| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Petraeus issues warning on Iraq: U.S. can not be 'the air force for Shia militias' |
| 2014-06-19 |
| [Washington Times] The architect of the counter insurgency strategy that helped stabilize Iraq before President Obama took office has a message for the president and his advisers: Do not let the U.S. become the de facto air force for Shia militias. No, the message is not for POTUS or the shadow gov't. "This cannot be the United States being the air force for Shia militias, or a Shia on Sunni Arab fight," said David Petraeus on Wednesday while at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty in London, the Daily Beast reported. The former commander of coalition forces in Iraq and former CIA director continued: "It has to be a fight of all of Iraq against extremists, who happen to be Sunni Arabs, but extremists that are wreaking havoc on a country." Mr. Petraeus went on to say that if the U.S. acts, it should be done when Iraq's Shia-led government in Baghdad makes it clear that it desires to become more representative of its people. Urgent note to Israel. Your attention is directed to the preceding para. "The surge in Iraq, the surge that mattered most was not the surge in forces it was the surge of ideas that changed our strategy," Mr. Petraeus said, the Daily Beast reported. "You cannot have 18 to 20 percent of the population feeling disenfranchised -- feeling that it has no stake in the success of the country. In fact it has a stake in the failure of Iraq. Of course we reached out to the Sunni Arabs." The former general went on to say that when U.S. troops left in Iraq in 2011, the country was uniquely poised to heal Blaming Maliki is the party narrative. It's always a 'blame game' with these people, never a solutions or winning game. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #32 That was a Magnificent write up mossomo |
| Posted by: newc 2014-06-19 23:54 |
| #31 Also from GEN PETRAEUS ... ... * DRUDGEREPORT > PETRAEUS: US MUST STRIKE IRAQ [ISIL/ISIL] TO SAVE THE WEST. | [Telegraph.UK] " US SHOULD LAUNCH TARGETED MILITARY STRIKES ON "TERRORIST ARMY" ISIS, WARNS GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS. Iff it means the security of the West is endangered or is threatened. Which could be soon enuff given ... * DEFENCE.PK/FOURMS > ISIL [aka ISIS]: "WE WILL [also] CONQUER INSTANBUL", i.e. Turkey. Alleged info garnered or derived from analysis of alleged captured ISIS/ISIL documents in Turkey yesterday. * BHARAT RAKSHAK > [Guardian.UK] IRAQI AMBASSADOR [Iraq US Amb. Lukman Faily] FEARS "ETHNIC CLEANSING" IN IRAQ UNLESS OBAMA ACTS. * SAME > [HuffPo] ISIS MAY SKIP BAGHDAD + INSTEAD BUILD A NEW STATE - "SYRIAQ". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-06-19 23:24 |
| #30 yep, I got it wrong oldspook. shia/sunni, doesnt matter though. my point was we have been working for the saudis forever, and now the saudi pawns, isis, are a pain in the ass, for everyone, and the saudis. so our islamic brothers (shia/sunni) just are asking for a solid, and ask that we blow up these dirty dog crazies they have bought. but i argue that instead we need to instead simply balance the power and let them fight each other. to exhaustion. which according to history is about 30% of the male population. so we have a long way to go yet. |
| Posted by: rammer 2014-06-19 23:15 |
| #29 Now, now, iff the US-Soviets can work together to rescue "Ice Station Zebra" + Kosovo, why can't the USoAmerika work wid future OWG Globalist Co-Superpower Iran [etal?], the NAU wid the Eurasian Customs Union [etal?], on ISIS-threatened Iraq??? To paraph Krauthammer = "SAY IT WID ME, AMERIKA -D *** NG IT, YES WE CAN"! lol. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-06-19 22:35 |
| #28 Seems to me this latest excursion is just one more iteration of the war between the Sunnis and Shias that has been going on since about the 7th century. (hint for non-mooslims: it's as if the Presbyterians and the Episcopalians decided to fight to the death over doctrinal differences) |
| Posted by: SteveS 2014-06-19 22:09 |
| #27 Interesting how uranium and chemical weapons shipped to Syria is converted to "Bush Lied People Died" Hmmm wasn't the big reason the left says Bush is a war criminal is because Iraq didn't have any WMD? Geez, how far will the media go to bury important information to preserve a narrative? Never mind, come to think of it, the answer to that question is hiding under his desk in the oval office. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-06-19 22:07 |
| #26 FSA: "If you think you are a man go fight Israel not us, why did you come to Syria" Real ISIS answer: We have to pick up more men, equipment, and money first. |
| Posted by: Squinty 2014-06-19 21:54 |
| #25 FSA: "If you think you are a man go fight Israel not us, why did you come to Syria" ISIS: "You are apostate and fighting you (FSA) is a priority to us more than usual infidel" ISIS: "You (Syrians) curse god and the prophet you are apostate infidel" ISIS: "killing you apostates is a must and comes before killing Jews and Christians" |
| Posted by: mossomo 2014-06-19 21:31 |
| #24 Rammer, Saudi are not Shia. They are Wahabbi/Salafist, which is Sunni based. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-06-19 20:13 |
| #23 And why the f not Mr P. We have been the Saudi's arm and shield for decades, and if they are not a Shia militia then who is? The key here is to provide sufficient support to avoid catastrophic collapse on the part of the Iraqi government. After that, just like the Syrians, they are on their own. Maintain the balance of power, dear Rupert. |
| Posted by: rammer 2014-06-19 19:32 |
