| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iranian and Champ's Goals Align - For a Day |
| 2014-09-01 |
| Through regular channels, of course! With U.S. bombs The fight in northern Iraq appeared to be the first in which U.S. warplanes and militias backed by Iran had worked with a common purpose on a battlefield against militants from the Islamic State, even though the Obama administration said there was no direct coordination with the militias. A common purpose, with Iran. And you said Champ was dumb! Should such military actions continue, they could mark a dramatic shift for the United States and Iran, which have long vied for control in Iraq. Except the U.S. gave up its 'control' in 2011. The twit probably thinks that was subterfuge. They could also align the interests of the What do you call U.S. military in Europe, Author? What about Korea? The latest expansion of U.S. military operations reflects how seriously the situation in Iraq has deteriorated since the Overlooking the Sunnis switched sides, having nothing to do with their U.S. training. In fact, some of the U.S. training is likely now supporting the Forces of Evil. The militants from the Islamic State were able to storm into Iraq in recent months in part because Sunnis felt so disenfranchised by the Shiite-led government of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. If the United States is seen to be strengthening the hand of militias that terrorized Sunnis during the sectarian war of 2006 and 2007, the minority Sunnis might balk at participating in America's long-term goal of establishing a unity government. More and more, I support the broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day Biden Partition Plan. Or, in a worst-case scenario, more Sunnis could align with Islamic State fighters. Really? David Petraeus, a former top U.S. military commander in Iraq who led the U.S. troop surge in 2007, has warned against such possibilities as the Obama administration, reeling from the fall of Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul, weighed military action against the Islamic State. That ain't the only thing Champ's administration is reeling from. "This cannot be the United States being the air force for Shia militias or a Shia-on-Sunni Arab fight," he said at a security conference in London in June. "It has to be a fight of all of Iraq against extremists, who do happen to be Sunni Arabs." The United States was careful to note Sunday that it was working in Amerli with its allies: regular Iraqi army units and Kurdish security forces, which the U.S. has been supporting with air power since President Barack Obama authorized airstrikes several weeks ago. "Any coordinating with the Shiite militias was not done by us -- it would have been done by the ISF," a senior administration official said. But it is well known that the Shiite militias have been fighting alongside the army in recent months as the threat from the Islamic State became clear. For Shiite Iran, the rise of the Islamic State -- and its aim of creating a Sunni caliphate in the region -- was alarming because of the possible threat to Iran itself. The militants' sudden successes also posed a more immediate threat of further destabilizing Iraq and Syria, countries that have been close to Tehran and helped it extend its power in the region. Now Iraq is an Iranian-influenced satellite? When did that happen? Right after the occupation ended? In a reflection of the region's increasingly tangled politics, the Obama administration is The United States and Iran have opposite goals there: Iran has been an important supporter of President Bashar Assad, while the United States has sought his ouster by supporting moderate rebels. Don't "goals" suggest a strategy? And "support" suggests more than cheerleading> But any U.S. military action against the Islamic State in Syria could end up bolstering Assad -- and furthering Iran's regional agenda. The circle is now complete. The Obama administration has tried to avoid being seen as taking sides in a sectarian war, because the Shiite militias are especially feared by Iraq's Sunni population. When did the Sunnis become powerless against the mighty Shiites, I wonder? But for one day at least, the realities on the ground appeared to override any concerns of effectively supporting the militias. A conclusion so meaningless, I just had to leave it in. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #3 No surprise here. As a OWG Globalist, the Bammer PCorrectly-Deniably wants Iran to assert itself as the Principal-Leader = US-style OWG Co-Superpower, or one of them, in future desired Persian Gulf Union, Middle East Union, Islamic/Muslim Union, Shia? Union, .... @etc. Is there a BAMMER. GLOBIE-DESIRED ONE OR MORE SUNNI, PRO-IRAN? NEUTRALIST? EQUIVALENT TO CO-SUPERPOWER IRAN??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-09-01 22:56 |
| #2 |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-09-01 14:37 |
| #1 Excellent! Five RANT-U stars. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-09-01 11:48 |