US and Gulf allies/Turkey created ISIS to fight Assad

[Thanas]

Medium

Pentagon report predicted West’s support for Islamist rebels would create ISIS
Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion’

A declassified secret US government document obtained by the conservative public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.

The document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, and that these “supporting powers” desired the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in Syria to “isolate the Syrian regime.”

According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of this strategy, and warned that it could destabilize Iraq. Despite anticipating that Western, Gulf state and Turkish support for the “Syrian opposition” — which included al-Qaeda in Iraq — could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the document provides no indication of any decision to reverse the policy of support to the Syrian rebels. On the contrary, the emergence of an al-Qaeda affiliated “Salafist Principality” as a result is described as a strategic opportunity to isolate Assad.

The revelations contradict the official line of Western governments on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.

Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012.

The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria.

Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:

“Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these documents, it’s unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”

The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.

Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” while Russia, China and Iran “support the [Assad] regime.”

The 7-page DIA document states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the ‘Islamic State in Iraq,’ (ISI) which became the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,’ “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.”

The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the “rise of the insurgency in Syria” has increasingly taken a “sectarian direction,” attracting diverse support from Sunni “religious and tribal powers” across the region.

In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, retaining control over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate “into proxy war.”

The document also recommends the creation of “safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the command centre for the temporary government.”

In Libya, anti-Gaddafi rebels, most of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO ‘safe havens’ (aka ‘no fly zones’).


‘Supporting powers want’ ISIS entity
In a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.”

Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” fighting to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar)”:

“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this “Shia expansion.”

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, it says, would create “the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.” Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi.

Such a quasi-state entity will provide:

“… a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.”

The 2012 DIA document is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR), not a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment, but its contents are vetted before distribution. The report was circulated throughout the US intelligence community, including to the State Department, Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, among other agencies.

In response to my questions about the strategy, the British government simply denied the Pentagon report’s startling revelations of deliberate Western sponsorship of violent extremists in Syria. A British Foreign Office spokesperson said:

“AQ and ISIL are proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK opposes all forms of terrorism. AQ, ISIL, and their affiliates pose a direct threat to the UK’s national security. We are part of a military and political coalition to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and are working with international partners to counter the threat from AQ and other terrorist groups in that region. In Syria we have always supported those moderate opposition groups who oppose the tyranny of Assad and the brutality of the extremists.”

The DIA did not respond to request for comment.


Strategic asset for regime-change

Security analyst Shoebridge, however, who has tracked Western support for Islamist terrorists in Syria since the beginning of the war, pointed out that the secret Pentagon intelligence report exposes fatal contradictions at the heart of official pronunciations:
“Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK governments, and almost universally the West’s mainstream media, promoted Syria’s rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore deserving of the West’s support. Given that these documents wholly undermine this assessment, it’s significant that the West’s media has now, despite their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them.”

According to Brad Hoff, a former US Marine who served during the early years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps Headquarters Battalion in Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that:

“US 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 US strategic asset.”

Hoff, who is managing editor of Levant Report — an online publication run by Texas-based educators who have direct experience of the Middle East — points out that the DIA document “matter-of-factly” states that the rise of such an extremist Salafist political entity in the region offers a “tool for regime change in Syria.”

The DIA intelligence report shows, he said, that the rise of ISIS only became possible in the context of the Syrian insurgency — “there is no mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits.” The report demonstrates that:

“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.”

The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand into Iraq, and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US intelligence as likely — but nevertheless strategically useful — blowback from the West’s commitment to “isolating Syria.”

Complicity

Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria.

The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only ‘moderate’ groups were supported.

However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants constituted the core of Syria’s sectarian insurgency.

Despite that, the Pentagon continued to support the Islamist insurgency, even while anticipating the probability that doing so would establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in Syria and Iraq.

As Shoebridge told me, “The documents show that not only did the US government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature and likely outcome of Syria’s rebellion” — namely, the emergence of ISIS — “but that this was considered an advantage for US foreign policy. This also suggests a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead the West’s public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria’s rebellion was overwhelmingly ‘moderate.’”

Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle in the 1990s on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda to assassinate Libya’s former leader Colonel Gaddafi, similarly said of the revelations:

“This is no surprise to me. Within individual countries there are always multiple intelligence agencies with competing agendas.”

She explained that MI6’s Libya operation in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, “happened at precisely the time when MI5 was setting up a new section to investigate al-Qaeda.”

This strategy was repeated on a grand scale in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, said Machon, where the CIA and MI6 were: "… supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulting in a failed state, mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again ‘intervene’ is part of an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.”

Several US government officials have conceded that their closest allies in the anti-ISIS coalition were funding violent extremist Islamist groups that became integral to ISIS.

US Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, admitted last year that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey had funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist rebels in Syria that metamorphosed into ISIS.

But he did not admit what this internal Pentagon document demonstrates — that the entire covert strategy was sanctioned and supervised by the US, Britain, France, Israel and other Western powers.

The strategy appears to fit a policy scenario identified by a recent US Army-commissioned RAND Corp report.

The report, published four years before the DIA document, called for the US “to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

The US would need to contain “Iranian power and influence” in the Gulf by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.” Simultaneously, the US must maintain “a strong strategic relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government” despite its Iran alliance.

The RAND report confirmed that the “divide and rule” strategy was already being deployed “to create divisions in the jihadist camp. Today in Iraq such a strategy is being used at the tactical level.”

The report observed that the US was forming “temporary alliances” with al-Qaeda affiliated “nationalist insurgent groups” that have fought the US for four years in the form of “weapons and cash.” Although these nationalists “have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces,” they are now being supported to exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties.”

The 2012 DIA document, however, further shows that while sponsoring purportedly former al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq to counter al-Qaeda, Western governments were simultaneously arming al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria.

The revelation from an internal US intelligence document that the very US-led coalition supposedly fighting ‘Islamic State’ today, knowingly created ISIS in the first place, raises troubling questions about recent government efforts to justify the expansion of state anti-terror powers.

In the wake of the rise of ISIS, intrusive new measures to combat extremism including mass surveillance, the Orwellian ‘prevent duty’ and even plans to enable government censorship of broadcasters, are being pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, much of which disproportionately targets activists, journalists and ethnic minorities, especially Muslims.

Yet the new Pentagon report reveals that, contrary to Western government claims, the primary cause of the threat comes from their own deeply misguided policies of secretly sponsoring Islamist terrorism for dubious geopolitical purposes.

"Hey, let's sponsor terrorists. What can go wrong?"

[Channel72]

What is the source for this? I can't find anything except like, weird "alternative media" sites reporting this. What is the source for this declassified document?

A simple Google search doesn't come up with much to go on, and brings up various conspiracy-theorist type personas like Nafeez Ahmed.

Am I missing something here?

[Thanas]

What is the source for this? I can't find anything except like, weird "alternative media" sites reporting this. What is the source for this declassified document?

A simple Google search doesn't come up with much to go on, and brings up various conspiracy-theorist type personas like Nafeez Ahmed.

Am I missing something here?

Nafeez Ahmed is indeed the source of my OP, I forgot to include the link. Another story with screenshots/links is here.So far the quoted sections seem to match the quotes in the story.

[K. A. Pital]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... syria-iraq

Guardian.

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. 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.

[Purple]

Is anyone surprised? Anyone at all? No? That's what I thought.

[Solauren]

The United States (and alot of other countries) have spent since Vietnam or so getting OTHERS to fight their wars for them. "Plausiable deniability."

I call it cowardice. Both moral and political.


They don't want to lose another war, and look the bully, so they get others to do it, and it invariably bites them in the ass.

"Let's fund people to fight the USSR in Afganistan."
"Good idea. Let's look into this Taliban group...."

[Channel72]

Um...

