Some people indicated they did not want a long post on institutional secrecy related to the recent Sy Hersh article. Here's a much shorter one which will include minimal expository commentary on my part.
Many of the recent criticisms that have been leveled at Hersh’s reporting on the killing of Osama bin Laden have revolved around how difficult it would be to keep elaborate “conspiracies” secret. “Hersh’s stories seem to become more spectacular, more thinly sourced, and more difficult to square with reality as we know it,” writes one critic at Vox.
But the cover-up of the bombing of Cambodia is as spectacular as it gets. And Hersh’s 1983 accurate claim that it was Kissinger who presided over the conspiracy comes from one single source: Ray Sitton.
Some people indicated they did not want a long post on institutional secrecy related to the recent Sy Hersh article. Here's a much shorter one which will include minimal expository commentary on my part.
Many of the recent criticisms that have been leveled at Hersh’s reporting on the killing of Osama bin Laden have revolved around how difficult it would be to keep elaborate “conspiracies” secret. “Hersh’s stories seem to become more spectacular, more thinly sourced, and more difficult to square with reality as we know it,” writes one critic at Vox.
But the cover-up of the bombing of Cambodia is as spectacular as it gets. And Hersh’s 1983 accurate claim that it was Kissinger who presided over the conspiracy comes from one single source: Ray Sitton.
I should point out, referenced in that very same story is the phrase 'and a huge sheaf of papers Hersh had requisitioned under the Freedom of Information act'
I should point out, referenced in that very same story is the phrase 'and a huge sheaf of papers Hersh had requisitioned under the Freedom of Information act'
Note: The huge sheaf of papers related to Hersh's story about Bin Laden.
The point wasn't so much to claim 'all details of Hersh's Bin Laden story are definitely true', which I don't know and will only be better known over time, so much as rejecting the narrative that the story is ridiculous or can be dismissed out-of-hand because the level of coordinated institutional secrecy involved would somehow be self-evidently 'impossible', when in reality even Hersh himself as a journalist has exposed bigger conspiracies in the past.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Some people indicated they did not want a long post on institutional secrecy related to the recent Sy Hersh article. Here's a much shorter one which will include minimal expository commentary on my part.
Many of the recent criticisms that have been leveled at Hersh’s reporting on the killing of Osama bin Laden have revolved around how difficult it would be to keep elaborate “conspiracies” secret. “Hersh’s stories seem to become more spectacular, more thinly sourced, and more difficult to square with reality as we know it,” writes one critic at Vox.
But the cover-up of the bombing of Cambodia is as spectacular as it gets. And Hersh’s 1983 accurate claim that it was Kissinger who presided over the conspiracy comes from one single source: Ray Sitton.
I should point out, referenced in that very same story is the phrase 'and a huge sheaf of papers Hersh had requisitioned under the Freedom of Information act'
Note: The huge sheaf of papers related to Hersh's story about Bin Laden.
The point wasn't so much to claim 'all details of Hersh's Bin Laden story are definitely true', which I don't know and will only be better known over time, so much as rejecting the narrative that the story is ridiculous or can be dismissed out-of-hand because the level of coordinated institutional secrecy involved would somehow be self-evidently 'impossible', when in reality even Hersh himself as a journalist has exposed bigger conspiracies in the past.
Except that even in that article, the first mention of the conspiracy and the bombings is 1973. 3 years for a conspiracy whose main players seem to be 3 people and everybody else blindly shutting their eyes and going "LALALALALA"
Except that even in that article, the first mention of the conspiracy and the bombings is 1973. 3 years for a conspiracy whose main players seem to be 3 people and everybody else blindly shutting their eyes and going "LALALALALA"
.
out of all the hundreds, perhaps more, of military personnel who participated in this cover-up, Knight is the only one who turned whistleblower
I'm pretty sure there won't be an Iraq within a few years.
I know I've been touting this stance for awhile but I'm of the firm opinion that Iraq gets eaten up mostly by Iran following this.
If IS somehow maintains itself through the duration I could possibly see them taking over parts of Iraq and most of Syria too.
Regardless of who gets what I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet that there's going to be some land grabs within the next few years in the ME.
I don't know if I would agree with this as far as officially annexing Iraq. I imagine Iran would just want to continue having a hand up the ass of Shia leadership (and limited Sunni leadership courting) than take the chance of being saddled with the aftermath of a complete Iraq collapse/take over by DAESH. At this point they already have military personnel (QF) in Iraq (even some that have been killed in combat), and with Maliki they had significant influence. Their only real political resistance came/comes from Sadr.
Iran definitely has hegemonic aspirations, I will heartily agree with that. But my experience tells me that Iran would be more careful than to annex Iraq at this time.
