Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I hear many folks talking about the founders of ISIS and they say that USA created it to make chaos in the Arabic countries.

  1. Mark Danner (here) :

    "In a fact the united states created ISIS, nothing like it existed before the american occupation. We created it, it's ours, and now we are trying to deal with the consequences."

  2. Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a speech :

    “These criminal organizations – including al-Qaeda, DAESH and the like – were created with the purpose of pitting us against one another and making nations confront each other.”

  3. Donald Trump claimed in a rally that Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS:

    “They’ve created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,”

Is it true ?

share|improve this question
15  
Can you give an example of people claiming this? – Andrew Grimm Jan 25 at 5:24
5  
@AndrewGrimm Noam chomsky, Donal Trump (current US presidential candidate) and many others working at various Govt positions – edward torvalds Jan 25 at 10:44
31  
1) From the extent of the context provided, Danner's comment doesn't seem to mean create in a literal way. It's kind of like saying the Great Depression created Hitler. 2) doesn't say who created IS. – Andrew Grimm Jan 25 at 13:45
43  
Danner's use of the word "create" really means "created a situation in which ISIS could arise", or to put it another way, "inadvertently helped to create". Khamenei doesn't say anything about the USA creating those groups, at least in your quote. – Max Williams Jan 25 at 13:51
9  
This question's title is the definition of clickbait, no wonder it has 7k views in two days. – cat Jan 26 at 4:43
up vote 133 down vote accepted

Some interpretations of this question are highly opinion-based and can't be answered on this website (try Quora), but others can be factually answered.

  1. Are the leaders of ISIS Americans? No, it's run principally by Iraqis and Syrians, and has Muslim supporters from around the world. Wikipedia on sources of support
  2. Did American politicians meet with ISIS? No, such images were mislabeled; see this question.
  3. Did Obama claim to be training ISIS? No, this was a misstatement.
  4. Are there leaked documents, namely from Edward Snowden, that say that U.S. and Israel conspired to create ISIS? No, this is an online hoax.
  5. Did a 2012 United States government document claim that a Salafist state in Syria would be "exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime" and that the creation of such a state is a "possibility"? Yes.
  6. Did the CIA route funds and weapons through the Salafist Saudi Arabian government in 2013 to unspecified "rebels" in Syria? Yes.
  7. Were the "rebels" that the CIA was funding through Saudi back channels Salafist themselves, or was Saudi Arabia helping to bring moderate democracy to the Middle East? Was the US creating/funding ISIS? We have no knowledge of who the US was supporting at the time. We do know that the US government has been continuously bombing ISIS since 2014. (source)
  8. Has the US government intended to "make chaos in the Arabic countries"? It was their open position in 2011-2015 that Assad needed to step down, which included the covert and open training of anti-Assad rebels, (source) but whether this constitutes a desire for "chaos," or if there are more sinister secret motives, is a matter of individual opinion.
  9. An additional point, suggested in the comments: most people would hold the US responsible for the 2003 Iraq War and the mismanagement of the country that followed, in which Islamist groups came to power. Whether this constitutes "creating ISIS" is again a matter of personal opinion.
  10. Also suggested in the comments: ISIS has picked up a lot of weapons and technology left behind by American-backed groups such as the Iraqi army. Amnesty International claims that most of ISIS' weapons were acquired this way (source). Again, it's arguable whether this amounts to "creation", but it can add to a possible case.

In short, we have no damning evidence that the US created ISIS; we have solid information that the US was involved in Syria from an early period, but connecting this to ISIS requires conjecture and opinion-based statements.

This question was edited to include al-Qaeda. The US has been in a relationship with al-Qaeda since its very beginning during the Soviet–Afghan War, and the CIA is currently arming al-Qaeda's allies, but in the long run the relationship has been more antagonistic. We lack evidence that the US had influence over al-Qaeda at the time that ISIS formed and broke off from it.

share|improve this answer
4  
+1 Regarding point 8, I believe there were plenty of statements and (I believe) leaked cables that made it pretty explicit that the chaos and power vacuum that would be left behind was the reason the US and others didn't intervene in Syria like they did in Libya (kinda ironic considering how both turned out...). I don't have sources to hand but I think there's enough for a strong "No" there. Finally, might be worth adding a point 9 addressing the often-made point that ISIS have quite a lot of US-made military equipment (which was of course taken from the retreating Iraqi army in 2014) – user568458 Jan 25 at 9:22
    
I clarified and added the sources requested by Oddthinking. On the subject of US-made military equipment being swiped by ISIS, I was going to mention it but I realized that that kind of point would be more suitable for politics.SE than skeptics.SE where we are just trying to judge the truth value of dubious claims. – Avery Jan 25 at 16:22
15  
9. Did interventionist military policy in the area over decades foster anti-Western sentiment and shift the prevailing view of many citizens to form an unprecedented anti-colonial uprising, albeit led by madmen in the form of extremism and under the guise of religious duty? Also a matter of opinion. And almost certainly yes. – Lightness Races in Orbit Jan 25 at 18:01
    
-1 All you've done is look for reasons to say No. You didn't even try to answer the question. You completely ignored the examples in the question. – Shane Jan 25 at 19:19
11  
The examples in the question were added more than 12 hours after I answered it. I'm not a time traveler. – Avery Jan 26 at 2:40

It depends on what aspect of the question you are focusing on. Did the USA create ISIS? Largely, yes, they did. Did the USA create ISIS for the purpose of creating chaos? No, not at all. They created ISIS out of sheer incompetence and lack of foresight.

