boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Napoleon once remarked that an army marches on its stomach. So now we have Isis supposedly terrorizing the middle east. But where did these guys come from and, more importantly, how do they stay in business? Let's face it, an army needs to be supplied. They need weapons. They need fuel. They need ammunition. They need food, and in the middle east, they also need water. Who is supplying these people?
Supposedly Isis, or a good part of them, were trained by the US in Jordan. The US insists, however, that they only joined Isis after they were trained. So they are presumably a rogue operation which was originally intended to fight Assad and are not a continuing CIA operation. I wouldn't take the US government's word for that. They aren't in the business of revealing their spies and double agents. But given the actions they are undertaking, it is hard to see how, even under the most Machiavellian of circumstances, they would doing what they are doing at the US' behest. Israel can probably be ruled out as a supplier for the same reason. Saudia Arabia and the Gulf states, especially Qatar, therefore would seem to be the most likely suspects. They are the ones supplying the Al Nusra Front in Syria. So, if you want to destroy Isis, you need to shut off their funding and that probably means getting tough with Saudi Arabia. One must assume that the CIA knows Isis' source of supply. That's what intelligence agencies do.
It has been argued that Isis is not in need of outside support because they control the oil wells at Mosul and can sell the oil on the black market. Very well, let's assume that's true even though it doesn't explain the original source of Isis funding. They control the oil wells, but how do they get the oil to market? They do not control the pipeline which, after all, goes all the way to the Persian Gulf. So if they are selling oil, they are selling to people who do control the pipelines which is likely the big oil companies and the same principle applies. We then need to put pressure on the companies that are buying Isis oil.
So why are we talking about bombing and even ground troops? An army cannot live off the land especially in the desert. Why then, don't we pressure the oil states and/or the oil companies on whom Isis depends? Perhaps it's because the oil companies and oil states are the ones who actually control US foreign policy. Or perhaps Isis really is under the control of the CIA and/or the Mossad and their behavior does represent some kind of weird Machiavellian maneuver that is, in all likelihood, too clever by half.
I don't have the answer to this but, as far as I am concerned, Napoleon's little bromide gives the lie to the official story we are getting from the media and from the state department. I'm old enough to remember almost the whole of the Cold War, and I can't remember any insurgencies that weren't receiving funding either from the West or from the USSR or China. One exception was Castro, but he only won because the Cuban army defected to his side, had they fought against him, he would have been toast.
Supposedly Isis, or a good part of them, were trained by the US in Jordan. The US insists, however, that they only joined Isis after they were trained. So they are presumably a rogue operation which was originally intended to fight Assad and are not a continuing CIA operation. I wouldn't take the US government's word for that. They aren't in the business of revealing their spies and double agents. But given the actions they are undertaking, it is hard to see how, even under the most Machiavellian of circumstances, they would doing what they are doing at the US' behest. Israel can probably be ruled out as a supplier for the same reason. Saudia Arabia and the Gulf states, especially Qatar, therefore would seem to be the most likely suspects. They are the ones supplying the Al Nusra Front in Syria. So, if you want to destroy Isis, you need to shut off their funding and that probably means getting tough with Saudi Arabia. One must assume that the CIA knows Isis' source of supply. That's what intelligence agencies do.
It has been argued that Isis is not in need of outside support because they control the oil wells at Mosul and can sell the oil on the black market. Very well, let's assume that's true even though it doesn't explain the original source of Isis funding. They control the oil wells, but how do they get the oil to market? They do not control the pipeline which, after all, goes all the way to the Persian Gulf. So if they are selling oil, they are selling to people who do control the pipelines which is likely the big oil companies and the same principle applies. We then need to put pressure on the companies that are buying Isis oil.
So why are we talking about bombing and even ground troops? An army cannot live off the land especially in the desert. Why then, don't we pressure the oil states and/or the oil companies on whom Isis depends? Perhaps it's because the oil companies and oil states are the ones who actually control US foreign policy. Or perhaps Isis really is under the control of the CIA and/or the Mossad and their behavior does represent some kind of weird Machiavellian maneuver that is, in all likelihood, too clever by half.
I don't have the answer to this but, as far as I am concerned, Napoleon's little bromide gives the lie to the official story we are getting from the media and from the state department. I'm old enough to remember almost the whole of the Cold War, and I can't remember any insurgencies that weren't receiving funding either from the West or from the USSR or China. One exception was Castro, but he only won because the Cuban army defected to his side, had they fought against him, he would have been toast.
