Turkey Has Proof of US/ISIS Cooperation

[Smitty-48]

I am also not certain ISIS (as such) was inevitable.

They only started gaining traction and securing a global following after taking over government controlled cities. Without those wins, ISIS doesn't get momentum.

It could very well be that ISIS doesn't happen without the withdraw coinciding with neighboring civil conflicts.

The American people voted to withdraw, Obama ran on it, it was the centerpiece of his campaign, he had a mandate to withdraw, it was going to happen, he gave the Pentagon two years to do it, he actually wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq, but the Shia in Baghdad said no, so he had to get them all out of there.

Just as the last of them were getting out, that is when the war in Syria started, there was never a point, when there was a large US force in Iraq, standing in the way of ISIS, even if you had decided to stand in the path of ISIS, you would have been doing it with a handful of troops, and they would have been driven out of the Anbar along with the Iraqis.

[Okeefenokee]

That's the point. In our timeline, the Syrian civil war does not expand to a global ISIS if US troops are in Iraq. When US troops do leave Iraq, something else happens, but not ISIS.

You were fighting ISIS the whole time, AQI, ISIS; same thing, Zarqawi is ISIS, al-Baghdadi is AQI, it's the same Sunni Jihadists/Baathists, the whole time, you never defeated them, they never went away, you're creating a fasle dichotomy; AQI v ISIS, distinction without a difference, they were just waiting you out, because they knew you were leaving, and they were going to fill the vacuum when you did, in 2009, or 2010, or 2011, you were still fighing them as you withdrew, there was no actual point where they went away, and then came back, that's a false assertion, in order for the Pentagon to prop up the Surge as being a "success".

It is outlandish to say that the Iraqi Sunni insurgency was the same thing as a conventional seize and hold Sunni army. Not even in the same ballpark. Two different play books. No where close to being the same thing.

[Okeefenokee]

I am also not certain ISIS (as such) was inevitable.

They only started gaining traction and securing a global following after taking over government controlled cities. Without those wins, ISIS doesn't get momentum.

It could very well be that ISIS doesn't happen without the withdraw coinciding with neighboring civil conflicts.

The American people voted to withdraw, Obama ran on it, it was the centerpiece of his campaign, he had a mandate to withdraw, it was going to happen, he gave the Pentagon two years to do it, he actually wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq, but the Shia in Baghdad said no, so he had to get them all out of there.

Just as the last of them were getting out, that is when the war in Syria started, there was never a point, when there was a large US force in Iraq, standing in the way of ISIS, even if you had decided to stand in the path of ISIS, you would have been doing it with a handful of troops, and they would have been driven out of the Anbar along with the Iraqis.

All you're pointing out is the failure of Obama to hold Iraq where Bush never did. Not that I'm arguing for perpetual occupation of Iraq, but saying Obama left Iraq because he couldn't stay is not an endorsement. It's a failure, seeing the result.

[Smitty-48]

It is outlandish to say that the Iraqi Sunni insurgency was the same thing as a conventional seize and hold Sunni army. Not even in the same ballpark. Two different play books. No where close to being the same thing.

ISIS is not and never was a conventional seize and hold army, all they did was drive into the Anbar with SVBIED, and the Iraqis ran away, there was no conventional operation, they took by terrorist attack, they didn't roll in there with tanks, the Iraqis just left the tanks and ran away. But since there wouldn't have been enough US troops to do anything about it, in 2011 when this all went down, a US force would not have made any difference, the Iraqis would have ran away and left your troops hanging in the wind, the US troops would have to withdraw with the Iraqis, to avoid being overrun, because by this point, most of your troops were already long gone.

[Smitty-48]

All you're pointing out is the failure of Obama to hold Iraq where Bush never did. Not that I'm arguing for perpetual occupation of Iraq, but saying Obama left Iraq because he couldn't stay is not an endorsement. It's a failure, seeing the result.

Where did I ever "endorse" Obama? I said he couldn't stop the Sunni AQI/ISIS from contesting the Anbar and waging a perpetual insugency against the Iraqi regime in Baghdad, so he was right to execute the mandate which the American people gave him to withdraw, sooner rather than later, because delaying the inevitable ceding of Iraq to whomever, would be a pointless exercise in wasting blood and treasure, as it was going to happen anyways, and so no point in killing anymore Americans, just to hold onto it for a little longer, and no way to stop ISIS from taking the Anbar, since they didn't make their move, until almost all US forces had already withdrawn.

