4 ms·

So we should've just let ISIS take over Iraq and Syria ?

by platz 8y ago

epicureanideal 8y ago
ISIS was created by the destabilization of those countries. There are plenty of easy to find links about this, so forgive me for not citing sources. Also, given the nature of the activities, it's difficult to find authoritative sources, but I believe there were some WikiLeaks that had diplomatic cables discussing this. Also if you read Syrian and Russian news, and the Syrians are certainly highly motivated to defeat ISIS as it's trying to take over their country, and the Russians are highly motivated to protect their ally, they both say the US has seemingly been helping ISIS as much as fighting it.
- platz 8y ago
  Ok, but when are you "starting the clock", if not now, then how long ago? 10 years? 20? 30?
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    You don't start the clock anywhere, you should always consider the context that led to things happening.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    Most of the instability in the Middle East can be traced directly to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Our current strategy is like fighting fire with gasoline, because the people we are fighting have a better understanding of history than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
    - flukus 8y ago
      It goes back well before then to the Ottoman domination of the region and probably a few thousand years before that. Sykes-Picot was just a change of management. The area has been dominated by outsiders for most of recorded history.
    - baud147258 8y ago
      > have a better understanding of history than we do Considering the level of literacy in the Middle-East, I doubt that's true. And I wouldn't call what they know history, but rather propaganda.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  ...the US has seemingly been helping ISIS as much as fighting it. Yeah it's amazing that after all the "moderate rebels" have left (if they ever existed in the first place), and we've kept flooding the area with weapons and ammunition, ISIS has ended up with lots of USA weapons and ammunition.
YZF 8y ago
The US did let ISIS take over large swaths of Iraq and Syria during Obama's presidency. The lack of action of the US is directly correlated to the rise of ISIS, the prolonged Syrian civil war with its disastrous consequences. It was years and many beheadings before the US decided to do anything about it and really the Russians have done most of the work as well. I really like Obama as a person but his middle east strategy was a disaster. If anything the Russians are proving that you can intervene and be successful if you actually have any sort of coherent strategy and the right allies on the ground. They are the ones bringing an end to this bloody affair (with a lot more blood but still). EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W... So for 3.5 years the US tested the "let's stay out of it and see what happens" strategy (for the most part). What happend? 6 million people internally displaced, 5 million refugees outside Syria, 500,000 people dead. Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, Assad emerge as winners. Well, that really worked out. Not to say they wouldn't have messed it up by intervening but this bad? Hard to imagine. EDIT2: I also understand as a non-american that it's a lot to ask of the US to take care of the world. But if it doesn't, who will? What happens in the rest of the world ends up impacting the entire world, including the US. Maybe I'm too naive though :(
- freewilly1040 8y ago
  Not caring too much about massacring civilians is also a key part of Russia's recipe in Syria. And furthermore it is a little soon to be declaring victory for them there. What exactly would your strategy have been for a US intervention in Syria? Which local faction would you have supported? Would you have been willing to risk a hot war with Russia and Iran? When get involved in a war you don't get to say at the outset how far you go with it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - YZF 8y ago
    There was a point, early on, where it was basically Assad against everyone, including half his army (with the other half unsure). At that point a small push would have toppled Assad. I'd have pushed. This was before the foreign fighters, before ISIS (for those most part). Syria was a secular, fairly uniform, fairly peaceful, and fairly organized society. Very different story than Iraq. So that's one option. Another option would have been to threaten Assad and force him to come to some sort of agreement with the demonstrators. This was all before Russia and Iran got involved. Russia got involved when Assad was virtually days away from losing the civil war.
toomanybeersies 8y ago
ISIS didn't exist in 2003 when the USA invaded Iraq. ISIS was formed due to the power vacuum left after the USA withdrew from Iraq, largely by the former officer corps of Saddam's Iraqi Army, who had been left disenfranchised after the policy of de-Ba'athification [1] of the Iraqi government, replacing a vaguely competent government with a completely incompetent government. ISIS was a problem of the USA's own creation, just like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the current Iranian regime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification
- baud147258 8y ago
  Shouldn't the URSS be responsible for the creation of the Taliban? Al-Qaeda was financed by Saudi Arabia and the current Iranina regime is the result of a revolution against the American-supported previous regime. Still the US made all those problems worse, but can't hold the full blame for their creation.
  - toomanybeersies 8y ago
    You're right, it's not solely the fault of the USA. It's a very complicated situation. I was just alluding to the fact that the USA is fighting the Taliban in the 2010s, when in the 1980s they were funding them. Obviously if the USSR didn't invade Afghanistan, we might not be in this situation either.
dang 8y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Also, the comment takes a significant step further into political flamewar. Can you please not do that on HN?

