The US’ Arming Of IS

Image VIA

So, we’ve seen that, at least by name, IS does have very strong links to the US. They funded and trained al Qaeda, and IS were initially known as al Qaeda in Iraq. But it is not only by name that we can call IS an American invention.

We’ve also seen that by invading Iraq in 2003 they destabilised an already unstable region and caused the anger and resentment that fuelled militant Sunnis. So America can be thanked for the name and the petri dish. But, you’ll be pleased to hear, it gets worse.

Where did you get those lovely shiny guns Mr ISIS?

To understand why, or how, America armed IS we have to understand the fact that the war in Syria is kind of three wars at once:

Assad vs Rebels: a people’s rebellion against Syria’s ruling Assad family. Loads of people didn’t like his regime so they demonstrated (quite peacefully), Assad fought back violently and an armed struggle ensued.

Iran vs Saudi Arabia: these guys have never seen eye to eye, they have beef stretching back hundreds of years. Iran backs Assad and Saudi backs the rebels.

America vs Russia: back at loggerheads, Russia is backing its old mate, Assad, and America is backing the rebels with its old mate Saudi.

Image VIA

In America’s thirst for victory, it gave a load of training and firepower to the anti-Assad rebels. Unfortunately, it turned out that a load of these rebels were actually IS fighters. Ta dah! America has armed IS. Well done.

You might think that the US administration might be recoiling in horror at what they’ve done. But, actually, it all works out pretty neatly for them. They get a threefold return on their investment in IS (whether accidental or not):

IS are attacking people it doesn’t like in the Middle East

They give America an excellent cover story to attack pretty much any Middle Eastern country they fancy

This new shade of terror allows them to build an ever increasingly militarised police force at home and step up unnecessary surveillance.

Win, win, win.

So, in conclusion: OMG, what a mess. If you are totally pro-America you might say something like “they had the best intentions, things just went awry”. But I reckon that’s really pushing the boundaries of good sense.

I tend to float along the middle line: America are greedy and want to rule the world. They will do whatever they want to ensure they remain rich and in power. They are more than happy to crush a few skulls along the way, this time it just got really out of hand, even by their standards.