The appearance of that is Clearly Clear

Just by asking this question this way you loose the root. The appearance of that is clearly clear. The world is fucked up. It's not the governments even, it's human nature. You see someone hurt me, I am extremely capable being utterly intelligent but I am here signaling and no one hears so what do I do? That's so simple right? I don't know what to do. I am intelligent and capable. I try with CIA I try with FBI I try with NSA being true natural born quantum cryptologist and I have no response so what do I do? I become violent. No one gives me education I have zero chance to meet another intelligent better to put my brain into place they I need do I contain my anger and listen to imbeciles telling me I gotta kill myself to actually get heard. Oooooh that's now that's it I got it. You did right? I hope you did. I myself I only want to live the life with Allah, I love Allah, he teaches me my value while I am alive you see he or she rather she oh my goodness Allah is she? cares but am I value? That's it. Can I take a decision to kill myself for the name of God killing innocent who may had been my beloved child? Who are they to decide? Who have them the right? Like circumstances. Gun dons. We gotta kill gun dons. That's what we gotta do, sons.

On the other hand you see some children you say you want to kill because they has just no value just stupid unneeded scam reproducing disfunction and violence. That's tour ISIS. But then you say hey I had been molested stolen from in a really bad way shut up in a really bad way by those who attempted to steal from me and hey they are like “mommy with a kid” and the law doesn't help who is gonna revenge for me? Die you bitches you don't deserve to live. That's your ISIS minus connection to gun dons.

Islam created ISIS by its various doctrines, which most Muslims ignore, but a few did not, including that we all should imitate Muhammed’s own actions, that the words in the Koran must be obeyed now (including that apostates be killed), that there should be no separation of power between mosque and state, that Muhammed’s rule (i.e. a dictatorship) should be duplicated now, etc.

To embrace the modern world requires reforming Islam. This can be done by indirection, as in Turkey and Indonesia where unfavorable doctrines are ignored, or it can be done directly, which some modern Muslim theologians in the west are trying to do.

ISIS is the result of not doing this. Islam has always had these strains, violently put down by those in power, or co-opted, or ignored. When there is a power vacuum they emerge in force. Most Muslims in the world of course do not want to live the way Muslims did in the 700s, but absent a reformation this will occur again and again.

Thus when the US destroyed the only central power source in Iraq, it emerged as Al Queda in Iraq and later took the name ISIS, also moving into Syria when the civil war created a power vacuum there, too.

Germany in Weimar days had a related problem: the population was divided, and the centrists who wanted liberal democracy were not the majority. Until a country has a decent majority that wants it, and is willing to die and fight for it, extremists will cause havoc.

So the US was the short-term cause of the power vacuum by destroying Saddam’s army and decommisioning it. But Iraq had no majority centrists willing to fight and die to hold it together; instead Kurds hate Arabs (and Turkmen), Shiites hate Sunni (and Yazidis, Mandans, etc.), pro-Iranian Saadists hate secularists, etc. The same situation exists in Syria.

But the US did not create this disunity, nor could it end it, nor did it create Muslim theology, nor is it the cause of the failure of Arabs to be willing to fight and die for democracy.

Yes TOTALLY and willingy. Beliving in that Bush was stupid and naive enough to not see consequences is nonsense. They have planned everything. US government makes at least 100 year plans. They use these tool terrorist puppets to weaken middle east and have whatever they want.

Currently US supports another terrorist group directly which is PYD. They are same as PKK. Does PKK and ISIS have any difference? Not at all

Also i don't see anyone mentioning that invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan lead over 2 million civilian murder. Moreover they have raped tortured millions. And what happens to relatives of these poor people? If US have left middle east alone none of these terrorist groups could have become real.

They also give logistic and monetary and weaponry support to these groups Not only US but it's allies in EUROPE as well

Look PKK and see US support to them. PKK is the biggest problem of Turkey and they keep supporting them internationally.

Also one of the objective of the ISIS is clearing area then leaving them to PKK terrorists.

What is now called ISIS was founded in 1999 by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the same Zarqawi who was killed in 2006 by US Forces in Iraq. At that time it was know as Al-Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. By 2009-2010 what was left AQI or then known as Islamic State of Iraq or ISI went to Syria so as not to be completely destroyed by US Forces. The outbreak of the Arab Spring in Syria in 2011 started the Syrian civil war gave rise to what is now known as ISIS. It can be argued that by leaving Iraq by the US at the end of 2011, ISIS was able to go back into Iraq and gain more power. It can also be argued that the failed intervention by the US in Libya gave ISIS more weapons and power.

So, clearly, according to the geniuses here on Quora, the USA is responsible for ISIS and EVERY other thing that has gone wrong in the Middle East for the last, what 100 years? The Middle East has always been a very happy place, where everyone got along just fine and there was no turmoil at all until the USA got involved. Now, what sort of idiot thinks that? The USA is not perfect, by any means, but to try to blame the USA for all of the problems in the Middle East is just, well, there is no way to even describe such foolishness. I guess that the USA was responsible for the Crusades, even though it had not yet been formed until over 500 years later. Saddam Hussein was a great guy, and the only problem with him was that the USA decided to attack him after he attacked and invaded other countries and was trying to develop nuclear weapons to exterminate the Jews and take over all of the Middle East. I guess that you geniuses would have preferred that the USA just stay out of it and allow Saddam to develop his nuclear weapons and that Israel should not have attacked the facility that was developing such weapons. Yep, Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons and other WMD’s in the Middle East, I’m sure that most of you wish that the USA had just stayed out of it and let him go forward and have those weapons. Yep, the USA should have just stayed out of it entirely and left you all alone to deal with Saddam and his nuclear weapons and other WMDs. The world would surely be a much better place right now, and the Middle East would be like Nirvana. That damned Bush just screwed up all of that Peace and Harmony that The Middle East had enjoyed for thousands of years.