Okay, so has anyone actually read this declassified document? The Guardian and other outlets are putting much more of a sinister "grand-master evil plan" type spin on this, whereas the document itself is pretty much just reporting facts, and warning of possible outcomes. Far from saying anything like "we need to support extremist groups and create an Islamic State as a matter of policy", what the document actually says is simply:

7. THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS:

A. THE REGIME [Assad's Regime] WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN TERRITORY.

B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: WITH SUPPORT FROM RUSSIA, CHINA, AND IRAN, THE REGIME IS CONTROLLING THE AREAS OF INFLUENCE ALONG COASTAL TERRITORIES (TARTUS AND LATAKIA), AND IS FIERCELY DEFENDING HOMS, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION ROUTE IN SYRIA. ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.

C. THE EFFECTS ON IRAQ

A. SYRIAN REGIME BORDER FORCES RETREATED FROM THE BORDER AND THE OPPOSITION FORCES (SYRIAN FREE ARMY) TOOK CONTROL OVER THE POSTS AND RAISED THEIR FLAG. THE IRAQI BORDER GUARD FORCES ARE FACING A BORDER WITH SYRIA THAT IS NOT GUARDED BY OFFICIAL ELEMENTS WHICH PRESENTS A DANGEROUS AND SERIOUS THREAT.

B. THE OPPOSITION FORCES WILL TRY TO USE THE IRAQI TERRITORY AS A SAFE HAVEN FOR ITS FORCES TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SYMPATHY OF THE IRAQI BORDER POPULATION, MEANWHILE TRYING TO RECRUIT FIGHTERS AND TRAIN THEM ON THE IRAQI SIDE, IN ADDITION TO HARBORING REFUGEES (SYRIA).

C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).

D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND ARE AS FOLLOWS:

---1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA, AND THE REST OF THE SUNNIS IN THE ARAB WORLD AGAINST WHAT IS CONSIDERS ONE ENEMY, THE DISSENTERS. ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.

--3 THE RENEWING FACILITATION OF TERRORIST ELEMENTS FROM ALL OVER THE ARAB WORLD ENTERING INTO IRAQI ARENA.

The document is pretty straightforward, laying out an analysis of the situation in Syria, and warning about a potential Islamic state being established as a GRAVE DANGER to Iraq - it's not recommending we support this Islamic State, it's merely stating the dry facts that the West, along with Turkey and the Gulf countries, are supporting the opposition in Syria - which is not something we needed a declassified document to tell us - everyone already knows that. (It's not like the Pentagon is going to declassify something that reveals some grand conspiracy anyway.)

Also, it might appear amazingly prescient how the Pentagon knew about the dangers posed by ISIS, except again - this was never a secret. Kurdish forces and the Maliki government had been warning the Obama administration about the danger of IS spilling over into Iraq, since back in 2010 at least. The Obama administration did nothing - most likely because Obama was more interested in withdrawing from Iraq and he simply overestimated the ability of the Iraqi army to defend the border.

The document uses the phrase "if the situation unravels ... [ISIS will establish a state]", and then goes on to say "...and this is exactly what the supporting powers want." This sentence seems to be the focal point of the media coverage over this document here, but in context it comes off more like a description of what's going on rather than a recommendation for action, and one paragraph later, warns about the creation of an Islamic state as a GRAVE DANGER with DIRE CONSEQUENCES (i.e. an undesired outcome), meaning that the earlier sentance "...this is exactly what the supporting powers want" is kind of ambiguous, and probably refers more in general to the greater Sunni powers, like the Gulf states, rather than the West necessarily.

