No actually the Sunnis in Iraq are pretty much cheerleading ISIS. That's why the Iraqi army has been quitting. This is a problem created by Al Maliki. Bush made the mess, Al Maliki threw gas on the mess, and here we go again getting involved in another civil war.
Whether you want to blame Bush or Obama is something you can debate with Bigtexxx. Fact is ISIS went from a rag-tag bunch of extremists who basically looted Syria and turned it into a fortune and build the worlds largest terrorist army and they are kicking major butt. The Iraqi army was woefully prepared. The region is a mess. We get burned when we interfere and now when we try to let things sort themselves out on their own - it also makes for an even bigger mess. What a disaster.
US has Black Water militia to fight for their causes when needed. Iran has its own agenda too they created Hezbollah in Lebanon hotheiz in Yemen hosted BinLaden family and commanders in Tehran, they were immunes from any Qaida's terrors in Iraq , they support Almalki and Asaiyb Alhaq militia , Sadr's Army, along with various militants. org ISIS should target Baghdad and Malki's strong hold areas , but somehow they turn North to fights Kurds and minorities in Iraq and they target Free Army in Syria . opposition's territories in Syria suffer the most so basically ISIS is a distraction that take some pressure from Iran's allies in the region (Asad in |Syria and Malki in Iraq). and if the cycle of violence goes beyond control its even better and serve better of proposes of Iran if everything goes as planned , North of Iraq will be taken by Kurds western Iraq (dessert ) for Sunnis South of Iraq (OIL) for Iran by their proxy allies.. its interesting to know that former dictator of Iraq , Shieas ,Christian and others were parts of Saddam inner circle .. so I guess some genius in Washington made things worst
You break it, you fix it... It was a mistake to leave when we did. Many Iraqis did not want us to leave when we did, and I am quite sure many of them would love to see us come back at this point. But once you leave, coming back is even harder. Politically - at home - it's a nonstarter to talk about going back in on the ground (which is what is really necessary). Logistically, we don't have the assets in place to facilitate a large-scale movement of men and material into the region anymore. You can only bring so much in by air (and even that is a challenge) - the rest has to come by boat. At this point, we might be able to do some air support, drop in some SF, maybe even drop a few airborne units to shore up strategic locations like Irbil. But it doesn't appear there is time enough to deploy enough firepower to stop the ISIS roll. They are moving at lightning speed. And they are doing it smart. They send in recon, probe defenses, ignore those areas where a strong defense exists, and throw their weight where defenses are weak. They are playing this VERY smart, and they are not giving anyone time to think or plan, much less deploy. Sure, they're taking mostly ghost towns, but they are covering territory in the process, and not having to deal with civie populations (who are fleeing their advance) frees them up to move onto the next town... This won't be stopped from the air. They don't have big columns to hit. They are dispersed. They don't have infrastructure to hit - they rule by mobile comms. This is a new sort of enemy that modern armies aren't equipped to deal with. It can only be addressed on the ground. And we are not willing to do that. So expect the region to be lost.
Also, keep in mind this... For the most part, the IA (Iraqi Army) has been defeated in areas where their ethnicity is trumped. Shiites will not fight to hold Sunni towns and cities. Kurds will not fight to hold Shiite cities. Sunnis are unwilling to rise up against the fanatics at this point because 1) they are terrified of the fanatics and 2) those fanatics are seeing a lot of success at this point, and to a Sunni who has suffered at Maliki's hands that is not a bad thing. Point being, if you are wondering how the IA is collapsing, consider where it is collapsing. The mostly Shiite IA (at this point) is not willing to fight/die to cover Sunni areas. They don't live there. It's easier to just leave. When ISIS gets to Shiite areas - where the IA lives - it's likely to be a different story. In 2008 when the Mehdi Army tried to take Basra, Maliki sent a Shiite division first to stop them and hold the city. It was a total disaster; most of the division melted away because the guys in the division had relatives there, they lived there - they won't kill their own tribes, their own people. So Maliki sent in a Sunni division and it kicked a$$. Moral of the story: if you want to see people in Iraq actually fight hard, pit them against "the other" on home turf. That was an offensive situation, but in a defensive situation as we are seeing now, expect the Shiites to fight hard once the Sunnis show up to take some blood. What is surprising in the current round is that the Kurds are not holding the line as we thought they could. I guarantee this is taking the administration by surprise. And DoD. We always expected the Kurds had this. That is in doubt now. Kurdistan falling to ISIS would be a CATASTROPHE. Not only would ISIS likely murder tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands, possibly millions) of people, but we would lose out most solid ally in the area. This *can not be allowed to happen*. If ISIS takes Kurdistan, all bets are off as to how far they can go. I'd have thought they would save it for later, as a tough nut to crack... But if they do this, then they can take anything in the region. They MUST be stopped.