Read More »

Create is the incorrect Word

U.S. Foreign Policy gave rise to ISIS. The pullout of Iraq was actually a kicked out. So, Iraq is partially responsible for the rise of this terrorist group. After the mission accomplished of destroying Libya, some of the terrorists moved to Syria. Some time in 2014, these terrorists from Syria and the leftovers of al-Zarqawi’s terror group joined hands. And we have that famous Toyota trucks scene in summer of 2014. Introducing ISIS to the world.

The “elephant in the room” is President Obama’s decision to withdraw US troops from Iraq for purely political purposes. This resulted in the rise of ISIS.Without an iota of doubt " YES" but How? Through covert means to fight it's war by proxy. This mind less organisation was created financed and armed by making use of fault lines among Muslims. Thomas L Friedman written in NYT's column" America does not want war with Islam but wants war within Islam" Is not it enough or I further substantiate my answe?

• No, the Illuminanti did. The future New World Order is in control now. They control all world events, wars, financial collapes, and overthrow of governments. Ever hear of the Rothschild family? Well they own 90% of all the world banks including the U.S Federal Reserve. And you thought you were a real citizen in your country.
• ISIS is created out of the other Islamist movmeents such as Al Queda and Boko Haram.  The fact is there is a pervasive and global death cult in Sunni Islam and ISIS is just ONE such expression of that.
  We can’t take the responsibility away from the greater Islamic world.
  Now,  with the collapse of Iraq and then Assad of Syria also lost power it did create an environment for a very thuggish element to enter.  The US can accept a good bit of responsibility for Iraq.  But not Syria.
  So without ISIS or some expression of extreme fundamentalist Islam  there probably would have been crime organizations step in and set up house.
• No, the US did not create ISIS. They created themselves, largely on the basis of the lie that Shrub II used to invade Iraq, the subsequent bungling of both the elective war and the so-called nation building that ensued. Obama wanted to end the war and the occupation, but he has found out that the forces of death and destruction are very powerful and well outside the reach of a community organizer. Something similar, albeit on a much smaller scale, is happening in Chicago, much to Obama's dismay.
  Nobody knows why the US started, and continues to maintain all of this warmaking. Obviously, our military toy industry has gained financially from the mayhem, and the MIC is owned by politically connected insiders, who have demonstrated since at least Vietnam, that they have a multi-generational power over the warlike direction that our country is taking.
  The American population will continue paying for all of this war making, since the majority seems to have concluded, roughly summarizing, that war taxes are a relatively small price to pay for the war being waged abroad, not at home.
  Still, the question, why elective war and not elective peace, has not been answered at all by the politically correct speech which dominates the online discussion in the country. Note that PC speech is not just about which bathroom people use, it's also about the desirability of war making and the illogical justification for that war making. PC speech is one of the divisive tools that separate people from agreeing on what the US should be doing.
  People pretend to knowledge about evolution, but in the world of social engineering for different purposes, the most powerful tool of our corrupt leadership is divide and conquer. Again, social engineering covers way more topics than, say, gender studies.
  Anyhow, with the chaos in the ME, ISIS has found a fertile ground to grow in. Notice how our vaunted war machine has been effectively stymied, although there is some indication that, after clearing; holding and building could be the avenue for peace, economic freedom and order in the ME. When our civilian and military leaders tell each other the truth about the facts on the ground, and when they agree on a logical solution to those pressing problems, then maybe they will find and implement a solution.
  In the meantime, ISIS will work assiduously to finish the stated goal of Bin Laden, who sought to destroy our country, which is probably the best thing that humanity has created so far. Our next President may brag about their experience or their secret plans, but they will find that their words have no power, unless they describe reality accurately, and institute actions to help bring about world peace.
  Hard not to close with a sarcastic remark:
• We merely provided the environment and many weapons and personnel unwittingly in our idiot policy in Lybia championed by the supposed most qualified to be president, having failed as Sec State.
  ISIS was a fringe group with few followers in Iraq. But the Arab Spring turned to nightmare by US in Lybia proved a better recruiting environment including many rebels trained and armed by us.
  Proof once again that our huge and massively beyond our defense needs military merely gets us thinking we can do whatever we want, turning hope into disaster and a world more hateful toward us.
• of course, the USA did not create ISIS, which is an expression of Saudi Wahhabi Islam and received start up money from the Saudis. ISIS uses the same strategy modeled by Mohammed in his conquest of Arabia, albeit with modern weapons. Muslims have been waging exactly the kind of merciless war ISIS is waging now since Mohammed led them in attacks on caravans and cities 700 years ago.
  This is how Muslims conquered the Middle East, by beheading the men and taking the women as sex slaves. It’s how they conquered a big chunk of India. It’s how they swept across North Africa into Spain. It’s how they conquered parts of Italy and all of Sicily. It’s how they murdered their way through the Byzantine Empire into the Balkans.
  And, this, is how the Muslims think they can conquer the world.

Read More »

US intentionally created ISIS

It is called cause and effect, for every action there is a reaction, some things are clearly foreseeable, some take a bit more knowledge of the beast, forsight and psychology. When Germany lost the war, many people still ask why did we pay to rebuild it, the fact is that we did not want Communism or any other questionable entity to move on in. It would cost less to rebuild and convert them our way than fight them again. Bush was not a military strategist, obviously neither were his advisors, that had vague knowledge of their opponents and their mind set. We were fortunate years ago to have military minds like Patton, McArthur and presidents who were war heros, they had experience and knowledge that they put to use. Had we educated ourselves better on just how our enemy thinks and feel as well as their culture, many reactions or effects of our actions would clearly be anticipated. Just like you as a normal citizen getting in a fight at a club or bar or anywhere, if you are fighting with any random white guy, you can usually expect it to end there, if you are fighting with a gang member, or member of any radical family, culture or group, it is likely retaliation by one or more of the group is inevitable. This with out much thought can be anticipated, but when you sit behind a desk, telling others what to do, you have no idea how it is really done, nor can you really anticipate anything.