So really, the only thing this document really brings to light is how small a factor the Free Syrian Army has always been, compared with the extremists. (The document mentions the FSA in an earlier paragraph). Except everybody already knew that, but here we have it in writing that the Pentagon acknowledges it to be the case, but doesn't give a shit and is happy to support anyone who will counter Assad. Still, the creation of the IS in Eastern Syrian/Iraq is not expressed to be a desired outcome by this document, but a potential outcome expressed as a WARNING - i.e. the document is saying "we are weakening Assad by supporting insurgency elements, but be careful because this could result in Al Qaeda becoming way more powerful and reestablishing itself in Iraq, and/or the creation of an Islamic State in Iraq". It's a warning, not some kind of description of a master evil plan here. It's yet more evidence that, as always, the Pentagon knew of the dangers ahead and the potential disastrous outcomes involved with current policies, but the Whitehouse ultimately failed to do or change anything because of incompetence, wishful thinking and intertia.

[Block]

It's being ignored because there are at least 10 of these reports that were written by analysts at the time, giving potential outcomes of the situation. It's the way the DOD works, there are risk assessments for every course of action and every event that takes place around the world. It's not sinister.

[Channel72]

What I find really amusing is how all the great super powers on the planet have basically aligned along sectarian lines, going back to a long-forgotten battle in 632 AD that split Mohammed's early followers - we have Russia and China backing the Shi'ite world, and the US/Europe backing the Sunnis. Personally, I'd rather back the Shi'ites if I had to choose. The Ayatollahs may say crazy shit, but Shi'ite nations and organizations have always managed to operate with a greater sense of rationality.

[Thanas]

So really, the only thing this document really brings to light is how small a factor the Free Syrian Army has always been, compared with the extremists. (The document mentions the FSA in an earlier paragraph). Except everybody already knew that, but here we have it in writing that the Pentagon acknowledges it to be the case, but doesn't give a shit and is happy to support anyone who will counter Assad. Still, the creation of the IS in Eastern Syrian/Iraq is not expressed to be a desired outcome by this document, but a potential outcome expressed as a WARNING - i.e. the document is saying "we are weakening Assad by supporting insurgency elements, but be careful because this could result in Al Qaeda becoming way more powerful and reestablishing itself in Iraq, and/or the creation of an Islamic State in Iraq". It's a warning, not some kind of description of a master evil plan here. It's yet more evidence that, as always, the Pentagon knew of the dangers ahead and the potential disastrous outcomes involved with current policies, but the Whitehouse ultimately failed to do or change anything because of incompetence, wishful thinking and intertia.

But: If you still go ahead with supporting the rebels and weakening the regime while knowing about the consequences isn't that at the very least not giving a damn about the consequences or more likely condoning that very likely outcome? I mean, if people tell me "If you do X, chances are it will result in Y" and I go ahead and do X anyway, how doesn't that make the outcome my fault?

[Edi]

It's being ignored because there are at least 10 of these reports that were written by analysts at the time, giving potential outcomes of the situation. It's the way the DOD works, there are risk assessments for every course of action and every event that takes place around the world. It's not sinister.

The assessment itself is not, true, but the fact that it was ignored is. Because it lays out what is nothing short of the probable outcome and which became reality.

However, that this was done is not surprising in the least. Everything about the "war on terror" and how it has been handled has been utterly incompetent from start to finish, starting with ignoring the warnings about Osama Bin Laden before 9/11, the alienation of allies already when going to Afghanistan ("You're either with us or against us"), leaving Afghanistan to fester in favor of the invasion of Iraq on false premises, to bungling up the occupation there and all the various violations, power grabs and abuse related to it, to Libya and the Arab Spring and finally the rise of ISIS (how it was formed in the Iraqi prison camps and the support for anyone opposed to Assad at any cost).

Both Bush and Obama have more or less fucked everything up from start to finish, them and the neocon cadre of idiots who have more or less run American foreign policy all through this time. Make no mistake, Cheney and the worst of the idiots having been sidelined when Obama was elected has not made much of a difference to the substance, at least as it relates to the Middle East.

Fucking hell, my cats could have handled things more competently.

Of course, some of the things that have happened, such as the mass violations of civil rights, the creation of the surveillance state and the expansion of the military/intelligence/security apparatus in the US seem to be more features than bugs, given who created them, but aside from that, everything else that could be fucked up was fucked up beyond all reason.

