« "All these units have now received Army numbers" - Press Conference Transcript of Chairman Of Donetsk National Republic posted by Walrus. | Main | The Fall of Tabqa Air Base »

27 August 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


ISIS is the perfect camel-nose-in-the-tent event for direct US military action against Syria.

Prior to airstrikes, a no-fly zone over ISIS areas, then perhaps a denial to Syrian ground forces of any access to the area.


Patrick Bahzad

Send me an e-mail address. I have interesting news about Jerusalem. pl


ISIS is hardly a failure of our foreign policy. It is instead, a creation by the current, dominant faction burrowed into the military, the foreign policy establishment, and the intelligence bureaucracies. This faction constitutes a new Washington Consensus whose ultimate goal is the isolation and the dismantling of the Russian Federation. The new consensus unites what were once called neo-conservaqtives and liberal internationalists around a new vision that says world domination is both possible, but essential. The belief is that the right mixture of soft and hard power will lead to the internal destabilization of the current Russian regime based on a distinctive Russian identity. The result will be it dismantling into entities that can be more easily managed with the consequent asset stripping as a primary goal.

Once the Russian initiative has been completed, then other less difficult problems, can be solved. And then, we will be at The End of History.

Remember, soft power is not so soft when they take the form of color revolutions as are now taking place in Syria and Ukraine. They start with trained and paid demonstrators, then snipers on the rooftops, then the coup. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Here is a link documenting John McCain's meetings with individuals that would later be known as ISIS.

And here is another one on what could be a Russian Federation read on the internal threat of ISIS.


“because witnessing a terror campaign unfold in your country isn't something … you should also realize that any such campaign would have drastic consequences in terms of civil and public liberties in the USA”

I agree and this is the threat to the US.

"ISIS serves as a magnet for most Djihadis now worldwide, so you got them "cornered" in a smaller area ... Let's turn it into a kill zone and see what happens."

Didn't we see a variation of that theme in the Sunni triangle in '07-08?

The beaver


Looks like everyone is in a jam:
Latest from the UN:

"The statement did not specify which armed group is holding the peacekeepers. Various Syrian rebel groups, including the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front, have been fighting the Syrian military near the Golan Heights. On Wednesday, opposition fighters captured a Golan Heights crossing point on the disputed border between Syria and Israel."

According to Matt R Lee from ICP:
"an armed group in the vicinity of Al Qunaytirah.. in addition, another eighty-one UNDOF peacekeepers are currently being restricted to their positions in the vicinity of Ar Ruwayhinah and Burayqah,”



"Here is a link documenting John McCain's meetings with individuals that would later be known as ISIS" In order for your conspiracy to work one would have to believe that McCain and Obama are partners in this. Do you believe that? pl


re "McCain and Obama are partners"

I don't buy that McCain acted a stalking horse for Obama vis a vis ISIS. That's rather implausible.

McCain would absolutely do something like that on his own, and probably with greater enthusiasm iof he knew Obama opposed it.

As head of IRI McCain has, at least as I perceive it, conducted a what amounted to a neo-con counter-foreign policy throughout the Obama administration.

At times during the first term it became so blatant that people started asking whether McCain had noticed that he lost the election against Obama.

I can see McCain colluding with folks like Nuland and her hubby in particular, but with Obama? No way.


Agree with your cynicism. I define existential threats as ones to existence, which overrides almost all other considerations. Politicians like to claim existential as a justification for shortsighted policies.

cville reader

Maybe a better question to ask is who is actually running our foreign policy? It doesn't seem as if Obama is-- he only seems to be reacting.

Have SST readers been following this story?


Patrick Bahzad

Fred: i wouldn't see it necessarily as a variation of the Surge of 07-08, because that was meant mostly to drive a wedge between Sunni heartland (or Triangle as you mentioned) and the greater baghdad area.
Besides most of Al-Qaeda djihadis in Iraq had been wiped out at that time most of them as early as 2004 in the two assaults on Fallujah(and Zarkawi was killed in 2006).
Besides, in 2007-2008, most foreign fighters wanting to go for Djihad would do so in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Later came Libya and most of all Syria, now they're spilling over into Iraq as well.


The only people that ISIS is an existential threat to are the current power brokers/mongers around the world (D.C. etc) who, IMO, should be pushed aside anyway, "crazies" with weapons or not. The current currency/monetary systems need to collapse as well since they are one of the major root problems of our time. We are long past the point where reward systems based on the ignorance of past centuries rule our decision making.

Time for reality to be driven home to people and the human community to grow up.


I think this POV would be more accurate. Obama is not running the show. He is being run. McCain as well? My vague thesis is meant to raise a point and a question: the point, there is a deep state, and who and what are the goals of the deep state.



I believe the "surge" was the label Bush, Patraeus and company applied to the circumstances which included the effort of the US to convince the Sunni tribes in the region to fight Al-Qaeda elements - along with the addition of more US troops being deployed back into Iraq. They essentially credited the combat of US troops with the elimination of AQI wile discrediting the tribes. The US and the Maliki regime promptly betrayed those tribes and the leaders (some of whom are now advising/leading ISIS) while at the same time incorporating the "Sons of Iraq", i.e. the Shia militias, into the Iraqi army. That later army has subsequently disintegrated when in combat with ISIS. The battles in Fallujah you mention did not eliminate that AQ threat. It certainly did not defeat the ideology of the religious movement that is the foundation of AQ and now ISIS.

Patrick Bahzad

You're absolutely right as to the timeline and events. I was referring more to the difference between Surge and current situation from point of view of foreign dighters joining in the fight. In Iraq there wasnt such a large share of foreigners from the West.
Fundamentally though, the "Surge" was just the exit strategy Bush and Cheney were looking for to get an honourable way out of the mess they had created. The Surge gave the American public the impression things were getting better, and in particular the importance of AQ elements were largely over-estimated in that period in order to give the American citizens the impression the US forces were fighting mostly AQ in Iraq. Truth is, AQI had only about 800 to 1000 fighters in Iraq at the time and between 2 and 10 % max. of the attacks perpetrated during that period (2007-2008) can be attributed to AQI, which by the way is not exactly the same as ISIS.
But you're right about the sequence of events that followed the so-called Surge and that have led to a resurgence of djihadi groups like ISIS in Iraq.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad