Failed US War on Terror resulted from bizarre search for Moderate Jihadis

By Patrick Cockburn via

[This essay is excerpted from the first chapter of Patrick Cockburn’s new book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprisingwith special thanks to his publisher, OR Books.  The first section is a new introduction written for TomDispatch.]

There are extraordinary elements in the present U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria that are attracting surprisingly little attention. In Iraq, the U.S. is carrying out air strikes and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The U.S. would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria, Washington’s policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil and gas production facilities.

But U.S., Western European, Saudi, and Arab Gulf policy is to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, which happens to be the policy of ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition. There is a pretense in Washington and elsewhere that there exists a “moderate” Syrian opposition being helped by the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, and the Saudis.  It is, however, weak and getting more so by the day. Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.

The reality of U.S. policy is to support the government of Iraq, but not Syria, against ISIS. But one reason that group has been able to grow so strong in Iraq is that it can draw on its resources and fighters in Syria. Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West. Iraqi politicians have been telling me for the last two years that foreign backing for the Sunni revolt in Syria would inevitably destabilize their country as well.  This has now happened.

By continuing these contradictory policies in two countries, the U.S. has ensured that ISIS can reinforce its fighters in Iraq from Syria and vice versa. So far, Washington has been successful in escaping blame for the rise of ISIS by putting all the blame on the Iraqi government. In fact, it has created a situation in which ISIS can survive and may well flourish.

Using the al-Qa’ida Label

The sharp increase in the strength and reach of jihadist organizations in Syria and Iraq has generally been unacknowledged until recently by politicians and media in the West. A primary reason for this is that Western governments and their security forces narrowly define the jihadist threat as those forces directly controlled by al-Qa‘ida central or “core” al-Qa‘ida. This enables them to present a much more cheerful picture of their successes in the so-called war on terror than the situation on the ground warrants.

In fact, the idea that the only jihadis to be worried about are those with the official blessing of al-Qa‘ida is naïve and self-deceiving. It ignores the fact, for instance, that ISIS has been criticized by the al-Qa‘ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for its excessive violence and sectarianism. After talking to a range of Syrian jihadi rebels not directly affiliated with al-Qa‘ida in southeast Turkey earlier this year, a source told me that “without exception they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S.”

Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa‘ida have been relabeled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of U.S. policy aims. In Syria, the Americans backed a plan by Saudi Arabia to build up a “Southern Front” based in Jordan that would be hostile to the Assad government in Damascus, and simultaneously hostile to al-Qa‘ida-type rebels in the north and east. The powerful but supposedly moderate Yarmouk Brigade, reportedly the planned recipient of anti-aircraft missiles from Saudi Arabia, was intended to be the leading element in this new formation. But numerous videos show that the Yarmouk Brigade has frequently fought in collaboration with JAN, the official al-Qa‘ida affiliate. Since it was likely that, in the midst of battle, these two groups would share their munitions, Washington was effectively allowing advanced weaponry to be handed over to its deadliest enemy. Iraqi officials confirm that they have captured sophisticated arms from ISIS fighters in Iraq that were originally supplied by outside powers to forces considered to be anti-al-Qa‘ida in Syria.

The name al-Qa‘ida has always been applied flexibly when identifying an enemy. In 2003 and 2004 in Iraq, as armed Iraqi opposition to the American and British-led occupation mounted, U.S. officials attributed most attacks to al-Qa‘ida, though many were carried out by nationalist and Baathist groups. Propaganda like this helped to persuade nearly 60% of U.S. voters prior to the Iraq invasion that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and those responsible for 9/11, despite the absence of any evidence for this. In Iraq itself, indeed throughout the entire Muslim world, these accusations have benefited al-Qa‘ida by exaggerating its role in the resistance to the U.S. and British occupation.

Precisely the opposite PR tactics were employed by Western governments in 2011 in Libya, where any similarity between al-Qa‘ida and the NATO-backed rebels fighting to overthrow the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was played down. Only those jihadis who had a direct operational link to the al-Qa‘ida “core” of Osama bin Laden were deemed to be dangerous. The falsity of the pretense that the anti-Gaddafi jihadis in Libya were less threatening than those in direct contact with al-Qa‘ida was forcefully, if tragically, exposed when U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by jihadi fighters in Benghazi in September 2012. These were the same fighters lauded by Western governments and media for their role in the anti-Gaddafi uprising.