[Channel72]

So really, the only thing this document really brings to light is how small a factor the Free Syrian Army has always been, compared with the extremists. (The document mentions the FSA in an earlier paragraph). Except everybody already knew that, but here we have it in writing that the Pentagon acknowledges it to be the case, but doesn't give a shit and is happy to support anyone who will counter Assad. Still, the creation of the IS in Eastern Syrian/Iraq is not expressed to be a desired outcome by this document, but a potential outcome expressed as a WARNING - i.e. the document is saying "we are weakening Assad by supporting insurgency elements, but be careful because this could result in Al Qaeda becoming way more powerful and reestablishing itself in Iraq, and/or the creation of an Islamic State in Iraq". It's a warning, not some kind of description of a master evil plan here. It's yet more evidence that, as always, the Pentagon knew of the dangers ahead and the potential disastrous outcomes involved with current policies, but the Whitehouse ultimately failed to do or change anything because of incompetence, wishful thinking and intertia.

But: If you still go ahead with supporting the rebels and weakening the regime while knowing about the consequences isn't that at the very least not giving a damn about the consequences or more likely condoning that very likely outcome? I mean, if people tell me "If you do X, chances are it will result in Y" and I go ahead and do X anyway, how doesn't that make the outcome my fault?

You're right - the Pentagon/Whitehouse/US definitely is at fault, there's no denying that. All I'm saying is that the creation of ISIS was not a carefully orchestrated plan resulting from masterful cooperation and coordination between the Whitehouse, the Pentagon, Turkey, the Gulf states, etc. But I'm sure you obviously realize that. The creation of ISIS is more like the result of one stupid decision after another. But the journalists here are implying something much more carefully orchestrated behind closed doors.

I mean, prima facie, ISIS controlling the oil fields in Northern Iraq doesn't benefit the geo-political goals of the US at all. It would be much better for the friendly puppet Dawa government to control those fields. So, clearly, the current situation with ISIS running rampant in Northern Iraq was not an intended or desired outcome. That doesn't mean intelligent people working in the Pentagon were't aware it was a very likely outcome.

Anyway, people give the US government way too much credit really. I mean, isn't it obvious by now that they're just not capable of orchestrating any long term foreign-policy plan and actually successfully seeing it through to fruition? Everything the US does foreign-policy wise just turns to shit.

[Purple]

Nobody is saying that the americans purposefully planed ISIS into existence. However given that they absolutely knew that this is exactly what was going to be the end result of their actions (as shown by these documents) the inevitable conclusion is that somewhere someone sat down and said "Yes, this is exactly what's going to happen and I am going to go through with it anyway." So it's a far cry from being a "stupid decision". It's a very informed and purposeful decision.

[Channel72]

Nobody is saying that the americans purposefully planed ISIS into existence.

Some of the journalists are sort of implying the Americans purposefully planned ISIS into existence in order to isolate Assad.

However given that they absolutely knew that this is exactly what was going to be the end result of their actions (as shown by these documents) the inevitable conclusion is that somewhere someone sat down and said "Yes, this is exactly what's going to happen and I am going to go through with it anyway." So it's a far cry from being a "stupid decision". It's a very informed and purposeful decision.

This assumes that the analysts at the Pentagon actually had their voices heard at the highest levels, over who knows how many other analysts. Things in Washington move extremely slowly, whereas the volatile situation in the Mideast can change very fast. It's the same story with the warnings about 9/11 - analysts knew there was a danger, but nobody listened. Or more likely, nobody capable of affecting rapid policy changes had the inclination/time/attention-span to listen. It's not like some random department in the Pentagon has an instant speed-dial to President Obama, and can instantly affect policy changes. The US government is a big, dumb bureaucracy. The Pentagon analysts write up reports, then their superiors summarize those reports, and eventually maybe, some powerpoints and reports make it to the Oval Office, among many others. (The present report here is only interesting with a post-hoc analysis, after all.)