I agree with your assessment. Iran is very unlikely to attempt an occupation of Daesh or KRG territory. Shiite Iraq seems likely to become progressively more dominated by Iran, though the degree to which this is true might depend on how Baghdad chooses to balance its relationships with Iran and the US. Whether or not they will formally annex the south/east of Iraq is arguably less clear, but I think it's unlikely as well - such a move could easily ignite a true regional war between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Israel and/or the USA. So far, Iran has opted to rely on allies and proxies (including Assad, Hezbollah, and to a limited degree the Houthis) for its regional influence. I think the advantages of this approach make any attempt at direct territorial expansion in the near future unlikely.
I'm pretty sure there won't be an Iraq within a few years.
I know I've been touting this stance for awhile but I'm of the firm opinion that Iraq gets eaten up mostly by Iran following this.
If IS somehow maintains itself through the duration I could possibly see them taking over parts of Iraq and most of Syria too.
Regardless of who gets what I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet that there's going to be some land grabs within the next few years in the ME.
I don't know if I would agree with this as far as officially annexing Iraq. I imagine Iran would just want to continue having a hand up the ass of Shia leadership (and limited Sunni leadership courting) than take the chance of being saddled with the aftermath of a complete Iraq collapse/take over by DAESH. At this point they already have military personnel (QF) in Iraq (even some that have been killed in combat), and with Maliki they had significant influence. Their only real political resistance came/comes from Sadr.
Iran definitely has hegemonic aspirations, I will heartily agree with that. But my experience tells me that Iran would be more careful than to annex Iraq at this time.
I agree with your assessment. Iran is very unlikely to attempt an occupation of Daesh or KRG territory. Shiite Iraq seems likely to become progressively more dominated by Iran, though the degree to which this is true might depend on how Baghdad chooses to balance its relationships with Iran and the US. Whether or not they will formally annex the south/east of Iraq is arguably less clear, but I think it's unlikely as well - such a move could easily ignite a true regional war between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Israel and/or the USA. So far, Iran has opted to rely on allies and proxies (including Assad, Hezbollah, and to a limited degree the Houthis) for its regional influence. I think the advantages of this approach make any attempt at direct territorial expansion in the near future unlikely.
I think this is an important thing to understand about Iran in the region: They are perfectly fine with using proxies in order to further their agenda in the region. It's not always militant groups either, it can be business/commercial entities, charity programs (clinics/smuggled medicines/reconstruction) etc. Essentially, they are capable of the same TTPs and thinking we are, and to think they will be overtly militant in a land grab or that they will only act as facilitators/financiers/trainers for militant groups/states is, I think, underestimating them. This is of course not a disagreement with anything you've stated, as far as that I agree with you.
Iran has also had trouble in the tribal areas of Pakistan lately. I'll have to find some of my sources, I wrote up a quick paper on Pakistan (with information about Iran military/police actions in Pakistan and their potential impact on future US operations in Afghanistan) last year but I don't think anyone here is interested in reading ~20 pages.
Except that even in that article, the first mention of the conspiracy and the bombings is 1973. 3 years for a conspiracy whose main players seem to be 3 people and everybody else blindly shutting their eyes and going "LALALALALA"
.
out of all the hundreds, perhaps more, of military personnel who participated in this cover-up, Knight is the only one who turned whistleblower
Sheesh, I can't believe that Seymour Hersh article didn't mention the NYT article.
Discussing exactly what significant details of the bombing of Cambodia leaked when and what new ground was broken by Hersh's story or how effective Kissinger's coordination of covering up 'secret' aspects of the bombing -- hmm, maybe this isn't the right thread for all of that.
It would actually be... kind of funny if the problem with Hersh's journalistic integrity had almost nothing to do with the common lines against him and were something different entirely....
This gets complIcated. It's late on a Friday night and I'm at a bar in Williamsburg... But maybe almost everything like this 'leaks' in some sense somehow, maybe usually early. This holds for basic realities about the mafia, sexual scandals with priests, government coverups, surveillance, things like false-flags or covert support for terrorism, etc. How well 'secrets' are kept, when they aren't really being kept, may have more to do with how they are portrayed/mocked/ridiculed in 'mainstream' (or 'low-brow') discourse. This becomes sociologically tangly and deserves a more extensive treatment.
This is extremely interesting -- Judicial Watch (a conservative but nonpartisan group which files many FOIA requests, sometimes frivolous but usually substantive, and directed against corruption of Republicans as often or more often as against Democrats) obtained formerly classified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012 which seem to indicate that the US and its allies foresaw and facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a means to isolate the Assad government of Syria. Summary: http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
* Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
* The West identifies with the opposition
* The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
* The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
* “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
* Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
* A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
This is extremely interesting -- Judicial Watch (a conservative but nonpartisan group which files many FOIA requests, sometimes frivolous but usually substantive, and directed against corruption of Republicans as often or more often as against Democrats) obtained formerly classified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012 which seem to indicate that the US and its allies foresaw and facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a means to isolate the Assad government of Syria. Summary: http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
* Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
* The West identifies with the opposition
* The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
* The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
* “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
* Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
* A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
Middle East Eye also posted an interesting article about US allies backing al-Qaeda in Syria:
A source in the Saudi royal family involved in defence and security matters confirmed for this article the existence of the new military coalition and the Saudi and Qatari assistance to it. The source said that the Army of Conquest is a temporary coalition in the Idlib region in which Jabhat al Nusra and Ahrar al Sham represent 90 percent of the troops. The Saudis and Qataris provide funding for 40 percent of the coalition’s requirements, according to the source, whereas the coalition itself provides 60 percent of its own needs – mainly from capture.
