Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(110,916 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:12 PM Jun 2014

How much of a role is the CIA playing in this "new" Iraq War??

We can assume that they were helping to arm the militias in Syria against Assad, because they have admitted as much.

Also, the Kurds moved in and took over Kirkuk and the ISIS rebels were not able to capture that city. The US and the CIA have long been close to the Kurdish people. This is a large oil-producing area.

The US government has recognized for some time that Maliki and the Shia government in Baghdad were much closer to Iran than the US. If the US does not assist Maliki, the present Iraq government in Baghdad and Iran will be isolated within their present boundaries and will be dependent upon Iran for its subsistence, including food and water.

Knowing the history of the CIA, it is easy to imagine that a lot of the stories coming out of Iraq are created and managed by US intelligence.

Any thoughts?

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How much of a role is the CIA playing in this "new" Iraq War?? (Original Post) kentuck Jun 2014 OP
At this point I assume the CIA has their fingerprints in every country. arcane1 Jun 2014 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author Awknid Jun 2014 #2
The rebels' propaganda is good. CJCRANE Jun 2014 #3
yes kentuck Jun 2014 #4
Does a CIA asset cease to be an asset? Downwinder Jun 2014 #5
The Kurds took Kirkuk because it's of strategic and economic value to Kurdistan. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #6
True.. kentuck Jun 2014 #7
Because the Kurds showed themselves to be the one group NuclearDem Jun 2014 #8
Is it just me . . . markpkessinger Jun 2014 #9

Response to kentuck (Original post)

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
3. The rebels' propaganda is good.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:48 PM
Jun 2014

The trouble is, it's *too* good.

And a lot of their communication is out in the open on facebook, twitter and youtube but somehow no one noticed what they were doing, even though all of our communications are monitored.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
6. The Kurds took Kirkuk because it's of strategic and economic value to Kurdistan.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:05 PM
Jun 2014

The CIA is powerful, but I doubt it's capable of managing every major operation of some benefit to US interests in the whole of Syria and Iraq.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
8. Because the Kurds showed themselves to be the one group
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:14 PM
Jun 2014

capable of keeping an area of Iraq from totally descending into chaos. They kept the Iraqi part of Kurdistan calm.

markpkessinger

(8,366 posts)
9. Is it just me . . .
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:35 PM
Jun 2014

. . . or does it seem to anyone else that the CIA's long and troubled history of meddling in other countries has created far more problems fo the U.S. than it has ever solved?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How much of a role is the...