Is ISIS a product of the allies politics in Iraq?

[mapuc]

Throughout the last few month I have heard commentators on CNN, BBC World News and on our Danish and Swedish news channel.

I get the feeling that the crisis in Iraq may have something to do with the allied politics or the lack of it.

It seem like they rushed right in and left without thinking about the political future for Iraqi people.

Some commentators(Swedish if I remember correctly) mentioned the leader of Iraq and said he was nothing more than USA'a marionette.

I hope I'm wrong I wish I'm wrong.

Markus

[eddie]

Well, after the Iraqis elected their own Government, this same Government decided they didn't want American troops stationed in their country. So we had to leave.
Some might say with their great hindsight that we should have kept troops there anyway, but if part of the goofy reason we went in there in the first place was to give them democracy, then how can we dictate to them that we should have troops stationed there? They would have become targets then.

Malarki has spent a lot of time flying from Baghdad to Tehran, seems he has a lot of friends there too. I believe the Iranians used a lot of influence in the decision for all foreign troops to leave Iraq.

We spent years and a lot of money training and equipping the Iraqi army and police, along with the help of other countries. Why is it the rest of the worlds fault if they run away from ISIS?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by mapuc

It seem like they rushed right in and left without thinking about the political future for Iraqi people.

Markus, Articles which I have read during last few years have painted picture that there was no plan. They alleged (and I see no reason dismiss them) that commander of invasion force was in belief, that Iraqis would take them as liberators and then American would leave. I have seen no evidence that plans by which war was executed at start took into any consideration such little things as insurgency and "what after when we leave?".

In my opinion whole Iraq War was exceptionally incompetently led mess. If someone can prove that I'm wrong here please post links to your evidence.

[mapuc]

In another word. The allies won the war but lost the peace

Markus

[Skybird]

It does back to 2003, mapuc. After they had defeated the Iraqi army, they showed that they had no real plan for governing it. Paul Bremer then decided it would be a clever idea to dismantle the Iraqi army, security forces and intelligence services, sending all of a sudden tens of thousands of armed former employees (soldiers and generals) into joblessness with their income gone, their competence and experience ignored, and their privileges taken away. No good idea, since the ruling elites were of the ruling Sunni minority.

Then came Maliki who did nothing to bridsge gaps between ethnciities, but helped to wioden then. Sunni and Kurds are masisvely discmrinated, the detah squads last time I heard of them (maybe one year ago) terrorized the people worse than they ever did under Hussein and especially target Sunni and Kurds, and corruption and nepotism under Maliki has become policy of the day.

It seems the Sunni have had enough of post war Iraq and Maliki. They radicalised, started to love jihad, collected experience in Syria, and then formed ISIS and discovered their love to not just take Iraq, but the whole ME.

Yes, Wetsern /American policies have plentya to do with ISIS existing today. The Amerians did not intentionally form ISIS like once the Pakistani founded the Taliban, but still, they share the lions share of responsibility.

It was stupid to invade Iraq, the claims why it was done were lies, and starting all that mess without a plan for the time after the Iraqi army had surrendered was irresponsibly. But the revolts then emerging, the ethnic tensions growing, and the role of religious radicalization - all that was forseeable and predictable, and as a matter of fact it was forseen and warned of by some people.

Its just that these irresponsible, self-glorifying retards in Washington decided to not listen to everybody telling them what they did not want to hear.

They should have done like they did with the ruins of the Third Reich: making use of the remains of the German police and administration in the cities and regions, instead of destroying these last remains of administration as well and leave all Germany open to anarchy.

Nothing what has happened in Iraq since then, and ISIS as well - nothing of all that comes as a surprise to me. And I talked like that already ten years ago.

[Skybird]

It goes back to 2003, mapuc. After they had defeated the Iraqi army, they showed that they had no real plan for governing it. Paul Bremer then decided it would be a clever idea to dismantle the Iraqi army, security forces and intelligence services, sending all of a sudden tens of thousands of armed former employees (soldiers and generals) into joblessness with their income gone, their competence and experience ignored, and their privileges taken away. No good idea, since the ruling elites were of the ruling Sunni minority.

Then came Maliki who did nothing to bridsge gaps between ethnciities, but helped to wioden then. Sunni and Kurds are masisvely discmrinated, the detah squads last time I heard of them (maybe one year ago) terrorized the people worse than they ever did under Hussein and especially target Sunni and Kurds, and corruption and nepotism under Maliki has become policy of the day.

It seems the Sunni have had enough of post war Iraq and Maliki. They radicalised, started to love jihad, collected experience in Syria, and then formed ISIS and discovered their love to not just take Iraq, but the whole ME.

Yes, Wetsern /American policies have plentya to do with ISIS existing today. The Amerians did not intentionally form ISIS like once the Pakistani founded the Taliban, but still, they share the lions share of responsibility.

It was stupid to invade Iraq, the claims why it was done were lies, and starting all that mess without a plan for the time after the Iraqi army had surrendered was irresponsibly. But the revolts then emerging, the ethnic tensions growing, and the role of religious radicalization - all that was forseeable and predictable, and as a matter of fact it was forseen and warned of by some people.

Its just that these irresponsible, self-glorifying retards in Washington decided to not listen to everybody telling them what they did not want to hear.

They should have done like they did with the ruins of the Third Reich: making use of the remains of the German police and administration in the cities and regions, instead of destroying these last remains of administration as well and leave all Germany open to anarchy.

Nothing what has happened in Iraq since then, and ISIS as well - nothing of all that comes as a surprise to me. And I talked like that already ten years ago.

[eddie]

Lets not forget that ISIS got its start in Syria, part of the Arab Spring uprising. But, please, don't hold them responsible.