US Middle East policy in the last decades is criminally stupid.
It is now obvious that the societies in the Middle East are not developed enough for a democratic governance (except Israel) - and this should have been obvious to experts long before taking many of the stupid decisions.

The only stable form of government in the Middle East countries is some form of dictatorship. And it's really simple- you can have either a secular dictator, a religious dictator, or a chaos created by islamic psychopaths.
Obviously, having a secular dictator is by far the best choice. Why, having the best option already available, US decided to fix something that wasn't broke, is a mystery.

Iraq under Saddam and Syria under Assad were stable countries.
The overall situation in Syria and Iraq today is - without any doubt - far worse, compared to the time when dictators ruled.
There isn’t even a single human being in Syria that feels better today compared to 3–4 years ago. There isn’t even a single human being in Iraq that feels better today compared to the period before the US invasion.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush-senior was clever enough just to kick his ass out and stop there. Not so for W., the boy was obviously not the smartest one in the family.

Yeah, but not an intentional creation. The issue was persisting in the region for some time then, but even if the Bush administration had a good intention or not, the fact rests about the invasion that the Bush administration had failed in formulating a plan for the aftermath and that has made a mark in human history. The administration failed to see the after effects of the war and didn't adopt counter measures. They found Iraq under some leadership and it's not up to me to say whether it was good or bad but they left Iraq with no leader, law or order. This was a prime factor in creating the radical group we now call ISIS.

Yes and no. I read in an article that daesh have been around since the 1940s in some form, but USA gave it a power vacuum to grow in. Most middle estern countries seems to need a unifying force to hold them together, a popular king and/or a huge security apparatus. When USA got rid of all the soldiers, secret police anat, they took their skills else were.

Another country just dropped a shit load of bombs on your house your mom dad brother and sister are all over the room blown into a million pieces you don't have a house you can't go to anyone for help you have to survive there is a couple guys with guns near where you live and they are trying to kill the bad guys who blew up your family so you decide you want to join them.

This is what happened 15 years ago we dropped bombs on the fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers grandparents etc of these Iraqi kids. The kids saw all their loved ones blown to pieces by the god ole USA. The kids are now grown and want revenge they have nothing else no school, no food, no cloth, no family, and no home, there is good ole Isis trying to kill the USA and give them $1000 a month food cloth and a place to live. I would take it if I was that kid wouldn't you?

US intentionally created ISIS when it’s not. A better question would be “Is the U.S. responsible for the creation of ISIS?” The answer would be indirectly because it was a series of mistakes made by the powers that be in both Iraq and the US that created fertile ground for this to happen but I’ll try to keep this short as to where they came from. I’ll also leave it as a general summary of what’s commonly agreed upon instead of detailing it as some of the more detailed answers either try to direct the reader to a certain line of thinking or is based off of conspiracy or hearsay. I also won’t go into whether or not Syria is the way it is because that’s a different subject and frankly. The events that lead to its civil war were already there and were going to happen anyway. It wouldn’t have mattered if a foreign power influenced it or not.

ISIS, ISIL, IS, Da’esh, whatever you want to call them these days, was not directly nor intentionally created by the US. IS is actually an evolution of the Islamic State of Iraq, which used to be called Al-Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. They were an extension of Al-Qaeda when they were stronger but not anymore. They got to where they are now because of the civil war in Syria and because al-Maliki kept pushing for sectarian policies that alienated Iraqi Sunni’s and Kurds but mostly the Sunni’s. Long story short, after transferring any and all US bases, out posts, facilities, airfields, etc. to the Iraqi’s (at Maliki’s request/demand,) the prisoners at various POW camps were released, including Camp Bucca. al-Baghdadi hooked back up with the ISI with new friends. Then ISI became ISIS when they allied with the FSA out of necessity to gain power and influence, then betrayed them and nearly annihilated the more secular elements of the FSA. Crushed or absorbed it’s more jihadist brigades, then went back to Iraq to conquer more territory.

On a side note, this is the second (and most successful) time they’ve attempted to establish a caliphate. The first time was during the Iraq War in 06. At the time they were called ISI and they tried to establish a caliphate by declaring Ramadi as their capitol. This lead to the Second Battle of Ramadi.

Read More »

CNN ans BBC to Create Conflict Which Results in Millions

Well lets see
 1. Invade iraq , completely  dismantle  the country and leave it in ruins. 
2 give billions of dollars to extremists in syria and spread false propaganda  through channels like CNN ans BBC to create conflict which results in millions of deaths
3. Libya - need i say anything
Directly responsible for so many deaths and indirectly for deaths due to factors like starvation etc 
So you destroyed their country killed their loved ones and u expect them just to stay silent . Some joined these extremists groups due to desperation and some due to hatred against usa. 
I am not saying what ISIS are doing is right but one country s freedom fighter is another country s terrorist. I mean we all have seen the helicopter video that wikileaks leaked and how the CIA tortured the iraqi army and treated them like dogs . I absolute hate ISIS but what i hate even more is how the americans are always projected as the good guys. Through its invasion of Iraq. The Iraqi army got disbanded, many of whom joined ISIS. American-operated Iraq was where ISIS was born, and this was due to Saddam Hussein’s removal from power; don’t let any idiot tell you that it was Zarqawi who “created ISIS by himself,” nothing like that happens in this world, or the next.

Some good content regarding the origin of ISIS is here already, but I won’t chase down or debunk some of their over-simplifications… giving a summary of ANYTHING to do with Islamic History can be ‘written-off’ as being ‘too simplistic’ … by ‘someone.’

