We supported the Soviets against the Nazis without declaring allegiance to Stalin. This in spite of the fact that Stalin helped kicked off WWII by allying with Hitler so the Nazis could conquer the West without fear of attack from the East. If we could ally with the Soviets, the folks who that made the Holocaust possible, we can ally with Shiites, Sunnis or whatever the least of the evils of the moment is, given that the Middle East is where most of the oil in the world is located, and therefore as important in its own way as Europe was during WWII, if only to deny its resources to any would-be world-conquering power that may consolidate power out of the ruins of the existing states. The reason we're getting involved is to keep the states divided (i.e. prevent the creation of a unitary Muslim empire in the style of the ancient caliphates).
Muhammad created a massive empire because he made accommodations with the losers (Christians, Jews and pagans) in the kingdoms he conquered in exchange for their allegiance to him. This is why Muslim armies grew instead of shrank as you'd expect them to (from battle losses). ISIS will cut through the existing Muslim polities like a hot knife through butter if it isn't stopped, gaining adherents along the way. Why would it make sense to let ISIS gather the majority of the world's oil under its banner? ISIS is the second coming of Muhammad's conquering armies, except the territories it is fighting in are already receptive to its message, being Muslim themselves. The moderates in power will, like the Shah, be toppled if we stand aside the way Jimmy Carter did when the Iranian Revolution was in full swing. Bottom line is that it makes no sense to stand aside as ISIS attempts to unify the Islamic states under its rule, just as it made none to do so during WWII when the Nazis attempted to unify Europe under their rule and during the Cold War, when the Soviets tried the same thing.
Ok, then which side do you think is in our best interest to “support” for purely strategic reasons? Sunni or Shia?
If you’re going to use that WWII analogy it seems to me that we should be ‘supporting’ ISIS (Sunni) in the short term as Iran (Shia) is a more immediate threat and larger scale threat (nuclear).
In your analogy we team up with ISIS (Stalin) to get rid of the more immediate and dangerous threat of Iran (Hitler)? Then we deal with ISIS later?
“This is why Muslim armies grew instead of shrank as you’d expect them to (from battle losses). ISIS will cut through the existing Muslim polities like a hot knife through butter if it isn’t stopped, gaining adherents along the way. Why would it make sense to let ISIS gather the majority of the world’s oil under its banner?”
I was reading where last year ISIS took over some town with 100 fighters. They soon had 500 to 800 in their group that they had enlisted from the town. The article had mentioned the new guys getting paid (no work in the area), but I imagine many were forced into it as well.
And yes, it is about oil, not Sunni vs. Shia or whatever. But it is also about terrorism. Once ISIS controls all of that oil they will be able to fund even more than they already do.