Thanks Ben. Great background. You are obviously one of the best writers on Substack. I'll be linking to this article in the next edition of the Bugle.
I do think though that we are too quick to say that the US 'backed/created' Islamic State. I think it's important to make the difference between the conspiracy and the cock-up. We often underestimate MENA, and other parts of the world, in terms of their own agency. The Middle East alone has plenty of fertile ground, and deep doctrinal roots, which allows for the initial formation of outfits such as Islamic State. That said, the scale of their operations that we have witnessed, particularly since 2014, obviously points to much deeper, state-based backing. And here, I would actually argue in favour of the cock-up over the conspiracy.
Firstly, we have proven ourselves over and over again to be basically incompetent at interacting with the Middle East. I'm not referring to every interaction, every soldier, and every contractor obviously. I am referring to the overall sum of all interactions.
Secondly, the inflection point in Islamic State's favour (and that of every other jihadist group in Syria) is no secret to anybody. US media broadcast the almost the entire debacle during the questioning of Lloyd Austin. Austin basically had to admit on camera that the $500M training program to produce 3,500 to 5,000 anti-Assad rebels was a complete failure with an almost 100% desertion rate. In the furore over the waste of US taxpayers money, the media ignored where all those fighters and weapons ended up. Which was in the hands of AQ, IS and other jihadist affiliates and adversaries.
Hence, why I would argue that the US inadvertently, or indirect;ly 'created' IS rather than the competent, cloak-and-dagger operation that is often referred to.
Hey Matt. I appreciate your comments. You're absolutely right in that the US certainly didn't "create" ISIS intentionally, but in the scramble to oppose Assad made a series of mistakes which inadvertently empowered them. However, we did know that they were the same organization we were fighting in Iraq (then known as Al-Qaida in Iraq and Islamic State in Iraq) just a few years earlier, and even when the public was made aware of this, John McCain and SecState were firm that we needed to arm these guys - I believe you can find it in the linked MSNBC article from the time.
I think we are far too eager to form these partnerships for short term gains. I think that's what we're seeing with Ukraine even now. The SBU is not afraid to go rogue and play byzantine games at Western expense, which goes back to your point about our underestimation of non-western actors.
Thanks Ben. Great background. You are obviously one of the best writers on Substack. I'll be linking to this article in the next edition of the Bugle.
I do think though that we are too quick to say that the US 'backed/created' Islamic State. I think it's important to make the difference between the conspiracy and the cock-up. We often underestimate MENA, and other parts of the world, in terms of their own agency. The Middle East alone has plenty of fertile ground, and deep doctrinal roots, which allows for the initial formation of outfits such as Islamic State. That said, the scale of their operations that we have witnessed, particularly since 2014, obviously points to much deeper, state-based backing. And here, I would actually argue in favour of the cock-up over the conspiracy.
Firstly, we have proven ourselves over and over again to be basically incompetent at interacting with the Middle East. I'm not referring to every interaction, every soldier, and every contractor obviously. I am referring to the overall sum of all interactions.
Secondly, the inflection point in Islamic State's favour (and that of every other jihadist group in Syria) is no secret to anybody. US media broadcast the almost the entire debacle during the questioning of Lloyd Austin. Austin basically had to admit on camera that the $500M training program to produce 3,500 to 5,000 anti-Assad rebels was a complete failure with an almost 100% desertion rate. In the furore over the waste of US taxpayers money, the media ignored where all those fighters and weapons ended up. Which was in the hands of AQ, IS and other jihadist affiliates and adversaries.
Hence, why I would argue that the US inadvertently, or indirect;ly 'created' IS rather than the competent, cloak-and-dagger operation that is often referred to.
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Matt
Hey Matt. I appreciate your comments. You're absolutely right in that the US certainly didn't "create" ISIS intentionally, but in the scramble to oppose Assad made a series of mistakes which inadvertently empowered them. However, we did know that they were the same organization we were fighting in Iraq (then known as Al-Qaida in Iraq and Islamic State in Iraq) just a few years earlier, and even when the public was made aware of this, John McCain and SecState were firm that we needed to arm these guys - I believe you can find it in the linked MSNBC article from the time.
I think we are far too eager to form these partnerships for short term gains. I think that's what we're seeing with Ukraine even now. The SBU is not afraid to go rogue and play byzantine games at Western expense, which goes back to your point about our underestimation of non-western actors.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.