Would ISIL/ISIS/Daesh have arisen without the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

[Bravus]

It's a bit of a hypothetical in that we can't run a separate 'control' history of Iraq for the past 12 years, but it seems to me as though without the chaos of the invasion, it is far less probable that this group would/could have arisen.

In the context of the question "Was the invasion a mistake?", surely that's relevant. Even leave aside what was known in advance: knowing what we know now, it seems pretty hard to maintain, as some seem to want to, that it was not a mistake.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Bravus

[Bravus]

No appetite at all for this discussion, eh?

[joeb]

I'd say that question is a red herring.  Bush, Obama, and the military leaders of the US said that before Obama pulled us out of Iraq that the situation was stable.  However, Bush warned that pulling out too soon would create a power vacuum and create a situation in which terrorists would take over.  That's exactly what happened when Obama pulled us out of there without the necessary forces to maintain the peace and to keep on training the Iraqis. 

So, would ISIS have come into being, or at least into being in the force and power that it is now if Obama had not done what he did?  It's very unlikely.  He sacrificed all the gains, all the lives that had been spent to bring about a stable, peaceful, Iraq.  Had he left 20-30,000 troops there ISIS and Iraq would be much different than it is now. 

[Aliensanctuary]

Some in high places seem to want ISIS to succeed, otherwise there would be no more bridges, power plants, fuel transportation and storage, phone lines and cell towers, etc. If ISIS, or Iran, ever capture or manufacture nukes in quantity, it's goodbye to the great cities of the world and hello to the brutal, New Dark Ages.

[lazarus]

When Ibrahim Al Douri was killed a few weeks ago I heard a great explanation of how the 2003 invasion of Iraq led to the formation of ISIS. When Iraq was defeated the US made the mistake of dismissing about 200,000 Bath party members. Many of these people formed and supported the Iraq insurgency and opposition to subsequent Iraqi governments. The Baath party was fiercely secular and they kept the religious militants at bay. When the US took over Iraq, Baathist's looked for allies and It's is well known that ISIS was formed by some of Saddam's former associates including Al Douri. Without the Iraqi invasion, governmental decapitation, and de-Baathification, there would be no ISIS period!

Another factor is that the "surge" was in essence a plan to pay people not to fight. This did not resolve the issues that led to the violence in Iraq. When the money stops flowing then there is every reason to fight again.

Iraq is another example of blow-back. Unfortunately, innocent men women and children will suffer for the hubris of the Bush administration.

[Sojourner]

ISIS would have always arisen in some format or another as an outworking of Wahabi Islam that calls for the establisment of the Caliphate which results as an outworking of their apocolyptic belief in the return of the hidden inman and Jesus Christ's second coming to lead all the Christians to Islam. Look into the theology of ISIS and you will see that is pretty much how they think along with their motivation. Its also the reason that a number of people reccomend not giving them the ISIS vs West war that they so badly crave and instead using the likes of Hezbollah and other Shiite groups to combat them.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Sojourner

[JoeMo]

With 20/20 hindsight, it's pretty easy to say that the 2003 incasion of Iraq was a mistake.  Say what you want about Saddam Houssein, but he was a strong leader who made Iraq a good counterbalance to Iran.  The whole notion of vast stores on WMD's turned out to be bovine excrement, as was the assumtion that a country as religiously violent and full of corruption was ripe for mutual tolerance and democracy.  IMO ( and that of many other world countries) is that the united States "broke" Iraq.  When I go into a high-priced store, there is frequently a sign that says something like "you break it, you buy it" or "you break it you own it".  Pulling out of Iraq the way we did was the equivalent of breaking something without buying it.

OTOH, Iraq did kick us out of the store.

While I agree that no matter what, ISIS (or something that looked a lot like it) would have come into existence eventually.  The overthrow of Iraq just facilitated and expidited their rise to power.

[Bravus]

...not to mention arming them with the vast quantity of weapons shipped into the region... and for some apparently the solution is to ship in vast quantities more...

[lazarus]

ISIS would have always arisen in some format or another as an outworking of Wahabi Islam that calls for the establisment of the Caliphate which results as an outworking of their apocolyptic belief in the return of the hidden inman and Jesus Christ's second coming to lead all the Christians to Islam. .

​I'm not convinced that the development of an ISIS type group was inevitable. The invasion and subsequent dismantling of Iraq left hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi regime members with a need to feed their families, exact revenge and of necessity form alliances to meet those goals. We can look for the religious/cultural reasons but how about the flawed strategy of the Bush Administration.