What likely happened was that a program was put in place to fund certain Syrian rebels after the war broke out around 2011, because the Whitehouse thought getting rid of Assad would be a good idea. Then as new developments appeared on the ground, and it became clear that 90% of the rebel factions were extremists, the Whitehouse just dragged its feet (a common reaction when you realize you've made a mistake and need to correct it), rather than reassessing the existing channels of funding and CIA training programs. All of a sudden, around summer of 2014 IS suddenly makes huge advances in territorial gains and starts making international headlines via their insane brutality, so now the Whitehouse has to actually do something (and still hasn't done much, other than slow IS down and limit their movement.)

[Thanas]

I think your read of the situation is the most likely one.

[K. A. Pital]

But does the US actually lose anything from the Mid-East chaos now? ISIS controls oil of Northern Iraq and Syria. Does it harm the US? If so, in what ways? That cheap oil is being shipped through Turkey further on, but the US doesn't consume much of it anyway. In fact, the US has managed to produce lots of oil with new extraction technologies and is itself causing problems for Saudi Arabia and the like by importing fewer and fewer, and by now almost no oil from the Gulf states...

Not sure if the US cares at all what happens to the rest of the world. Sometimes I feel like the US is content to let it burn to the ground and have horrible things happen to everyone around so as long as the US itself isn't threatened. Well, them and their "national interests" (whatever the current bunch of "analysts" of the government say these are).

The US doesn't benefit from ISIS. But it doesn't benefit from the Iraqi government either. It's not even seriously impacted by the refugee crisis (accepting 10k is as good as accepting zero, with the actual numbers of refugees involved). And the US didn't benefit from the 2003 invasion of Iraq - but it did so nonetheless.

This, in a nutshell, means that the US can afford to make "calculated blunders" like this, set the place on fire even if that provides no real gain, just because someone, somewhere, thought that a byproduct of this process could have some "strategic benefits" for the US in the near-future, far-future or even present. There's no limit to damage that could be caused by the US, because there's no way the rest of the world could damage the US, except for nuclear powers. The US can just do nasty things because there's no payback. Any damage, if it even exists, is very limited and never threatens the US in an existential fashion.

Basically, even if the US didn't actively want ISIS to happen, it was fine with it happening. Grave dangers to Iraq and even the destruction of Iraq means nothing to the US and is not a danger to the US. It is a danger to the populations of Iraq, Syria, Iran and a bunch of neighboring states, it is a problem for neighboring states and Europe due to the refugee flow, but it never was a US problem and couldn't even potentially become one.

[Simon_Jester]

But: If you still go ahead with supporting the rebels and weakening the regime while knowing about the consequences isn't that at the very least not giving a damn about the consequences or more likely condoning that very likely outcome? I mean, if people tell me "If you do X, chances are it will result in Y" and I go ahead and do X anyway, how doesn't that make the outcome my fault?

There's an ethical difference between doing X and ignoring reports that it will result in Y, and doing X because you intended Y to happen all along.

It's quite common in human history for decision-makers to say "let's harm a known 'enemy,' and never mind the warnings that this will pave the way for the rise of another, even worse enemy!" This is a basic and common mistake made by many people in many situations.

Not sure if the US cares at all what happens to the rest of the world. Sometimes I feel like the US is content to let it burn to the ground and have horrible things happen to everyone around so as long as the US itself isn't threatened. Well, them and their "national interests" (whatever the current bunch of "analysts" of the government say these are).

To be frank, the alternatives here are for a nation to take an interest in what happens in the rest of the world or not to take an interest. Given the US's track record of failing to achieve its own stated policy objectives in the Middle East due to (among other things) institutional inability to understand Muslim culture and the nature of Islamic fundamentalism, I am not sure the US 'taking an interest' in the Middle East is in anyone's interest, since the US has consistently and repeatedly made things worse as far as I can tell.

