The Hidden Hand Behind the Islamic State

The Washington Post ^ | April 4, 2015 | Liz Sly

[AnalogReigns]

SANLIURFA, Turkey — When Abu Hamza, a former Syrian rebel, agreed to join the Islamic State, he did so assuming he would become a part of the group’s promised Islamist utopia, which has lured foreign jihadists from around the globe.

Instead, he found himself being supervised by an Iraqi emir and receiving orders from shadowy Iraqis...

All of the men, however, were former Iraqi officers who had served under Saddam Hussein...

His account, and those of others who have lived with or fought against the Islamic State over the past two years, underscore the pervasive role played by members of Iraq’s former Baathist army...

...almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes, according to Iraqis, Syrians and analysts who study the group.

The raw cruelty of Hussein’s Baathist regime, the disbandment of the Iraqi army after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the subsequent insurgency and the marginalization of Sunni Iraqis by the Shiite-dominated government all are intertwined with the Islamic State’s ascent, said Hassan Hassan, a Dubai-based analyst and co-author of the book “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror.”

“A lot of people think of the Islamic State as a terrorist group, and it’s not useful,” Hassan said. “It is a terrorist group, but it is more than that. It is a homegrown Iraqi insurgency, and it is organic to Iraq.”

[Lumper20]

These articles are the liberal medias idea to get your mind off of the situation. The fact that Obama created ISIS as it is today when he overthrew Libya which is where these clowns got their heavy weapons and other advancements in technology shipped out of YES Benghazi. Obama and his media keep folks like you living in the past as opposed to putting Spec OPS on the damn ground and calling in TAC air and killing every ISIS SOB. Yet he used DELTA Force comprised of other SF to capture an ISIS fundraiser. A real lack of any effective plan and strategy is apparent.

[Lumper20]

That should have been done yes. I did an area study on Pakistan back in 69 for the 6th SFGA.

[odds]

>>”If Saddam was not removed we wouldn’t have had 9/11 nor the Ayatollahs still around”<<

Unsure what you mean, when you refer to Saddam’s removal, Snr Bush and 9/11. Bush senior didn’t remove Saddam; 9/11 happened before Saddam’s removal.

Bush senior was protecting Kuwait when Saddam attacked it, and by default both U.S. and Saudi interests there. But, both the Saudis and the Iranian regime benefited from Saddam’s removal by Bush junior.

[odds]

>>”The Baathists in Iraq became more infused with Islamicism from the late 90s when it seemed like that was the only way to stay in power. This was a consequence of Gulf war one”<<

I’d say the Baathists in Iraq became more infused with Islamicism following the downfall of USSR; that’s the key milestone. Not that they were ideologically aligned with the Islamists but that they needed a temporary alliance & more of an overarching umbrella to gather and exert power, particularly in the late 1990s as you say. Although Saddam himself was brutal (especially with certain groups), he was very secular in how he ran Iraq.

Actually, Saudi Arabia directly and indirectly contributed to the downfall of USSR, in an economic sense, through oil production and prices. Additionally, Saudis were financing the creation of Taliban (mujahedeen) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan throughout the 1980s.

The rise of Islamism in that region started during Carter administration with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Greenbelt of Islam (theory/strategy) to halt Soviet expansion in the region. It was implemented to begin with, with the Ayatollahs in Iran (another key milestone) who were supported by Carter administration (France and Britain) - little did they know that many ayatollahs were/are actually hybrid communists-Islamists.

The strategy continued throughout 1980s, by supporting the mujahedeen (later became known as the Taliban) in Afghanistan, who were financed by Saudis, and were largely trained in Pakistan (during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan); when I say training I mean both in hardcore Islamic ideology in Madrassas in Pakistan, and militarily. The U.S. and Britain also provided weapons.

After the fall of the USSR, a series of other events took place in Afghanistan alone, and Islamism became more widespread, as those subscribing to the ideology became emboldened by seeing an Islamic govt in Iran and later Taliban in Afghanistan.

In fact, during the 1990s, the West didn’t have much of a problem with the Taliban on the grounds of “Islamism” or how they treated women there. It was only after 9/11 in 2001 that the Taliban were viewed as a threat.

Anyway, we are where we are. We are actually responsible for the spread of Islamism since the late of 1970s. Question is how do we deal with this huge problem now? Our dear leaders don’t seem to have a feasible solution...

[odds]

>>”Without any evidence at all, Sherm, I ‘feel’ quite sure that certain factions within the Saudi government are tasked with keeping the peace with AQ by any means necessary, ranging from violent to financial options.”<<

I agree with this and other related comments in this thread.

Couple of interesting links I posted in another thread couple of weeks ago - the second one is a bit long but credible and well researched, well worth reading:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/08/9-11-2011-201108

[Cronos]

well, not to let off Obama, but libya was primarily a British-French thing. It was also a mistake to oust Ghaddafi -- I agree

Obama is at fault, but this entire cycle of death was started by Bush Senior being a sucker to the Saudis and starting Gulf War one. No gulf war one, no 9/11, no al-qaeda fighting the USA (they'd be focused on Saddam and Ghaddafi and Assad and Mubarak) and no Islamic state -- fyi, ISIS is old, they are the Islamic state since last June

[Cronos]

Stop calling it ISIS -- it is the Islamic State with worldwide ambitions, not limited to iraq and al-Sham (the latter "IS")

The Islamic state WAS Al-Q in Iraq, but it changed its philosophy from killing the "far enemy" to attacking the local enemy (Shias, etc.)