The Saudi royal family source said the reason for the assistance to the al-Nusra-dominated coalition is “because there are no other options for Riyadh”. The Saudis had tried to assist the Free Syrian Army in the past, he said, but that choice had “failed miserably”. And since Saudi “could never support ISIS,” which he described as “a main enemy,” this is “an arrangement by necessity”.
In other Syrian news, the Assad regime has lost control of its last border crossing with Iraq to IS (Iraqi troops are besieged on their side of the border). In Jisr al-Shugur, the besieged hospital that the regime swore to rescue has been overrun and troops are fleeing south. Heavy fighting continues around Ariha, and the regime has handed over control of some areas in Aleppo province to IS, presumably in order to redeploy forces to a more urgent front.
edit- the absence of any mention of Turkish support for Jaysh al-Fatah in that MEE article is sort of conspicuous
This is extremely interesting -- Judicial Watch (a conservative but nonpartisan group which files many FOIA requests, sometimes frivolous but usually substantive, and directed against corruption of Republicans as often or more often as against Democrats) obtained formerly classified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012 which seem to indicate that the US and its allies foresaw and facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a means to isolate the Assad government of Syria. Summary: http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
* Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
* The West identifies with the opposition
* The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
* The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
* “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
* Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
* A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
This. It's a pretty standard product that an analyst would put out. There shouldn't be any kind of intent inferred from the product other than to inform and answer PIRs of the customer.
This is extremely interesting -- Judicial Watch (a conservative but nonpartisan group which files many FOIA requests, sometimes frivolous but usually substantive, and directed against corruption of Republicans as often or more often as against Democrats) obtained formerly classified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012 which seem to indicate that the US and its allies foresaw and facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a means to isolate the Assad government of Syria. Summary: http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
* Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
* The West identifies with the opposition
* The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
* The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
* “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
* Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
* A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
You're right, but in a way this is even more damning of the Obama administration. The intelligence agency, whose purpose is to advise the government, assessed the policy of the US and its allies in Syria as likely to result in or at least enable the establishment of an ISIS-like entity. This was in 2012. The US's reaction was to continue arming and training the Syrian rebels in coordination with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan, and we wound up with al-Nusra and Daesh. In other words, the US government was warned about the current scenario and chose to ignore the warning, as did its regional allies.
In a way ISIS is a win for our military and foreign policy. There's now an entity that is both unquestionably evil and actually defeatable, where there was none before.
This is extremely interesting -- Judicial Watch (a conservative but nonpartisan group which files many FOIA requests, sometimes frivolous but usually substantive, and directed against corruption of Republicans as often or more often as against Democrats) obtained formerly classified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012 which seem to indicate that the US and its allies foresaw and facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a means to isolate the Assad government of Syria. Summary: http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
* Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
* The West identifies with the opposition
* The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
* The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
* “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
* Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
* A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
You're right, but in a way this is even more damning of the Obama administration. The intelligence agency, whose purpose is to advise the government, assessed the policy of the US and its allies in Syria as likely to result in or at least enable the establishment of an ISIS-like entity. This was in 2012. The US's reaction was to continue arming and training the Syrian rebels in coordination with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan, and we wound up with al-Nusra and Daesh. In other words, the US government was warned about the current scenario and chose to ignore the warning, as did its regional allies.
But what were the other options?
We could have done nothing ... which, judging from the efficacy of the US-armed Syrian rebels, would have looked largely identical to the situation today.
Or we could have aided Bashar al-Assad against the rebels. But I don't think this would have resulted in ISIS being crushed before it took root—considering we're doing the same thing with the Iraqi government now. It probably would have created far more blowback in the Islamic world against the United States and given ISIS a tremendous propaganda advantage.
This is extremely interesting -- Judicial Watch (a conservative but nonpartisan group which files many FOIA requests, sometimes frivolous but usually substantive, and directed against corruption of Republicans as often or more often as against Democrats) obtained formerly classified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012 which seem to indicate that the US and its allies foresaw and facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a means to isolate the Assad government of Syria. Summary: http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
* Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
* The West identifies with the opposition
* The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
* The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
* “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
* Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
* A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
You're right, but in a way this is even more damning of the Obama administration. The intelligence agency, whose purpose is to advise the government, assessed the policy of the US and its allies in Syria as likely to result in or at least enable the establishment of an ISIS-like entity. This was in 2012. The US's reaction was to continue arming and training the Syrian rebels in coordination with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan, and we wound up with al-Nusra and Daesh. In other words, the US government was warned about the current scenario and chose to ignore the warning, as did its regional allies.
