U.S. (Non)Response to ISIS

As Russia speeds delivery of SU-25 fighter planes to besieged Iraq, let's take a step back and reconnoiter the U.S. response, or lack thereof, to the emerging ISIS caliphate. First, blame Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. The idea here, as floated by USG and -- uniformly -- its media minions, is that ISIS is a creation not of the rich Gulf emirates, whose history of funding and exporting Wahhabi jihad is well documented, but of the democratically elected Maliki government because that democratically elected government is not more inclusive of Sunnis.

The most obvious shortcoming of this argument is the absence of proof that Sunnis, who would be open to participating in Iraq's government if only given a sinecure, have -- anywhere -- gone over wholesale to a medieval movement that considers democracy irreligious. What the reporting has shown so far is that a relatively compact force of jihadis augmented by ex-Baathist Sufis led by former Saddam henchman Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri took Mosul by blitzkrieg on June 10. The Kurds followed by taking Kirkuk a couple days later. The whole thing had the vibe of central planning.

There have been hints in Anbar that the Sons of Iraq, the "Awakening" movement that battled ISIS precursor Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during the U.S. occupation last decade, has gone over to ISIS. But this has only been alluded to, not documented at any length in anything that I have seen.

No, what is going on in Iraq smacks of a "Great Game" operation. The U.S. has done nothing so far to stem the jihadis. The 300 military advisers and surveillance flights are more to keep tabs on the Iraqi Army and the assistance it is receiving from Russia and Iran. Let's keep our eyes peeled for any strike on ISIS by the U.S. I'm skeptical one will every come off. Maybe once it is clear that the jihadis are being routed Obama will order a cosmetic Predator drone attack on a column of retreating Salafi foot soldiers, if only to maintain the cover story that USG is concerned about a terrorist safe haven.

The second aspect of the U.S. response to consider, besides the scapegoating of Maliki, is the linkage to Syria. Yes, Syria is linked to Iraq and the rise of ISIS. There is no denying that. But using the ISIS capture of Mosul and most of the Syria-Iraq border posts as an excuse to forward a half-a-billion dollar request to train and equip a non-existent "moderate" Syrian rebel army is also a strong tell. The target here is not ISIS but Assad.

So in both cases -- first, the blame-Maliki game; then the funding request for a discredited Syrian opposition -- USG is doing all it can to avoid confronting the real problem, which is ISIS and its Gulf sponsors.

It is truly pitiful, and one wonders how much longer it can continue, what with Russia and Iran acting with alacrity and the jihadis starting to suffer their first military defeats of the blitz. I'm sure the hope in Jidda and D.C. is that the gains of the blitz can be locked in -- Kurdish control of Kirkuk; Salafi control of Mosul -- and a long, grinding, costly (for Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia) guerrilla war commences.

There will be a price to pay politically in the United States. If the conflict grinds on and Obama continues his feckless dithering, Democrats will hemorrhage. If Iraq convincingly rolls back the ISIS blitz, the Fourth Estate will shriek that the sky is falling. Let's hope for the latter.