But an in depth history of just who stepped upon whose toes… isn’t all that necessary; IF the West were to address all the issues and complaints, that exist in the Middle East… then ‘Islamic Extremism’ would continue.

Note: Islamic Extremism is NOT the same as Islam- the faith. For the former we are speaking to radical Ideology, and for the latter we are speaking to Religion(s)…plus 1.6 Billion followers. It’s extremely important to NOT confuse these two very distinct issues: political agendas, and religion.

The West at that time, and perhaps now, believes that IF these tribal factions were Democratically represented (within the artificial and poorly thought-out borders that contain the tribes) then they would discover some peace. Certainly too, in February of 2011, thousands of Muslims marched the streets of Cairo demanding a Democracy, so they too wish a Representative government… but even then… there would do NOTHING to stop the ongoing ‘flavor of the month’ terrorist groups that form ‘In the US; in the EU, or in the Middle East, such as ISIS.

But true enough, the failure of the elected (propped up perhaps) Iraqi leader to be truly inclusive in the U.S.’ sponsoring of a Democracy (which renewed the ongoing castigation of the largest single group of fundamentalist Sunni, and that cataylized the ISIS movement (a flavor of the year) to too easily recruit from the disenfranchised). But there have been group after group of previous ‘Islamic radicals’ going back to… Allah. (From the British point of view, Madison and Jefferson were radicals as well, so ‘radical’ is a relative term).. so now we have three groups to distinguish: Islamic Religion, Radical Islam, and Terrorist fanatics that simply wear Islamic religion like a taqiyah (hat).

If there were a key concept that needs be explored to understand the genesis of a terrorist, it would be simply ‘disenfranchised.’ A separated individual, poorly connected to a Faith, disillusioned by historic familial practices, and upon migrating into a more Western culture: becomes a stranger in a strange land, and poorly handled emigration has been a fertile ground for the disenfranchised.

The EU’s idea of multiculturalism is to allow, and encourage diversity, which means:separate. Separate ‘areas’, separate language, separate… and swallowing ‘British Culture’in Britain, or American Culture in the U.S. The easy denigration of former historic ‘heros’ which are now dismissed as ‘land grabbers,’ ‘slavers’ or racist (all true of course, but no reason for us to be embarassed by it TODAY. (You can’t fight asphalt streets if you live on one with your car, and you can’t ‘fight’ slavery when you -historically- swim in it). So: very little true integration is encouraged in the name of Politically Correct tolerance and multiculturalism, nor is a palate of ‘new beliefs and histories’ even proudly presented.

For the U.S., since less than 50 percent of the immigrants are on a legal road to citizenship, it’s more a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ as the Politically Correct policy, for: neighbors, workers and schools. Instead of the U.S. or U.K. building a stronger identity or culture at home, they’ve pissed it away over the passed 50 years, in the name of multiculturalism.

The further apart the incoming cultures, the further the disenfranchisement. The disenfranchised among the ‘well tolerated’ youth of Hispanic or Muslim background find themselves angry, as they cannot identify with either Western or their family heritage culture in many cases.

Freedom of speech, religion and the expectation of equal treatment under the law, regardless of gender, race, or sexuality is the hallmark of the West, but that too is subordinated in keeping with Political Correctness and the tolerance of ‘diversity.’ I observed a Muslim woman being admonished by her male work-group peers for ‘showing too much skin (forearms actually)’, and these Muslim men therefore denied her use of the small Mosque on the company grounds. ‘Oh that’s horrible- going on in Middle East’ (someone said); NO! This was not in the EU or the Middle East, this was at a major chip manufacturer’ site just outside Portland Oregon!I don’t really know that ISIS was the creation(to destruction) by U.S. But i would rather say that terrorism was definitely created by U.S. As because during Cold War between America and Russia.There were not any major wars but some regional wars occur. It was U.S who wanted to attack on Russia but not by his name. So U.S decided to attack by the peoples of Afghanistan and nearby.U.S supported them by giving them weapons to them so that they can attack Russia.They used to help for anything.They were given money,food,weapons,drugs and many other things. So U.S created terror of which today ISIS is a major part in creating terror.But today (as we all know “Sometimes table turns”) America is also threatened by these Groups.

Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.

In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.

By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.

The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.

In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.

In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.

Read More »

Middle Eastern Countries ISIS

No, of course not, at least not directly.

However US intervention in several Middle Eastern countries, notably Iraq and more recently Libya and Syria, has left significant power vacuums in the region, and organisations which were repressed under the regimes of former dictators like Saddam Hussain, have taken advantage of the situation.  

Whilst the conditions under such dictators were often brutal, especially for those groups which were opposed to them, they did at least manage to control the extremists.  The removal of these people, together with whipped up anti-Western feeling and Islamic fundamentalism has been a major consequence of intervention, leading to the rapid and little controlled growth of organisations like ISIS.

To be fair of course, it's not just the US who should bear some of the responsibility for creating the circumstances which have lead, indirectly and probably unforeseen, to the present situation.  Several other countries including the UK and France must also be considered culpable.
There is a lot of very interesting information that ISIS was created by the CIA much like Al’Qeaeda, and ties date back to the cold war era. Many believe that the CIA trained these groups and where intended form of defense against Russian expansion in the middle east. These groups where later leveraged in way fear tactics for controlling, and disarming the US citizens.

Bill points out and provides a lot of supporting argument that directly pertains to the answer to this question highlighting similar speculations about Al’Qeada far prior to the actual events commencing and the over all “plan”. Take a look for your self. It even goes on to paint a very clear picture about the use of false flags, and the disarmament of the US people.

However while it wasn't all our fault, we are somewhat to blame for the creation of ISIS. If we had not invaded Iraq based on a untrue fact, ISIS may never have been created in the first place.

