• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former CIA officer says US policies helped create IS

"I think the United States is one of the key creators of this organization. The United States did not plan the formation of ISIS, but its destructive interventions in the Middle East and the war in Iraq were the basic causes of the birth of ISIS.” Ok, why would this be agenda driven. His observation is precisely what we've witnessed, and, what China and Russia both warned would be the result of US intervention/interference in the region, and particularly in Syria.
 
Gee; is that like when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and then Reagan gave arms to him to defeat the Iranians?

Actually, president Assad was a stabilising force in Syria. And prior to Qatar, Saudi and US support for the terrorist groups at work to destroy him, there wasn't any of this.
 
(chuckle)

Here's what you said:

What I said was: we'll start with this level, and then I proceeded to blow your your entire argument out of the water and I used the CIA's own records; on their own site to do it.

Sorry dude, you need to read up. Get something better going and then we can talk.

:doh

Dude. You claimed we installed the Shah. We did no such thing. We enabled an already installed Shah in dismissing one of his Prime Ministers. The Sources YOU Cited Confirmed This.

You initially claimed:

jet57 said:
pur problems started over there in 1953 when the CIA installed the Shah.

A claim which was and remains ridiculous. Not only do our problems predate the event you are attempting to reference, but many of them (including the one under discussion) do not flow draw significant history from it.
 
No; pur problems started over there in 1953 when the CIA installed the Shah. The invasion of Iraq was a waste of time, money and lives and created a boiler plate for jihadists and of course ISIS has a huge presence there now. GW Bush really blew for it for us.

By 2008 victory had been achieved in Iraq. BHO threw that away. In addition, he missed the window for effective action in Syria (early 2012) and erased his own Red Line. Iraq abdication and Syria hesitation ran together to form ISIS.
 
"I think the United States is one of the key creators of this organization. The United States did not plan the formation of ISIS, but its destructive interventions in the Middle East and the war in Iraq were the basic causes of the birth of ISIS.” Ok, why would this be agenda driven. His observation is precisely what we've witnessed, and, what China and Russia both warned would be the result of US intervention/interference in the region, and particularly in Syria.

:roll Dude. Not Two Weeks Ago you were claiming that:

Montecresto said:
More evidence has been entered into the files of public record that terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the al-Nusra Front are completely controlled by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies....

and now you are hopping on a narrative that:

Montecresto said:
The United States did not plan the formation of ISIS, but its destructive interventions in the Middle East and the war in Iraq were the basic causes of the birth of ISIS...

You have zero consistency whatsoever except this: whatever allows you to blame the United States, you will leap on. Typical.
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Read more @:
Former CIA officer says US policies helped create IS

Great interview, with a man that knows a lot about the region. He states that the US does have some responsibility in the creation of ISIS. It also states that Turkey and the US at some point (if not have already) are going to have to accept that Assad is going to stay in power. It also goes over how the Kurds will win some cultural, social, and political autonomy if not full autonomy in the region.

It's not like he hasn't got it all wrong before.

Graham E. Fuller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_E._FullerWikipedia

n 1987, Fuller was identified as the author of a 1985 study that according to the New York Times was "instrumental" in the decision of the Reagan Administration to secretly contact leaders in Iran and "eventually led to the covert sale of United States weapons to Tehran in what became the Iran–Contra affair."[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The document suggested that the Soviet Union was in position to influence Iran and that the United States might gain influence by selling arms to the country.[SUP][14][/SUP] According to Fuller, he had revised his opinion as the situation developed, but though he had told Government officials, a written report on the change was not circulated.[SUP][14][/SUP] Fuller denied that the original "think piece" he had prepared with Howard Teicher was "tailored ... to support Administration policy."[SUP][14][/SUP] [h=3][/h]


Graham E. Fuller is an American author and political analyst, specializing in Islamic extremism. Formerly vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council, he also ...‎Career - ‎Works - ‎References - ‎External links
 
:roll Dude. Not Two Weeks Ago you were claiming that:



and now you are hopping on a narrative that:



You have zero consistency whatsoever except this: whatever allows you to blame the United States, you will leap on. Typical.

