ISIS

[Dill]

(11-11-2016, 04:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I agree a Saudi or Iranian controlled Syria would be better for US interests than the continuation of ISIS.  Saudia Arabia has supplied and funded ISIS.  Iran supported the al Maliki Iraqi government which led to a sectarian civil war.  Both have played a part in the creation of ISIS as part of their Sunni/Shia proxy war.  Extending their respective influence is their primary goal, not defeating ISIS.  Defeating ISIS is just a means to an end, but only if it helps them accomplish their goals.  Iran wants to gain control so that's why they are willing to send Iranian militia.  Saudi Arabia funded ISIS to combat the Iranian Shia influence in Iraq and Syria, but they are willing to send troops to defeat ISIS if it allows them to occupy Syria.  They have been interfering for years.  If you removed both from a multinational task force to defeat ISIS, each would continue to meddle covertly (as they have already done) to tip the balance of power in their favor.

Ha ha, "interference" is a matter of perspective. Saudis may wonder why they should be perceived as "interfering" in matters so close to their own borders, and remind us whose "interference" broke Iraq in the first place. And Iranians may wonder if the US overturning a democratically elected government in Iran, installing a dictator there and then supporting Iraqi aggression in a war that cost 800,000 Iranian lives was "interference."

Aside from feeling the need to comment on the notion of "interference," I agree with most of what you said.