ISIS and Al-Qaeda Wage ‘Small’ Wars on Margins of Civil Strife

US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces fighters stand guard next to men waiting to be screened after being evacuated out of the last territory held by ISIS, near Baghouz, eastern Syria, Feb. 22, 2019. (AP)
US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces fighters stand guard next to men waiting to be screened after being evacuated out of the last territory held by ISIS, near Baghouz, eastern Syria, Feb. 22, 2019. (AP)
TT

ISIS and Al-Qaeda Wage ‘Small’ Wars on Margins of Civil Strife

US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces fighters stand guard next to men waiting to be screened after being evacuated out of the last territory held by ISIS, near Baghouz, eastern Syria, Feb. 22, 2019. (AP)
US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces fighters stand guard next to men waiting to be screened after being evacuated out of the last territory held by ISIS, near Baghouz, eastern Syria, Feb. 22, 2019. (AP)

Civil wars and strife often witness smaller wars and conflict between parties fighting in the same camp. This took place, for example, between Christian parties during the 1975-90 Lebanese civil when the Kataeb and National Liberal Party waged bloody battles for dominance. They culminated in the defeat of the Tigers Militia – the armed wing of the NLP – and establishment of the Lebanese Forces.

In Afghanistan, Mujahideen factions fought against the communist rule in Kabul and its Russian supporters. No sooner had the Mujahideen claimed victory that they turned against each other in 1992, turning Kabul into rubble. Their war only ended with the rise of the Taliban, which swallowed or nearly swallowed them up whole.

In Algeria, the 1990s saw the emergence of dozens of armed groups that fought against the rulers in order to oust and replace them with an “Islamic government.” They were battling the Algerian army, while the factions were also fighting each other in order to “unite their banner.” The infighting helped the Algerian security forces to turn the tide in their favor and defeat all of the armed groups.

The above introduction leads to the question: What sort of relationship is in store in the future between the rival ISIS and al-Qaeda organizations?

Both organizations follow the same ideology even though ISIS was formed years after al-Qaeda.

ISIS is the product of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, was born in the late 1980s in Afghanistan during a time of resistance against the Red Army and communists. In the 1990s, the Egyptian al-Jihad organization merged with al-Qaeda, leading to the establishment of the so-called Qaidat al-Jihad group, which was predominantly comprised of Egyptian members.

The rift between ISIS and al-Qaeda happened after the eruption of the Syrian civil conflict in 2011. At the time, al-Qaeda in Iraq was known as the Islamic State in Iraq. The rift was the culmination of clashes between al-Qaeda’s Iraqi branch, led by Jordan’s Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and several Sunni factions that were fighting the American “occupiers”. These factions refused the dictates of Zarqawi, who wanted to impose the authority of his organization over all Iraqi factions.

Zarqawi’s actions prompted several Sunni groups to work with the Americans and Iraqi government instead of joining an organization that was leading the country towards sectarian civil war. The Sunni resistance, or Sahwat as they would later be known, defeated al-Qaeda, forcing it to retreat from the confrontation. Command was given to Iraqi members, while the non-Iraqis took a backseat.

Zarqawi died in 2006. He was succeeded by Abu al-Hassan al-Muhajir (Abu Ayyoub al-Masri), another foreign leader of al-Qaeda. The organization was at the time, however, identified as Iraqi and operating under the name the Islamic State in Iraq, led by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. He would be succeeded after his killing by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

When the Syrian conflict erupted from peaceful protests against the regime of president Bashar Assad in 2011, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was quick to dispatch Syrian Abu Mohammad al-Julani to the country. Al-Julani was a leading member of al-Qaeda and worked for al-Baghdadi as part of the Islamic State in Iraq. In Syria, he was tasked with organizing an armed movement to act against the regime.

The Syrian conflict led to the fallout between al-Baghdadi and al-Julani. Al-Baghdadi wanted al-Julani to operate under his command in Syria. In 2013, the Islamic State in Iraq transformed to become the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant after Syrian regime forces withdrew from the border with Iraq. Al-Baghdadi then declared that the Sykes–Picot border between the neighboring countries was no more.

