You are on page 1of 3

ISIS-Is US the real cause??

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq.
After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria. The group has referred to itself as
the Islamic State or IS since it proclaimed a worldwide caliphate in June 2014 and named Abu Bakr alBaghdadi as its caliph. As a caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims
worldwide.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/03/how-isis-spread-its-deadly-ideology-a-timeline
Opinion 1: Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror
designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the
region.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take
a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq
created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely,
destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite
administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and
closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under
the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the
white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class
Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than
promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and
created a fertile breeding ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels,
another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neoCold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in
Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of
these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16
Assault rifles.
The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in
Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s
neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used
to put pressure on Iran. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence
agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear
ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
Opinion 2: US didn’t create ISIS, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it. US
has exploited the existence of Isis
A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an
opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the
creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to
weaken Syria. There was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly
exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western
control.

The powerful events of that fateful day demonstrated that America had a new enemy that needed to be understood fully. For the Saudis. Bush. longstanding enemies of the Syrian government. such as the Nusra Front. But there is a powerful lesson for the West as well. each with their own objectives. it must enlist . And that invasion was launched from ISIS’ foothold in Syria only after Obama had paved the way for its rise there by refusing to support moderate anti-Assad forces. a weak. If this most gruesome and tragic situations is ever to be resolved. Second. the campaign against President Assad has some of the characteristics of a vendetta. Against Bush: the ominous rise of ISIS must circle back to the tragic actions of George W. This was his first mistake First. goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. which could have blunted the rise of ISIS. even as they fought Assad.” The terrible civil war in Syria has been fuelled by interventions from neighbouring countries. Bush or Obama: Who is more responsible?? Against Obama: In the view of those who see Obama as primarily responsible for the rise of ISIS. In words of a Syrian Migrant: My message to Cameron and Obama is this: “We were living in a good situation. The enemy was Islamist radicalism. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups. America’s complete withdrawal allowed former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to act on his deeply divisive authoritarian and sectarian impulses. But you helped to cause the problem for us. And there is no easy solution to this terrible conflict. including actions that could unleash anti-American fervor and also actions that could stir sectarian strife in regions where sectarian tensions have always been just beneath the surface of society. Obama did subordinate the significance of force to a fine notion of seeking stability in troubled regions through “soft-power” policies designed to assuage anti-American sentiments. Bush quickly concluded that Islamist radicalism was a warped and alien impulse within Islam that could be countered by demonstrating to mainstream Muslims the virtues and joys of Western democratic institutions. We want you to stop protecting the rebels so that we can return to our own country. partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly. a substantial body of sentiment within the broader world of Islam. Their reckless attempts to shape the Middle East by intervening with guns and bombs have caused nothing but chaos and murder. and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. and the Gulf States are now backing other groups in the Syrian war. America must refrain from actions that could unnecessarily inflame the world of Islam. which in turn created the ISIS opportunity in Iraq. US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. at least in the short term. which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage. The lack of such a force no doubt contributed to the ISIS emergence. It is too late to halt the wave of refugees pouring out of Syria.S.000 Americans as they went about their daily routines in their own land. And it’s possible that he could have negotiated a “status of forces” agreement with Iraq that could have made possible an ongoing U. Iran and Russia are throwing their weight behind the Assad regime. which then come back to bite them. while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States back the jihadists (probably including ISIS). However confused US policy may often be. the original Bush strategy had been sound and was working until Obama’s full military withdrawal from Iraq opened up an avenue for the ISIS invasion. who lost his way almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria. residual force in that country. all of the neighbouring nations must cease to meddle with fragile and beautiful Syria.The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online.

forces within Islam that were themselves hostile to Islamist radicalism and could assist in the effort to keep it under control. . and the fallout belongs to him. while Obama’s policies lacked any serious degree of strategic coherence. The invasion unleashed profound sectarian strife when minority Sunnis. bent on exploiting this chaos to establish a safe haven for themselves. Bush ignored both of these imperatives when he invaded Iraq. Thus. Many Sunnis aligned themselves with Al Qaeda elements that flooded the country. some of his biggest mistakes resulted from his embrace of the Bush outlook that originated the current unwieldy chaos in the region. suddenly found themselves vulnerable to vindictive Shiite leaders installed by America. who had dominated the region for centuries.