, I could not get through.  It turned out, she was thinking of volunteering, but changed her mind and was nowhere near the horror.

I think thanks to Hollywood, we are not used to chaos in crisis.  This is because that makes for poor movies.  When a bomb goes off in Hollywood, we know who the bad guys are.  Chances are, we saw them planting the bomb.  Chances are we saw some phone conversations or meetings among the bad guys which detail all the planning that went into the attack.  In fact, there is virtually no chaos in the movies from the viewer’s perspective because we need to know what is going on, at least to some extent.  Because of this, people have forgotten the Mordred Principle.

In the real world, war and crisis – and really war is an extreme crisis – is highly chaotic.  For one thing, both sides are attempting to hide their intentions and movements from the other side.  You also have both sides trying to jam the communications of the other side, as well as kill scouts and anyone else who can communicate the true situation to commanders.  Finally, you have panic and fear which can cause people to react in ways they would not normally react. 

I once spoke to an Israeli friend of mine who had been a soldier involved in one of Israel’s incursions into Lebanon.  We were talking about our respective paint balling experiences and I said I thought he must have been devastating.  He said he wasn’t.  In fact, he was terrible at it.  His mistake was he approached paint balling the way he approached fighting in Lebanon.  He told me when you are in a real war, you are so afraid you hardly want to move.  You know someone could shoot you at any moment and you wouldn’t know where the shot came from.  So he was over cautious.  He said in paint balling, you know you are not going to die so people do things they would never do in a real war.

And so although we are unfortunately surrounded by war, many people, particularly in the west, have no idea what it is actually like.  I hope I never find out.

But I do know what a severe crisis is like.  I was involved in the siege of Mount Carmel in 1993.  I wasn’t there, but I worked with the ATF and then the FBI to resolve the crisis.  A movie would have given you a coherent sequence of events – in fact there was a movie which did just that – and although the people involved might not have known every detail, the viewer of the movie would have.  When it actually happened, the situation was complete chaos!  No one, and I mean no one, knew anything.  We did not know what started the shooting.  We did not know who was dead and who was wounded on either side.  We did not know the disposition of the Branch Davidians.  We knew virtually nothing.  When one of the FBI negotiators called me within hours of the botched raid, he said with a haggard voice “who are these people?”  He did not know who David Koresh was, what he believed, where he came from, how many guns he had, or whether he was still alive.  He did not know who his followers were, how much training, if any, they had, and what kind of people he was dealing with.  The FBI was brought in blind.  Meanwhile the ATF, who had planned the raid, had suffered massive casualties, the worst in US law enforcement history, and were in shock.  For my part, I knew who the people were but I did not know the ATF had changed their minds and gone for a full raid instead of arresting Koresh when he was in town.  I couldn’t believe they had actually raided the compound, something I, and the field agents I spoke to, thought should never happen.  I wanted to know why plans had changed but I didn’t know.  The raid came out of the blue for me and bore no resemblance to anything I had discussed with the ATF, and those discussions were extensive.  In fact, I was still unsure what had happened.  It was unmitigated chaos!

When trying to reconstruct the full event chain in a crisis, you have to factor high levels of chaos into the mix.  Sometimes we think that the more information we have, the more sure we will be of what happened.  This is sometimes true and this is sometimes not true.  But in the end, we are left most of the time with a most likely scenario.

Let us apply the Mordred Principle to Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17, which was shot down over disputed Ukrainian air space.  The Dutch have published their findings that the plane was brought down by a Russian missile.  So now people are pointing the finger at Russia and at Putin.  Meanwhile the Russians claim the plane was shot down by an older model of the missile no longer used by the Russian Military.  Since many governments sell their old stock to less powerful countries, the implication is that the Ukrainians opposing the Russian separatists shot the plane down.

Most people are not going to go through the expert reports published by either the Dutch or the Russians.  If we did, chances are, we wouldn’t understand them.  And that is to be expected.  So how do we know what happened?  When we consider that several airlines, including Lufthansa, Air France, and Delta, regularly flew over the same airspace during the time of the conflict, and that of all those flights, only one flight was shot down, I can see only two scenarios which qualify as most likely.  In order, these are:

1.       It was an accident caused by the chaos which accompanies any war zone.

2.       It was a deliberate attempt to cause the opposing side to take a massive public opinion hit.

Let us deal with the second scenario first.  Suppose Russia wanted to do something which would cause outrage against the Ukraine government.  What would they do?  Even if Russia and her allies wanted to shoot down the plane, they would have surely used a non Russian missile to do it.  Given they had gained ground against Ukraine, they could have used something that definitely belonged to the Ukraine government, or they could have gone out secretly to the arms market and bought something made by someone else.  But instead they use one of their own missiles hoping to cast blame on Ukraine?  That makes absolutely no sense.

