Insurgency and Chaos in Iraq. What is happening and why?

In Iraq, hell is unleashed as you might have heard in the media. A group of islamist insurgents called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or, in short, ISIS, is rapidly gaining ground in western and northern Iraq. The name might sound familiar to you if you follow the events in Syria, as ISIS is active in the civil war there as well. In this entry I will explain what happens in this part of the Middle East, why it happens and where the regional actors stand. In order to understand the complex situation, a large portion of this entry will look into the history and the events that led to the big mess that Iraq is now. Inspired by my co-blogger Alejandro’s examples, I will try to give an easy step-to-step introduction into the issue. If you find some statements to be oversimplified, I know, I left out many details, but this is meant to be an introduction, not a scientific study. I hope it gives you some interesting insights and helps you to understand the current situation in Iraq a bit better.

So let’s get started. These are the most important factors that have an impact on the current events in Iraq:

Sectarian factions in the Middle East

The Middle East is birthplace of many religions, of which the most well known are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is, among others, home to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, Druze, Jews and Muslims, the latter being by far the largest group. But as with most religions, Islam does not have one single mainstream branch or denomination but several. Examples might be Shia and Sunni Islam or Sufism. In the Middle East, Shiites (or Shias) and Sunnis (or Sunnites) form the majority. While the former believe that Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin Ali is his successor and, therefore, first Caliph, the latter see Abu Bakr as the first Caliph and rightful successor. Other than Shiits, Sunni Muslims accept the sunna as a second source of islamic law and are often said to be more orthodox in their religious practices. Without going further into detail, it is important to know that while the two groups live together peacefully in many places of the Middle East, this is not so much the case in today’s Syria and Iraq, to say the least. But why is this so, what changed so dramatically in these two countries?

The second Iraq War. Image by Futuretrillionaire

The Iraq War and its aftermath

After the US led invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party regime in 2003, Iraq has been in a constant state of sectarian fightings. (If you are interested in some first hand insight, I can highly recommend Dexter Filkins’ brilliant book The Forever War.) The news about suicide attacks (often but not exclusively perpetrated by Sunni terrorists against Shiite civilian or against government targets) are so legion that the news media got tired of covering them as the readers/watchers got used to it and gradually lost interest. The reason for the fighting amongst sectarian factions is mainly to be found in the unstable political situation as a result of the invasion. While the population of Iraq is predominately Shiite, Saddam Hussein‘s regime was composed of Sunni Muslims. The often brutal suppression of the Shiite majority with the help of the regime’s security forces caused much suffering but also resulted in relative stability and peace due to the strength of the regime. On an unrelated note, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq also provided a counterbalance to Iran. With this rough but stable regime gone, Iraq fell into a spiral of sectarian fightings, chaos and insurgency with no end in sight. So far, the year 2007 has been the inglorious peek of terror, but this year’s atrocities are on a good way to overshadow even that. Here are some of the reasons for Iraq’s instability: After invading Iraq, the coalition forces crushed almost all Iraqi institutions, notably also the - predominantly Sunni - military. Tens of thousands of young men lost their jobs and perspective and were neglected by the now Shia government that basically turned the tables and marginalized the Sunni minority. The new government, lacking Saddam Hussein’s power to suppress their opposition,

Saddam Hussein in 1979

could not restrain these men from going underground, which many of them did, forming or joining criminal or islamist groups. Moreover, the new government is widely perceived to be a puppet of the US and enjoys little trust from its people. Another big disaster that led to the strengthening of al-Qaeda in Iraq was a consequence of the first big wave of terror in 2005. In order to push back islamist militants, the US armed Sunni tribes in Iraq’s western province Anbar and made the government promise that they will be integrated into Iraq’s regular security forces. At first, the plan seemed to work as the tribal militias achieved a number of initial military successes. But when it was the government’s turn to fulfill their promise, they backed down, creating just another batch of tens of thousands of disappointed, unemployed men belonging to the Sunni minority, which are, to make matters even worse, armed with US weapons. You can do the math yourself... The US simply failed to understand the consequences of their actions. Colin Powell, head of the US State Department during the second Iraq war warned President Bush with his iconic phrase “if you break it, you own it,” meaning that after toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime the US would have to take responsibility for Iraq. Instead, President Obama withdrew all troops in 2011, leaving behind a destabilized state that is incapable of protecting its own citizens. By now the horrifying number of up to 140,000 civilians fell victim to the ongoing violence since the US led invasion in 2003!

