3 ms·

> Around that time, Bremer decided to bar former ba'ath officer from either serving the new military or getting pension. That decision almost single-handedly cr

> Around that time, Bremer decided to bar former ba'ath officer from either serving the new military or getting pension. That decision almost single-handedly created the backbone of the terrorist networks that would become ISIS. This isn't true. The Ba'ath party had already largely lost its Arab nationalist identity and become progressively more and more Islamist after the first Gulf War. Saddam announced the "return to faith" campaign[0] in 1993 (which he publicly hinted at by writing Allahuakbar on the Iraqi flag in 1991) and by the time of the second 2003 invasion, Ba'ath party loyalists were already beheading suspected prostitutes in the streets. What created the backbone of ISIS is a culmination of things - mostly around the collective, ongoing punishment of the Middle East. Arab nationalism was challenged in every direction by the West, country-based nationalism was challenged in every direction, and then the US put on a surprised pikachu face when the only thing left was religious identity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_campaign

luckylion 6y ago
> The Ba'ath party had already largely lost its Arab nationalist identity and become progressively more and more Islamist after the first Gulf War. That's not so much the point the parent comment was making, I believe. Mostly that by making sure the previous military and political leaders would not be allowed to play any role in the future and not get pensions, they'd obviously have zero incentive to work with the new regime/administration/whatever. On the other hand, they had plenty of incentive to work against it, which they then did. They may have gone full Arab nationalist if that had been an option, but to be funded in the middle east in a war against the US and Shiite-aligned governments, you'll look to the Saudis, and that pretty much only leaves Wahabi fundamentalism as your rally-cry.
- Iv 6y ago
  Exactly. Actually, it created an incentive to join the insurgent. Picture that: your skill is to organize soldiers and military operations but the only local and legal employer refuses you and denies you any pension. Did they really think they would go beg in the streets rather than join the militias in dire need or organizational advices?
IlyaMoroshkin 6y ago
If your objective is to engender low-level conflict that will justify billions of military dollars for decades, destabilising the country and fostering insurgency is a feature, not a bug.

luckylion 6y ago

> The Ba'ath party had already largely lost its Arab nationalist identity and become progressively more and more Islamist after the first Gulf War. That's not so much the point the parent comment was making, I believe. Mostly that by making sure the previous military and political leaders would not be allowed to play any role in the future and not get pensions, they'd obviously have zero incentive to work with the new regime/administration/whatever. On the other hand, they had plenty of incentive to work against it, which they then did. They may have gone full Arab nationalist if that had been an option, but to be funded in the middle east in a war against the US and Shiite-aligned governments, you'll look to the Saudis, and that pretty much only leaves Wahabi fundamentalism as your rally-cry.

Iv 6y ago
Exactly. Actually, it created an incentive to join the insurgent. Picture that: your skill is to organize soldiers and military operations but the only local and legal employer refuses you and denies you any pension. Did they really think they would go beg in the streets rather than join the militias in dire need or organizational advices?

IlyaMoroshkin 6y ago

If your objective is to engender low-level conflict that will justify billions of military dollars for decades, destabilising the country and fostering insurgency is a feature, not a bug.