Imagining al-Qa’ida as the Mafia

Al-Qa‘ida is an idea rather than an organization, and this has long been the case. For a five-year period after 1996, it did have cadres, resources, and camps in Afghanistan, but these were eliminated after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Subsequently, al-Qa‘ida’s name became primarily a rallying cry, a set of Islamic beliefs, centering on the creation of an Islamic state, the imposition of sharia, a return to Islamic customs, the subjugation of women, and the waging of holy war against other Muslims, notably the Shia, who are considered heretics worthy of death. At the center of this doctrine for making war is an emphasis on self-sacrifice and martyrdom as a symbol of religious faith and commitment. This has resulted in using untrained but fanatical believers as suicide bombers, to devastating effect.

It has always been in the interest of the U.S. and other governments that al-Qa‘ida be viewed as having a command-and-control structure like a mini-Pentagon, or like the mafia in America. This is a comforting image for the public because organized groups, however demonic, can be tracked down and eliminated through imprisonment or death. More alarming is the reality of a movement whose adherents are self-recruited and can spring up anywhere.

Osama bin Laden’s gathering of militants, which he did not call al-Qa‘ida until after 9/11, was just one of many jihadi groups 12 years ago. But today its ideas and methods are predominant among jihadis because of the prestige and publicity it gained through the destruction of the Twin Towers, the war in Iraq, and its demonization by Washington as the source of all anti-American evil. These days, there is a narrowing of differences in the beliefs of jihadis, regardless of whether or not they are formally linked to al-Qa‘ida central.

Unsurprisingly, governments prefer the fantasy picture of al-Qa‘ida because it enables them to claim victories when it succeeds in killing its better known members and allies. Often, those eliminated are given quasi-military ranks, such as “head of operations,” to enhance the significance of their demise. The culmination of this heavily publicized but largely irrelevant aspect of the “war on terror” was the killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad in Pakistan in 2011. This enabled President Obama to grandstand before the American public as the man who had presided over the hunting down of al-Qa‘ida’s leader. In practical terms, however, his death had little impact on al-Qa‘ida-type jihadi groups, whose greatest expansion has occurred subsequently.

Ignoring the Roles of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

The key decisions that enabled al-Qa‘ida to survive, and later to expand, were made in the hours immediately after 9/11. Almost every significant element in the project to crash planes into the Twin Towers and other iconic American buildings led back to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was a member of the Saudi elite, and his father had been a close associate of the Saudi monarch. Citing a CIA report from 2002, the official 9/11 report says that al-Qa‘ida relied for its financing on “a variety of donors and fundraisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia.”

The report’s investigators repeatedly found their access limited or denied when seeking information in Saudi Arabia. Yet President George W. Bush apparently never even considered holding the Saudis responsible for what happened. An exit of senior Saudis, including bin Laden relatives, from the U.S. was facilitated by the U.S. government in the days after 9/11. Most significant, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report about the relationship between the attackers and Saudi Arabia were cut and never published, despite a promise by President Obama to do so, on the grounds of national security.

In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. But despite this private admission, the U.S. and Western Europeans continued to remain indifferent to Saudi preachers whose message, spread to millions by satellite TV, YouTube, and Twitter, called for the killing of the Shia as heretics. These calls came as al-Qa‘ida bombs were slaughtering people in Shia neighborhoods in Iraq. A sub-headline in another State Department cable in the same year reads: “Saudi Arabia: Anti-Shi’ism as Foreign Policy?” Now, five years later, Saudi-supported groups have a record of extreme sectarianism against non-Sunni Muslims.

Pakistan, or rather Pakistani military intelligence in the shape of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was the other parent of al-Qa‘ida, the Taliban, and jihadi movements in general. When the Taliban was disintegrating under the weight of U.S. bombing in 2001, its forces in northern Afghanistan were trapped by anti-Taliban forces. Before they surrendered, hundreds of ISI members, military trainers, and advisers were hastily evacuated by air. Despite the clearest evidence of ISI’s sponsorship of the Taliban and jihadis in general, Washington refused to confront Pakistan, and thereby opened the way for the resurgence of the Taliban after 2003, which neither the U.S. nor NATO has been able to reverse.

The “war on terror” has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement. The U.S. did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend. Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.

The spectacular resurgence of al-Qa‘ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the U.S., closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures normally associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture, and domestic espionage. Governments wage the “war on terror” claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.

