Did the CIA create ISIS?

[Horatius]

@XT

It also gives the CIA nearly god like abilities to plan and execute deep strategies over years and keep it quiet, which is even more nuts.

Not only does it give the CIA god-like powers, it also denies any kind of power to the people who actually did create ISIS. To some folks, it seems inconceivable that some Islamic radicals could have bamboozled the US into supplying arms and training, only to turn around and betray the US. I mean, in an area with so many competing and overlapping militant groups, how hard is it to pretend to be the Judean People’s Front, and not the People’s Front of Judea for a few months?

[DrDeth]

@RickJay

The “CIA created ISIS” thing is quite popular on the Interweeb right now.

It is indeed true that the war in Iraq and the US strategy probably helped create ISIS. But “The CIA created ISIS” makes it siound like the Central Intelligence Agency deliberately created this group. Of course actions have unintended consequences, but the sequence of historical events that led to the creation of ISIS would therefore also include not only the CIA but

• The Iraq provisional government
• Tony Blair
• The Bush administration
• The Ottoman Empire
• Bill Clinton and his administration
• David Ben-Gurion
• The Ottoman Empire

… well, and 1,000 other people and groups I could name and then some.

You could start with the Romans. But yes, the Ottoman Empire and the way the Brits carved it up to make the Saudis happy are one of the big starting points. It was just tribe vs tribe before then. Still going back to 632 AD, when the Sunni and the Shia split off is another good starting point.

Wahhabism split off in the late 1700’s and it is the root of ISIL.

So, due to the instability of Iraq, there’d be some Wahhabi militia/terrorist group trying to take over. You can say that GWB, in taking down Iraq, created this instability.

But before that there was Al-Qaeda and other terrorist orgs, Al-Qaeda has it’s roots in the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. True, the USA provided some aid to those groups, but hardly created them. You can then say that Brezhnev created ISIL.

And so it goes.

Mind you, yes, the CIA dabbled and perhaps is A creator, but the roots spread deep and wide.

[DrDeth]

@Horatius

Not only does it give the CIA god-like powers, it also denies any kind of power to the people who actually did create ISIS. To some folks, it seems inconceivable that some Islamic radicals could have bamboozled the US into supplying arms and training, only to turn around and betray the US. I mean, in an area with so many competing and overlapping militant groups, how hard is it to pretend to be the Judean People’s Front, and not the People’s Front of Judea for a few months?

Yes, here from wiki is a list of some of the competing groups in just Afghanistan, vs the USSR.
Afghanistan Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Sunni Mujahideen

Jamiat-e Islami[1]
Shura-e Nazar
Gulbuddin faction[1]
Maktab al-Khadamat
Khalis faction[1]
Ittehad i-Islami[1]
IRM[1]
NLF[1]
NIFA[1]
Pakistan[1]
Shia Mujahedeen:

Harakat i-Islami[1]
Afghan Hezbollah
Nasr Party (IVOA)[1]
COIRGA
Shura Party
IRM
UOIF
Raad Party

Maoist factions:

ALO
SAMA
AMFFF

[DrDeth]

@CurtC

Well, to be fair, the link between the CIA and the Taliban is a lot more direct. Aren’t the Taliban what grew out of the Mujaheddin that the CIA armed with missiles to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan?

One of many.

[Siam_Sam]

@Diceman

Yeah, I suspect that the people who really believe this are going to be pretty much the same people who think the CIA is responsible for the 2003 Indonesian Ocean tsunami. (Apparently this is a popular conspiracy theory in Indonesia. In case you thought this sort of lunacy was somehow a uniquely American phenomenon.)

That was the 2004 tsunami. December 26, 2004. The earthquake that cause it made our windows buzz all the way up here in Bangkok.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

I’d point my finger at the Army, rather than the CIA. They trained and equipped Iraqi army regulars who, for whatever reason, either defected to ISIS or abandoned their vehicles and ordnance into ISIS’s possession. Clearly, these are more unintended consequences on the US Army’s part than conspiracies of the “Let’s undermine that gun-confiscating Kenyan Muslim’s military policy” sort.

[PhillyGuy]

This next is a www.longform.org selection. That’s an endorsement, if not of the content, then at least of the writing:

The Mystery of ISIS

Nor have there been any more satisfying explanations of what draws the 20,000 foreign fighters who have joined the movement. . . . They came from very poor countries (Yemen and Afghanistan) and from the wealthiest countries in the world (Norway and Qatar). Analysts who have argued that foreign fighters are created by social exclusion, poverty, or inequality should acknowledge that they emerge as much from the social democracies of Scandinavia as from monarchies (a thousand from Morocco), military states (Egypt), authoritarian democracies (Turkey), and liberal democracies (Canada). It didn’t seem to matter whether a government had freed thousands of Islamists (Iraq), or locked them up (Egypt), whether it refused to allow an Islamist party to win an election (Algeria) or allowed an Islamist party to be elected. Tunisia, which had the most successful transition from the Arab Spring to an elected Islamist government, nevertheless produced more foreign fighters than any other country.

. . .

Al-Qaeda understood better than anyone the peculiar blend of Koranic verses, Arab nationalism, crusader history, poetic reference, sentimentalism, and horror that can animate and sustain such movements. But even its leaders thought that Zarqawi’s particular approach was irrational, culturally inappropriate, and unappealing. . . .