Al-Julani, however, rebelled against his Iraqi leader, say the latter’s supporters. Al-Baghdadi’s supports showed no mercy to their adversaries, whether they were Iraqi or Syrian government soldiers, or civilians who were viewed as apostates or infidels, or even fighters from other Islamic organizations that did not swear allegiance to the “State”.

The al-Qaeda leadership tried to avert confrontation with al-Baghdadi. It sent some of its most prominent leaders to Syria to resolve the dispute or strengthen al-Julani should efforts fail to end the rift.

The Iraqi leader, however, did not forgive the Syrian for “betraying the cause.” Al-Baghdadi believed that al-Julani turned against him when he was transferred to Syria, where he formed the al-Nusra Front as an independent branch of al-Qaeda. This branch would answer directly to the al-Qaeda command based on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, not the Iraqi leadership.

On the ground, ISIS swallowed the Syrian al-Qaeda branch whole. Its sweep of Syria was only stopped with the beginning of the operations of the US-led international coalition against al-Baghdadi’s organization in September 2014. This allowed al-Julani to catch his breath and rebuild the al-Nusra Front. Its operations became limited to northwestern Syria, the only region where al-Baghdadi’s fighters could not expand.

Al-Julani also waged small “civil” wars against extremist Islamic groups active in areas under his control. He succeeded through force and sometimes through dialogue to eliminate the majority of armed groups that were fighting independently against the regime. The groups that managed to escape began to work directly under the Turkish army and its intelligence after their forces secured vast areas of northwestern Syria (Idlib and Latakia), its north (Aleppo) and northeast (al-Raqqa).

ISIS was defeated militarily in Syria in spring 2019 and al-Baghdadi died in a US raid in the Idlib countryside later that year. ISIS retains a few cells that are trying to regroup under the command of their new leader Abu Ibrahim al‑Hashimi al‑Qurashi, but they are still weak and do not pose a serious threat to adversaries, whether in the Syrian regime or Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which was established as a “successor” of the al-Nusra Front.

The ISIS collapse in Syria did not spell the end of clashes between the group and al-Qaeda. ISIS affiliates across the globe have pledged allegiance to their new leader and are active in combating “infidels and apostates” in various countries, such as Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, and the African Sahel. ISIS media boasts of these clashes and often reports on fighting between its members and al-Qaeda in the Sahel region.

There is no doubt that these small “civil wars” between ISIS and al-Qaeda may expand or become contained. The weakness of both organizations is the factor that will determine which way the fighting will go. The weakness does not allow them to wage a largescale confrontation that would end in the victory of one over the other and the “unification of banners”. The Armed Islamic Group of Algeria tried to do this in the 1990s and failed.

Another factor is that the balance of power does not favor one party over the other as it did in the past. Under al-Baghdadi, ISIS used to boast that it was ruling a “state” due to its control over large swathes of Syria and Iraq. This is no longer the case. Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, is now no more than an armed group that does not control a “state” or even an “emirate”. It is now at the command of the “owners of the land,” such as the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Both organizations appear at an impasse, meaning the competition between them and their terrorist attacks around the globe will continue for years to come, unless their leaders agree to unite forces.



Why Greenland? Remote but Resource-Rich Island Occupies a Key Position in a Warming World

Large icebergs float away as the sun rises near Kulusuk, Greenland, on Aug. 16, 2019. (AP)
Large icebergs float away as the sun rises near Kulusuk, Greenland, on Aug. 16, 2019. (AP)
TT

Why Greenland? Remote but Resource-Rich Island Occupies a Key Position in a Warming World

Large icebergs float away as the sun rises near Kulusuk, Greenland, on Aug. 16, 2019. (AP)
Large icebergs float away as the sun rises near Kulusuk, Greenland, on Aug. 16, 2019. (AP)

Remote, icy and mostly pristine, Greenland plays an outsized role in the daily weather experienced by billions of people and in the climate changes taking shape all over the planet.