The Arab Spring and its effects in Syria

Syria, Iraq’s neighbor to the west, has been and is in parts still ruled by the Ba'ath Party, but this one is not to be confused with the Iraqi Ba'ath Party. They used to be just one, but split in 1966 and the two Ba'ath Parties formed the governments of their respective states. Their relationship was not always the best and the countries are quite different in many respects. Especially interesting for us is that, while predominantly Shiite Iraq was ruled by a minority of Sunnis, it is the other way round in

Bashar al-Assad. Image by Fabio R. Pozzebom

Syria. President Bashar al-Assad belongs to the religious group of Alawites, which is considered a sub-branch of Shia Islam. Its members are especially devoted to Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin Ali. Members of this faith dominate the Syrian government and hold key positions in the military. Syria is also home to a large Christian population of about 2.5 million, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. The government of Syria was certainly not very virtuous (by Western standards), but compared to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Syrians could live relatively undisturbed. This might make you wonder how Syria ended up as one of the world’s most notorious battlefields. Well, the answer to that is quite complicated, but I’ll break it down to the most prominent cause: the so-called Arab Spring. It started in Tunisia in December 2010 as mass protests against (police) corruption and went viral in many countries in North Africa and the Middle East in the following month. A number of governments were overthrown in an attempt to achieve or strengthen democracy and civil participation. The trend also spread in Syria, which led to large but peaceful demonstrations, demanding democratic change. In a woeful move, the government, unable to cope with the situation, ordered the military to open fire on the protesters. Within weeks, what started as peaceful protests turned into a bloody civil war that is still raging today. Deserted soldiers formed the Free Syrian Army, but liberal forces like them are increasingly outnumbered by islamist militias that have established a strong presence in the “liberated” territories in Syria’s north. The strongest group among them is the al-Qaeda affiliated “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS). Their target is quite obvious (an islamic state on the territory of Iraq and Syria in succession of the Caliphate), but why exactly do they want such a thing?

A very brief introduction into the Arab World and islamist fundamentalism

For many people, islamist fundamentalism was an unfamiliar concept before September 11, 2001. From this day on the perception of islamic societies changed fundamentally, especially in the West. So lets have a quick look on the history of ideas in the Middle East. Until the beginning of the 20th century, large parts of the Arab world were ruled by the Ottoman Empire. It’s subjects did not define themselves so much by their nationality but rather by their religion and tribal affiliation. Broadly speaking, the Ottoman Empire was perceived as the protecting power of Middle Eastern Muslims. With its collapse in the aftermath of World War I, European powers, especially England and France colonized the people on its territory and created states with often arbitrary boarders. For example, Winston Churchill, then state secretary for the colonies and later Prime Minister of the United Kingdom claimed that the creation of Trans-Jordan (today’s Kingdom of Jordan) in 1921 was made “with the stroke of a pen, one Sunday afternoon in Cairo”, an afternoon that, according to some, followed a particularly liquid lunch.

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood at a rally for President Morsi

Defeated by European powers and their modern technology, intellectuals in the Arab world started developing alternative ideas to the weak status quo, ranging from a return to Islam and spirituality (as promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) to secularism and European style modernization (Turkey’s reformer Kemal Atatürk is a famous representative of the latter). Over the years, new ideas were developed and implemented, from Arab nationalism to Arab socialism. The founding of Israel in 1948 as the sole non-muslim and non-arab state in the region also had a deep impact on its Middle Eastern neighbors and to a certain degree unified them in their (fruitless) fight against it. But over the decades, the spirit of optimism faded and made way for resignation. Arab nationalism as well as Arab socialism had failed and multiple attempts to modernize their societies were rejected by religious authorities. Many Muslims in Arab countries turned their back on politics and turned towards religion instead. The growing urbanization and drift to the cities of large parts of the commonly more conservative rural population was another of multiple reasons for Islam’s renewed importance in everyday life. Political stagnation, Islam’s rising influence on people’s lives and the marginalization of the youth created a dangerous cocktail that eventually led to the emergence of islamist extremism. Just to make this clear, I am not saying that Middle Eastern countries or governments are islamist extremists. But they were a (largely involuntary) breeding ground for violent fundamentalist groups that pose a threat to international security. The difference between groups like the PLO or even the Hizbollah and organizations like al-Qaeda or ISIS is their motivation and, therefore, level of threat on the international stage. While the former are at least primarily motivated by political targets that focus on their area, the latter follow religious rules and have international aspirations. Now there is one more thing, but let me say this first: I am by all means far from lumping together peaceful believers with terrorists, but to understand the whole story, it has to be mentioned that many (but not all!) islamist extremist groups that resort to terrorism are composed of Sunni Muslims. For example, most of the horrid suicide attacks on civilians and the government in Iraq following the US led invasion were perpetrated by Sunni terrorists. The Afghan Taliban are Sunnis (predominantly Pashtuns, Afghanistan’s largest ethnic group) as well as the members of al-Qaeda and ISIS. In the Southeast Asian context, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) are composed of Sunni Muslims as well. Again, I want to make it very clear the I am far from saying that all Sunni Muslims are islamist terrorists, on the contrary, the vast majority of Sunni Muslims just want to live in peace like you and me, but it is hard to deny the fact that many islamist terrorists come from this branch of Islam. Of course, Sunni Islam are the largest denomination of Islam, but this is not the only reason for their predominance in islamist terror-organizations.

The site of a car bombing in Bagdad in 2007. Image by Jim Gordon

Who are these insurgents and what do they want in Iraq?