But what were the other options?
We could have done nothing ... which, judging from the efficacy of the US-armed Syrian rebels, would have looked largely identical to the situation today.
Or we could have aided Bashar al-Assad against the rebels. But I don't think this would have resulted in ISIS being crushed before it took root—considering we're doing the same thing with the Iraqi government now. It probably would have created far more blowback in the Islamic world against the United States and given ISIS a tremendous propaganda advantage.
Staying out of the Syrian war is and has always been my preference. One of the major reasons for Syria's unending torment is the constant stream of arms flowing into the country from Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha on the one hand and Tehran and Moscow on the other.
You're right that things probably wouldn't look that different if the US hadn't jumped on the bandwagon, since our allies and foes would have continued waging their proxy wars. But I still strongly believe that "doing nothing" should be the default stance when wars that have nothing to do with our country erupt ten thousand miles away. And what if, rather than choosing and arming one side, the US had taken a neutral approach and pushed for a political solution, perhaps involving the UN in some manner? What if Washington pressured its allies to stop attempting to oust a neighboring government, and attempted to forge some kind of regional understanding between the KSA and Iran? A peace-focused policy relying on diplomatic and economic pressure might not have successfully stopped Syria's collapse, but such an approach seems more likely to have had a positive effect than helping the Arab monarchs arm al-Qaeda and IS to the teeth, then realizing those guys are scarier than the original enemy and going to war against them instead.
Kaputa on
+3
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yeah but then Fox News calls you a wuss and you've gotsta keeps it real
If you don't want to get involved because you see no personal, or national, advantage, fine. Be honest and upfront about it.
I'm just sick of people doing the we would love to help oh so much but gosh darn it those nasty terrorists will call us names for doing so and we won't actually do any good!
So it's really for everyone else's good!
I'm okay with countries acting selfishly. I really, really am. I expect it, as the first job of a country is to serve it's citizens.
If you don't want to get involved because you see no personal, or national, advantage, fine. Be honest and upfront about it.
I'm just sick of people doing the we would love to help oh so much but gosh darn it those nasty terrorists will call us names for doing so and we won't actually do any good!
So it's really for everyone else's good!
I'm okay with countries acting selfishly. I really, really am. I expect it, as the first job of a country is to serve it's citizens.
No, I really do think it would be good for many/most other people if the US stopped attacking places/trying to oust hostile governments/etc. This is not an attempt to disguise self-interest as altruism, it is my actual belief.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Given the recent history and the politics if the region, I fail to see how a large scale military operation by te US involving an occupying ground force would be in anyway beneficial.
Better to support the nations in the region, providing humanitarian aid, ad push for a settlement in the international community.
Our military is an excellent hammer of which I am quite proud, but not every world problem is a nail.
But a lot of people seem to be using "it'll just be propaganda for the terrorists" not "it's a bad idea for X reason".
And there are a lot of good reasons (different depending on the specific conflict) why direct military force would be pointless.
But getting called mean things is not one of them.
And to reiterate, if "I don't think it's our problem" is your reason, I'm okay with that. It's a completely justified reason. As are the many categorically good reasons such as "giving weapons to unorganized idiots will eventually bite you in the ass" or "propping up one horrible group over the other isn't a good idea over a long enough time period (see: the whole damn twentieth century)".
No, I really do think it would be good for many/most other people if the US stopped attacking places/trying to oust hostile governments/etc. This is not an attempt to disguise self-interest as altruism, it is my actual belief.
Just don't tell me it's because they'd say mean words about you if you did, and we're good. :P
This is extremely interesting -- Judicial Watch (a conservative but nonpartisan group which files many FOIA requests, sometimes frivolous but usually substantive, and directed against corruption of Republicans as often or more often as against Democrats) obtained formerly classified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012 which seem to indicate that the US and its allies foresaw and facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a means to isolate the Assad government of Syria. Summary: http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
* Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
* The West identifies with the opposition
* The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
* The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
* “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
* Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
* A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
You're right, but in a way this is even more damning of the Obama administration. The intelligence agency, whose purpose is to advise the government, assessed the policy of the US and its allies in Syria as likely to result in or at least enable the establishment of an ISIS-like entity. This was in 2012. The US's reaction was to continue arming and training the Syrian rebels in coordination with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan, and we wound up with al-Nusra and Daesh. In other words, the US government was warned about the current scenario and chose to ignore the warning, as did its regional allies.
But what were the other options?
We could have done nothing ... which, judging from the efficacy of the US-armed Syrian rebels, would have looked largely identical to the situation today.
Or we could have aided Bashar al-Assad against the rebels. But I don't think this would have resulted in ISIS being crushed before it took root—considering we're doing the same thing with the Iraqi government now. It probably would have created far more blowback in the Islamic world against the United States and given ISIS a tremendous propaganda advantage.
