[GabrielF00]

The comparison between Syria and Iran is a bit strange. These are two completely different countries. Syria is primarily Sunni, Iran primarily Shi'a. Syrians speak Arabic, Iranians speak Persian. The two countries have different systems of government, different histories, different cultures.

When young people are angry in Iran, they're angry at a theocratic, clerical government. When young people were angry in Syria, they were angry at a secular, socialist strongman. If you're disaffected in a theocracy, you don't become a supporter of theocracy. If you're disaffected in a Baathist regime, then it's natural to become an Islamist.

To my knowledge there has never been much evidence that the US funded Bin Laden in the '80s. The CIA funded Afghans to fight the Soviets, and some Arab Islamists were also fighting the Soviets. My understanding is that the CIA did not fund the Arabs. (My source for this is Ghost Wars, by Steve Coll, which is excellent).

The Guardian article you're citing is actually talking about something completely different than US training of ISIL. There are many factions in the Syrian civil war. ISIL is one faction that emerged out of al-Qaeda's Iraq branch with some members from the dredges of Saddam's regime. These people have been fighting the US for over a decade. There are also groups that oppose both ISIL and the Assad regime. These groups are being supported by the West.

All of that being said, I agree with the fact that the invasion of Iraq produced extremism. However, the place to start when studying the Middle East is not "What did we do to these people that caused them to hate us." What happened is much, much more complex than that.

[dreamfactory2]

> To my knowledge there has never been much evidence that the US funded Bin Laden in the '80s. The CIA funded Afghans to fight the Soviets, and some Arab Islamists were also fighting the Soviets.

According the UK foreign secretary at the time: "Throughout the 80s he (OBL) was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

[nickysielicki]

Wow, thanks for typing that up. You're really knowledgeable!

I generally thought of Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Jordan sharing the same political and cultural climates. It's very interesting to hear that they're so different, I had no idea.

What do you think that America should do / shouldn't do to try to stabilize that region? How do you think America should be fighting terrorism?

More importantly, as we're on HN, how do you think that NSA data collection plays into it all?

[GabrielF00]

I appreciate the complement. I've read a lot about the region and have traveled a bit, but am not an expert.

If we could resolve the Israeli/Palestinian issue that would be a great help. However, I don't think anyone is optimistic on that front. If the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are successful (and it looks promising) then at least one very scary scenario will be on the back burner. Pretty much everything else looks very grim.

I don't think that the NSA stuff will have any lasting impact on US relations with the Middle East/perceptions of America in the Middle East. It may have an impact on our ability to understand what's going on in the region, but I think that's very hard to assess from outside the government.