There is no inconsistency in my position that IS advancements in the Middle East have been enabled and facilitated by US policy there. As to Paul, he's the one in the unfortunate predicament of having pointed out that US policies in Syria have left IS a beneficiary, while now advocating a military campaign to destroy them. And the other statement you quoted, was in parenthesise for a reason. They weren't my words, but a quote. So CP, to recap, I continue to hold the US responsible for facilitating a group we now will apparently have to fight. Controlling groups does not equate to creating groups. Nice try, again.
 
There is no inconsistency in my position that IS advancements in the Middle East have been enabled and facilitated by US policy there.

You initially argued in favor of "active enablement", only to instead later pick up on an argument that rejected acted enablement in favor of "served as a precondition of". You cannot argue both For and Against X and remain consistent.

As to Paul, he's the one in the unfortunate predicament of having pointed out that US policies in Syria have left IS a beneficiary, while now advocating a military campaign to destroy them.

:shrug: well he's late to the party, but on those counts as you describe he is correct. US refusal to

And the other statement you quoted, was in parenthesise for a reason. They weren't my words, but a quote.

A quote which you then stated was:

montecresto said:
His observation is precisely what we've witnessed

So... which is it, monty? You agree, or disagree?

So CP, to recap, I continue to hold the US responsible for facilitating a group we now will apparently have to fight.

Facilitating? No - that is a term that involves active enablement. We failed to stop them when it would have been easier to do so. So we allowed a problem to fester because we weren't willing to take action, and now we will have to take greater action. Passive enablement, perhaps you could argue for. But that is not facilitation.
 
:doh

Dude. You claimed we installed the Shah. We did no such thing. We enabled an already installed Shah in dismissing one of his Prime Ministers. The Sources YOU Cited Confirmed This.

You initially claimed:



A claim which was and remains ridiculous. Not only do our problems predate the event you are attempting to reference, but many of them (including the one under discussion) do not flow draw significant history from it.

oh please; you were wrong.
 
Actually, president Assad was a stabilising force in Syria. And prior to Qatar, Saudi and US support for the terrorist groups at work to destroy him, there wasn't any of this.

Assad was, you are right. His problem came when an uprising began and then he gassed some people. Private Saudi citizens have been funneling great deals of money into teh sectarians and now of corse we have ISIS.
 
oh please; you were wrong.

If you are going to have to retreat to a series of "uh-uh!!!"s, then it's pointless to continue with you. I laid out multiple reasons for why your original argument was fail, you attempted to ignore all of them but one, and then the sources you cited disagreed with your original claim. Let me know if you ever manage to master that 1920<1953, or that Sunni =/= Shia.
 
It's not like he hasn't got it all wrong before.

Graham E. Fuller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_E._FullerWikipedia

n 1987, Fuller was identified as the author of a 1985 study that according to the New York Times was "instrumental" in the decision of the Reagan Administration to secretly contact leaders in Iran and "eventually led to the covert sale of United States weapons to Tehran in what became the Iran–Contra affair."[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The document suggested that the Soviet Union was in position to influence Iran and that the United States might gain influence by selling arms to the country.[SUP][14][/SUP] According to Fuller, he had revised his opinion as the situation developed, but though he had told Government officials, a written report on the change was not circulated.[SUP][14][/SUP] Fuller denied that the original "think piece" he had prepared with Howard Teicher was "tailored ... to support Administration policy."[SUP][14][/SUP] [h=3][/h]


Graham E. Fuller is an American author and political analyst, specializing in Islamic extremism. Formerly vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council, he also ...‎Career - ‎Works - ‎References - ‎External links

:lamo BwaAAH-hahahaha!

Now THAT'S funny, right there. :mrgreen:
 
If you are going to have to retreat to a series of "uh-uh!!!"s, then it's pointless to continue with you. I laid out multiple reasons for why your original argument was fail, you attempted to ignore all of them but one, and then the sources you cited disagreed with your original claim. Let me know if you ever manage to master that 1920<1953, or that Sunni =/= Shia.

Look dude: my original argument was quite correct and then I proved it.
 
You initially argued in favor of "active enablement", only to instead later pick up on an argument that rejected acted enablement in favor of "served as a precondition of". You cannot argue both For and Against X and remain consistent.



:shrug: well he's late to the party, but on those counts as you describe he is correct. US refusal to



A quote which you then stated was:



So... which is it, monty? You agree, or disagree?



