Who knows if he is. But why would he be loyal to a party that's gone? It wouldn't make sense. Almost all of those 1.5 million people have gotten on with their lives. He's still very much a secular Iraqi nationalist though. As loose as the definition of Baathism is (especially when you consider it hasn't actually existed since the late 1950s), you don't get more "Baathist" than being a secular nationalist republican Arab, and his credentials as a Major General from the old air force push that label further.

I'd like to point out an important contradiction on the point of "loyal to the Baath party": Those several dead jihadis in ISIS who probably weren't in the party obviously had no loyalty to the party, but why do people make out Islamic extremists as prime Baath loyalists, including absurdly sensationalist and distorted articles and blog posts by Thomas Reuter and particularly the infamous Kyle Orton? This is to say nothing of the leftist " USA created ISIS". On the contrary, the strongest man in Iraq is one of Saddam's generals and very stereotypical Baathi and yet we don't see overly sensationalist articles and blog posts that this guy runs the Iraqi military. Instead, they congratulate him on turning the tables on ISIS. Rather interesting media contradiction.

Izzat and his guys are getting killed by ISIS too btw lol. So the point they're mass murdering and enslaving doesn't make sense.

Speaking of Defense Minister Obeidi, ISIS was reported to have kidnapped over 70 of his relatives in Mosul back in Nov 2014.

There's probably 100,000s of guys who were former ardent Baath party members in that 1.5 million figure (people on this sub including Shi'a Kurds had relatives who were ardent members), but obviously the party is gone so they've just gotten on with their lives. A handful of dead jihadis from the military (not the party necessarily) are a drop in the bucket.