I don't think the main problem with helping a violent autocrat crush a rebellion was whether or not it was going to make us look bad to Islamic fundamentalists
Not quite sure I'll ever agree with the "but then you hand them propaganda!" line.
They seem to be quite able to flat out make up shit when they desire, with a more than receptive audience, if they want.
It sounds more like an excuse to do nothing.
I was talking about a specific kind of stance by the US government: siding with a dictator who is trying to suppress a popular revolution. I don't think anyone cares that ISIS says mean things about us, but I do think it's important for our strategy to minimize their popular support.
Most of our actions since the Arab Spring have been designed to "side" with the Arab populace—chiefly the significant number of Arabs who want peace and (relatively) secular democracy. Hanging in the balance are groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which are far less secular but still unaligned to extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
It's true that ISIS will make up shit regardless, but I think we are fortunate that their ideology is isolated and condemned amidst the broader Islamic world—including groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. I've argued that one of the biggest (and most overlooked) contributor to the rise of ISIS was al-Sisi's coup against Morsi in Egypt and his mass murder of the Muslim Brotherhood—thus proving to religious Muslims that democracy is a fiction and the only way to achieve power is through violence. If the US explicitly sided with Qaddafi and Assad, then I think this effect would have been amplified and ISIS would enjoy significantly more popular support than it does now.
Edit: AresProphet, I don't either! But the context of the post I was responding to was "the US was warned about ISIS yet our actions still led to their rise."
Not quite sure I'll ever agree with the "but then you hand them propaganda!" line.
They seem to be quite able to flat out make up shit when they desire, with a more than receptive audience, if they want.
It sounds more like an excuse to do nothing.
I was talking about a specific kind of stance by the US government: siding with a dictator who is trying to suppress a popular revolution. I don't think anyone cares that ISIS says mean things about us, but I do think it's important for our strategy to minimize their popular support.
Most of our actions since the Arab Spring have been designed to "side" with the Arab populace—chiefly the significant number of Arabs who want peace and (relatively) secular democracy. Hanging in the balance are groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which are far less secular but still unaligned to extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
It's true that ISIS will make up shit regardless, but I think we are fortunate that their ideology is isolated and condemned amidst the broader Islamic world—including groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. I've argued that one of the biggest (and most overlooked) contributor to the rise of ISIS was al-Sisi's coup against Morsi in Egypt and his mass murder of the Muslim Brotherhood—thus proving to religious Muslims that democracy is a fiction and the only way to achieve power is through violence. If the US explicitly sided with Qaddafi and Assad, then I think this effect would have been amplified and ISIS would enjoy significantly more popular support than it does now.
Edit: AresProphet, I don't either! But the context of the post I was responding to was "the US was warned about ISIS yet our actions still led to their rise."
Bingo. Whatever you do, always try to minimize the recruiting these assholes can do.
Because the thing of it is, if you are going to do something, it should be something constructive. Doing something is not always the answer. Sometimes none of the options you have at your fingertips lead to a good outcome. In which case you should do nothing. Conserve your resources for when you can do something that will actually help.
Unless of course your back is against the wall and you have nothing to lose by acting. But since the US is nowhere near that position, that kind of problem does not apply to us.
I don't know how much I agree with that assessment. Ramadi has come under attack repeatedly since early 2014, and government forces held out until last week. The large IS attacks about a week prior to the city's fall were repulsed, but the assault remained nearly constant and even increased in magnitude. A wave of 7 or so SVBIEDs apparently broke their defensive lines, and things fell apart from there.
Maybe they could have done better than they did, but this wasn't a repeat of Mosul. I sort of think the US is trying to change the narrative from "the US's strategy is failing" to "the Iraqi army sucks."
Kaputa on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure if it's Iraq having no will or having no ability.
The phrase "the Iraqi army sucks" isn't inaccurate, but it shouldn't be said without mentioning how deep the corruption in their leadership runs. A town like Ramadi shouldn't fall because of a few dozen SVBIEDS and a couple hundred fighters, they had time to prepare concrete barriers and they had tanks at their disposal. But it sounds like this was another incident of Iraqi army officers planning for failure or even actively helping ISIS in exchange for safe passage.
I don't know how much I agree with that assessment. Ramadi has come under attack repeatedly since early 2014, and government forces held out until last week. The large IS attacks about a week prior to the city's fall were repulsed, but the assault remained nearly constant and even increased in magnitude. A wave of 7 or so SVBIEDs apparently broke their defensive lines, and things fell apart from there.
Maybe they could have done better than they did, but this wasn't a repeat of Mosul. I sort of think the US is trying to change the narrative from "the US's strategy is failing" to "the Iraqi army sucks."
150 IS dudes with their 10 car bombs forced 6000 soldiers and police to leave. And the soldiers left so fast they didn't take the time to destroy their artillery pieces and military vehicles. The numbers were smaller but leaving all that US-supplied equipment and ammunition for IS to pick up is a blunder equal to Mosul's.
