Which nation, or nations, have provided ISIS the support they need

quote:

---

to wage war or is this group so independent of others that no nation, or nations, can exert any leverage on this most current incursion into Iraq?

---

No nation will own having supplied ISIL with support, but 10s of millions in "non-state" monies have flowed from GCC countries (esp. Saudi, but also Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE).

And leverage? Al-Qaida couldn't exert leverage on these guys. These are hardcore Wahabis who wouldn't hesitate to slit another Sunni's throat for looking at them cross-eyed. Shias get about as much consideration as Christians and Jews.

Whether or not we purposely armed this group or another more 'moderate' group like the FSA John McWar was palling around with a couple yrs ago, these people will just sell these weapons to the next group, ISIS, and now apparently ISIL. Its too funny that people on this board are so dense.

quote:

---

I thought these two were the same group.

---

Pretty sure they are

quote:

---

Saudi Arabia, many of the gulf Emarates, and the old Saddam guard. Most of the people running things in the organization and commanding the ground forces are former Saddam regime members. They do so because The Islamic State gave them a voice, a purpose, and more importantly, a job, which the Al Maliki regime barred them from having.

---

Don't conflate the former Baathists (who were largely secular) with the fanatics in ISIL. Your post was fairly accurate in describing the conditions that allowed a group like ISIL to recruit, thrive, and now enjoy a fairly sympathetic Sunni population, but the guys who make up the core of their fighters don't give two flips about Saddam or other secularists. Likewise, former regime officers and officials don't really care for them. They saw them as a useful tool in destabilizing the country and toppling the Shia regime in Bagdhad. There is no real comity between the two, and the Baathists have no interest in being a part of their caliphate.

The two groups have clashed fairly recently. They won't be able to hold an alliance.

quote:

---

Not a fan of the FSA here, btw. I'd prefer for Assad to remain in power. We've seen time and again how incapable political Islamists are of runnign a country.

---

I don't understand how advocates of arming the opposition don't see this.

quote:

---

They wouldn't if they had a role in the Iraqi government. ISIS gave them a purpose. Who do you think are the military officers in ISIS? Who is running logistics? It's not Imams, it's Baathists.

---

When you say "looking for purpose", it sounds as though they were some teenage cast-abouts roused to action by the spiritual ferver instilled in them by some firebrand Iman. They were/are not looknig for purpose. They're looking for a return to power. AQI cum ISIL was their best vehicle for destabilizing the government. I'm as sure as you are that the Baathists lent technical expertise, military training, etc. to the young disaffected Sunnis that ISIL did actually give purpose to, but I'm fairly certain that the ISIL's spiritual leaders are calling the shots.

Baathism was a secular movement. Saddam started talking "caliphates" etc. to shore up Sunni support when he was weakest abroad, but those Baathists don't believe in anything except regaining power (and, interestingly, secular government).

You'll find no disagreement that a lot of this could have been avoided with a more inclusive government and pragmatic approach to de-baathification.

No nation, but Saudi nationals have been the most significant funding sources of jihadis including ISIS.