And yes I was against the war in Iraq, and they had no plan for after the war. Whole thing was ignorant.

Still no excuse for how the Iraqi army ran away when the going got tough. Iraqis are real good with IED's and car bombs, guerrilla type warfare, but when it comes to fighting an organized army, they fold.

[Schöneboom]

As usual, follow the money. Looks to me like ISIS was anything but a spontaneous grassroots movement. Some very high rollers got this proxy army started (and they may live to regret it):

http://www.dw.de/who-finances-isis/a-17720149

[Oberon]

I'd say yes and no in equal measures. Saddam wasn't a young guy, and eventually he would have kicked the bucket, now Qusay would have had a fair shot at running the country, maybe even reforming it but in that unstable moment in leadership transition there's a distinct possibility that Iraq could have fallen into civil war anyway, especially since the neighbouring civil war in Syria would have caused extreme destablisation on the western border. I'm almost certain that Saddam would have joined Assad in using chemical weapons in order to maintain order.
ISIS is one part a creation of the side effects of the Arab Spring, and that was not created as a part of the wests deployment into Iraq, that started (officially at least) in Tunisia and spread east. However, it cannot be denied that the instability in Iraq caused by the western attempt at nation building has only served to exacerbate the problem, so I'd say that it was a 50/50 split.

Of course, if you want to go back a bit further, you could equally say that it was most likely more a product of the Triple Ententes politics in Assyria, in particular the Sykes-Picot agreement, and to be honest it's quite surprising that it has lasted the nearly 100 years that it has.

[Armistead]

Skybird probably said it, but there were numerous blunders, but one I think must be point out is our timeline to leave.

Bush and Maliki actually had a good working relationship and with us there he was able to govern much better. When Obama took office Maliki no longer had a friend in the WH, worse, he knew he Americans were going to bail. It was then he started his campaign of Shia power, because of fear without the US and the strong division of Shia and Sunni. Maliki was not the right player, but I think the only player left was for the US to maintain control of the govt for several more years. This would've been the best thing for Iraq, but Bush was more concerned with his legacy of democracy there before he left office, not to mention the lack of public support waning.

Now it's genocide either way. ISIS will continue it's blood mania, taking more towns, more mass killings. If we were to intervene big time, we would kill probably as many civilians getting the cities back. That's why if we are to intervene, we must do it now. Course, we'd fall into world condemnation once we started taking the cities back, but Obama isn't going to do it.

...and that dam....if ISIS lost that city, I bet they would blow it...

[Armistead]

Skybird probably said it, but there were numerous blunders, but one I think must be point out is our timeline to leave.

Bush and Maliki actually had a good working relationship and with us there he was able to govern much better. When Obama took office Maliki no longer had a friend in the WH..worse, he knew he Americans were going to bail. It was then he started his campaign of Shia power, because of fear without the US and the strong division of Shia and Sunni.

Maliki was not the right player, but I think the only player left was for the US to maintain control of the govt for several more years. This would've been the best thing for Iraq, but Bush was more concerned with his legacy of democracy there before he left office, not to mention the lack of public support waning.

Now it's genocide either way. ISIS will continue it's blood mania, taking more towns, more mass killings. If we were to intervene big time, we would kill probably as many civilians getting the cities back. That's why if we are to intervene, we must do it now. Course, we'd fall into world condemnation once we started taking the cities back, but Obama isn't going to do it.

...and that dam....if ISIS lost that city, I bet they would blow it...they already said they could flood like in the days of Noah. If I understand there's another dam they will take control of....You control the water..you control a lot.

[Oberon]

The thing is, in this case he was acting for the will of the American people, or certainly those who voted him into office, America was sick of Iraq, America wanted out of Iraq and to hell with the consequences, I believe the common line of thought was "if there's a civil war, that's their problem", all that America wanted to do was get the troops back home, pull up the drawbridge and say to hell with the Middle East. Heck, it still does, so really if Obama had tried to sell to the US public the American military staying in Iraq until the late 2010s then his approval ratings would have fallen faster than Baghdad did.
Cause and Effect really.

[mapuc]

Had some thoughts when I heard some political expert in middle east said something about the Iraqi army and how badly trained they seem to be and had no confident in their belief(can't remember the exact phrase he used)

Here's my thought

How well would ISIS have succeeded if Saddam still had the power? I somehow recall the headlines from the time where he crushed every uprising in Iraq without mercy.

I'm not saying that it was a very bad idea to remove Saddam on the contrary, it was the best thing for the Iraqi people. but no "Marshall" plan thereafter well.....

Either the Leader of Iraq find a political solution where every fraction in the country is presented in a democratic government or he, a part I don't like, get better trained and equipped soldiers and crush this uprising.

Markus

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The thing is, in this case he was acting for the will of the American people, or certainly those who voted him into office, America was sick of Iraq, America wanted out of Iraq and to hell with the consequences, I believe the common line of thought was "if there's a civil war, that's their problem", all that America wanted to do was get the troops back home, pull up the drawbridge and say to hell with the Middle East. Heck, it still does, so really if Obama had tried to sell to the US public the American military staying in Iraq until the late 2010s then his approval ratings would have fallen faster than Baghdad did.
Cause and Effect really.

We have a short memory and most don't understand the facts, culture or climate. Politicians then don't base policy on facts, but what will get them into power....doesn't matter if it cost a million lives.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by mapuc

How well would ISIS have succeeded if Saddam still had the power? I somehow recall the headlines from the time where he crushed every uprising in Iraq without mercy.

Given that Saddam was Sunni and ISIS is Sunni there likely would have no uprising to begin with. It was Sunni resentment of Shia rule that sparked the current uprising.