Israeli think tank: Don’t destroy ISIS; it’s a “useful tool”...

www.salon.com...

According to a think tank that does contract work for NATO and the Israeli government, the West should not destroy ISIS, the fascist Islamist extremist group that is committing genocide and ethnically cleansing minority groups in Syria and Iraq.

Why? The so-called Islamic State “can be a useful tool in undermining” Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Russia, argues the think tank’s director.

“The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose,” wrote Efraim Inbar in “The Destruction of Islamic State Is a Strategic Mistake,” a paper published on Aug. 2.

Well. That's a thing apparently.

Why not just get rid of is?

Why would a "think tank" even suggest that its a good idea not to defeat is?

a reply to: firefromabove

Wasn't this from a while back? Could have swore I heard about it before.

That being said, wherever there is a war, the CIA and Massad are usually the ones controlling the strings.

a reply to: firefromabove

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: firefromabove



Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS)

I guess Obama loved Israel afterall

a reply to: firefromabove

Well, aside from the fact that this assessment was bought to light in 2016, I have to say, it is hardly a shocker is it?

It is no surprise that an entity which owes its existence to the desire on the part of Western leaders and the corporatists who advise them, to possess proxy armies in the Middle East, would be seen as "a useful tool". The reason they appear that way, is because that is precisely what they actually are.

Everyone swallowing the BS about terrorism and Islam right now has missed the bloody point, failed to look remotely deeply enough at the situation. And there can be no excuse for that these days.

a reply to: firefromabove

The reasoning here seems fair enough...

To quote from the paper

besacenter.org...

which is about 9-10 months old...

"A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed status while still away – a blessing for their home countries. If IS is fully defeated, more of these people are likely to come home and cause trouble."

('shaheed status' means they died fighting)

Whilst the logic is good, I'm puzzled how (and who) 'just weak enough'' is figured out.

It seems to me a lot harder to keep water simmering than just trying to make it boil.