[whbae]

It certainly would have happened.  The Satan is at work hard to prosecute christians and oppose God's plan for this world.

[Bravus]

So... given that it facilitated this, Bush/Rove/Cheney were about Satan's work?

[Guest]

The fall of Ramadi, capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province, to the Islamic State last month has frayed nerves in Washington, but what few appear to grasp is that ISIS’s May offensive has given Ramadi back to its former owners — the ex-Baathist Sunni terrorists known as the Former Regime Loyalists. The FRLs, as they’re called, were Saddam Hussein’s most ardent followers, the same fighters whom the United States fought non-stop for eight years. Their resurgence has implications not just for the United States but for ISIS itself. For while these forces may fly the ISIS flag today, their ultimate plans for Iraq are quite different than those of the “caliphate.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/03/isis-forces-exbaathist-saddam-loyalists/

[joeb]

When Ibrahim Al Douri was killed a few weeks ago I heard a great explanation of how the 2003 invasion of Iraq led to the formation of ISIS. When Iraq was defeated the US made the mistake of dismissing about 200,000 Bath party members. Many of these people formed and supported the Iraq insurgency and opposition to subsequent Iraqi governments. The Baath party was fiercely secular and they kept the religious militants at bay. When the US took over Iraq, Baathist's looked for allies and It's is well known that ISIS was formed by some of Saddam's former associates including Al Douri. Without the Iraqi invasion, governmental decapitation, and de-Baathification, there would be no ISIS period!

Another factor is that the "surge" was in essence a plan to pay people not to fight. This did not resolve the issues that led to the violence in Iraq. When the money stops flowing then there is every reason to fight again.

Iraq is another example of blow-back. Unfortunately, innocent men women and children will suffer for the hubris of the Bush administration.

​So, a group that killed 10s of thousands, if not 100s of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds should have just been left alone to murder and oppress their own people. 

I sometimes wonder at the thinking that goes into this type of thing.  Don't do good because evil may come from it.  Well, if Obama had not pulled out until Iraq was truly stable and powerful enough to defend itself this would not have happened.  He was warned again and again what the consequences would be.  Did he care?  No.  That much is obvious.  If he had he would not have taken the actions he did.

Furthermore, he still does not have a plan as to how to train/retrain Iraqi soldiers so that they can defend themselves.  He blames the Pentagon, but he's the commander in chief.  He's responsible.  He's at the top of the heap.  People in the Pentagon have privately said things like, Where did that [expletive] come from? in response to his press conference yesterday.  He strains credulity on almost daily basis.  The Pentagon, whose job it is to run scenarios and plan for every military contingency, has not come up with a plan in a couple of years?  Really????  How can anyone even begin to believe Obama when he says stuff like this almost daily? 

Should we have invaded Iraq?  I'm not sure but I tend to think so.  Did the Iraqi war happen?  Yes.  Does it do any good to castigate Bush because you disagree with him?  It's been Obama's problem for the last 6 years and what has he accomplished to settle things down?  Nothing.  It just keeps getting worse and all he's doing is what he always does.  He blames someone else.  Nothing is ever his fault.  The economy is still Bush's fault after 6 years of Obama policies.  Iraq, ISIS, Iran, etc... are all still Bush's fault even though Obama's had 6 years to do something about the situation. 

How about let's face reality and do things to help the situation?  Does putting the US into the "do nothing or retreat" mode help?  It's obvious it does not.  Things are worse not better.  Our allies in the Middle East no longer trust us.  There is a nuclear arms race starting there now.  Why?  Because of what Obama is doing, or should I say, not doing, for that's what he is doing. 

Stop blaming the past and let's see what we can do about the present.  Let's face reality.  Let's cooperate and do something, not "do nothing". 

Edited June 9, 2015 by joeb

[Bravus]

Right. When someone drives the bus off the mountain pass and then gets off, that's not the guy you should blame, it's the guy who jumps behind the wheel and desperately tries to minimise the damage on the way down who is really to blame.

What do you propose Obama do? More of the same thing that has been proven not to work? Seriously: what is your suggestion, aside from more war? Or even including war, if there's a clearly designed goal.