Do you think otherwise?

This, in a nutshell, means that the US can afford to make "calculated blunders" like this, set the place on fire even if that provides no real gain, just because someone, somewhere, thought that a byproduct of this process could have some "strategic benefits" for the US in the near-future, far-future or even present. There's no limit to damage that could be caused by the US, because there's no way the rest of the world could damage the US, except for nuclear powers. The US can just do nasty things because there's no payback. Any damage, if it even exists, is very limited and never threatens the US in an existential fashion.

This is essentially true and arguably it means the best thing the US could do for the rest of the world would be isolationism...

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not asking for more US involvement, oh no! But at least the US could try to take in the refugees. In greater numbers.

[Exonerate]

Ex-DIA director did an interview on the document, it's worth watching.

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.

Anyways, I imagine a coldly rational analyst for the CIA probably looks at it this way: "Syria is an important Russian and Iranian ally, so Assad must go. ISIS is terrible with burning people in cages and child sex slavery and all... but mostly concerned with ridding themselves of takfir, so the danger to the US is limited. Any instability that comes out of this is Syria's (and maybe Europe's) problem, not ours. Besides, now that ISIS has openly taken on the trappings of a state, they can be easily dealt with if anything goes wrong, unlike those pesky jihadists who are hard to find.

[Joun_Lord]

"Let's fund people to fight the USSR in Afganistan."
"Good idea. Let's look into this Taliban group...."

My history is a bit rusty but I'm relatively sure the Taliban was never supported by Murica. I also fairly sure the Taliban never fought the Sovs considering they plopped out of A-stan's anus like the worlds smelliest shit in the 90s and to the best of my knowledge Reagan and Rocky had already destroyed the USSR with McDonalds, the Star Wars movies and some speech about change.

Now America had supported large numbers of Mujahideen in the 80s to fight the Soviets and atleast some of those fighters would later on evolve into the Taliban (though not all Mujahideen were bad people, some like Ahmad Massoud were pretty decent people) but didn't support the Taliban directly. Well atleast during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. I've heard allegations that the CIA might have had their dick in the Talibans pocket and American definitely was paying Pakistan's ISI who were funding, training, and apparently filling the ranks of the Taliban so theres that.

[K. A. Pital]

"Let's fund people to fight the USSR in Afganistan."
"Good idea. Let's look into this Taliban group...."

My history is a bit rusty but I'm relatively sure the Taliban was never supported by Murica.

The Taliban did not exist at the time, but the Mujahid islamic extremists who would later form the core of the group and later the government were selected by ISI, who saw jihad as a tool to further their own objectives, and funded by the CIA.

May 1979: CIA Begins Working with Hekmatyar and Other Mujaheddin Leaders Chosen by ISI

As the US mobilizes for covert war in Afghanistan (see 1978 and July 3, 1979), a CIA special envoy meets Afghan mujaheddin leaders at Peshawar, Pakistan, near the border to Afghanistan. All of them have been carefully selected by the Pakistani ISI and do not represent a broad spectrum of the resistance movement. One of them is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a drug dealer with little support in Afghanistan, but who is loyal to the ISI. The US will begin working with Hekmatyar and over the next 10 years over half of all US aid to the mujaheddin will go to his faction (see 1983). Hekmatyar is already known as brutal, corrupt, and incompetent. [MCCOY, 2003, PP. 475] His extreme ruthlessness, for instance, his reputation for skinning prisoners alive, is considered a plus, as it is thought he will use that ruthlessness to kill Russians. [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 267-268]

So even it was not known as "Taliban", it was supported, among others. The ruthlessness did not deter the US from support. Later this ruthlessness and Islamic fundamentalism helped the Taliban to ascend to power.

[Thanas]

But: If you still go ahead with supporting the rebels and weakening the regime while knowing about the consequences isn't that at the very least not giving a damn about the consequences or more likely condoning that very likely outcome? I mean, if people tell me "If you do X, chances are it will result in Y" and I go ahead and do X anyway, how doesn't that make the outcome my fault?