Indeed, ISIS taking Kurdistan would be the 2nd biggest catastrophic disaster in Iraq in recent times. Kurdistan is probably the only salvageable thing in Iraq. #1 biggest catastrophic disaster was the U.S. invasion in 2003.
ISIS taking Kurdistan would be FAR worse.The situation was manageable by 2007. It will not be manageable if Kurdistan falls - which was an entirely preventable outcome, even post-invasion. If you want to throw blame, take that ***** somewhere else. This situation demands CORRECT action. NOW. Immediately. Your blame games can wait until later.
Really unbelievable, how the Islamists try to blame Islamists' actions on Israel. If you had had any credibility left (which is not the case), you would have lost it by now.
The only ones worth fighting for? What about the Assyrians & other Christians from the Nineveh Plains??? BTW: I hope that every last member of ISIS is wiped out & the Assyrians are restored to their homes & homeland. Obama is late, but better late than never I guess.
To paraphrase Stalin, "The Assyrians! How many divisions do they have?" But seriously, who gives a crap about the Assyrians being Christian? ISIS can't take Baghdad through direct assault - there, the ISF will fight unlike before given the city's importance. What they've been doing is inching south here and there and around Baghdad, cutting off roads and supplies in an attempt to starve the city out. And they've been succeeding - food and gas prices within the city have shot up over the past week.
CBS news is now reporting that two F-18's have carried out an air strike on an ISIS artillery position shelling Erbil.
This is an excellent summary that goes to the heart of the problem and the reason there are a lack of solutions. I'm not sure the logistics of how they move, but it seems ISIS does have to caravan to some extent through a lot of open area to get from one city to their next target city. That seems like the opportunity for the US to drop bombs and the like. Once they reach their targets and get involved with urban warfare, there's much less we can do.
Reminds me of the use of Germanic tribes during the late Roman Empire to supplement their military. Before, the Romans pushed them away from their borders, but as the empire weakened, due to several different reasons, the leadership at the time thought bringing the barbarians in to help them fight other barbarians was a good idea. Unsurprisingly, the Germanic tribes learned tactics and technology from the helpful Romans, and then used that advantage the Romans had had over them for centuries against Rome. It led to the defeat of the leadership, the Roman Army in the West, and the fall of the Roman Empire, except for the Eastern Roman Empire, wealthier and with far better rulers, which lasted another thousand years. You're right. Maliki bears a huge part of the blame, as does the Sunni aristocracy in the Kingdom and the Gulf States, busy promoting their "Sunni brethren" without thinking through the consequences of funding and supplying a coterie of madmen. All in the name of defending the "religious purity" of their branch of the Muslim religion. Result? Unchecked, forcefully unchecked, those they supported will be at their borders soon enough, eager to overthrow their corrupt system. Very similar to the fate of Rome, in my opinion.
The reason Kurdistan is now getting pushed back on their heels is because ISIS now has heavy weapons captured from the Iraqi military dropping everything and hauling ass. The Kurds could handle large numbers of ISIS fighters moving in Toyota pickups with light equipment. Now they are facing artillery and armored vehicles. The Kurds suddenly need help, like yesterday.
You are a joke. When it comes to attacking blamers, you should save your ammo for those who do it constantly instead of being selective. Feel free to put me on ignore. I couldn't care less if it bothers somebody like you.
The ridiculousness of our foreign policy: we're now devoting resources to destroying military equipment we provided ourselves.