Do you hold the first domino falling responsible for the rest of the dominos falling ? Yes.

Americans have very short term memories. Every US reaction is relative to what was reported in the news within the past two weeks at best. Perhaps you can partially blame the current practices of the media to push the news cycle based on ratings rather than objective journalism, but nonetheless, to quote Gore Vidal: “we live in the United States of Amnesia”. Context is lost or forgotten by the time the retaliation comes around, and so the American public is left standing there like a deer in the headlights asking WTF ?

The closest thing to one defining moment that would be the first domino to fall in the genesis of today’s ISIS would be when Paul Bremer, appointed by the Bush circle-jerk squad, disbanded the Iraqi Republican Guard. It was the single most colossal dumb decision that could have been made. It indirectly contributed to what would become ISIS in the long term. It directly contributed to the arming and motivating of what would become the insurgency, resulting in the loss of over 4,000 US service men and women !

Other bad decisions were made before and after, but that one was the planting of the seed that germinated to become ISIS. PBS does an excellent job at breaking down the chronological order of incredibly stupid decisions one after the other in “Bush's War”. The reasons ? Simple - Iraq stability was not a priority or even a concern, so long as it did not interrupt the primary goal. That’s not why the Americans were in Iraq. It is classic short term decisions to achieve short term goals: feed the hamster back home.

The facilitation of Nouri al-Maliki coming to power was another colossal screw up, and contributing factor. See the analysis in the CBC documentary “The Rise of ISIS”. You would have thought the Americans had learned that it’s important to be mindful of who you put into power after the long term repercussions of the Shah of Iran. But what has that got to do with the concerns of lining the pockets of today’s decision makers ?

Invading Iraq in the first place was wrong in and of itself, but decisions made after the Iraq army was defeated could have taken a different path from that point on. The moment Paul Bremer disbanded the Republican Guard, the path to ISIS was born.

Iraq has been yet another example of foreign policy decisions driven by American businesses, rather than actual concern over the security of the US.

As Chalmers Johnson pointed out in the excellent documentary ‘Why We Fight’: “I guarantee you: when war becomes that profitable, we're going to see more of it.”

U.S. was just one of factors or forces which indirectly resulted in the creation of ISIS. United States, as largely believed, was not the only reason. It was actually the Al-Qaeda which contributed to the sprouting of ISIS. It's a very detailed topic, which cannot be listed here in a Quora answer.

Of course, the USA and its regional allies for continuing their military intervention, created ISIS and now they continue to support it. Many times, the ISIS was losing the battle, but the USA and its allies have saved the ISIS.

Even there are proofs and evidence for the US-led coalition's military aid to ISIL terrorists through air and many Iraqi official mentioned it, but the USA try to deny it.

As the leader of Iran said, the U.S.A created ISIS and wants to destroy Islamic civilization. They know the actions of ISIS is a disgrace to the Islam and they can stop the growth of Muslim population by the actions of ISIS.

Read More »

ISIS Still USA

If you're asking did the US form, equip and train ISIS my answer is an emphatic no. Still, there are conspiracy theorists out there who might contend otherwise. But then there are some who believe 9/11 was a government plot. Ah well.

I do believe, however, that the US had a big hand in creating the conditions that enabled ISIS to emerge. This is a classic example of how to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.

When the US led Coalition drove Saddam from power they moved quickly to establish an interim civil government structure pending the formation of a permanent Iraqi political authority. They made several decisions that might have seemed right at the time but they backfired spectacularly. 

First they decided to purge the Ba'ath party from the government. Now under Saddam the Socialist Ba'ath party had been used by the minority Sunni Muslims as an instrument to extend their power throughout the regime.  Basically membership in the party was a prerequisite for holding coveted positions in the Iraqi civil service. 

Consequently, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)  had eliminated the core of experienced senior bureaucrats, thus seriously undermining the continuity of vital services to the Iraqi people. Simultaneously, this move alienated the Sunnis, who were fearful that they would lose their privileged status and be subject to a Shiite dominated government.

The CPA committed another misstep as they tried to cobble together a new constitution and provisional Iraqi political authority. Here they attempted to insert into prominent positions a number of Iraqis who had been living in exile in the United States. By doing this they managed to alienate everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, who rejected these people as outsiders and American backed outsiders at that.

Third, they committed possibly the most fatal error by disbanding the Iraqi armed forces. Thousands of trained soldiers were tossed into the street with no employment prospects. By this time there were already a number of resistance  organizations forming. Among them was an organization calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). A solid number of the disbanded soldiers drifted into various largely Sunni factions, including the ISI. 

By about 2008-10, the resistance was in full swing  The ISI began to build momentum, extending into Syria as well. With a little arm twisting and plain bargaining some of the resistance groups folded into ISI which ultimately became ISIS. Their ranks were augmented by many former Ba'athists and by now very angry soldiers.

In summary, the US and their Coalition partners created a lot of resentment and open anger among the Sunni population by some well intended but ultimately unfortunate decisions. As I said at the beginning, they invoked the often fatal Law of Unintended Consequences that contributed to the rise of ISIS.  

Now history is always 20/20 and it's easy to cast aspersions upon the US. Yet the CPA was in a bind and had to make some hard judgements on the ground. They might have foreseen the downstream consequences but they were, after all, only human. Now we have to live with the consequences.

This was when AQI re-emerged as ISIL, finding a foothold among the disenfranchised Sunni population while simultaneously growing in the eastern part of Syria while Syrian security forces were busy putting down their insurrection.

To review:

ISIL was born Jama'at al Tawhid to collapse the Jordanian government sometime before 1999.

Jama'at al Tawhid existed in Iraq before the US invaded.

Jama'at al Tawhid became AQI during the US occupation but focused mainly on oppressing the Sunni population and exterminating the Shi'a population.