There's an ethical difference between doing X and ignoring reports that it will result in Y, and doing X because you intended Y to happen all along.

No, there is not, not when Y is way worse than X. If you flood an entire country to kill one man, for example, the ethical difference is moot because it is so far out of proportion to justify the original intent. And ISIS is infinitely worse than Assad.

[Simon_Jester]

Thanas, to be clear I am going to pick a few items for X and Y.

Suppose X is "sue this fraudulent businessman who cheated you." Something which we would think is actually a good idea, in the normal course of things.

Now, imagine that someone tells you "if you sue this fraudster, the sun will explode." Obviously the sun exploding would be absolutely terrible, worse than just about anything.

Since you are fairly sane, you will probably hear this claim and go "that is ridiculous, the sun will not explode!" You will most likely discount the claim and do what your instincts tell you to do- sue the fraudster. There are innumerable parts of human psychology that all operate in unison here. To the point where ignoring warnings and doing what we would normally do automatically is practically... normal, practically what everyone does.

Now, supposing that you ignored this report that the sun would explode, and the sun actually does explode. What you have literally just said to me is that if the sun actually does explode, you are just as blameworthy if this happened due to you ignoring or not believing a report, as if you had meant for the sun to explode all along.

I mean it, that is literally what you just said- because "it is so far out of proportion to justify the original intent." Your original intent (suing the fraudster) is clearly nowhere near worth the cost of making the sun explode. So ethically it doesn't matter that you rejected the report because you didn't believe it or didn't think it was plausible or assumed there was a mistake... it's just as bad as if you'd wanted the sun to explode in the first place.

See, I get the part where you are very blameworthy if the sun explodes, because there's a lot of blame to go around. But there's a difference between 'very blameworthy' and 'as blameworthy as a man who wants to destroy the world and kill everyone.' One is the act of an overconfident fool; the other is the act of a genocidal madman.
________________________

To bring this back to the specifics of this case- we now have a leak of a report predicting that a radical fundamentalist Islamic state would result from supporting rebels against Assad. We do not have leaked reports predicting that the rebels would win, or that Assad would win- but I would bet money that such reports exist, because it would be incredibly rare for all analysts in the government to agree on anything.

And, as noted above, it is extremely natural, common, and probable for leaders to take a mixed bag of reports predicting different results, and wind up believing the results that attribute good results to what they were going to do anyway. In this case, "what they were going to do anyway" was "help rebels in order to hurt Assad," at a time when Assad was actively using nerve gas to bomb his own cities. A time when on this very website people were jeering at Obama for 'not doing enough' or 'not being serious enough' about the Syrian crisis.

We are within our rights to condemn the string of bad decisions that made the rise of Da'esh so much easier.

We are not within our rights to claim that this string of bad decisions was as unethical and evil as it would have been to deliberately create Da'esh.

[Thanas]

Are you being deliberately dumb now? The only credible rebels with power to threaten Assad were the Islamists. The decision to back them was made. Now you want to argue that suddenly islamist fundies acting like islamist fundies was not entirely foreseeable and the known outcome of, oh, every decision by the US to back radical islamists ever?

If you give a gun to a crazy person, are you not liable for what he does with it if you know him to be crazy? FFS, these were the same groups that bombed US troops and destroyed culture elsewhere. What possible excuse could there be for them not acting like that?

[K. A. Pital]

Except the Sun has been known to explode: funding Islamists in Afghanistan to counter Russia produced the Taliban, funding Islamists in Pakistan to counter India resulted in TORCHLIGHT, a post-WWII genocide easily forgotten because Pakistan was a "Western client". So it was not a matter of ignoring outlandish warnings which nobody thought could come true, but knowing that it happened in the past and could happen again with a high probability.

Thanas is right, that is a bit more malevolent than just "unexpected very low-probability side effect", as the "side" effects of funding radical Islamists were well-known for decades.