[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a clever way to look at it.

You're making R Flair look like a fucking dunce in this thread and it's wonderful.

However, I don't think it's accurate to cast the USA as cultivating ISIS victories or benefiting strategically from ISIS in any big-picture way. ISIS is an immense force for instability across the entire region, and instability and unpredictability like that are bad for business. For example, tens of thousands of refugees floating to Italy from the ruins of Libya contributes to the instability of the European economy, whose crash would be devastating to the US, including the US elite.

EU masters clearly like importing refugees for some reason. Deliberate importation of domestic security threats seems to benefit authoritarians. It's not like there was a shortage of people wanting to flood European borders before this conflict; the important thing is that they are being allowed entry.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's also a stretch to claim this administration was able to plan or mastermind the current trajectory of things in Syria. If that were the case, you wouldn't have had Obama threatening Assad over the use of chemical weapons and then completely reneging on it. That was a blunder no matter how you look at it. Many knew the factions that were responsible for the insurgency in Iraq (many of the fighters came in from Syria) would go out of control once we left, but I don't think anybody predicted that they would come up with something like ISIS that has mass appeal to Muslims.

Didn't this follow the change in Russian footing on Syria? I read this as Obama backing down from an even more aggressive stance with respect to destabilizing Syria when Russia started investing in the conflict, pulling back to just airstriking Syrian forces, but you might be able to prove that perception wrong if my timeline is messed up.

As for stretches -- I don't think it's a stretch to suspect that people providing arms, training, and logistical support to a rebel force in a region already rendered lawless by earlier interference might have intended for said force to succeed. ISIS may exceed their wildest expectations but this is a tried-and-true formula. It will be used to justify another US invasion and occupation, which you are correct will not benefit the United States of America unless we go full Genghis, but there are plenty of foreigners who will benefit and they have a distressingly firm grip on the policy of the United States of America. That's not even mentioning the huge money in defense and surveillance (booz allen, raytheon etc sure, but don't forget every single company in Silicon Valley) that stand to benefit. There are a lot of people and dollars foreign and domestic on the side of the further looting of American coffers in the guise of another dogshit war.