Cast your mind back to World War I.  The USA entered the war because of the sinking of the Lusitania.  Germany warned its New York passengers with newspaper ads that any ship caught in the war zone would be sunk.  The ship was sunk outside of the war zone and America entered the war because Germany had violated international law.  Had they sunk the Lusitania inside the war zone, Germany would have been guiltless especially since they had provided fair warning.  However, the British had breached the same international law on numerous occasions prior to the Lusitania and the Lusitania was carrying war munitions destined for the British.  But because trans-Atlantic passenger shipping was lucrative, the owners of the Lusitania put money ahead of safety and thousands of Americans died as a result of its entrance into the Great War.

Assuming Germany did sink the Lusitania, and I think this is quite likely, the location of its sinking was probably an accident.  It would have been in Germany’s best interests to wait until it hit the war zone since it knew the ship was headed to Liverpool.  Germany had no reason to sink the ship outside the war zone.  But it did and Germany paid the heaviest of prices.  In this case, the most likely scenario is the U-boat captain made a mistake and sunk the ship prematurely.  And of course, because the USA entered the war, Germany was eventually overwhelmed by superior forces and lost.  The devastating treaty demands led to the rise of Hitler and World War II.

On the other hand, if the Ukrainian government wanted to give Russia a massive PR headache, it would have used a Russian missile to shoot down the plane.  So if my second scenario represents what actually happened, the most likely culprit is the Ukrainian government, not the pro-Russian separatists. 

But if the missile is truly a Russian missile which is currently used, chances are the separatists shot down the plane.  But why that plane?  As I said, many airlines were flying many planes over the disputed area during the time of the conflict.  It is possible a Separatist commander got it into his head to do something to cause blame to fall on the Ukrainian government and fired on the plane.  In this case, Russia is blameless because it was a stupid act.  Chaos once again.

But to me, the most likely scenario is that it was an accident.  For some reason, someone mistook that particular plane as a military aircraft or spy aircraft operating on the side of Ukraine.  I have had people tell me this could not have happened because the equipment available now is so good that it is impossible to mistake such things.

Really?  These people don’t understand the Mordred principle.  Not too long ago, Pat Tillman, an NFL player gave up a lucrative career to fight in Afghanistan.  He was tragically killed in the line of duty in 2004.  It turns out, Tillman was killed by friendly fire.  The movies show the US military with super sophisticated equipment and indeed, the US has such equipment.  That someone could die of friendly fire came as a shock to many Americans whose experience of war comes through Rambo movies.  But friendly fire deaths happen more often than we would like to believe no matter how sophisticated the equipment is.  Just a few days ago, a Russian missile aimed at Syrian rebels hit Iran by accident.  And that’s my point.  In war, chaos rules and in the case of Malaysian Flight MH-17, I believe the most likely scenario is that it was an accident.  No one meant to shoot down a civilian aircraft, but it happened.  Lots of accidents happen in war.

My father fought in the Pacific during World War II.  He told me of his ship’s “holy shit” moment.  They were searching for Japanese submarines using their sonar and they discovered one directly below them.  It was straight down vertical.  Talk about panic!  The ship’s captain ordered all speed for all the ship was worth.  That the enemy submarine was directly below them is probably what saved them because it meant the Japanese submarine would have had to go completely vertical in order to fire.  But from the Japanese side, how did it not know an American ship was there until it was right above them?  The Japanese just didn’t.  It was a fluke which resulted in no loss of life on either side.  Had either vessel detected the other when they should have, somebody would have died.  In this case, chaos was everyone’s best friend.

We must never underestimate the power of chaos in these situations.  Sadly, I think in the case of MH-17, unless some smoking gun evidence emerges, we need to chalk this up as yet another in a long line of accidents of war and move on.  I did not lose anyone on that flight so it is easy for me to say this.  But having been in a situation where scores of dear friends of mine died because something went horribly wrong, I honestly think this understanding is best for those who have lost loved ones.