Warbler knows as well as I do that many on the left will always stick the blame on Islamic attacks on the west. In fact in a round about way warbler tried to blame Iraq for the charllie attacks although unlike some columnists and some on that wing, he despises Islamists for what they are.
Oh it's still a contributing factor Clive. I can appreciate that the likes of yourself, who called the Iraq invasion so catastrophically the wrong way would like to think that this nice neat line has now been drawn, but ISIS is very much on the same geneology line. I'm angry about it because we're the architects through our own stupidity, but now we're in it, we've got to try and do something. The time where we could say sorry and get ourselves out of this mess is gone
Many of the Islamic State fighters are former Saddamists, something which caused the Iraqi army to run (I'll come back to that). This is the supreme irony though, had the Bush/ Blair axis not gone off in pursuit of settling a family vendetta whilst also trying to boost the pension stocks of Dick Cheney, many of these same fighter would now be actively involved in putting down what would be a much smaller rebellion in both Iraq and Syria. Instead they find themselves embracing ISIS
In other words it's too simplistic to point to Belgium, France, or Japan and say there's no connection
What's clearly happened is the initial invasion and the hundreds of thousands who died resulting from it (direct and indirect) has provided a springboard. As EC suggests, is someone who joins ISIS in response to losing his job, his standing in society, and for all we know friends and family really behaving that irrationally? Revenge is a powerful motive and there will be all sorts going on by way of influences in the composition of the ISIS.
Had Saddam been brought in from the cold, he would currently be putting down ISIS using the Republican guard. If they got a toehold in Syria he would probably invade in much the same way as he did Iran when they had the Islamic revolution. Saddam was probably the single most effective squasher of radical Islam in the entire region, and the west removed him
Smart thinking!!!
Instead they spend 10 years and an absolute fortune training and equipping an Iraqi army who ran as soon as ISIS came calling (and in doing so dropped a whole load of weapons which fell into ISIS hands). It's this which also gives the lie to the Hague/ Blair/ Hillary notion that had we equipped the so-called moderate opposition in Syria, that they would have prevailed. Or to put it more bluntly, like they have done in Libya you mean?
I don't think you can divorce the invasion, and prosecution of a war in Iraq with the growth of ISIS Clive.
I think you can argue that these are murderous fascists in a western context. I think you can also argue that they'd have come to the fore anyway as they've always existed. I think you can equally argue however that the invasion of Iraq has helped fuel grievance which if it hadn't happened would have ensured they were smaller in number, and faced a much more formidable governmental structure in Saddam
It's this link that's important.
Sure they'll murder anyone, but that doesn't necessarily prove that much other than the fact that extreme Islam is barbaric. We know that. Were it not for the invasion of Iraq, I personally doubt very much that ISIS would have got off the ground.
Grasshopper is talking a lot of sense here in terms of the inept tactics that the west are using and the poor strategic decisions we make based largely in an over-estimation of democracy. We need to blind eye Assad as by far the less of two evils, and recognise that huge swathes of the Syrian population support him (as Libyans did Gadaffi who right now I reckon they'd rather have back).