In the face of these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not been defeated but rather have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa‘ida was a small, generally ineffectual organization; by 2014 al-Qa‘ida-type groups were numerous and powerful.

In other words, the “war on terror,” the waging of which has shaped the political landscape for so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed. Until the fall of Mosul, nobody paid much attention.

Patrick Cockburn is Middle East correspondent for the Independent and worked previously for the Financial Times. He has written three books on Iraq’s recent history as well as a memoir, The Broken Boy, and, with his son, a book on schizophrenia, Henry’s Demons. He won the Martha Gellhorn Prize in 2005, the James Cameron Prize in 2006, and the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 2009. His forthcoming book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, is now available exclusively from OR Books. This excerpt (with an introductory section written for TomDispatch) is taken from that book.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook and Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit’s Men Explain Things to Me.

Copyright 2014 Patrick Cockburn

Mirrored from where you can read Tom Engelhardt’s important intro to the piece.


Related video added by Juan Cole

ABC News: “US increases airstrikes on Islamic State militants in Iraq”

13 Responses

    • The BEST solution would be a massive project to get the US off hydrocarbon energy as quickly as possible (safe nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar, etc). The KEY problem the US has, is having enough inexpensive energy to sustain the US lifestyle. .

      If the US was energy self-sufficient then the US could just walk away from the ME and let them fight it out until they got tired of killing each other. Sure that would probably mean the end of Israel and re-drawing of lots of national boundaries, but that is just what happens when empires end. Europe, the US , Asia and most other parts of the world have already gone through this, so it is time for the ME to settle centuries old differences once and for all.

      The next best solution is to use drones and stealth activities to kill the financial, political, religious and military leadership of the radical Islamist organizations. This would mean openly killing a significant number of Saudis and Pakistanis because the “governments” in both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are too weak to deal with the massive internal problems they have that allow the radical Islamist to survive..

      The US would also have to directly take on Israel and its genocidal agenda. The best thing for the future of the US is to make Israel a lot smaller, less powerful and with no nuclear weapons.

      Of course, at the same time, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would also have to be denuclearized.

      Basically the US would need to re-evaluate every global relationship and would probably find that most of them no longer serve the needs of the US and should be heavily modified or ended. Virtually NONE of the decisions made after WW2 are valid any longer, but even though they damage the future of the US, we are reluctant to fix the problems because we might “offend” someone (that probably is just sucking at our marrow and needs to be removed).

      The US has far too much inertia and “bad thinking” to make the necessary changes.

    • Patrick Cockburn was just on The Scoot Horton Show talking about ISIS, Iraq and especially Syria. He doesn’t think the moderates in Syria were never strong enough to support. Cockburn thinks we should have supported Assad, but the U.S. govt. will never admit it.

      ISIS is like Frankenstein. The Saudis and others helped create it, but ISIS is all grown up and no one can control it.

      Meanwhile, the Russians are moving into eastern Ukraine. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.


  1. Wow…spy guy…that would be some agenda…with many good ideas..and a few bad…problem is what’s possible?…what’s practible?…the world is to small for the US to just walk away from the M East..especially with the nukes coming soon to Iran and in Israel ..and we are to spoiled to take the pain of a big energy tax which would make us energy independent…the big question I believe is can there a be a moderate Islam ,one that can live with the rest of the world and even themselves..?…I kinda hope that there is….and over time it will come about…without that…all I can see is a 100 yr conflict…with eroupe in play ..and total disaster looming

    • hmmmm…how about the Islam practiced by approximately 1.5 billion people and that of the several million in the US?

    • The US could and should walk away from the ME.

      There are very VALID reason why there are no “moderates” in Islam. Why should there be any “moderates” considering how badly the Europeans and Americans have treated Muslims (all 1.5 Billion – almost 25% of the earth’s population)? Basically the UK, France, US and Israel have been brutally oppressing Muslims for over 100 years and they are angry about that.

      If you were treated like the UK, France, US and Israel treat Muslims, you would be angry also.

      If you want “moderate” Muslims, then quit beating up on them, give them back their land, water and oil and give them a chance to finally get rid of the colonial puppets and sort out the power structures and country borders. Sure it will be messy, but so was the sorting that took place in Europe (remember the 100 years wars, WW1 and WW2?) and Asia (over 5000 years of wars). Heck, even the US had a civil war to sort out the power structures and borders. Until; most people are happy with the power structures and borders there will be armed conflict. Once the angry folks are minimized, marginalized and contained, you will have your moderates. Until most people are happy, there will be wars. and right now there are thousands of scores to settle because the Europeans and Americans have brutally tried to keep the lid on for far too long.

