what could have the US done before they invaded was looked at the weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam was one who killed civilians and had to go and I can not defend that person. But what could have been done differently was understanding the delicate balance in the region and understand what bringing a hard line Shiite prime minister would do. Many knowledgeable Arabs had predicted this would happen. They did not let Sunni soldiers recruit, there were less government jobs for Sunni people and there was an extreme hatred for the American placed government and system because there was real discrimination. If sensible governance had been placed many of these soldiers would have been part of the Iraqi army.
The amount of information gathered in a war has to be more then what is the army strength but what are the political weaknesses and plans made to balance the new government. There was up rest in Syria after the Iraqi invasion when the extremists fled to Syria as you said. There should have been a proper plan coming in on how to stop the terrorists from dispersing and affecting the surrounding areas, I think as a military man you agree containing your enemy is part of your objective
Now coming to Syria, the point remains if the UN went in after the US intervention to destroy chemical weapons which were used against the Syrian people because they could be used against American allies in the region, why did they not care about the conventional military of Syria butchering the civilians. That again led to people being radicalized.
And I think i have been civil and have given proper logic to back my argument that comment was quite uncalled for. the last comment was very childish and I did not expect it from you Gary. I did not blame the US without logic nor did I go on a rant but spoke because I know what people in the region feel.
i did address your concern, i dont know why you think I ignored your point. Maybe you just read my statement in the end and chalk it to i am ranting.
Ok, i try to be clear, basically what i was saying is the ISIS growth does not have anything to do with the Iraqi power vacumn that created by US invading Iraq. Why?
I am not gonna pretend sunshrine up my arse and denied outright there were no powr vacumn, there are, indeed and US sees it after they disbanded the Iraqi government and Iraqi Military in 2004.
That did boost the ISIS (Known as AQI BACK THEN) but that is not the reason why ISIS is ISIS now, no sir.
Back then after the US realise what they have done and seeing how AQI growth, we know we need to crub this somehow and from then on, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the US force in the middle east is said to have tasked with a direct action mission to find Zarqari and put a stop to his AQI, we offer the same bounty 25 millions on zarqari head as OBL and in those 3 years we reduced AQI capability to next to nothing in Iraq. And eventually we actually kill Zarqari in summer of 2006, thats about finished the AQI, by that standard AQI should not ever could turn into ISIS now, but the fact that we can see a chante from AQI to ISIS itself is the work of one man. That's
Abu Bakr Al Bathdadi.
In syria, It's not like US don't want a military intervention in Syria but Russian would veto such a call, and US have been exhausted all option aside from attacking Syria by itself, but let face it, without UN support, that would just be a moot point, Syria is not Iraq, and we also have to fight in Afghanistan plus jus got out of Iraq, and UN won't go in as China and Russia would veto such a move.
In come al-Baghdadi, he was nursing the wound from being kicked out of Iraq in 2009 and now, as Al-Baghdadi know one thing, and one thing only, without pissing off US, if they launch a conventional attack toward Syria and Iraq, chances are they will not be stopped as US would not have ground to, plus the UN is divided within Syria, it was a perfect breeding place for ISIS. On the other hand, all the conventional military power of Iraqi force was destroyed during the 2003 invasion, and during the rebuild, the Iraqi force was trained to deal with insurgence, like the past 9 years. Hence, the command in Iraq were not prepared for a convention attack. Hence losing a long stretch of land to ISIS.
That was why ISIS is ISIS now, I do know people in Iraq too and I have been working intelligence during 2005/2006 in the middle east. All my information are either documented or I saw first hand.
About that statement, indeed most of those radical group are created because US foreign policy in ME, I am just stating the obvious