As you have certainly heard, Iraq is under attack by the group “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS). They are one of the islamist militant groups that fight the government (and sometimes the more liberal rebels) in Syria and holds large territories in the northern part of the country. They are the main reason for the US’ reluctance to support the Syrian rebels with military equipment as they are worried that it might end up in ISIS’ and other islamists' hands. This is a lesson learned from Afghanistan, where the US armed the mujahideen in their resistance to the Soviets in the 1980s. Part of these very same mujahideen later became known by the name Taliban. Another, though less famous example is the above-mentioned support of Sunni tribal militias in Iraq in 2005. But back to the ISIS. Apart from it’s strongholds in Syria, they also spread their influence over the boarder into Iraq’s western province of Anbar, from where they are now unleashing their attacks on parts of Iraq. In fact, “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” is quite a misnomer as ISIS’ ultimate target is the “re-erection” of the Caliphate and the “liberation” of Jerusalem. In the areas that were unfortunate enough to be “liberated” already, ISIS is implementing strict rules based on a primitive interpretation of the sharia. Without going too much into detail, just revisit the Taliban’s “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” from 1996 to 2001. That’s pretty much it. ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda and supported by private donations from the Arab Peninsular, especially Saudi Arabia. But actually ISIS can x funding off its list for a while since they conquered Mosul, Iraq's second-largest and predominantly Sunni city, and looted almost half a billion (!) dollars from the city's central bank, which instantly made them the world's richest terrorist organization. The Iraqi Army also left much of its modern equipment, so prepare yourself to see images of insurgents deploying artillery and firing M16 rifles from Humvee jeeps, or, once ISIS has figured out how to use them, flying in materiel with their cargo planes or giving air support with UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters! By now, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government have lost control of many parts of western and northern Iraq, including the cities of Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul and Tikrit, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein and home to many of his cronies. According to the latest news, Tikrit was retaken by the Iraqi Army. In any case, ISIS’ troops are only 90 kilometers (56 miles) away from Iraq’s capitol Bagdad and will most likely try to use their momentum to further advance. In other words, it’s high time to understand what’s going on and, well, do something. 

Apart from ISIS and Iraq’s government, who are the main characters?

We talked already about Iraq’s government and about ISIS, now it is time to see who else in the Middle East has an interest in the regions power relations. So let’s go through the parties that are involved in the insurgency in Iraq.

Iran: Predominantly Shiite (and also ruled by a Shiite government), Iran was a natural enemy of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The bloody Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988 (that ended with a military stalemate) can serve as an example for this. For Iran, the toppling of Iraq’s dictatorship was a game-changer. Iraq’s new, Shiite government is seen as an ally rather than an opponent, much to the dissatisfaction of Saudi Arabia, the second powerful player in the Gulf region. Iran has not many friends in the Middle East, but is on good terms with Assad's Syria and Maliki's Iraq. You can imagine that the Islamic Republic is more than concerned that ISIS is destabilizing exactly those two countries. In this context it is not surprising that Iran started deploying its Revolutionary Guards in Iraq to fight the Sunni insurgents.

Saudi Arabia: The Kingdom’s predominant denomination is Wahhabism, if you will a simplified form of Sunni Islam. If you have heard stories about insurgents destroying shrines of Muslim saints, that’s an idea derived from Wahhabism, where the worship of anyone but Allah is understood as blasphemy. It is, therefore, not surprising that quite many of ISIS’ foreign fighters come from Saudi Arabia and that private donors from the kingdom support the islamist militia. The monarchy is getting increasingly worried about this, as it fears returning fighters might perpetrate terror attacks at home. But on the other hand, everything that weakens Iran is useful for Saudi Arabia as the two states compete over the dominance in the region since the balance of power was destroyed with the overthrowing of Hussein’s Iraq.

Turkey: The successor of the Ottoman Empire traditionally maintained good relations with the Syrian Assad regime, but terminated their friendship following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War. In blind support of everyone who was willing to fight the Syrian regime, Turkey opened its boarders in both directions, allowing young and enthusiastic islamists to enter Syria and wounded or war-worn islamists to retreat to Turkey. This week Turkey’s support for extremists backfired when 80 Turkish citizens, among them the country's consul general, were abducted by ISIS. It is not completely unimaginable that Turkey's military, on the alert for the past three years and prepared for an intervention in Syria, could be depoyed in Iraq.

The Kurds: The Kurds are an ethnic group (they are not Arabs) that is spread in several countries in the northern region of the Middle East. Having their own autonomous region in northern Iraq, the Kurds there form the last stronghold against ISIS’ fighters in this area. The only problem: As most autonomous regions, the Kurds are suspected of aspiring independence (as they did in Turkey, maybe you have heard of the PKK). A weak Iraqi government that relies on the help of Kurds, that seems to be a problem, especially since their region is rich in oil. The Kurds’ secession would be a major setback for Iraq.

So much about the background of the current events in Iraq and the regional actors. I hope my introduction helps you a little bit the next time you hear the news from the Middle East! As always, I would be more than happy to hear your opinions, critiques and general comments!