Facilitating? No - that is a term that involves active enablement. We failed to stop them when it would have been easier to do so. So we allowed a problem to fester because we weren't willing to take action, and now we will have to take greater action. Passive enablement, perhaps you could argue for. But that is not facilitation.

The gentlemen qualified his statement by pointing out that the US didn't create ISIS, but that our actions in the region have been beneficial to them. And indeed they have. So I do argue facilitation. And not just on the Syrian front. The removal of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and perhaps Assad has given room, and not only for ISIS, but other militant Islamist to flourish. Have you noticed what a fine mess Libya is in?

And I don't consider Paul late to the party. Considering that he would have preferred that the US wasn't advancing policies that end up being beneficial, even supportive to them in the first place. When the aforementioned individuals were in power, these militant Islamists raising hell in Iraq, Syria and Libya, were nowhere around, or very incognito. They certainly weren't enjoying the freedom to bloom that were now seeing.

But none of that matters, as with most, but not all, you will continue to support the policies that the analyst in the op finds destructive. Which is why I suppose you're here criticising him.
 
Last edited:
Assad was, you are right. His problem came when an uprising began and then he gassed some people. Private Saudi citizens have been funneling great deals of money into teh sectarians and now of corse we have ISIS.

Yes well, it was never proven that he was responsible for the gas. And it makes no sense that he would. For one thing, at the time he enjoyed 70% support from Syrian's. Gassing them would not advance his purpose. Gassing his own people would make Putins support more difficult, and gassing his people would be handing the US a green light for military action, that he most certainly didn't want. The UK ended up pulling there support. Hillary Clinton failed in all three of her attempts to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria, Obama could not get authorisation from congress, and, 70% of Americans were against it.

You're right that Saudis and Qatar too, are supporting the terrorists working to overthrow president Assad. And then IS as pointed out by the CIA official in the op, has been emboldened by our policies there. So why anyone would want to see more US policy in the region is a mystery.
 
This article is a good explanation of the causes of the current fighting. It suggests to me that it would not have helped if the USA remained and continued to support al-Maliki. It also suggests that fighting off ISIS will not resolve the ongoing Shiite-Sunni conflict, an inclusive government that ends discrimination is requried.

"...The groundwork for today's problems began almost as soon as that last American convoy left in 2011. Sunni lawmakers protested the rounding up of many of their aides and security guards, and the country's vice president -- top Sunni leader Tariq al-Hashimi -- faced arrest and later fled the country.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to usher in a political era of inclusion and reconciliation. His critics say those first days after the American departure were a signal of opposite intentions that have continued to this day.

The Sunni minority that had ruled Iraq via the iron fist of Saddam Hussein was at the political and social mercy of al-Maliki's Shia-dominated government. Today, they say, "inclusiveness" never materialized, Sunnis have been marginalized and resentment has festered in a divide-and-conquer political climate. As one local put it, "It's like if you're against us, you're a terrorist and we'll arrest you."

Why Iraq is in turmoil

This resentment, aided by the violent government shutdown of Sunni protest camps, provided an opening for the al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to move into the Sunni heartland of Anbar Province in force. Al Qaeda is a beast that feasts on discontent and in Anbar there is no shortage of sustenance....

In 2006 the Americans convinced -- and paid -- Sunni tribal and religious leaders to fight the hardliners, with great success. But Sunni grievances never went away and some in Anbar see ISIS as comrades-in-arms against an al-Maliki government viewed as an oppressor of Sunnis. Other Sunnis see al-Maliki as the lesser of two evils -- they don't like how they're treated, but like even less the ISIS brand of hard-line, brutal "governance".

Al-Maliki has more than once termed the various fights and stand-offs in Ramadi and Fallujah as a fight against "al Qaeda", but it's not that simple.

The Sunni sense of being under the heel of a sectarian government, of being cut out of the running of their country, failing to share in growing oil revenues, has nothing to do with al Qaeda and won't evaporate once ISIS is forced from Ramadi and Fallujah.

The Americans aren't coming back to help out with boots on the ground, but they are giving other support -- offering drones, missiles, aircraft and other assistance.

But this isn't a battle to be won militarily. Sunnis -- many of whom have yet to get used to no longer running the country -- say they want to be part of the system that was meant to be "inclusive" but has, they feel, been anything but..........."
Inside Iraq: Two years after U.S. withdrawal, are things worse than ever? - CNN.com
 
While I find it hard to disagree with his assessment, his choice of words belies an agenda not the least of which is some mild propaganda of his own.