Greenland is where climate change, scarce resources, tense geopolitics and new trade patterns all intersect, said Ohio University security and environment professor Geoff Dabelko.

The world's largest island is now "central to the geopolitical, geoeconomic competition in many ways," partly because of climate change, Dabelko said.

Since his first term in office, President-elect Donald Trump has expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, which is a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a longtime US ally and a founding member of NATO. It is also home to a large US military base.

Why is Greenland coveted? Think of Greenland as an open refrigerator door or thermostat for a warming world, and it's in a region that is warming four times faster than the rest of the globe, said New York University climate scientist David Holland.

Locked inside are valuable rare earth minerals needed for telecommunications, as well as uranium, billions of untapped barrels of oil and a vast supply of natural gas that used to be inaccessible but is becoming less so.

Many of the same minerals are currently being supplied mostly by China, so other countries such as the United States are interested, Dabelko said. Three years ago, the Denmark government suspended oil development offshore from the territory of 57,000 people.

But more than the oil, gas or minerals, there's ice — a "ridiculous" amount, said climate scientist Eric Rignot of the University of California, Irvine.

If that ice melts, it would reshape coastlines across the globe and potentially shift weather patterns in such a dramatic manner that the threat was the basis of a Hollywood disaster movie. Greenland holds enough ice that if it all melts, the world's seas would rise by 24 feet (7.4 meters). Nearly a foot of that is so-called zombie ice, already doomed to melt no matter what happens, a 2022 study found.

Since 1992, Greenland has lost about 182 billion tons (169 billion metric tons) of ice each year, with losses hitting 489 billion tons a year (444 billion metric tons) in 2019.

Greenland will be "a key focus point" through the 21st century because of the effect its melting ice sheet will have on sea levels, said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. "It will likely become a bigger contributor in the future."

That impact is "perhaps unstoppable," NYU's Holland said.

Are other climate factors at play? Greenland also serves as the engine and on/off switch for a key ocean current that influences Earth's climate in many ways, including hurricane and winter storm activity. It's called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, and it's slowing down because more fresh water is being dumped into the ocean by melting ice in Greenland, Serreze said.

A shutdown of the AMOC conveyor belt is a much-feared climate tipping point that could plunge Europe and parts of North America into prolonged freezes, a scenario depicted in the 2004 movie "The Day After Tomorrow."

"If this global current system were to slow substantially or even collapse altogether — as we know it has done in the past — normal temperature and precipitation patterns around the globe would change drastically," said climate scientist Jennifer Francis of the Woodwell Climate Research Center. "Agriculture would be derailed, ecosystems would crash, and ‘normal’ weather would be a thing of the past."

Greenland is also changing color as it melts from the white of ice, which reflects sunlight, heat and energy away from the planet, to the blue and green of the ocean and land, which absorb much more energy, Holland said.

Greenland plays a role in the dramatic freeze that two-thirds of the United States is currently experiencing. And back in 2012, weather patterns over Greenland helped steer Superstorm Sandy into New York and New Jersey, according to winter weather expert Judah Cohen of the private firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research.

Because of Greenland's mountains of ice, it also changes patterns in the jet stream, which brings storms across the globe and dictates daily weather. Often, especially in winter, a blocking system of high pressure off Greenland causes Arctic air to plunge to the west and east, smacking North America and Europe, Cohen said.

Why is Greenland's location so important? Because it straddles the Arctic circle between the United States, Russia and Europe, Greenland is a geopolitical prize that the US and others have eyed for more than 150 years. It's even more valuable as the Arctic opens up more to shipping and trade.

None of that takes into consideration the unique look of the ice-covered island that has some of the Earth's oldest rocks.

"I see it as insanely beautiful. It's eye-watering to be there," said Holland, who has conducted research on the ice more than 30 times since 2007. "Pieces of ice the size of the Empire State Building are just crumbling off cliffs and crashing into the ocean. And also, the beautiful wildlife, all the seals and the killer whales. It’s just breathtaking."