It's a 'wicked problem' that goes right back to the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran to install the Shah, that then went so wrong that the US poured millions in funds and arms in Saddam's Iraq as a counter to it. It makes no sense to start the story at Obama, but neither does it start with Bush 2. It's a much longer story, and it starts with US meddling. What makes you think more US meddling is the solution?

 

[JoeMo]

What do you propose Obama do? More of the same thing that has been proven not to work? Seriously: what is your suggestion, aside from more war? Or even including war, if there's a clearly designed goal.

Oh, I think war will inevitably come as soon as ISIS invades a NATO country.  Either war or a broken NATO treaty.  At this point in time, I believe that Western Europe needs to worry about this more than the U.S. (unless IS cells allegedly close to the Mexican border or already in the U.S. start something before that).  If we are indeed in the "end times", war will come.

[joeb]

Right. When someone drives the bus off the mountain pass and then gets off, that's not the guy you should blame, it's the guy who jumps behind the wheel and desperately tries to minimise the damage on the way down who is really to blame.

What do you propose Obama do? More of the same thing that has been proven not to work? Seriously: what is your suggestion, aside from more war? Or even including war, if there's a clearly designed goal.

It's a 'wicked problem' that goes right back to the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran to install the Shah, that then went so wrong that the US poured millions in funds and arms in Saddam's Iraq as a counter to it. It makes no sense to start the story at Obama, but neither does it start with Bush 2. It's a much longer story, and it starts with US meddling. What makes you think more US meddling is the solution?

 

​Bush didn't "jump out of the bus" to avoid the problem.  He was limited by the Constitution to two terms in office.  He couldn't run again.  The implications of what you said are just flat out false. 

To limit this problem to the installation of the Shah in Iran is to be very short-sighted.  How about the creation of modern-day Iraq by the British?  They put 3 different cultures together in the same political state.  Three cultures that had a long history of enmity towards each other.  We could even go back to the damage done by the Turks during the Ottoman empire.  Or, we could go back to the time of Abraham and trace the enmity between Jacob and Esau's descendents down through time. 

How about the Nazi influence in Iran during WWII?  That is one of the things that brought about the train of circumstances that brought the Shah to power.  Also, the cold war had a lot to do with this as both the US and the USSR did their best to install their own puppet.  If the US hadn't, the USSR would have, and the thought of that is pretty scary.  The Russians still have a lot of influence in Iran and their influence does not help bring about peace. 

You seem to ignore a lot of what has taken place in Iran.  It's real convenient for you to place all the blame on the US, but Britain, France, the USSR, Turkey, etc... have had a lot to do with this.

[lazarus]

​So, a group that killed 10s of thousands, if not 100s of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds should have just been left alone to murder and oppress their own people. 

I sometimes wonder at the thinking that goes into this type of thing.  Don't do good because evil may come from it. 

​I'm actually saying don't do evil because evil will come of it. The Iraq invasion was NOT good.  It is estimated that 500k civilians have died in iraq as a result of the invasion. Another US invasion will kill more than ISIS could ever kill. What has Vietnam, Korea, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan taught Americans?

 

I also note that you did not answer Bravus' question. I'll repeat it. What would you suggest Obama do? In all the noise about Obama's policy I have not heard a conservative articulate one.

Edited June 11, 2015 by lazarus

[phkrause]

It doesn't matter, Lazarus, what Obama does!! Because no matter what he does, it wont be the right thing. When he was getting the troops out they complained, when he is taking the time to figure out what the next step will be, that's not right. If he starts thinking maybe we should go back in, that's not correct. No matter what he decides, it wont be the right move. Its sad.

[joeb]

Right. When someone drives the bus off the mountain pass and then gets off, that's not the guy you should blame, it's the guy who jumps behind the wheel and desperately tries to minimise the damage on the way down who is really to blame.

What do you propose Obama do? More of the same thing that has been proven not to work? Seriously: what is your suggestion, aside from more war? Or even including war, if there's a clearly designed goal.

It's a 'wicked problem' that goes right back to the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran to install the Shah, that then went so wrong that the US poured millions in funds and arms in Saddam's Iraq as a counter to it. It makes no sense to start the story at Obama, but neither does it start with Bush 2. It's a much longer story, and it starts with US meddling. What makes you think more US meddling is the solution?

 

​Something other than what he is doing.  So far he's alienated our allies and encouraged our enemies.

Let's look at some of the things Obama has done so far.  This won't be inclusive by any means as I don't have the time nor inclination to look up everything he's done.

