Frankensteinian Hubris: Bush’s “Redirection” and the Rise of ISIS

Dan Sanchez, July 14, 2014
6-photo-henry-his-monster

Monster and maker meet again.

As the ISIS Sunni radicals, after proclaiming a new Caliphate, continue to conquer Iraqi towns, and the Al Nusra Front Sunni radicals proclaim a new Emirate in Syria, it is good to remember that the policy that led to this mess was initiated under the Bush Administration, with full cognizance of the possibility that it could result in severe terroristic and destabilizing blowback. It was in 2007 that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia launched what Seymour Hersh, who broke the story in The New Yorker, called “the Redirection.” Under this policy revolution, the U.S. and the Saudis (with Israel’s blessing and prodding) began trying to bolster Sunni radicals in an effort to “contain” the “Shiite resurgence” brought about by the U.S. empowerment of the Shiites in Iraq. It all started in Lebanon (emphasis added):

In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. (…)

The new strategy “is a major shift in American policy—it’s a sea change,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states “were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,” he said. “We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.”

“It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.”

(As it turns out, as reported by Patrick Cockburn, not all of the Saudis embraced such a blowback-inviting policy, so it would be more accurate to call it a victory for the Prince Bandar bin Sultan line.) The fact that U.S. policymakers concluded that beleaguered Iran, with its long track record of not attacking a single country, is more of a danger than Sunni radicals, like the ones responsible for 9/11 and every other Al Qaeda attack, is an indication of just how little our overlords care about actually protecting us, as compared to pursuing regional power politics.

The Administration’s new policy for containing Iran seems to complicate its strategy for winning the war in Iraq. Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran and the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued, however, that closer ties between the United States and moderate or even radical Sunnis could put “fear” into the government of Prime Minister Maliki and “make him worry that the Sunnis could actually win” the civil war there. Clawson said that this might give Maliki an incentive to cooperate with the United States in suppressing radical Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

Some of the radical Sunnis the U.S. has bolstered in Syria (namely, ISIS) have now crossed over into Iraq, conquered much of the northwest, and may soon take Baghdad, Maliki’s capital. I imagine this has put plenty of “fear” into his government: mission accomplished. Although, I don’t know how much “incentive” they’ll have to “cooperate” when they’re all dead or in exile.

American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.

During a conversation with me, the former Saudi diplomat accused Nasrallah of attempting “to hijack the state,” but he also objected to the Lebanese and Saudi sponsorship of Sunni jihadists in Lebanon. “Salafis are sick and hateful, and I’m very much against the idea of flirting with them,” he said. “They hate the Shiites, but they hate Americans more. If you try to outsmart them, they will outsmart us. It will be ugly.”

They have indeed outsmarted them, and it has indeed been ugly. Obama and the Saudis ramped up in Syria the same policy that Bush and the Saudis started pursuing in Lebanon, and the result was the same but worse. Salafi psychos in Syria, as in Lebanon, were able to get their hands on plenty of U.S. and Saudi aid. And through the course of the U.S.-supported bloody rebellion in Syria, ISIS acquired experience, recruits, arms, and territory, which they used to launch their conquest in Iraq.

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

Of course, this turned out to be Frankensteinian hubris. Mad experimenters can never control the monsters they create, and their creatures eventually turn on them, as in Mary Shelley’s story of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. The terrorist Frankenstein’s monster created by the U.S. and the Saudis in their proxy war against the Soviets eventually found its way to our doorstep and knocked over our skyscrapers, as monsters are wont to do. And now the terrorist Frankenstein’s monster created by U.S./Saudi “Redirection,” started under Bush and ramped up under Obama (especially in their proxy war against Syria), is running amok in the Middle East, and may eventually turn its attention to its hated creators in the house of Saud, as well as the West. Strictly speaking, it already has, considering that the gunman who killed four people in the Jewish Museum of Belgium was an ISIS veteran of the war in Syria.

One final useful thing to remember is that Hersh identified Dick Cheney as a driving force behind “the Redirection,” especially its clandestine aspects. The seeds of ISIS were this Iraq War architect’s parting “gift” to world peace and security, which makes it even more appalling that the media has been giving him, of all people, a soapbox from which to offer policy advice and complain about the rise of ISIS and the unraveling of the Middle East.




8 Responses to “Frankensteinian Hubris: Bush’s “Redirection” and the Rise of ISIS”

  1. Isn’t it also true that the ISIS assaults come in handy for the West in overthrowing a puppet, Maliki, who’s grown too big for his boots? Isn’t it the truth that the first thing America demanded when ISIS launched its offensive was Maliki’s ouster? Is it not also true that America’s Kurdish “allies” have used the occasion to seize *Iraqi government* territory without a cheep from Washington? .

  2. The 'people that matter'–for example, the Clintons, Bushes, the 'captains of industry,' hedge fund managers, etc.–as well as their offspring, are, of course, thoroughly insulated from the inevitable blowback.

    So what's the problem? The children of the working class who become willing participants in the investor class-configured bloodspill will be told of their singular contribution to the spreading of democracy (they're more ambassadors than warriors, you might then conclude). The non-white 'collateral damage' (non-combatants) are, well, readily written off ('freedom has its price'). Empire's proximity to their oil, their mineral stores, their now-obliging markets and 'human resources,' etc., improves with the geo-political bedlam we breed and nurse…

    Life is good–in the boardrooms, at Goldman-Sachs, for the Penny Pritzkers, the Brothers Koch, and war financiers.

    DC: 'Be grateful we've staved off food riots thus far–and, stop meddling!'

  3. […] Cross-posted at Antiwar.com. […]

  4. […] Cross-posted at Antiwar.com. […]

  5. Not so sure about the writer. Believes in cave people crashing the towers and a mass of monstrosity we can no longer contain. Yeah? Then how come we still feed it? Is this article Redirection or Misdirection?

  6. “…Is this article Redirection or Misdirection?”

    I think Misdirection. One of the few things that the neocons and their fellow travelers ever said that I believe is true was that 9/11 could not have happened without state support.

    We were told that state actor was Iraq. Far more likely is that the state was “israel”. Remember NutAndYahoo’s initial reaction that 9/11 was “very good for israel”?

    The question to ask is “Who benefited” by 9/11? It sure wasn’t Muslims or Iraq. The only beneficiaries were the arms industry and “israel”.

    My vote for the most likely perpetrator goes to “israel” and its agents inside the US government. The Oded Yinon plan has been enacted.

  7. Very interesting thanks for the information.

  8. […] Dan Sanchez writes for Antiwar: […]