AQI was effectively eliminated by 2008.A number of different nations were instrumental in the creation of the political vacuum that allowed groups like ISIS to establish a fixed presence in the region. If one were to look at the past two decades objectively, one cannot deny that the US - among others - were a major factor in the formation of ISIS. They didn't do this deliberately, though; it's simply one of a number of unintended consequences.

While there are quite a few answers that go into details how the U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East in the last 15–20 years contributed, I think the cornerstone was laid by the UK and the USA in the 50ies of the last century.

Iran, a very influential country in the region, had a democratically elected government. It got there through its own efforts, the first country like that in the Middle East. (Israel didn’t quite get there through its own efforts…) And what did the UK and the USA do? Topple that pesky democratic government, to reinstate a monarch, of all things: 1953 Iranian coup d'état.

Now imagine the Middle East with a democratic Iran since 1953. I think it is safe to say that it would be different. Pretty much every country in the region is a dictatorship, in one way or another. They are in the middle of a century of revolutions, upheavals, and back in the 50ies, the revolutionary philosophy was somewhat leftish: “power to the people”. Where I come from, that’s a whole lot better than the revolutionary philosophy in that area during the last 30 years or so: fundamentalist Islam.

If we had given the democratic movements in the 50ies their space (and — heavens forbid — maybe even our support), there may not have been a wave of fundamentalist Islam. In my opinion, fundamentalist Islam is a result of the need to fight oppression. So, by fighting (and helping fight) democratic movements some 60 years ago, we laid one cornerstone for the rise of fundamentalist Islam.

We can devide ISIS into 3 groups

1. Top leaders: nobody from the public knows who they are. They represent 1 to 2 percent of ISIS. They are formed from iraqi (mainly Al Baath) and iranian secret services. There is a small penetration from western countries on this level
2. 2nd level leaders represent 5–7 percent: these are Khawarij. These are the controllers/leaders of ISIS troops. They are also penetrated from different secret services mainly Russians and Americans
3. Soldiers: theses are a group of misleaded people. They are either real ignorants or very young (under 19). These kind of people are easy to manipulate

Who created them? Point 1 will answer

However, such big thing could never be created without the green light of USA

If you go back 20 years in history, the exact same thing happened in Algeria

1. Military dictature oppressed te population to force the maximum number to join the rebellion
2. Government took thousands of people to prisons, tortured and killed thousands
3. One day, 4000 men miraculously escaped from a high security prison. They were a mix of authentic rebels and secret service agent who were being tortured so the story will work
4. These 4000 joined the rebellion, unified at that time
5. Few months later the rebellion split into 2, then 4, then X goups
6. The new X-1 goup started to make massacres killing thousand of civilians in the name of Islam
7. Government was oppressing civilians to keep the “shock doctrine” working
8. Civilians hated the original rebellion
9. The government “successfully” made peace treaty with all X-1 groups
10. These X-1 new groups collapsed
11. X-1 groups’ rebels started to surrender
12. X-1 groups’ rebels were surprised to see that their leaders, their most pious camarades, sitting in military bases, wearing military uniforms, smoking cigarettes and loughing at their faces. “You have been screwed, dude”

Egyptian government tried and still trying the same strategy, but it seems they understood Algeria lesson

Somehow similar story happened in Afganistan during Russian invasion

Another very similar story is happening in Libya

Syrian gov tried the same thing at the beginning of the rebellion, but people understood the Algerian lesson. Nobody carried weapons untill after 6–7 months when some official army officers split

Read More »

Medical Science Perspective

Medical Science Perspective

Doctor decided to treat the patient for a disease which he thought as “cancer”, He thought this cancer is very dangerous and will spread across the whole body and might also spread to others. He decided to treat the patient with most aggressive treatment known for treating the cancer. His treatment plan included radical surgery, followed by heavy irradiation and prolonged chemotherapy as he was committed to kill last cancer cell of the patient.

Now what happens to the patient who was otherwise healthy, becomes severely immuno-compromised and is unable to fight any infections. Candida Albicans which is an opportunistic pathogen which resides in every healthy human and which are always almost kept under check by the patient’s immune system. The aggressive treatment for supposedly “cancer” has completely undermine the immunity of this patient resulting in opportunistic pathogens taking over the patient’s body.

Now read the above answer replacing Doctor as USA, patient as Iraq, Cancer as weapons of mass destruction, treatment plan of surgery, irradiation and chemotherapy as war on terror, Patient’s Immunity as Iraqi Military and government and most importantly Candida Albicans as ISIS.

You can conclude whether it was the cancer which was more dangerous or it was the irresponsible and hastily given treatment.

I'm unaware of any smoking gun evidence but there are some things that are disconcerting...

The "Sons of Iraq"" was a group of Sunnis that the US military armed, trained and paid 400 million dollars to help the new Iraqi government. When the US became less engaged in Iraq Malawki took several actions that were considered oppressive to the Sunnis. After that the "Sons Of Iraq" stopped helping the government and melted into the countryside with weapons and a wad of cash.

Numerous foreign fighters were allowed passage through Turkey into Syria. How many of those fighters became what we know as ISIL is unknown.

According to the Strafor email hack Turkey and America colluded to overthrow Assad. Specifically, the used the CIA and special operation forces to start a conflict that would be sold as civil war.

ISIS is primarily the comeback of the disenfranchised Iraqi Baathist military leadership, which were kicked out of power by the Americans. So yes, while it certainly wasn't their intention, the US are directly responsible.

Read More »

ISIS is a fundamentalist form USA

ISIS is a fundamentalist form USA.

Yes and no. No, the U.S. did not intentionally create ISIS, but the U.S. did help the create the conditions that enabled it to grow.