I don't know how much I agree with that assessment. Ramadi has come under attack repeatedly since early 2014, and government forces held out until last week. The large IS attacks about a week prior to the city's fall were repulsed, but the assault remained nearly constant and even increased in magnitude. A wave of 7 or so SVBIEDs apparently broke their defensive lines, and things fell apart from there.
Maybe they could have done better than they did, but this wasn't a repeat of Mosul. I sort of think the US is trying to change the narrative from "the US's strategy is failing" to "the Iraqi army sucks."
And see at this point I don't think its a change of narrative. I think at this point saying the Iraqi army sucks is just a truth of the universe. E=MCsq, gravity attracts mass to mass, the Iraqi army sucks.
They just don't seem to have their hearts in the fight. The Kurds, when they are attacked seem to hold on no matter what the hell happens. The Shia militias are eager to go on the attack (because they want bloody revenge).
The Iraqi army seems to have a pretty large morale problem. Basically if it were Baghdad I don't think they would have fallen back. But I don't know if they were willing to die for Ramadi. And I think (I am just guessing), its because Ramadi is Sunni territory and at the end of the day, its not worth dying for. Its not actually home.
I wonder what point is the Marne for the Iraqi army?
I don't know how much I agree with that assessment. Ramadi has come under attack repeatedly since early 2014, and government forces held out until last week. The large IS attacks about a week prior to the city's fall were repulsed, but the assault remained nearly constant and even increased in magnitude. A wave of 7 or so SVBIEDs apparently broke their defensive lines, and things fell apart from there.
Maybe they could have done better than they did, but this wasn't a repeat of Mosul. I sort of think the US is trying to change the narrative from "the US's strategy is failing" to "the Iraqi army sucks."
And see at this point I don't think its a change of narrative. I think at this point saying the Iraqi army sucks is just a truth of the universe. E=MCsq, gravity attracts mass to mass, the Iraqi army sucks.
They just don't seem to have their hearts in the fight. The Kurds, when they are attacked seem to hold on no matter what the hell happens. The Shia militias are eager to go on the attack (because they want bloody revenge).
The Iraqi army seems to have a pretty large morale problem. Basically if it were Baghdad I don't think they would have fallen back. But I don't know if they were willing to die for Ramadi. And I think (I am just guessing), its because Ramadi is Sunni territory and at the end of the day, its not worth dying for. Its not actually home.
I wonder what point is the Marne for the Iraqi army?
Yeah, sectarian and militia ties run deeper than unit cohesion. That's been a problem for years now. With the Kurds all three are one and the same.
I can't remember how IA and IP recruitment and postings worked but it may be that their ties to their hometowns are stronger than their postings. Perhaps many feel like they can cede territory to ISIS because they'd rather defend their hometowns anyway. Local IA and IP retreat too because all their comrades have (, they don't want to face executions by ISIS), and the ripple effect ends with the entire brigade retreating.
I'm still not sure if ISIS will take Baghdad, but I'm no longer confident they won't.
The problem with the Iraqi army is Iraq as a country has a very weak national identity; it's not had the privilege of decades of nationalism to build one. Without a strong national identity, there's nothing for the various sub-divisions of Iraq to unify and rally behind. At every point you should expect the Iraqi government to struggle or fall apart along sectarian or ethic lines. This is also true of the army; a solider in the Iraqi army almost certainly identifies as Shia or Sunni first and Iraqi second. This means they have nothing to rally behind and morale is low, so they're just going break and run until something important to their main identities is under fire.
The Kurds have a better track record because of this in reverse: The Kurds can fight not just for their own people, but to protect "Kurdistan", even if that Kurdistan is merely symbolic/imagined in nature.
It's also why ISIS will have a harder time as they advance into Iraq; they'll start hitting more Shia areas and fighting Shia militia who'll put up more of fight(which isn't to say who will win; that remains to be seen).
Can you imagine the clusterfuck in U.S. politics if they took Baghdad?
And I'm sure it would be a lovely stick to hit Hillary with depending on how close to election it happened. Arguments of whether she would deserve that or not notwithstanding, and probably immaterial.
Edit: And while I'll not say it's impossible, it would require such an incredible failure in every possible way for it to occur, that I wouldn't give a shit because I'd be mainlining nyquil to make the pain stop.
Posts
I'm always a little sickened by those that attack people at religious sites. They're supposed to be places of peace and comfort.
Has Saudi Arabia been hit by terror attacks recently or is this something new?
On the line that Hersh as a journalist has fallen from a past greatness toward conspiracism and gullible reliance on single sources, that's not necessarily a well-informed reading. From The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/207753/lessons-thinnest-seymour-hershs-thinly-sourced-claims
And Reuters obtains court documents establishing Turkish intelligence secretly armed Islamist rebels in Syria in 2013 and 2014:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/21/us-mideast-crisis-turkey-arms-idUSKBN0O61L220150521
I should point out, referenced in that very same story is the phrase 'and a huge sheaf of papers Hersh had requisitioned under the Freedom of Information act'
Note: The huge sheaf of papers related to Hersh's story about Bin Laden.
