The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Isis on the Run? the US Portrayal Is Very Far from the Truth
The map issued by the Pentagon to prove that Isis had lost territory shows how false optimism dominates the actions of the outside powers towards the Middle East
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A graphic illustration of Western wishful thinking about the decline of Islamic State (IS) is a well-publicised map issued by the Pentagon to prove that the self-declared caliphate has lost 25 per cent of its territory since its big advances last year.

Unfortunately for the Pentagon, sharp-eyed American journalists soon noticed something strange about its map identifying areas of IS strength. While it shows towns and villages where IS fighters have lost control around Baghdad, it simply omits western Syria where they have been advancing in and around Damascus.

The Pentagon displayed some embarrassment about its dodgy map, but it largely succeeded in its purpose of convincing people that IS is in retreat. Many news outlets across the world republished the map as evidence of the success of air strikes by the United States and its allies in support of the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria. The capture of Tikrit after a month-long siege is cited as a further sign that a re-energised Iraqi state is winning and one day in the not too distant future will be able to recapture Mosul in the north and Anbar province in the west.

How much of this comforting news is true? Recall that the loss or retention of territory is not a good measure of a force such as IS using quasi-guerrilla tactics. Good news from the point of view of Baghdad is that its forces finally retook the small city of Tikrit, though its recapture was primarily the work of 20,000 Shia militia and not the Iraqi army, which only had some 3,000 soldiers involved in the battle. It was not a fight to the finish and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said IS only committed a few hundred fighters to holding the city.

Success at Tikrit was trumpeted at home and abroad and was to be followed by an Iraqi army offensive in Anbar province and possibly an assault on Mosul later in the year. But, just as this was supposed to begin, IS fighters attacked Baiji oil refinery, the largest in Iraq, and Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, showing that they retain their offensive capability. As of last Thursday, IS fighters had seized most of the 36-square-kilometre refinery compound with only a few pockets of Iraqi federal police and soldiers still holding out. “We have very little food and ammunition, and we can’t withstand the suicide bombers, snipers and rockets,” said a federal police officer reached by phone by the Iraq Oil Report. “All of us are thinking of committing suicide.”

What emerges from the latest round of fighting is not only that IS retains the ability to launch offensives over a wide area, but that the Iraqi army very much depends on rushing a small number of elite combat units like so many fire brigades to cope with successive crises. One source in Baghdad told me that the number of troops useable for these purposes was about five brigades or some 15,000 soldiers. Other published reports suggest the number may be even smaller at 5,000 men drawn from the so-called Golden Brigade, an Interior Ministry Swat team and a unit known as the Scorpions. When these small but effective forces succeed in repelling an IS attack there is nobody in the regular army to hold the positions they have defended.

A key question since IS captured much of northern and western Iraq last year concerns the ability of the Iraqi army to reconstitute itself after such a defeat. Going by recent fighting this is simply not happening, and failure here has important political consequences for Iraq and the region as a whole. It means that IS is not being beaten back by the regular army in its most important strongholds in Iraq. As a result the Baghdad government is this weekend poised to send Shia militias into overwhelmingly Sunni Anbar province to reinforce the army. “We are under tremendous pressure,” an army officer fighting in Anbar was quoted as saying. “We are in the midst of a war of attrition, which I am afraid will play into the hands of Islamic State.” He described their fighters as being “everywhere”.

The move of Shia militiamen, organised and in part directed by Iranian officers, into western Sunni Iraq creates a dilemma for the US. The Americans have been insisting that the militias be under the military control of Baghdad, though how you prove this is another matter. Washington had been hoping to repeat, if only in miniature, its success in using anti-al-Qaeda tribes and communities against the jihadis in 2006-08. Today this is almost impossible because there are no longer 150,000 US troops in Iraq, IS has shown it will kill anybody opposing it, and Sunni-Shia sectarian fear and hatred is deeper than ever. The 90,000 Sunni refugees who fled Ramadi for Baghdad when the fighting started found it difficult or impossible to enter the capital because they were suspected of being IS infiltrators. Their fate is a grim illustration of the degree to which Iraq no longer exists as a unified country.

At the heart of the failure of the US and its allies to defeat IS over the last 10 months is the problem that what makes military sense is politically toxic and vice versa. The strongest military force opposing IS in Iraq is the Iranian-backed Shia militias, but the US imperative to limit Iranian influence in Iraq means that it does not want to support the militias with air strikes. In Syria, there is a somewhat similar situation since the Syrian army is the most powerful military force in the country, but it does not receive US tactical air support when fighting IS or Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate, because a US priority remains to displace President Bashar al-Assad. As a result IS is not under serious military pressure in Syria and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has recently issued orders for fighters to transfer from Aleppo to Iraq.


Wishful thinking about the strength of IS and other al-Qaeda-type movements is not confined to foreign powers. Baghdad governments are always inclined to believe their own propaganda or see themselves as victims of conspiracies. Last summer the Shia leaders in Baghdad had convinced themselves that they were the victims of a conspiracy in which the Kurds were in league with IS. It came as a shock to them when the Kurds were the next victims of an IS offensive last August. In Baghdad last week the Interior Minister, Mohammed Salem al-Ghabban, summoned dozens of journalists to meet him so he could blame them for creating the conditions for IS successes.