You're such an Obama hater apparently, that you're willing to make yourself out to be a fucktarded moron with that idiotic post, just so you can call him a failure? lol.

[Okeefenokee]

It is outlandish to say that the Iraqi Sunni insurgency was the same thing as a conventional seize and hold Sunni army. Not even in the same ballpark. Two different play books. No where close to being the same thing.

ISIS is not and never was a conventional seize and hold army, all they did was drive into the Anbar with SVBIED, and the Iraqis ran away, there was no conventional operation, they took by terrorist attack, they didn't roll in there with tanks, the Iraqis just left the tanks and ran away. But since there wouldn't have been enough US troops to do anything about it, in 2011 when this all went down, a US force would not have made any difference, the Iraqis would have ran away and left your troops hanging in the wind, the US troops would have to withdraw with the Iraqis, to avoid being overrun, because by this point, most of your troops were already long gone.

Bull. Shit.

ISIL wouldn't have taken a square inch of ground from an army having spent the past five years wishing there was still any fighting left in Iraq. With cocks as hard as concrete, every single ISIL goat fucker would have been put down like a scythe clearing the fields. You're out of you mind first stating that ISIS was never a conventional force, and in the same breath stating that US troops would retreat from them. Fuck off with that noise.

Kurds have been mopping the floor with them for years, and you suppose that the strongest army in human history would shirk. Fuck off with that noise. You forget that a couple operators and some stateless militias have been pushing them back mile after mile? You think ISIS could invade Iraq under Saddam? How the fuck could that ragtag bunch of goat fuckers stand up the army that wiped out an army they couldn't hold a candle too?

[Smitty-48]

Bull. Shit.

ISIL wouldn't have taken a square inch of ground from an army having spent the past five years wishing there was still any fighting left in Iraq. With cocks as hard as concrete, every single ISIL goat fucker would have been put down like a scythe clearing the fields. You're out of you mind first stating that ISIS was never a conventional force, and in the same breath stating that US troops would retreat from them. Fuck off with that noise.

Kurds have been mopping the floor with them for years, and you suppose that the strongest army in human history would shirk. Fuck off with that noise. You forget that a couple operators and some stateless militias have been pushing them back mile after mile? You think ISIS could invade Iraq under Saddam? How the fuck could that ragtag bunch of goat fuckers stand up the army that wiped out an army they couldn't hold a candle too?

A fucktarded moron blah-blah-blah's what? What gibberish is this? Did you just take a retard pill in the last five minutes, shitbird?

Hey, breath into a bag to calm down, you hysterical fuckin' pussy, we'll just wait until you've composed yourself, faggot.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The American people voted to withdraw, Obama ran on it, it was the centerpiece of his campaign, he had a mandate to withdraw, it was going to happen, he gave the Pentagon two years to do it, he actually wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq, but the Shia in Baghdad said no, so he had to get them all out of there.

Just as the last of them were getting out, that is when the war in Syria started, there was never a point, when there was a large US force in Iraq, standing in the way of ISIS, even if you had decided to stand in the path of ISIS, you would have been doing it with a handful of troops, and they would have been driven out of the Anbar along with the Iraqis.

The withdraw from Iraq allowed the Syrian civil war which could then bounce back into Iraq... fine, but you were just arguing that the Syrian civil war happens no matter what, and thus, American troops couldn't stop ISIS from growing.

Setting aside the mandate, since it doesn't matter here, the question is, "how do you get an ISIS if the US maintains an occupying force in Iraq."

And we aren't even addressing whether US meddling in the Syrian conflict help to perpetuate it. It is possible Assad just puts the but on and mops up the rebels before any apocalyptic cult can take off and start claiming to be a Caliphate.

There are a couple of places to be critical of the administration beyond the withdraw from Iraq.

[ssu]

So Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and who was the Iraqi division of al-Qaeda is somebody else now, as Al-Baghdadi was announced as leader of the ISI on 16 May 2010 and then in June 2014 promoted himself to be the Caliph. Somehow the guy and his backers aren't the same as few years ago.

Seems that anything from the lurid line "Obama-created-ISIS" gets some people mad here.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Was that directed at my post?

I think that is completely reasonable.