Originally posted by @pap
Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq
The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an âaffront to justiceâ when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing âextensive supportâ to the armed Syrian opposition.
That didnât only include the ânon-lethal assistanceâ boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of âarms on a massive scaleâ. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a ârat lineâ of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But itâs only the latest of a string of such cases.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
Well, that article is from June. This doesnât in itself invalidate its claims, but it does rather diminish your emboldened heading. After all, if this truth is just emerging, how come it was printed in the Guardian a few months ago?
But thatâs quibbling. Whatâs more to the point is the central claim, which I think is incorrect. Whilst the US (and others) certainly supported opponents of Assadâs regime, notably the Free Syrian Army, Iâm not sure thereâs any proof that they funded or armed the emergent Islamic State. The 2012 document quoted by Milne is so massively redacted as to be almost uselss; what it does indicate is that the old adage of âmy enemyâs enemy is my friendâ has never gone away, particularly in the military mind.
This does not by any means apply to the US and its allies only; you can see it very clearly in the actions of Russia. Iâve read reports that the Russian bombing has strengthened Islamic State in some areas, as the targets of the bombs have been other groups opposed to Assad (such as the FSA). As these groups have suffered losses and withdrawn from certain areas, IS has moved in to occupy those areas. Putin wishes to maintain Russian influence and alliances in the Middle East; Syria is a key ally of Russia, as it was of the Soviet Union (enemy of enemy = friend once again). To this end, Putin had been quite happy to see IS gain strength, to the point where they would become the main (effectively the only) opposition to Assad. After all, if Assadâs opposittion is Islamic State, then how can anyone oppose Assad? Hence the Russian bombing raids on anyone but IS, and their insistence that all opposition groups are terrorists (see Sergei Lavrovâs comments). However, the events in Paris and the identification of a bomb as the cause of the Russian airlinerâs crash have forced Putin to change tack somewhat.
Whatâs the state of play in Syria now, and is there a way forward which does not involve massive further bloodshed, and which will decrease rather than increase the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and it associated terrorism? First answer - things are a total, horrible fucking mess. I donât think thatâs a particularly controversial statement. As for the second question, the answer is yes; not least because there is always a way forward. Itâs just a question of finding it.
Looking at Syria and Iraq (which is a clear necessitiy if youâre duscussing Islamic State), itâs clear that a key cause of the current mess is Sunni disaffection. Sunnis are a minority in Iraq, but under Saddam Iraq was effectively a Sunniârun state. Under the now departed Al-Maliki, Iraq became a massively sectarian Shia state, with Sunnis banished from all areas of government and the miltary. Meanwhile, Syria is a Sunni majority country ruled by a Shia clique; groups opposing Assad are universally Sunni. Put these two factors together and you have a potent brew of discontent. Sunnis (many of them with military training and experience) joined with the emergent IS in Iraq because theyâd been thrown out of their jobs and left with nothing. Do they believe that whatâs needed is a caliphate? Almost certainly not. But IS gives them money and food, which Al-Malikiâs government didnât. If theyhadnât been shat on purely for being Sunnis, would they have joined forces with IS or any similar group? Almost certainly not.
Address Sunni discontent and you address the fundamental cause of the rise of Islamic State; fail to do so and youâll see its rise continue, regardless of how many bombs are dropped on Raqqah.