The Pentagon’s misleading map shows the degree to which false optimism dominates the thoughts and actions of the outside powers in Iraq, Syria and rest of the Middle East. It reminds me of the situation early last year when President Obama, in receipt of the best information US intelligence could give him, dismissed IS as being the equivalent of a small-time basketball team whose actions were of no importance.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iraq, ISIS 
Hide 17 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. tom says:

    There is no wishful thinking involved, why is it all the bombing by the US bombing against Isis has driven them all towards Syria. Because that is the exact policy by the evil US empire.
    Using terrorist proxies for regime change, but not letting them get so big to threaten their state puppet terrorists.
    And when that regime change is complete, then the US will have a convenient and planned terrorist menace to fight against, and then US’s former terrorist proxies will being bombed, with the plan to install a Military loyal dictatorship to the U.S.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  2. Renoman says:

    Interesting how the IS story has all but vanished from main stream media, it’s all Royal babies and Freddy Gray as far as the eye can see.
    It’s all manipulation on a grand scale.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you tom.

    Do you think the embedded journalists do not understand this simple fact?
    Yes, they do, but their job is to mislead the public. I should say these embedded journalists who hide the bloody hands of US – Israel – Britain,the true AXIS OF EVIL, in geopolitical design of the region – using their proxy ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, Saudis and more – promoting partition of Iraq and Syria as a GOOD thing to construct an ally, kurdistn, for aparthied entity, will not tell you the truth. They spread only propaganda to fool others in support of the western PLOT, because they have benefited for generations from colonial design and killing of other groups by evil British empire, and now evil American empire.

    • Replies: @tom
  4. tom says:


    It’s just too obvious isn’t it.

    – how the US let Turkey completely open its borders to ISIL terrorists, as well as the Israelis with Al-Nusra.
    – how about when Obama nearly bombed Syria, was the exact time when It was looking the worst for his proxy terrorists. But now none of that talk is on the table, because now Isis has recently succeeded so much in Syria.
    – endless US weapon supplies going to Isis and Al-Nusra. “accident” or not, it doesn’t matter, because the result is the same. And a lot of the recent success by Western created terrorists in Syria, is because of the more advanced weapons supplied by the US.
    – how about when Isis spent the first six months crossing over and dominating one third of Iraq. That was completely militarily unchallenged by the US, as well as completely unmentioned and uncriticised by Washinton ? So the “great human cancer” – IS , had free murderous reign in Iraq, for 6 whole months, under the nose of the greatest military Empire ever with numberplate capable reading satellites in space covering the whole planet.

    – US bombing of Isis has never been done when they have taken over Syrian cities or Syrian territory that’s not on the borders of turkey or Israel. Just how obvious is this shit. That includes Al-Nusra.
    Sorry if I left out better evidence, but the above is a clear obvious explanation that terrorist proxy support for regime change is just too obvious

  5. tom says:

    US bombing of Isis has never been done when they have taken over Syrian cities or Syrian territory that’s not on the borders of turkey or Israel. Just how obvious is this shit. That includes Al-Nusra.

    As well, that should include, into Iraq where the US has oil interests north in Iraq, as well as trying to create you Iraqi military dependency on the US in other parts

  6. Easy answer but maybe too hard for habitual stupidity: make peace with Iran and make an alliance that better aligns with U.S. interests and character.

  7. KA says:

    ISIS is the product of well thought out plans . It is supposed to toe Saudi line maintain peace with Israel,keep pressure on Iran,and mount attacks on Russia and China. Saudi gets reprieve from neocons attacks in US . Palestinian gets thrown out of the equation, Christian,Yezdi and Non Wahabis are forced to convert or get killed . ME will look most like Central America does .

  8. Joe Hill says:

    How could a few hundred irregular fighters hold off TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND, backed by artillery, a command structure, and uninterrupted supply lines? This is simply preposterous. Yet it is not questioned by Mr Cockburn.

    As others here have written, even a corporate media stenographer can see Uncle Sam’s policy is “Controlled Chaos”. I don’t understand why Mr Cockburn does not hammer this home.

    I am constantly amazed at just how pervasive shallow analysis has become. It’s everywhere. Yesterday CBC Radio ran a lengthy hand-wringing panel discussion about the North Africa refugee crisis. There was barely a mention that “western intervention” might be part of the problem; no details of the “interventions” were discussed.

    The general attitude seemed to be that there needs to be a better refugee processing system so the killing can continue. It never occurred to anyone that maybe Uncle Sam and vassals should quit killing and wrecking foreign nations.

    • Replies: @Mark
  9. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    As others here have written, even a corporate media stenographer can see Uncle Sam’s policy is “Controlled Chaos”. I don’t understand why Mr Cockburn does not hammer this home.

    Controlled Chaos is an journos’ excuse for an utter incompetence, bordering on idiocy, of current US power elite who do produce chaos, alright, but without any ability to control it.

  10. It’s funny reading these comments from a bunch of clueless liberals protesting America’s spreading of liberalism all over the world.

    • Replies: @matt
  11. Mark says:
    @Joe Hill

    A few hundred irregulars did not hold off 23K, they lost! Please read carefully before casting stones at the author, who did a fair analysis.

    • Replies: @Joe Hill
  12. E. Harding says: • Website

    tom and KA are exactly correct. Smoothie is wrong; the Islamic State can be eliminated as a territorial entity in days, if not hours. Although Renoman may simply be conflating incompetence with conspiracy; this is the profit-driven cable news we’re dealing with.

  13. matt says:

    it’s very simple. we want to defeat the enemy at home before we go looking for him abroad

    • Replies: @FirkinRidiculous
  14. @matt

    Who’s the enemy?

    • Replies: @matt
  15. matt says:

    a very important question.

  16. Gene Su says:

    Question: Does anyone know if Israel’s leadership is frightened by ISIS?

  17. Joe Hill says:

    Here’s exactly what Mr Cockburn wrote:

    The capture of Tikrit after a month-long siege

    Like I wrote, a few hundred irregulars held off 23,ooo. That the siege succeeded after a month does not negate that simple preposterous fact.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr