Pentagon Report Reveals U.S. Had a Role in Rise of ISIS
36 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47875650]I still don't quite understand why we wanted to get involved in Syria in the first place, especially if we knew it would go so wrong.[/QUOTE]
As I see it the Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, is struggling with the Iranians(Persian) for control of that region. The West is allied with the Saudis. When Saddam was in control of Iraq, he was our wall against Iranian expansion of influence. Syria, meanwhile, has been Iran's ally.
So, in theory, if Syria's government changes and if Sunni groups take control of large parts of Syria and Iraq, we have our wall against Iran again. The obvious downside is we have no idea if these groups represent a worse option in the long run. Worrying about that has never stopped us before though.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47881382]As I see it the Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, is struggling with the Iranians(Persian) for control of that region. The West is allied with the Saudis. When Saddam was in control of Iraq, he was our wall against Iranian expansion of influence. Syria, meanwhile, has been Iran's ally.
So, in theory, if Syria's government changes and if Sunni groups take control of large parts of Syria and Iraq, we have our wall against Iran again. The obvious downside is we have no idea if these groups represent a worse option in the long run. Worrying about that has never stopped us before though.[/QUOTE]
Iran is the better option than the Islamic State, by far.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47881382]As I see it the Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, is struggling with the Iranians(Persian) for control of that region. The West is allied with the Saudis. When Saddam was in control of Iraq, he was our wall against Iranian expansion of influence. Syria, meanwhile, has been Iran's ally.[/QUOTE]
(Please note: This is not something to "shut you down" or anything like that, but instead just expanding on your point)
Alright, let's hash this out.
Up until Desert Storm in '90, the Baath party in Iraq was the strongest opposition in the region to the expanding Iran. The Baath party in Syria, however secular as it was, still saw the Iranians as an opportunity to put themselves above the Iraqis in the region. Back in the mid 60s, there was a pretty major split between the Syrian Baathists and Iraqi Baathists. Not going to get into the nitty gritty of who wanted what, but essentially it was another case of Neo-Socialist infighting.
During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam basically used the conflict to not only garner support for his side of the Baath party, but to also show that Iran couldn't poke-and-prod with the Middle East anymore. Of course, there wasn't just a political motive, but we'll get to that in a second. Saddam's real focus in the Iran-Iraq war was to secure the eastern side of the Shatt al-Arab, or where the Tigris and Euphrates meet. Securing this area would provide Iraq with huge amounts of fresh water and the availability to irrigate huge farming projects. Iran and Iraq had shared the region since the latter's inception, but with the belligerent Saddam in power, he needed to not only prove his manliness, but also get his nation on top.
Now, the religious side is a tricky one. As you know by now if you've been following anything with ISIS, the majority of Iraq's population is Shia, which is the minority of the two Islamic sects. We have to take a step back before the Iran-Iraq war to get a handle on Saddam's religious views/treatment. Saddam, like many Iraqi leaders before him, was Sunni. Though running on the Baath ticket, Saddam pandered to the various Sunni clans/tribes in Iraq, but with much less of a religious reason and more of a political one. To garner the support of the minorities was to gain key allies when it came to running the country, and he set up members of these Sunni groups into positions of power (Note: most of them coming from his clan/clans loyal to his). With this pandering to Sunni groups and appointing them to power, this clearly pissed off the Syrians, who preferred a neutral stance on religion, but also made the Saudis and Jordanians happy. With Iran being the only major Shia power, and Iraq bordering it with a Sunni-minded leader, the various Arab states jumped at the chance to support Saddam in the coming Iran-Iraq war.
With the Iran-Iraq war not really getting anywhere, and huge losses being taken on both sides, the Arab states started to get worried. Even though Iraq was being funded and supplied by nations all over the world (US and UK included), Saddam was unable to make any major advances. By 1988, both sides were totally exhausted, and the ceasefire was signed. Iraq was in serious debt, and its economy and population were crippled after countless lives and billions of dollars were spent on essentially a pointless war. Now Saddam hit a roadblock. The Saudis and Kuwaitis wanted their money back. Saddam couldn't exactly pay them back so quickly.
Enter the beginning of Desert Shield and eventually Desert Storm. Most of us know the story from this point forward, with Iraq invading Kuwait, the US-led Coalition kicking them out, and then huge sanctions put on Iraq by the end of March '91.