1.  When the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, took power in Egypt Obama gave them hundreds of millions of dollars worth of arms, including tanks, fighter jets, etc....  When the Egyptian army kicked the MB out of power because of the way they abused anyone who differed with them even slightly Obama stopped all aid to Egypt.  That's right.  He would support an Egyptian state run by terrorists but when they were kicked out of power he wouldn't support the Egyptians any more. 

2.  He started the Libyan war and then walked away from it after destroying the entire governmental structure.  He left the country in the hands of rival terrorist organizations.  His stated cause for going into Libya?  To help the Libyan people out from under a tyrant.  Did he improve their situation?  No.  He made it worse by not sticking around to actually help the people set up a structure so they could have real elections and enough stability to have an economy once again.  No reasonable person would expect people who had lived for multiple generations under a dictatorship to understand how to live as free people without someone creating a stable situation for them until they grow into the ability to understand liberty and what it takes to keep it.  The same goes for the Iraqis.  He did the same thing to them.

3.  . He's bringing about a nuclear arms race in the mideast as now the Saudis land Egyptians want nuclear arms to defend themselves against the Iranians as he is basically guaranteeing the Iranians nuclear arms.  And the Iranians are the number 1 state sponsor of terror.

4.  He drew a line in the sand in Syria and told Assad that if he used chemical weapons against his own people there would be massive consequences.  What happened when Assad used chemical weapons against his own people?  Obama basically walked away from the situation.  In other words, he showed the world his word is worthless.  That he doesn't have the spine to do what he says he'll do.

5.   He has done all he could do to undermine the leader of Israel.  He's insulted the man in several different ways, and then cries foul when Netanyahu fights back by coming over here and speaking to Congress.  He has made sure the Israelis no longer trust the US after more than 50 years of our two countries being close allies, and our only democratic ally in the Middle East. 

6.  The Saudis no longer trust us at all.  They went into Yemen to fight the Iranian-backed rebels/terrorists there without telling us about it.  Nothing like that has ever happened before.  They basically said, if you read through the diplomatic-speak, that they didn't trust Obama not to tell the Iranians what they were going to do.

7.  When Obama gave a Middle Eastern summit a while back only 2 out of 6 heads of state showed up.  Those who really understand Middle Eastern politics say those heads of state snubbed him because they know they can't trust him. 

8.  Have you heard Obama condemn the murder of Christians by ISIS?  The silence is deafening.  He may have said something about the murder of Kurds and other ethnicities in Iraq and Syria but I haven't heard it.  It hasn't been front and center and roundly condemned. 

5.  He released the Taliban 5 who included 2 men who were intimately connected with the planning of the 9/11 attacks here in the US.  Now he's trying to make it appear that he's trying to stop them from reentering the fight, but when he released them they had no restrictions other than a 1 year vacation after Gitmo. 

So, what has he done that is positive?  I don't see anything positive.  He thinks he can make friends with people who hate everything the West stands for.  Men who live to hate, who live to kill, cannot be talked into peace.  They will see that as nothing but weakness for they themselves understand nothing but the use of force to get what they want.  And what do they want?  The destruction of the West and the world dominated by their warped version of Islam.  They would kill you as soon as look at you.  They don't care what your politics are.  They care for nothing but power and control and they don't care who they harm.  In fact, they want to harm as many people as possible.

So, what do you do with people like that?  Can you ignore them and think they will go away?  No.  Can you make peace with them and expect them to stop murdering women and children of any persuasion/race/creed that disagrees with their narrow view?  Nope  Can you offer them a job?  Nope..  What is left?  Only one thing.  Wipe them out.  Go after them with all out war, everything short of nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare.  I see no other option.  And I don't see that you, or your liberal allies, have come up with workable solutions either. 

[CoAspen]

"He thinks he can make friends with people who hate everything the West stands for."

Oh, the horror of it all!!! Best toss away your Bibles, cause it will lead you down the wrong path....Love your enemies!!

[hch]

It doesn't matter, Lazarus, what Obama does!! Because no matter what he does, it wont be the right thing. When he was getting the troops out they complained, when he is taking the time to figure out what the next step will be, that's not right. If he starts thinking maybe we should go back in, that's not correct. No matter what he decides, it wont be the right move. Its sad.

Que Sera, Sera.

ISIL is drying up the Christian presence along the Euphrates River basin.

Events that Bush put in motion are overwhelming Obama (and the world).

Que Sera, Sera