The point wasn't so much to claim 'all details of Hersh's Bin Laden story are definitely true', which I don't know and will only be better known over time, so much as rejecting the narrative that the story is ridiculous or can be dismissed out-of-hand because the level of coordinated institutional secrecy involved would somehow be self-evidently 'impossible', when in reality even Hersh himself as a journalist has exposed bigger conspiracies in the past.
Joe Biden says caaaalled it and fuck you, people who shit on him during the election
Except that even in that article, the first mention of the conspiracy and the bombings is 1973. 3 years for a conspiracy whose main players seem to be 3 people and everybody else blindly shutting their eyes and going "LALALALALA"
.
I think this is an important thing to understand about Iran in the region: They are perfectly fine with using proxies in order to further their agenda in the region. It's not always militant groups either, it can be business/commercial entities, charity programs (clinics/smuggled medicines/reconstruction) etc. Essentially, they are capable of the same TTPs and thinking we are, and to think they will be overtly militant in a land grab or that they will only act as facilitators/financiers/trainers for militant groups/states is, I think, underestimating them. This is of course not a disagreement with anything you've stated, as far as that I agree with you.
Iran has also had trouble in the tribal areas of Pakistan lately. I'll have to find some of my sources, I wrote up a quick paper on Pakistan (with information about Iran military/police actions in Pakistan and their potential impact on future US operations in Afghanistan) last year but I don't think anyone here is interested in reading ~20 pages.
I'll grant you a larger number of participants. I'll not grant you this being an effective example of institutional secrecy. Given the 1969 article in the New York times concerning the bombings. (Thank you google and wiki)
Sheesh, I can't believe that Seymour Hersh article didn't mention the NYT article.
Discussing exactly what significant details of the bombing of Cambodia leaked when and what new ground was broken by Hersh's story or how effective Kissinger's coordination of covering up 'secret' aspects of the bombing -- hmm, maybe this isn't the right thread for all of that.
However -- similarly note that most relevant details of Hersh's 2015 Bin Laden story had already leaked by 2011:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/seymour-hersh-plagiarism-accusation-117827.html
It would actually be... kind of funny if the problem with Hersh's journalistic integrity had almost nothing to do with the common lines against him and were something different entirely....
This gets complIcated. It's late on a Friday night and I'm at a bar in Williamsburg... But maybe almost everything like this 'leaks' in some sense somehow, maybe usually early. This holds for basic realities about the mafia, sexual scandals with priests, government coverups, surveillance, things like false-flags or covert support for terrorism, etc. How well 'secrets' are kept, when they aren't really being kept, may have more to do with how they are portrayed/mocked/ridiculed in 'mainstream' (or 'low-brow') discourse. This becomes sociologically tangly and deserves a more extensive treatment.
http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
In other Syrian news, the Assad regime has lost control of its last border crossing with Iraq to IS (Iraqi troops are besieged on their side of the border). In Jisr al-Shugur, the besieged hospital that the regime swore to rescue has been overrun and troops are fleeing south. Heavy fighting continues around Ariha, and the regime has handed over control of some areas in Aleppo province to IS, presumably in order to redeploy forces to a more urgent front.
edit- the absence of any mention of Turkish support for Jaysh al-Fatah in that MEE article is sort of conspicuous
This. It's a pretty standard product that an analyst would put out. There shouldn't be any kind of intent inferred from the product other than to inform and answer PIRs of the customer.
We could have done nothing ... which, judging from the efficacy of the US-armed Syrian rebels, would have looked largely identical to the situation today.
Or we could have aided Bashar al-Assad against the rebels. But I don't think this would have resulted in ISIS being crushed before it took root—considering we're doing the same thing with the Iraqi government now. It probably would have created far more blowback in the Islamic world against the United States and given ISIS a tremendous propaganda advantage.
You're right that things probably wouldn't look that different if the US hadn't jumped on the bandwagon, since our allies and foes would have continued waging their proxy wars. But I still strongly believe that "doing nothing" should be the default stance when wars that have nothing to do with our country erupt ten thousand miles away. And what if, rather than choosing and arming one side, the US had taken a neutral approach and pushed for a political solution, perhaps involving the UN in some manner? What if Washington pressured its allies to stop attempting to oust a neighboring government, and attempted to forge some kind of regional understanding between the KSA and Iran? A peace-focused policy relying on diplomatic and economic pressure might not have successfully stopped Syria's collapse, but such an approach seems more likely to have had a positive effect than helping the Arab monarchs arm al-Qaeda and IS to the teeth, then realizing those guys are scarier than the original enemy and going to war against them instead.
They seem to be quite able to flat out make up shit when they desire, with a more than receptive audience, if they want.
It sounds more like an excuse to do nothing.
I'm just sick of people doing the we would love to help oh so much but gosh darn it those nasty terrorists will call us names for doing so and we won't actually do any good!
