I don’t think their intentions are a secret. They are right in the name: Islamic State. Their leadership wants to establish a caliphate. So that’s something we’ve known for a while now.
I think, but do not have a site for obvious reasons, that intelligence knew of the porous border between Iraq and Syria for a long time. The US and UK intelligence seems very well aware of exactly which ex-pats are currently serving among the ISIS ranks. They even know a few who appear to have become dis-enchanged or disgruntled and wish to find a way to return home (without being arrested - the cheeky bastards!).
So I think intelligence knows more than what is being let on to the media and that’s understandable, in my opinion.
The “junior varsity” comment is glib but at the same time not inaccurate. Compared to the US military machine, are these guys truly a threat in their toyota pick-up trucks?
He was comparing them to al Qaeda, actually. I’m not too worried about the comment either, I was just noting that I don’t think he got that impression from what he saw on CNN. I assume he gets daily security briefings which cover iSIS and he was probably assured they weren’t in the same league as al Qaeda.
They can only attack the U.S. as terrorists. You don’t fight terrorists, not in the usual sense of the word “fight”; terrorism is a criminal problem, not a military problem.
We really should have learned that, by now, after 13 years.
I should have known, shouldn’t I? :smack:
It’s a criminal problem so long as a state isn’t backing them. Then it’s a military problem as well. ISIS is looking more and more like a state. If they are training people to attack us within their borders, then we are at war with them.
What’s getting to me is that all of Obama’s words and actions indicate that he believes they are a huge threat that needs to be wiped out. If he knows that, then the course is crystal clear. There’s no need to muddle it by restraining our armed forces.
I doubt that our intelligence agencies were unaware of that inevitability. These guys were originally from Iraq, and had been calling themselves “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” in early 2013.
Perhaps, but the administration was taken by surprise. I’d prefer to believe they were not warned, rather than that they were and chose to not pay attention.
One could argue that Al Qaeda was, at one time, more sophisticated than these guys.
Why would one argue that when the Secretary of Defense tells us that “Isil is as sophisticated and well funded as any group that we have seen. They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well funded. Oh, this is beyond anything that we’ve seen…”
At any rate, it’s seems pretty odd to assume that our new-found need to take serious action is unrelated to the recent beheadings of two Americans. They were the JV, then we were going to contain them, now we’re going to defeat them. Coincidence? I think not. (In all seriousness.)
It sounds to me like the administration’s top officials are debating with each other in public. Which can be a good thing.
Or, they were not taken by surprise at all. They were aware and watching. They decided this was something that should be handled by Iraqi forces. When the Iraqi army turned and fled and atrocities began to be committed, the US felt it should finally step in.
Reminds me of an old SNL sketch before the first Gulf war. A bunch of reporters asking questions of Cheney and whoever Kevin Nealon was playing and ever question was about stuff that we would obviously not want to say. My favorite: “Where are your bombs and may I go there and count them?” asked by Rob Schneider’s reporter character, an obvious Iraqi spy in costume.
I’m sure they were watching what was going on. So was the world. What I want to know is the quality of the information they were getting beforehand. I guess we’ll know for sure when Woodward publishes his next book.
What if we do nothing…let ISIS grow and get some traction? Hear me out.
It seems everything we do in the Middle East doesn’t turn out. We spend untold military dollars there and we’re never seen as liberators/heroes/victors.
There’s the usual reasons for this: arming militants who turn on us, destroying strongarm dictators and creating vacuums, supporting Israel, and many others.
But I’m thinking another big part of it is we’re painted as immoral crusaders from the west. Even with all the extremists I’m pretty sure most people over there just want a decent life, safe to raise a family and work opportunity. But deep in so many of their psyches, they think we’re this
immoral force, “crusaders from the west”…so much so that there were stories Muslims cheering when 9/11 went down.
And we partner with countries like Saudi Arabia, who talks out of both sides of it’s mouth. They need us and use us, but they view us as a necessary evil. It’s said many of these extremists are funded by rich Saudi’s, Qatarans, Kuwaities. Why would they do that? It could be they feel they’re fighting back on the immorality the “West” represents, or maybe it’s just they like the instability in the region since it tends to force up the price of oil. Who knows?
This time there’s a clear, evil enemy. I say we let ISIS grow, take over Syria and get rid of Assaud for us…then when the whole region is threatened…they’re nipping at these other countries and crossing into their borders, THEN we offer to help out.
I remember some Saudi on some sunday morning news show saying, “we don’t kill muslims…no matter what”. Well this time they’ll have to. They’ll have to declare other muslims as their ememy and ask us, “The Great Satan” for help.
We should just sit back, let this run it’s course…and come in late to the game and save the day…similar to WWII. Maybe this time we’ll be seen as doing good…maybe even heroes!
In the case of ISIS - the subject of this specific thread - this is not so:
Google “ISIS funding” and you’ll see a plethora of articles saying otherwise:
and:
Why does it make sense to get involved when Saudis ask for help but not when Kurds ask for help?
This one talks of “substantial and sustained” funding. But ISIS could well receive “substantial and sustained” funding and still be “financially self-sustaining,” right?
This one says no more than that “in the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.” Nothing about how ISIS finances itself now.
This one is… Different.
So, the exact opposite of your claim.