1. ISIS is a fundamentalist form of Salafist Sunni Islam. Sunni is one of the two major “denominations” of Islam (the other being Shi’a), and Salafism attempts to return to the original Islam as practiced under Muhammad and the first caliphs.
2. ISIS was previously Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and can ultimately be traced to a group created by Abu Musam Al-Zarqawi in the 1990s. His group committed acts of terrorism in Jordan before moving to Iraq in the early 2000s.
3. Al-Zarqawi’s group joined with Al Qaeda in 2004 and submitted to the leadership of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006 and after a brief succession of different leaders it was headed by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who soon changed the name to Islamic State in Iraq.
4. Al Qaeda in Iraq was able to increase its force due to the de-Baathification policy put in place in 2003–2004 under Donald Rumsfield and President Bush, and was based on the policy of de-Nazification that took place in Germany after World War II. It lead to thousands of soldiers and police officers being unemployed and nowhere to go. It led to Sunni Muslims being afforded a smaller role in the new Iraqi government and created greater sectarian division. It was a disaster and helped fuel ISIS.
5. the 2007 surge was effective in driving out AQI, and President Bush urged his successor to maintain a force in Iraq to prevent a resurgence. His 2007 speech was eerily prophetic.

6. President Obama’s clear intention to pull out all troops in Iraq sent a message that created an incentive for Islamic State to return from Syria, where it formed its headquarters and regrouped. When the American troops were pulled out in 2011 it returned, as President Bush predicted.

7. President Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s decisions to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad of Syria and Muammar Qaddafi of Libya gave aid to Islamic State by funding financially and with weapons anti-Assad mercenaries who defected to IS, or they were killed by IS and had their weapons confiscated. In Libya, they ordered a no-fly zone then bombed the government. This allowed the Islamists to take over, and eventually ISIS formed an outpost in the eastern section of the country.

8. As its dangers continued to increase and was obvious to the world, Obama dismissed ISIS as the “JV team.” He didn’t take the group seriously, and it continued to grow like a cancer. Meanwhile, Bush’s prophecy came true and he has since ordered troops back to Iraq, although a relatively small amount and with serious restrictions. ISIS came to hold large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq and has created an immigration disaster for Europe. Lately ISIS has lost some of that territory, but it still remains a grave danger to the Middle East.

Here President Putin of Russia makes accurate points about how the USA enabled the growth of ISIS, and suggests that U.S. ally Turkey has been helping it by purchasing its oil (which may be true).

The US did create ISIS, but not on purpose. It was a failure of the George W. Bush administration to anticipate the consequences of invading Iraq. The US and UK destroyed the government of Iraq and and its military, then left a weak replacement government behind. They disbanded the Iraqi military, putting thousands of combat-trained men out of employment in a divided nation awash in cheap firearms. ISIS was the inevitable result.

The invasion of Iraq was a catastrophic mistake. Anybody who was familiar with Middle Eastern politics could have predicted what would happen. Unfortunately, Bush was not among them.

While others have given better more detailed answers, I'll keep it short.

When an investigator investigates a murder, he or she looks for people who could benefit from the murder because that's where the incentive is.

ISIS has been more beneficial to the US than to Islam or Muslims or Saudis even.

As someone mentioned, cheaper oil, legitimacy on foreign policy, even local changes.

People say alqaida was defeated because OBL' is dead. People also say he attacked the US for their freedom. What poeple fail to see is, if that was his aim, he has succeeded and the US is now not so free. The NSA, the fear of the public. It all serves the government though. They can exercise more control now, leaving little room for transparency.

ISIS too seems to have succeeded. The got power where they wanted it, they instilled fear where they wanted it. The US has capitalized on their rise too.

It's a win win for the US. And so since it benefits from such groups, it seems they had a hand in it.

Willingly or unwillingly, Al Qiada, Taliban, ISIS, the very idea of Jihad as a Holly war thing, which had diminished, was brought back by the US.

The policies of United States implicitly created ISIS.

Everyone blames ISIS for their atrocities, however no one seem to criticize the Iraqi Army which was responsible for the rise of ISIS. There would have been no ISIS if Iraqi Army didn't cowardly withdraw from major Iraqi cities. They also left weapons worth 500 million which are now used by ISIS operatives.

You might say, its Iraqi armies failure, what's US got to do with this? The answer to that is, The United States appointed these guys in power, if US trained them well enough they would have decisively repelled ISIS assaults. US deliberately put some untrained, cowardly militants in power because they wanted to form a puppet state.

If the Iraqi Army was stronger, well trained like the armies of other nations then they wouldn't need rely on United State anymore. If they become self sufficient then there would be no need for US to stay in Iraq and they won't do whatever the US wants. This would put the interests of US in danger.

Rise of ISIS helped US

• keep the Iraqi government under control,
• weaken Assads armies,
• get cheaper oil for its allies (eg. Turkey),
• justify keeping soldiers in Iraq and deploy some in Syria (around 50 soldiers are deployed in syria),
• Turn public opinion in support of its foreign policy.
• Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
  The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

Read More »

U.S. really create ISIS?

U.S. really create ISIS? How?

The US did not deliberately create ISIS. But there would have been no ISIS but for American missteps and incompetence during the US occupation of Iraq.

Before we invaded in 2003, there were no armed islamist groups like ISIS in Iraq. Horrible as Saddam was, he had at least managed to keep a lid on them. Then we invaded, removed Saddam from power, and the Pentagon failed to issue the necessary orders for securing property. That led to widespread looting and a nearly instantaneous social breakdown in the absence of minimal security.

Then the Coalition Provisional Authority geniuses we put in charge of running Iraq thought it would be a great idea to disband the Iraqi army - an act that instantly put hundreds of thousands of heavily armed young men, with nothing to do, out on the streets and out of anybody’s control.