      As for Iran eventually getting nukes, I am not at all worried considering that Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US, Russia, UK, France, NK, China. and who knows who else already have nukes (AQ Khan has been a busy little boy). One more nuclear nation will not make any difference, especially since nukes are ONLY good for one thing – Committing suicide. That is, the first nation to use nukes will get nuked in retaliation and if we are lucky it will stop after the first bad guy ceases to exist.

      But then again, current climate studies have shown that nuclear air bursts over as few as FIVE major cities could trigger nuclear winter (solving global warming).

      Energy self sufficiency in the US is actually very easy within a short time with current technology. The ONLY thing stopping the US is lack of political will. Keep in mind that US culture is such that NOTHING is every done until there is a huge crisis and then only the cheapest, quickest, slap-dash thing that can be done to kick the can down the road is done because “independent,” “non-socialist” Americans can’t have no “national energy and industrial policy” that makes some people uncomfortable. That is the major flaw of the US political system and why the “socialist” Europeans and Chinese will be energy self sufficient long before the US. All the technology we need exists, we just need to spend the cash and implement it.

        • @rbtl – How would we know?

          Actually, we do know that China has delivered solid fuel DF-21 MRBM to the Saudis. These missiles can be launched in several minutes and have a large payload capacity.

          – We also know that the Saudis have paid AQ Khan’s group to build them nuclear warheads. Now that AQ Khan has the recipe down, it is a matter of cranking them out on an assembly line.

          What is not publicly known at this point is whether AQ Khan has actually delivered the warheads to the Saudis. Most think they are still in Pakistan, but I think that at least one is in Saudi Arabia because while the Saudis are paranoid about Iran, they also do not trust Israel or the US. When you might have only one chance to punch back, it had better be a good one.

          I also do not think that the US or Israel would ever admit that the Saudis got a nuke because it makes their positions very untenable with respect to Iran and the whole IAEA thing.

  2. “Basically the US would need to re-evaluate every global relationship and would probably find that most of them no longer serve the needs of the US and should be heavily modified or ended.”

    Which US are we talking about here, with this partidular personification? The MIC? The petroleum-extracting, processing and peddling Standard Industrial Categories (oh so SIC)? The “financial industry?” And it’s kind of difficult to identify any common “needs” of the 310 million Nacerima, too. link to

    As you say, “The US has far too much inertia and “bad thinking” to make the necessary changes.”

    • @JT – the primary urges of the groups you mention are:

      – wealth accumulation

      – power accumulation

      Even for the dumbest of the bunch, it should be fairly obvious that the old interests are no longer viable. Then there is the generation thing. As the old greed mongers die off, the younger greed mongers will have a different world view and as we all know the young are always sure they know so much better than the old so they always do things differently.

      As the ww2 and boomer generations die off, I will not be too surprised if the younger greed mongers, make different tragic mistakes.

  3. Lots of misinformation. The US decided to occupy Afghanistan. Military logistics required land routes from the closest seaports. That means the US viability in Afghanistan was dependent upon Pakistani acquiesce. The US was rendered powerless to conduct military operations on Pakistani soil. The US doesn’t import much oil from the Persian Gulf. The US gets oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.. Our trading partners use Gull oil. Business as usual and profits for everyone. It appears this may change. But it will be disruptive for many people.

    • Fungible – A very important word for you to know.

      It does not matter where the US physically gets its oil because ALL oil, regardless where it is pumped from the ground, is priced on a GLOBAL market.

      That is, the old oil being pumped in Texas and California is sold for almost the same price as Montana oil and almost the same as Saudi oil.

      Currently, the global oil production and global oil demand are closely matched and there is NO SPARE PRODUCTION CAPACITY. The good news is global demand has somewhat leveled off, but the bad news is production has also leveled off.

      Over the next decade, even with fracking and all the other questionable technology we will use to wring the last drop of oil form the ground, total global oil production will not increase very much, if at all.

      The bottom line (as they say in business) is that any decrease in oil production, no matter what the cause, will severely impact ALL MANKIND.

      Right now, ISIS wants the money from oil production to fund their religious crusade, but once they start to lose, they may decide to have a scorched earth policy, which is why we need to stop them now.

Comments are closed.