None of our analysts, soldiers, diplomats, intelligence officers, politicians, or journalists has yet produced an explanation rich enough—even in hindsight—to have predicted the movement’s rise.

We hide this from ourselves with theories and concepts that do not bear deep examination. And we will not remedy this simply through the accumulation of more facts. It is not clear whether our culture can ever develop sufficient knowledge, rigor, imagination, and humility to grasp the phenomenon of ISIS. But for now, we should admit that we are not only horrified but baffled.

[MrQwertyasd]

@Love_Rhombus

I’ve been in a discussion with another individual online who suggests that the CIA is responsible for the creation of ISIS. I haven’t yet asked him more about this idea, but before I do: Is there actual evidence to support this?

Maybe google a slightly different acronym ?

http://levantreport.com/2015/08/06/former-dia-chief-michael-flynn-says-rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-and-defends-accuracy-of-2012-memo/

In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.”
Amazingly, Flynn actually took issue with the way interviewer Mehdi Hasan posed the question—Flynn seemed to want to make it clear that the policies that led to the rise of ISIL were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:

Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

Not necessarily planting the seed - which goes way back into history, but watering it ?

[MrQwertyasd]

Well that stopped that convo stone dead.
I thought the general’s words were a little more ambiguous than the article says, but the general thrust of the DIA thing was quite clear. None of it means western intelligence was the sole creator of ISIS, but was another influential element in the mix.

[Ravenman]

The journalist is implying that supporting the opposition to Assad, which includes extremists, means that the US made a decision to support the extremists. I don’t think that conclusion is correct.

It is like saying, Obama knows the refugee population includes terrorist mass murderers, but he intentionally wants them to come to the US. Yes, he wants the refugees to come here, but not the terrorists.

[up_the_junction]

ISIS is more a product of invasion and US occupation policy than it is a particular agency.

You have to share the love around, especially around the post-invasion detention camps and Iraqi prison system - Abu Graib, how long ago does that seem now!? Aahh, the good old days.

[MrQwertyasd]

@Ravenman

The journalist is implying that supporting the opposition to Assad, which includes extremists, means that the US made a decision to support the extremists. I don’t think that conclusion is correct.

It is like saying, Obama knows the refugee population includes terrorist mass murderers, but he intentionally wants them to come to the US. Yes, he wants the refugees to come here, but not the terrorists.

I don’t think that’s a good analogy. So much evidence of support, and I think that’s pretty much majority world opinion, not really controversial. Not so much handing carbines straight to ISIS complete with a receipt from the CIA, but all the shifty supply and training deals with not-very-moderate moderates, blind eye to the Gulf state support, and the constant blathering about Assad.

Flynn there said even he can’t keep up with the confusion of the situation, and I believe him. If he can’t, who can ?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

“So much evidence of support” of what? If you mean CIA support of ISIS we seem to have one piece of evidence.

[MrQwertyasd]

In support of what Mr Raven (quite reasonably) said which was

“the opposition to Assad, which includes extremists”

,which is a broad group, not including just ISIS but al Nusra and all that lot & etc.

So, referencing the DIA thing and Gen Flynn, you’re looking at not doing much to really stop ISIS, apart from ineffective bombing, and actively supporting the other opposition groups. All with a mind to conquer Syria.

But I think there’s been a change of direction now, so I think ISIS is going to be kicked out of Syria for real this time.

Fisk. Mr Raven won’t be happy about seeing Fisk

The Raqqa to Damascus bus ?

[Ravenman]

@MrQwertyasd

Fisk. Mr Raven won’t be happy about seeing Fisk

I don’t care, because I’m not going to watch a 17 minute video. Why don’t you summarize it?

[MrQwertyasd]

Alright, do my best for you.
Ahem.

The Arab world is fed up with being colonised.
Sykes-Picot is over.
The old colonial nation states are being erased.
ISIS are unemotional about their erasure of the past.
ISIS are more a political weapon of Gulf states, than a purely ideological phenomena, aimed at the shia.
The US is switching over to Iran as favourite.
This will mean, presently, US saying it’s time for the Gulf states to turn ISIS off.

Now don’t blame me, I’m only the messenger.

Late edit - expands on some of that here.

Isis was quick to understand a truth the West must now confront

Isis was quick to understand a truth the West must now confront: that the national borders imposed by colonial powers 100 years go are becoming meaningless, says Robert Fisk

[MrQwertyasd]

…sooo… if the old borders of the Arab regions are being erased, including in Africa, does that mean the opportunity for a large centralized power to arise, maybe not in the short term - whether it’s a caliphate or whatever ?
…and… the West has assisted this process because it wants a large politically contiguous region ?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Hell no. There is no guarantee at all that a large politically contiguous pan-Arab state would be beholden to us or even friendly to us.

[MrQwertyasd]

But politicians like those big blocs like US, EU, AU etc. Why be boss of one country when you can be president of 28, or president of 50 etc.
Why be president of one country when you can be caliph of ten ? Much more satisfying, and less prone to inter-state wars. Good for business too.
Arms companies may prefer lots of warring states, but I’m sure other corporations would prefer nice big peaceful blocs with lots of affluent customers and possibly a nice big monopoly.
Harmonised energy policy for when the oil runs out and it all goes solar.

???

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Politicians like their own countries to be part of big blocs. You think the US, China and Russia like the idea of the EU?