| #22 I say, if jiahadists are ignored, the cancer will only metastasize. Eventually we will be forced to deal with it. Zarqawi's 2005 Manifesta: The Americans will exit soon from Iraq and things may develop faster than we imagine. [Iraq is] The place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era. The conflicts in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Bosnia, which he refers to as the "far-flung regions of the Islamic world" are secondary in al Qaeda's plans for the formation of the Islamist Caliphate. The real lever of power is in Iraq, Egypt and the Levant (Syria and Lebanon). The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: The clash with Israel It would be naive to think the Jiahad stops with Israel. Equally unwise would be allowing jiahadis to consolidate their holdings into a nation-state, that would further destabilize the whole region. I want to touch on a point that I haven't heard much made of, the name recognition Abu Bakr has throughout the muslim world. Islam had another Abu Bakr. A warrior too, very successful as well. He was a close companion of muhammad, was the first muslim convert, the first Caliph residing over the first Caliphate, and it was after his reign that islam splintered into the two factions of Sunni vs Shia. The man is well known in islamic lore. Just as - Abu Bakr of ISIS is a growing legend. The more success he has, the more he will be lionized. Allowing him a nation state would elevate his status and would serve to swell his ranks. He would have mandate. You don't want young men synergizing the past with the present, getting swept up in sweet nostalgia of better times and the potential for her return. Let me close my point. The difference between AQ and ISIS - Al Arabiya.com: The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is moving according to strategies and perspectives of a state lying amid violent hotbeds and safe havens. It creeps into structures of unsuccessful regimes while flourishing during their periods of turmoil. This is why ISIS believes it is capable of leading global jihad, unlike Al-Qaeda which focuses on the distant enemy rather than the enemy that is near. First the takfirs and apostates, then us. I would take them at their word. |
| Posted by: mossomo 2014-06-19 17:28 |
| #21 Lies! All Lies! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-06-19 17:09 |
| #20 With Iraq, he was thinking about WMD. 500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says But the CBW question pertained to Syria. |
| Posted by: Squinty 2014-06-19 16:06 |
| #19 You can't destroy what never existed Squinty. No WMD in Iraq, ever, period. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-06-19 16:01 |
| #18 Pappy, Weren't Syrian CBW supposed to have been destroyed? |
| Posted by: Squinty 2014-06-19 15:20 |
| #17 Thanks. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2014-06-19 15:15 |
| #16 Pappy: one link seems to be: http://online.wsj.com/articles/sunni-extremists-in-iraq-occupy-saddams-chemical-weapons-facility-1403190600?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2014-06-19 14:43 |
| #15 Oblahblah I'm stealing that one Frank. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2014-06-19 14:31 |
| #14 Jahn Karry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you donÂ’t, you get stuck in Iraq." guess which idiot Oblahblah is sending to Iraq? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2014-06-19 14:30 |
| #13 Source? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2014-06-19 14:03 |
| #12 Stockpile of chemical weapons has been seized in Iraq by Al Qaeda, ISIS affiliate. |
| Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Ghibelline1627 2014-06-19 13:09 |
| #11 Dunno. I guess if we HAVE to pick a side, the Shia is the way to go. That being said, no matter who wins, we (by this, I mean the Republic of the United States of America) lose. |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2014-06-19 12:37 |
| #10 Problem with Iraq is that Bush stupidly listened to the State Department in terms of running Iraq after we knocked off the government. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-06-19 12:36 |
| #9 Ideally, if things collapse, certain persons would have the wherewithal to make sure that the people we do NOT want in charge conveniently end up moved out of the way (or at room temperature). Its easiest to prevent a Maliki or Ayatollah than it is to deal with them. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-06-19 12:35 |
| #8 I forgot to add that "coming around" means I think that while we have a dog in the fight, i.e., regional security being in our best interests, putting two groups of fanatics that hate each other in the same room with lots of bullets does have its points. All that I ask of our "policy makers" is that they figure out a way to get whoever is left standing and in power to be our guy. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-06-19 11:59 |
| #7 Obviously the empty suit's thugs squeezed Petraeus's nuts to get him to say that. Very interesting how he was publically flogged by the Dems over the surge and now is defending NOT doing anything. Of course, I am coming around. I spent a lot of time in Iraq and thought in 2004 that it had a chance and I thought the elections and the growth of the Iraqi Army would stabilize things. AND I knew the Iranians were behind most of the violence in Iraq. I also knew Bush's team in Iraq with the CPA screwed the pooch. We made the US Forces into an occupation force instead of a force for freedom with our crazy crap non-fraternization rules and how Brenner kept the US forces in the Green Zone (sort of a mental analogy to the Saddam regime with an occupation force using the tyrant's lair). We had the war won, when Obama came in and started making his statements about pulling out, the bad guys knew all they had to do was bide their time and then they could act...fanatics have lots of patience. Another foreign policy masterpiece by the Dems to go with Rwanda and Viet Nam. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-06-19 11:56 |
| #6 It's something we should have thought about before being the DI's for what became ISIS. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2014-06-19 11:41 |
| #5 The "good general" is "All In" for the Champ, and for good reason. That DoJ investigation into his activities with his biographer is still hanging out there somewhere. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-06-19 09:42 |
| #4 Is the good general angling for a spot on the democrat 2016 presidential ticket? Hillary/Petraeus in 2016? |
| Posted by: Herb Bumble4862 2014-06-19 09:38 |
| #3 Yes, I agree, he's probably a SOB. But he's THEIR SOB. The Champ regime appears to be doing the RIGHT thing for the wrong reasons. Hopefully they won't change their minds. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-06-19 08:28 |
| #2 Maliki does deserve a lot of the blame. But Islamic sectarianism is older and deeper than Malaki. Furthermore, there are the problems of Islam itself - the triumphalism, the doctrines of oppression, the misogyny, the hostility to freedom of any kind, the celebration of violence,... |
| Posted by: lord garth 2014-06-19 08:21 |
| #1 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-06-19 08:03 |