By removing Saddam, the USA created a power vacuum and eliminated a regional power that was working against Islamic Terrorism.[1] To make matters far, far, far worse, they disbanded the Iraqi army. This created a lot of trained fighters who had nowhere to use their skills to earn a living -- outside of joining ISIS. The disbanded army has provided ISIS with some of its best commanders and fighters. [2]

As others have pointed out, as ISIS started to rise, the USA and her allies provided the fledgling terrorist group varying levels of material support. [3]

They ignored warnings, including from top army general Eric Shinseki, that their strategy was inadequate for preventing post-war chaos [4] claiming that, contrary to such warnings based on experience in Bosnia, securing post-war Iraq would require fewer resources than toppling Saddam, which proved to be untrue [5]

tldr They allowed chaos to begin, helped it along, then realized that this 'solution' was worse than the problem.

I don't think anyone can reasonably say that the USA isn't largely responsible for the existence of ISIS. They made a bunch of bad choices, and things snowballed out of control. But to reiterate, the fact that they are bombing ISIS now, shows that this wasn't the planned end goal. It got out of hand.

I'd recommend people actually watch and/or read the argument being made by Mark Danner (and that the OP is asking about). He isn't talking about some 'grand conspiracy' that way people here seem to be assuming and writing answers about.

share|improve this answer

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

2  
This is totally believable, but unfortunately human nature (and/or the media) is such that someone saying "Yes, we inadvertently caused a series of events that led to <blah>" will get summarized and repeated as "We caused <blah>", which will then, in turn, get interpreted as "We deliberately caused <blah>". So while Mark may not have intended it in the way that people are interpreting it, that doesn't make them start interpreting it differently. – Bobson Jan 26 at 4:10
1  
As another answer has pointed out - the rabbit hole goes even deeper than the Iraq war. Instability and intra-faith rivalry in the region was compounded by the CIA-backed revolution in Iran. The US-backed Mujahideen were a major feed into the Taliban and Al-Qaida and (from there) into IS. None of this was deliberate triangulation toward any kind of caliphate, of course, but it's sad that so few lessons are learned from history. – Matt Thrower Jan 26 at 10:08
1  
@MattThrower Well, if we learned from history, we would have discredited the very idea of a nation state long ago. Obviously, that's not something the guys controlling those nation states want - and they control most of the education, and have a rather high influence in other things as well, the more socialist the bigger the influence :P Then again, the real lesson from history might as well be "no matter how badly we botched things up in the past, we're still here!" :D – Luaan Jan 26 at 23:15
2  
"where they knew this would be the result" <- Please make it clear how you know this to be true. – Oddthinking Jan 27 at 5:26
1  
@Shane please moderate your tone, both in the answer and in the comments. When someone asks for citations they are not attacking you, just pointing out where your answer seems unsupported by evidence. Don't shout them down, add a simple citation that supports your point. I am leaving your tl:dr; for now, but I'd like you to tone it down and add citations so it doesn't look like your opinion. The tone should be neutral. – Sklivvz Jan 27 at 23:21

United States financed terrorist groups back in Afghanistan 1979 in their "crusade" against USSR communists. The CIA financed these groups which have now become Al-Qaeda, from which ISIS and Al-Nusra derive.

Bin Laden shown as a US ally back then

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
11  
The US provided limited assitance to the Mujahideen Source. This pre-dates the Taliban, al-queda and ISIS. There was a civil war in Afghanistan between the US intervention and the Taliban taking power. So the Taliban were formed after the US intervention, thus breaking any direct link in my mind. Mujahideen != Taliban != al-queda These are separate groups....They have links but that doesn't make them one homogeneous blob. At best this is over simplified at worst it is totally misleading. – Liam Jan 26 at 8:52
1  
I read the Wikipedia article Soviet–Afghan War (which you cite in "United States financed terrorist groups back in Afghanistan 1979") up to but not including the section Exit. The only paragraphs that talks about something that can be considered terrorism (starting with "The mujahideen favoured sabotage operations.") is entirely unreferenced. – Andrew Grimm Jan 26 at 10:02
    
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Jamiec Jan 26 at 10:49
2  
Once again, the comments are not for discussion - if you wish to debate whether X were Y's or Y's were X's then do so in chat. If you're looking to improve this answer, by all means comment. – Jamiec Jan 26 at 16:43

protected by Community Jan 25 at 20:08

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.