Then, to triple down on the stupid, we implemented a “de-Baathaification” purge, along the lines of the de-Nazification that followed the defeat of Germany, notwithstanding glaring differences between the scope and reach of the Nazi party in Germany, and the toothless haplessness of the Baath party in Iraq. That removed thousands of technocrats and bureaucrats necessary for the routine functioning of government, and wrecked its ability to deliver basic services such as electricity, garbage removal, or furnishing the minimal safety necessary to keep schools open.

Needless to say, it didn’t take long for a complete collapse of law and order and a series of insurgencies spanning most of the country. And our incoherent response - waves of random arrests that swept both foe and would-be friend; a plethora of checkpoints manned by nervous, confused, and frequently trigger happy troops who shot up cars full of innocents; frequently indiscriminate use of firepower that piled up “collateral damage”; and numerous instances of abuse and even outright massacres that were often unpunished, added fuel to the fire.

The insurgency began attracting foreign Islamist fighters from all over for jihad tourism in Iraq. Something that hadn’t happened in decades of Saddam’s rule, did within months of US rule. Even Al-Qaeda, which had no prior presence in Iraq, opened up a branch office,Al-Qaeda in Iraq , which quickly became one of the most virulent and bloodthirsty of the insurgent groups. It even set up a proto statelet, openly governing some regions in Western Iraq - the same ones where ISIS would get its start a few years later.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was eventually beat down, but its surviving members, such as Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, would go on to form ISIS soon as the US withdrew from Iraq. Helped in no small part by America’s final gift: the US trained Iraqi army, a sad sack and astonishingly incompetent, corrupt, and cowardly mob - something I addressed in my answer to Why is the Iraqi army losing Abrams tanks so easily?

In short, we didn’t set out to create ISIS, but we screwed up so bad that the emergence of ISIS or something equally bad was inevitable.

Indirectly, yes.

Because the Americans intervene in Iraq, they killed Saddam and imposed democracy in a place that has sectarian conflicts, and didn´t work because the Iraqi factions do not understand each other. The Americans claim that Iraq had chemical weapons, but it didn´t, Iraq had ceased to use them for a long time, since the Iran-Iraq War, but even so, the US and UK invaded Iraq without the UN endorsement.

So the Iraqi people thought that the Americans wanted to destroy Iraq for invading their country without any apparent reason, and came to fight against them with the air bombings and civilian casualties. Iraqis became more and more angry with the Americans and then,they started to ally to armed groups that fought US Armed Forces.

Due to the US Armed Forces in Iraq are very strong, they began to use unconventional methods of combat, such as terrorism, insurgency, the use of car bombs and suicide bombers to try to defeat the Americans. Over time, these groups have gained strength,money and weapons. With the high(and maybe unnecessary) expenses in 2011, the US withdrew their troops from the country. Then came the saying "When the cat's away, the mice will play" and these groups started fighting each other, wanting to dominate areas in Iraq, and others harness the power.

Another factor that shows that the US may have helped in the creation ISIS, was that the American army has left some of their military equipment such as helicopters, Humvees, rifles, M1 Abrahms in Iraq during the withdrawal in 2011.

Create? No of course not. “Create” has a rigorous meaning that cannot be shifted just because of politics or expediency. The more important question is: Does the United States bear at least some responsibility for the creation of ISIS? The answer is quite clear: Yes.

The US has a terrible policy in the Middle East. It ceased being “good” about 1991. After that point in time, it began to completely fall apart. What do I mean about this? The US has always had a bit of Realpolitik and pragmatism. The US was never under any impression that the people wanted and certainly were not ready for contemporary republicanism.

It pushed regimes internally to modernize at a pace that worked for them while keeping the ship as steady as possible. After that point in time, the US has failed to keep that policy. Worse, it began to shift its own policy around the world from “Maintain stable regimes that favor trade” to “Also make sure we push regimes to democratize.”

Sounds great on paper. A lot of ideas sound great on paper but are horrible in application. There are others:

• Companies should publish all executive officers’ salaries.
• Congress should abolish pork spending and cease handing out bonus checks on the chamber floors to those members who have records of passing bills and cooperating.

In those two instances, removing those provisions caused chaos in their respective organizations. The former resulted in EO’s competing in the US for salary that drove the numbers through the roof. The latter resulted in polarization of politics because chamber leaders lost two strong (and very cheap: the debt has been impacted less than 5% by those aspects) methods of pulling members to the middle to get things done.

Idealists destroy systems. The world is complex and pragmatists understand that making politics has always been like making sausages — it’s ugly business that average citizens think they know what’s best for the world, but if they really saw and knew, they’d freak the fuck out. The law of unintended consequences says that generally systems fall into patterns that mostly work for them and to gum it up with idealistic gibberish usually causes more harm than good.

The American idealists who decided that Latin America and East Asia were ready for democracy after the fall of the USSR, also felt like it was time to bring that to the Middle East. It worked in Latin America and Asia, largely. Those regimes that favored the US (South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil, Chile and on and on) all converted to democracy from about 1979–1999, they all fell into standard republican patterns.

The US felt like this was a great thing and largely it was. But not in the Middle East. That region has a combination of potent religious and cultural attitudes that make it challenging to work. Many borders were arbitrarily formed by Gertrude Bell and Thomas Lawrence. The stable autocrats that were allowed to rise to power and created a “more or less” stable area, were dis-favored. After the First Gulf War and especially the Second Gulf War, the US’s attitudes about regime change caused a societal collapse that has resulted in people swinging to extremes.

Some of those people, in their desperation, joined various terrorist groups. One of those groups is ISIS. The people who founded that group get the credit for that affair. But the US cannot divorce itself from a significant portion of responsibility because Bush failed to anticipate the horrible results of his Administration’s vile actions and Obama failed to anticipate the results of the sudden withdraw of American forces in Iraq. Obama also made a promise about how/why the US would interfere, and then tippy-toed back away from that promise.

Read More »