Here's where Osama bin Laden comes in.
Osama, as you know, had been back and forth throughout the Middle-East and North Africa since the midpoint of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Osama supported the Mujahideen (or, well, the more radicalized sections of it anyways) and took part in the combat. Osama was downright furious with the arrival of the Coalition in Saudi Arabia, as Osama had originally planned to pledge a region-wide Jihad against Saddam Hussein. Yes, you read that right, a [I]Jihad[/I] against Iraq. The reason behind the Saudis refusal to allow for Jihad isn't really well known, but the usual agreed-upon region is that causing a religious conflict was not in their interests, and the Saudis doubted Osama's ability to wage war.
Skipping a few years ahead, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Osama was finally able to make his move. Supporting various al-Qaeda aligned groups (al-Qaeda never really had a foothold in Iraq, but was instead just a cadre of Osama-friendly insurgent groups), Osama was able to get a radicalized, Anti-Western ball rolling. In his early years of waging his insurgent/terror campaign against the west, Osama was pushing for the West (US mainly) to leave the Middle-East and Muslim world as a whole to its own devices. But the real push that Osama had was to remove "false Muslims" from the region. This list included Saddam, the Baathists of Syria and, you guessed it, the Saudis. Of course, over time, this view mutated into a worldwide Jihad against Western values and non-Islamic views, but at its core, Osama wanted a strong, independent, conservative-minded Middle-East that could stand up to foreign intervention.
Now, at the start of the Syrian Civil war, this whole timeline starts to get fuzzy, as all of our details aren't exactly on point. ISIS was born from one of those al-Qaeda friendly insurgent groups in Iraq, and managed to hitch a ride on the wave of Islamism in Syria once the anti-Assad parties began infighting. ISIS rides on the coat-tails of Islamic extremism, and many of that extremism comes from the lack of progress from secular governments in, you guessed it: Baathist countries. al-Baghdadi's rhetoric is filled to the brim with some of the same reasoning that Osama had for the 'global jihad', but still sits on the idea of "false Muslims". With the Shia government doing next to nothing to try and rebuild Iraq, ISIS was very easily able to sway Sunni minority groups into the fold. As Godwin as it seems, there are a lot of connections to be made from the rise of ISIS to the rise of something like the Nazi party: Poor transition government, lack of economic progress, racial/cultural oppression and the power vacuum of a post-invasion nation.
We cannot pinpoint whose fault it was that created ISIS. You can blame just about everyone except Tuvalu, essentially. The people we can blame are the people who allowed ISIS to get to the blitzkrieg-esque momentum that they have today, which would be the Shia government of Iraq. I'm not trying to lift the blame off of the Coalition and put it on someone else. Nobody knew the consequences of '03 at the time, and even if we did, we'd still be hard pressed not to invade.
TL;DR:
The place is a mess not because of one group or another, but because groups cannot get along properly, and probably never will.
When people say the USA created ISIS they don't (usually) mean that the United States literally sent in CIA operatives or something to create a new organization. What they mean is that ISIS was a super small fringe group that was armed by the United States to do exactly what OP's article says - act as a buffer that got out of control.
Same thing that happened with Al Qaeda- the USA has a long history of supporting extremist groups that later come back to bite us in the ass. In fact, despite our supposed commitment to democracy we have a long history of straight up supporting dictators that comes to bite us in the ass.
So, in this sense; yes, we created ISIS.
[QUOTE=Flameon;47884774]When people say the USA created ISIS they don't (usually) mean that the United States literally sent in CIA operatives or something to create a new organization. What they mean is that ISIS was a super small fringe group that was armed by the United States to do exactly what OP's article says - act as a buffer that got out of control.
Same thing that happened with Al Qaeda- the USA has a long history of supporting extremist groups that later come back to bite us in the ass. In fact, despite our supposed commitment to democracy we have a long history of straight up supporting dictators that comes to bite us in the ass.
So, in this sense; yes, we created ISIS.[/QUOTE]
The US [I]never[/I] gave arms to the Islamic State at any point in history.
The US [I]never[/I] gave arms to al Qaeda at any point in history.
[QUOTE=Nuggi man;47875683]Cause money.
War = Weapons
Weapons = Money
Who has the most weapons? USA[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SVkz0tQSwSY/maxresdefault.jpg[/IMG]
all 1 persons was surprised
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.