[Cronos]

The Islamic state was funded by Saudia and Qatar and still are funded by Saudi and Qatari people

[Cronos]

What was the outcome of that study?

[Cronos]

What I mean is I disagree with us “helping” Kuwait — Saddam with Kuwaiti revenues would have returned to fighting Iran and most likely defeated it with the help of increased money and arms. He would also be the target for jihadis who hate the Arab dictators.

[PhilDragoo]

Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism, gives a perspective of centuries.

Far from "a religion of peace," we face a murderous force containing its dualist furnace, the Sunni-Shi'a antagonism, which now operates POTUS and a convert DCI.

Without doubt Valerie Jarrett is the contact to the operators, as is Huma Abedin for Hillary.

Saddam in Kuwait was presented as naked aggression which would not stand. How did we reach 2,000 Abrams in our own desert?

The war in Iraq was presented as a counter to a danger of WMDs and a chance to spread democracy. The net effect was to destabilize Saddam's containment and to release his assembled power into the void, certain (per op plans stated above) to reconstitute.

The Washington Post would frame the current ISIS absorption of Syria and Iraq as a Ba'athist resurgence.

The Arab Spring was designed to remove secular leaders and install Islamist ones. Egypt didn't appreciate it and has sentenced Morsi to death.

The ouster of Morsi irritated Saudi--which has shown itself in the driver's seat of USG, be it GHWB, GWB, or BHO.

Obama, no doubt intoxicated with delusions of historical ascendance, has stripped Iraq of resistance to ISIS, and empowered Iran with a guaranteed road to nuclear weapons.

The account of Sibel Edmonds, Confidential Woman, is of a wide net of corruption, treason and espionage affecting FBI, CIA, State, Pentagon, Congress--and today we would give primacy to the presidency.

As in Vietnam there will be an orchestrated destabilization of U.S. political will.

Not to mention the Iranian EMP attack so-desired by the ayatollah line injected by James Earl Carter.

Israel is certain to be attacked soon.

And amidst the chaos voodoo clown blames climate change.

[Cronos]

actually, the Saudis like the fact that Morsi was oustered — the Moslem brotherhood (which they spawned) grew out of hand and was threatening the kingdom

[Lumper20]

I have to disagree as we have to go back to the first WTC attack that failed under Clinton, then we look at the bombs in the garage when Clinton was Pres, then the Cole, plus more and then 9/11. Bush finally took on the damn Muslims starting in Afghan. It was the damn stupid conventional Army Gens with their nation building crap and stupid mech infantry BS that has cost so many lives. Regular Army troops know zip about leading and training foreign troops on their soil. Regular army SF has done that well many times.The SF that was on the ground in Iraq initially was mostly guard and reserve. They are not same same. Look back at the SF teams that jumped in to Afghan and led the Northern Alliance. Then led the last Pres. They were not Reserve or NG. Next a marine Gen screwed things up. Conventional military minds cannot defeat UW.

[Lumper20]

The Iranians long for the old days like when King Darius ruled Israel.

[CMB_polarization]

Good idea. I would like to put "progressive" in quotes, to retain their term, yet indicate my suspicion of the term. Here is our "progressive" local radio station that I monitor once in a while:

http://www.1340kbbr.com/

[Cronos]

I meant Bush Senior — 1988 to 1992

[odds]

2 points:

1) there was an effort to bring down the mullahs regime in Iran, after Saddam, who hated Khomeini before Khomeini took power in Iran, attacked Iran in very early 1980s. But, it seemed more like playing Saddam against the mullahs in Iran, rather unsuccessfully.

In the end it was a draw, or even a win for the ayatollahs in Iran since Saddam had to withdraw whatever troops he had in Khuzestan province of Iran. And, of course, Saddam & his regime are now dead; whereas the mullahs regime in Iran are alive & very much kicking.

That said, almost all Western powers at that time supported Iraq, along with almost all Arab nations (except Syria). Although a few tried to take advantage of the situation in trade & sell weapons to the newbie Ayatollah regime. No need to mention names. “Iran-contra affair” comes to mind too.

Quite bizarre, some may think, was that Israel actually helped the Mullahs regime in Iran during that time; a main action by Israel was that Israelis actually took out Iraq’s (Saddam’s) Osirak nuclear reactor site, which was under construction. Interestingly, the Iranians had tried to unsuccessfully dismantle that site few months earlier; Israel finished the job.

2) Jihadists (shia or sunni) only dislike those who do not subscribe to their Islamic ideology; there is naturally an ongoing feud between the main Islamic sects. But they hate the secularists even more; those secularists do not need to be Arab or dictators.

[odds]

Well, the Iranians are dreaming.

[firebrand]

My immediate reaction as well. And the widely touted Atlantic article about how ISIS wants us to enter the fray was more extremely clever liberal crap.

A presidential election is coming up, and history must be changed to blame the chaos of the world on Bush and avoid the truth about how horrible the Democrats are.

[firebrand]

This is the reason we seemed to be losing at first according to a beloved freeper well connected with the military.