So it's really for everyone else's good!
I'm okay with countries acting selfishly. I really, really am. I expect it, as the first job of a country is to serve it's citizens.
Better to support the nations in the region, providing humanitarian aid, ad push for a settlement in the international community.
Our military is an excellent hammer of which I am quite proud, but not every world problem is a nail.
But a lot of people seem to be using "it'll just be propaganda for the terrorists" not "it's a bad idea for X reason".
And there are a lot of good reasons (different depending on the specific conflict) why direct military force would be pointless.
But getting called mean things is not one of them.
And to reiterate, if "I don't think it's our problem" is your reason, I'm okay with that. It's a completely justified reason. As are the many categorically good reasons such as "giving weapons to unorganized idiots will eventually bite you in the ass" or "propping up one horrible group over the other isn't a good idea over a long enough time period (see: the whole damn twentieth century)".
Just don't tell me it's because they'd say mean words about you if you did, and we're good. :P
I don't think the main problem with helping a violent autocrat crush a rebellion was whether or not it was going to make us look bad to Islamic fundamentalists
Most of our actions since the Arab Spring have been designed to "side" with the Arab populace—chiefly the significant number of Arabs who want peace and (relatively) secular democracy. Hanging in the balance are groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which are far less secular but still unaligned to extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
It's true that ISIS will make up shit regardless, but I think we are fortunate that their ideology is isolated and condemned amidst the broader Islamic world—including groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. I've argued that one of the biggest (and most overlooked) contributor to the rise of ISIS was al-Sisi's coup against Morsi in Egypt and his mass murder of the Muslim Brotherhood—thus proving to religious Muslims that democracy is a fiction and the only way to achieve power is through violence. If the US explicitly sided with Qaddafi and Assad, then I think this effect would have been amplified and ISIS would enjoy significantly more popular support than it does now.
Edit: AresProphet, I don't either! But the context of the post I was responding to was "the US was warned about ISIS yet our actions still led to their rise."
Bingo. Whatever you do, always try to minimize the recruiting these assholes can do.
Because the thing of it is, if you are going to do something, it should be something constructive. Doing something is not always the answer. Sometimes none of the options you have at your fingertips lead to a good outcome. In which case you should do nothing. Conserve your resources for when you can do something that will actually help.
Unless of course your back is against the wall and you have nothing to lose by acting. But since the US is nowhere near that position, that kind of problem does not apply to us.
US Secretary of Defense says Iraqi Army has no will to fight IS.
Which everybody already knew.
Maybe they could have done better than they did, but this wasn't a repeat of Mosul. I sort of think the US is trying to change the narrative from "the US's strategy is failing" to "the Iraqi army sucks."
150 IS dudes with their 10 car bombs forced 6000 soldiers and police to leave. And the soldiers left so fast they didn't take the time to destroy their artillery pieces and military vehicles. The numbers were smaller but leaving all that US-supplied equipment and ammunition for IS to pick up is a blunder equal to Mosul's.
And see at this point I don't think its a change of narrative. I think at this point saying the Iraqi army sucks is just a truth of the universe. E=MCsq, gravity attracts mass to mass, the Iraqi army sucks.
They just don't seem to have their hearts in the fight. The Kurds, when they are attacked seem to hold on no matter what the hell happens. The Shia militias are eager to go on the attack (because they want bloody revenge).
The Iraqi army seems to have a pretty large morale problem. Basically if it were Baghdad I don't think they would have fallen back. But I don't know if they were willing to die for Ramadi. And I think (I am just guessing), its because Ramadi is Sunni territory and at the end of the day, its not worth dying for. Its not actually home.
I wonder what point is the Marne for the Iraqi army?
Yeah, sectarian and militia ties run deeper than unit cohesion. That's been a problem for years now. With the Kurds all three are one and the same.
I can't remember how IA and IP recruitment and postings worked but it may be that their ties to their hometowns are stronger than their postings. Perhaps many feel like they can cede territory to ISIS because they'd rather defend their hometowns anyway. Local IA and IP retreat too because all their comrades have (, they don't want to face executions by ISIS), and the ripple effect ends with the entire brigade retreating.
I'm still not sure if ISIS will take Baghdad, but I'm no longer confident they won't.
The Kurds have a better track record because of this in reverse: The Kurds can fight not just for their own people, but to protect "Kurdistan", even if that Kurdistan is merely symbolic/imagined in nature.
It's also why ISIS will have a harder time as they advance into Iraq; they'll start hitting more Shia areas and fighting Shia militia who'll put up more of fight(which isn't to say who will win; that remains to be seen).
And I'm sure it would be a lovely stick to hit Hillary with depending on how close to election it happened. Arguments of whether she would deserve that or not notwithstanding, and probably immaterial.
Edit: And while I'll not say it's impossible, it would require such an incredible failure in every possible way for it to occur, that I wouldn't give a shit because I'd be mainlining nyquil to make the pain stop.