So we should've just let ISIS take over Iraq and Syria ?

by platz 8y ago

So we should've just let ISIS take over Iraq and Syria ?

ISIS was created by the destabilization of those countries. There are plenty of easy to find links about this, so forgive me for not citing sources. Also, given the nature of the activities, it's difficult to find authoritative sources, but I believe there were some WikiLeaks that had diplomatic cables discussing this. Also if you read Syrian and Russian news, and the Syrians are certainly highly motivated to defeat ISIS as it's trying to take over their country, and the Russians are highly motivated to protect their ally, they both say the US has seemingly been helping ISIS as much as fighting it.

platz 8y ago
Ok, but when are you "starting the clock", if not now, then how long ago? 10 years? 20? 30?
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  You don't start the clock anywhere, you should always consider the context that led to things happening.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Most of the instability in the Middle East can be traced directly to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Our current strategy is like fighting fire with gasoline, because the people we are fighting have a better understanding of history than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
  - flukus 8y ago
    It goes back well before then to the Ottoman domination of the region and probably a few thousand years before that. Sykes-Picot was just a change of management. The area has been dominated by outsiders for most of recorded history.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    > have a better understanding of history than we do Considering the level of literacy in the Middle-East, I doubt that's true. And I wouldn't call what they know history, but rather propaganda.
jessaustin 8y ago
...the US has seemingly been helping ISIS as much as fighting it. Yeah it's amazing that after all the "moderate rebels" have left (if they ever existed in the first place), and we've kept flooding the area with weapons and ammunition, ISIS has ended up with lots of USA weapons and ammunition.

YZF 8y ago

The US did let ISIS take over large swaths of Iraq and Syria during Obama's presidency. The lack of action of the US is directly correlated to the rise of ISIS, the prolonged Syrian civil war with its disastrous consequences. It was years and many beheadings before the US decided to do anything about it and really the Russians have done most of the work as well. I really like Obama as a person but his middle east strategy was a disaster. If anything the Russians are proving that you can intervene and be successful if you actually have any sort of coherent strategy and the right allies on the ground. They are the ones bringing an end to this bloody affair (with a lot more blood but still). EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W... So for 3.5 years the US tested the "let's stay out of it and see what happens" strategy (for the most part). What happend? 6 million people internally displaced, 5 million refugees outside Syria, 500,000 people dead. Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, Assad emerge as winners. Well, that really worked out. Not to say they wouldn't have messed it up by intervening but this bad? Hard to imagine. EDIT2: I also understand as a non-american that it's a lot to ask of the US to take care of the world. But if it doesn't, who will? What happens in the rest of the world ends up impacting the entire world, including the US. Maybe I'm too naive though :(

freewilly1040 8y ago
Not caring too much about massacring civilians is also a key part of Russia's recipe in Syria. And furthermore it is a little soon to be declaring victory for them there. What exactly would your strategy have been for a US intervention in Syria? Which local faction would you have supported? Would you have been willing to risk a hot war with Russia and Iran? When get involved in a war you don't get to say at the outset how far you go with it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- YZF 8y ago
  There was a point, early on, where it was basically Assad against everyone, including half his army (with the other half unsure). At that point a small push would have toppled Assad. I'd have pushed. This was before the foreign fighters, before ISIS (for those most part). Syria was a secular, fairly uniform, fairly peaceful, and fairly organized society. Very different story than Iraq. So that's one option. Another option would have been to threaten Assad and force him to come to some sort of agreement with the demonstrators. This was all before Russia and Iran got involved. Russia got involved when Assad was virtually days away from losing the civil war.

toomanybeersies 8y ago

ISIS didn't exist in 2003 when the USA invaded Iraq. ISIS was formed due to the power vacuum left after the USA withdrew from Iraq, largely by the former officer corps of Saddam's Iraqi Army, who had been left disenfranchised after the policy of de-Ba'athification [1] of the Iraqi government, replacing a vaguely competent government with a completely incompetent government. ISIS was a problem of the USA's own creation, just like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the current Iranian regime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification

baud147258 8y ago
Shouldn't the URSS be responsible for the creation of the Taliban? Al-Qaeda was financed by Saudi Arabia and the current Iranina regime is the result of a revolution against the American-supported previous regime. Still the US made all those problems worse, but can't hold the full blame for their creation.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  You're right, it's not solely the fault of the USA. It's a very complicated situation. I was just alluding to the fact that the USA is fighting the Taliban in the 2010s, when in the 1980s they were funding them. Obviously if the USSR didn't invade Afghanistan, we might not be in this situation either.

dang 8y ago

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Also, the comment takes a significant step further into political flamewar. Can you please not do that on HN?