By whose standard are these interventions "destructive"?

Bombing a nation that was not a threat (Iraq) is considered destructive by most impartial observers.
 
Bombing a nation that was not a threat (Iraq) is considered destructive by most impartial observers.

Yes, they should be obviously viewed as destructive by all reasonable people. But patronising individuals, defending bad policy, overrides reason.
 
Yes well, it was never proven that he was responsible for the gas. And it makes no sense that he would. For one thing, at the time he enjoyed 70% support from Syrian's. Gassing them would not advance his purpose. Gassing his own people would make Putins support more difficult, and gassing his people would be handing the US a green light for military action, that he most certainly didn't want. The UK ended up pulling there support. Hillary Clinton failed in all three of her attempts to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria, Obama could not get authorisation from congress, and, 70% of Americans were against it.

You're right that Saudis and Qatar too, are supporting the terrorists working to overthrow president Assad. And then IS as pointed out by the CIA official in the op, has been emboldened by our policies there. So why anyone would want to see more US policy in the region is a mystery.

... you have a very cartoony way of looking at the United States' role in the world.

Most of the conflict and tension that drives war in the Middle East is a result of the actions and desires of the people who live there. War is coming whether the United States is there or not. We have a right to be there because our substantial foreign investment in the region gives us a skin in the game.
 
... you have a very cartoony way of looking at the United States' role in the world.

Most of the conflict and tension that drives war in the Middle East is a result of the actions and desires of the people who live there. War is coming whether the United States is there or not. We have a right to be there because our substantial foreign investment in the region gives us a skin in the game.

Well me and the CIA official in the op.
 
... we have lots of officials. Most of them will say anything for attention.

Yeah, that's it. Anything to say about the op, or did you just show up to criticise me?
 
Yeah, that's it. Anything to say about the op, or did you just show up to criticise me?

He's arguing that a tangible American presence in the Middle East raises opposition from people who would like to see the Western influence gone so they can can displace it with their own (usually circa 12th century) vision of how society should be.

You seem to be a fan of stability based on your willingness to indulge Assad's dictatorship on the grounds that he brings some semblance of the rule of law to his society. Well, both the British Empire and the United States brought stability like that (even better, with a greater emphasis on human rights and democracy than Assad had ever shown) on a super massive scale. Our foreign investment and energy demands provided great opportunity for native populations to channel their energies into construction and production, rather than fight sectarian wars over the few easily accessible resources their region had before Western technology raised their living standards to unimagined heights. Our diplomacy and the threat of force ends wars and genocides before they start. For every several years where we have to endure the results of our mistakes and failures (like the Arab Spring), there have been decades of peace and vigorous economic development. King Arthur became a legendary figure because the man behind the legend brought about twenty years of peace between native Romano-Britons and the Saxon colonists. There are places in the world where the United States has brought seventy years of near uninterrupted peace.

United States' influence on the world isn't simple or one-dimensional.
 
He's arguing that a tangible American presence in the Middle East raises opposition from people who would like to see the Western influence gone so they can can displace it with their own (usually circa 12th century) vision of how society should be.

You seem to be a fan of stability based on your willingness to indulge Assad's dictatorship on the grounds that he brings some semblance of the rule of law to his society. Well, both the British Empire and the United States brought stability like that (even better, with a greater emphasis on human rights and democracy than Assad had ever shown) on a super massive scale. Our foreign investment and energy demands provided great opportunity for native populations to channel their energies into construction and production, rather than fight sectarian wars over the few easily accessible resources their region had before Western technology raised their living standards to unimagined heights. Our diplomacy and the threat of force ends wars and genocides before they start. For every several years where we have to endure the results of our mistakes and failures (like the Arab Spring), there have been decades of peace and vigorous economic development. King Arthur became a legendary figure because the man behind the legend brought about twenty years of peace between native Romano-Britons and the Saxon colonists. There are places in the world where the United States has brought seventy years of near uninterrupted peace.

United States' influence on the world isn't simple or one-dimensional.

So I appreciate your position there. But respectfully disagree. While there have been policies that avoided war, I agree with the official in the op, the one criticised for having been retired from the CIA for 25 years now.
 
Back
Top Bottom