Posted on May 20, 2015
Shiite militias, once a foe, may now get U.S. support. Are we embracing a necessary evil? To what end?
6.23K
22
13
3
3
0
Just a couple of months ago, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East said Iraq's Shiite militias have American blood on their hands and he hoped the U.S. strategy to defeat the Islamic State extremists would not involve an alliance with those groups.
But after the demoralizing fall of the city of Ramadi to Islamic State forces a few days ago, the U.S. faces a hard choice: Agree to possibly provide airstrikes in support of the Shiite militias that are preparing a counteroffensive or risk allowing the Islamic State to consolidate control over the strategically important city.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/05/20/shiite-militias-us-support-iraq-ramadi-islamic-state/27651319/
But after the demoralizing fall of the city of Ramadi to Islamic State forces a few days ago, the U.S. faces a hard choice: Agree to possibly provide airstrikes in support of the Shiite militias that are preparing a counteroffensive or risk allowing the Islamic State to consolidate control over the strategically important city.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/05/20/shiite-militias-us-support-iraq-ramadi-islamic-state/27651319/
Iraq
War on Terror
Strategy
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
This should be no surprise to anyone, we have been doing it for years. We (the U.S.) are responsible for the Shia uprising in Iraq to try and oust Saddam Hussein and then left them to be put brutally down. We took the entire Mahdi Militia and made them Iraqi National Police to bring Sadr to the political table. We have always "supported" the Shia population just as much as the Sunni's.
It is still clearly evident that we play both sides...we support Saudi Arabia in the offensive against the Shia militia in Yemen while we also support the Shia Militia/Iran in Iraq against ISIS (Sunni) (which is supported by the Saudis). No wonder both sides want to kill us.
It is still clearly evident that we play both sides...we support Saudi Arabia in the offensive against the Shia militia in Yemen while we also support the Shia Militia/Iran in Iraq against ISIS (Sunni) (which is supported by the Saudis). No wonder both sides want to kill us.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sometimes we have to make deals with the devil to get the job done, but this thinking creates different problems down the road. The Russians in WWII were allied to the Nazis before we became involved (with troops, not just equipment). Once Hitler got what he needed from them, he turned against them. So much for the enemy of my enemy is my friend. After the war, our "friends" really appreciated the extra breathing room and new found resources. Walls started going up, and the ramifications are still being felt to this day. There are Japanese people in islands above Hokkaido (territory governed by the commies after VJ day) that can't understand their own language, they speak Russian to this day. Hindsight, right? Be careful to whom you place your allegiences, otherwise today's friend is tomorrow's foe.
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSG Mark Ives Excellent answer, well-founded in historical evidence. You beat me to it...
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Mark Merino - Sergeant; It isn't quite correct to say that "The Russians were allied with the Germans." at any point in WWII.
There was, indeed, a NON-AGGRESSION pact between the two where they pledged not to attack each other (and which said that the Russians could have back the territory which they had lost in WWI [which the Germans didn't own and so this was something which they didn't care about]) but there was no "Alliance".
Stalin was aware that Hitler intended to attack Russia - at some point in time - and was also aware that the Russian military was in no shape to oppose such an attack. The Russo-German Non-aggression Pact bought the Russians time (just not as much time as Stalin thought it would buy).
You also have to remember the part that the US government played in "granting" the Russians additional territory after WWII - this territory was the price which the US government paid to buy the Russian participation in the Pacific War.
However you are correct when you say "Be careful to whom you place your allegiences, otherwise today's friend is tomorrow's foe." and there are any number of families Native Americans as well as families of tin-pot South American. Central American, South East Asian, and Middle Eastern ex-dictators who will echo that sentiment whole-heartedly.
In short, if you expect countries to act contrary to their own national interests just because doing so is in the national interest of your country - you are going to be disappointed (eventually) 100% of the time and if you expect people to die for your ideals when those ideals clash with their ideals - you are going to be disappointed (eventually) 100% of the time and if you expect the population of a country to support some foreign imposed and backed brutal, corrupt, and venal dictator who shares none of the cultural goals of that population but is more concerned about [a] stealing as much money as they can and [b] staying alive long enough to enjoy the fruits of their looting of the country than they are about advancing the conditions within the country - you are going to be disappointed (eventually) 100% of the time.
There was, indeed, a NON-AGGRESSION pact between the two where they pledged not to attack each other (and which said that the Russians could have back the territory which they had lost in WWI [which the Germans didn't own and so this was something which they didn't care about]) but there was no "Alliance".
Stalin was aware that Hitler intended to attack Russia - at some point in time - and was also aware that the Russian military was in no shape to oppose such an attack. The Russo-German Non-aggression Pact bought the Russians time (just not as much time as Stalin thought it would buy).
You also have to remember the part that the US government played in "granting" the Russians additional territory after WWII - this territory was the price which the US government paid to buy the Russian participation in the Pacific War.
However you are correct when you say "Be careful to whom you place your allegiences, otherwise today's friend is tomorrow's foe." and there are any number of families Native Americans as well as families of tin-pot South American. Central American, South East Asian, and Middle Eastern ex-dictators who will echo that sentiment whole-heartedly.
In short, if you expect countries to act contrary to their own national interests just because doing so is in the national interest of your country - you are going to be disappointed (eventually) 100% of the time and if you expect people to die for your ideals when those ideals clash with their ideals - you are going to be disappointed (eventually) 100% of the time and if you expect the population of a country to support some foreign imposed and backed brutal, corrupt, and venal dictator who shares none of the cultural goals of that population but is more concerned about [a] stealing as much money as they can and [b] staying alive long enough to enjoy the fruits of their looting of the country than they are about advancing the conditions within the country - you are going to be disappointed (eventually) 100% of the time.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
What I don't get is why we keep siding with people that a) don't really like us and, b) have no chance at winning the war, as opposed to battles.
Personally I think that IF we're going to pick a side, we should fully commit to that side, and that group should be the Kurds. Kurds, a) generally like us or at least don't view us negatively, b) are competent at governing themselves, c) are competent at fighting ISIS and waging war in general, d) aren't bat-s*** crazy. Unfortunately problems with this arise because Turkey doesn't like the Kurds and Turkey's a NATO member...among other Turkish factors...and I'll admit I don't really know how to resolve that problem.
Personally I think that IF we're going to pick a side, we should fully commit to that side, and that group should be the Kurds. Kurds, a) generally like us or at least don't view us negatively, b) are competent at governing themselves, c) are competent at fighting ISIS and waging war in general, d) aren't bat-s*** crazy. Unfortunately problems with this arise because Turkey doesn't like the Kurds and Turkey's a NATO member...among other Turkish factors...and I'll admit I don't really know how to resolve that problem.
COL Ted Mc
1st Lt (Verify To See) - Lieutenant; You might want to consider the possibility that the statement "The Kurds like us." is one hell of a lot less true than "Because they see us as the source of the support which they need in order to take territory away from other countries in order to fulfill a many century long dream of creating something which never existed (Kurdistan).
Much as one hates to admit it, the "National Leader" who would have been most likely to have almost completely eliminated the "al-Qa'eda/ISIL Problem" would have been Saddam Hussein (which is NOT to say that he was - by any stretch of the imagination - a "nice guy").
If you look at the map of ISIL controlled Iraqi territory today and compare it with a map of the "insurgent" controlled territory of just a few years ago you can see that the general outlines of the two territories are pretty similar and the only real difference is the fact that the Iraqi central government has LESS control inside that area than it used to have before the "insurgency" was "defeated".
Why this situation should surprise anyone is a complete mystery to me (and to anyone else who has any knowledge of the culture of the area and who has been paying attention to the real world as opposed to dreaming up ways to make themselves famous/richer by inventing a fantasy land populated by cheering, grateful, crowds containing a large percentage of 'extremely friendly' comely young women who are 'extremely eager' to provide concrete proof of how 'friendly' they can be.
Much as one hates to admit it, the "National Leader" who would have been most likely to have almost completely eliminated the "al-Qa'eda/ISIL Problem" would have been Saddam Hussein (which is NOT to say that he was - by any stretch of the imagination - a "nice guy").
If you look at the map of ISIL controlled Iraqi territory today and compare it with a map of the "insurgent" controlled territory of just a few years ago you can see that the general outlines of the two territories are pretty similar and the only real difference is the fact that the Iraqi central government has LESS control inside that area than it used to have before the "insurgency" was "defeated".
Why this situation should surprise anyone is a complete mystery to me (and to anyone else who has any knowledge of the culture of the area and who has been paying attention to the real world as opposed to dreaming up ways to make themselves famous/richer by inventing a fantasy land populated by cheering, grateful, crowds containing a large percentage of 'extremely friendly' comely young women who are 'extremely eager' to provide concrete proof of how 'friendly' they can be.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
COL Ted Mc Sir, thanks for the feedback and perspective. My opinions regarding SWA continue to evolve as I gain experience with this conflict (and I'll admit to some bias from my Kurdish-Persian ethnic background haha). I'll readily accept the argument that the Kurds' willingness to work with us is due almost entirely to the fact that we're doing them a favor, but I wonder if such cooperation would continue into the long-term if we continued to back them? Neither this nor my original post is to advocate doing so, as I generally view foreign intervention with disdain; but rather to consider the best COA in the event that we're going to intervene anyway (seems like we're heading further and further in that direction).
I definitely agree Saddam kept things locked down (as did Assad until a few years ago...), which is part of why I wonder why the heck we bothered toppling him. There's plenty of bad guys we could've gone after around the world, so why knock off a key source of Middle Eastern stability? I understand we had a complex past with Saddam, but I suppose I haven't studied the subject enough.
I remember watching Al Qaeda in Iraq's rise to prominence on TV as a kid (sorry sir, it's not my intention to make anyone reading this feel old lol), and getting the impression that we unintentionally lured them there. However my opinion then was basically, "well good, more terrorists to kill", but now that ISIS has effectively grown from them that opinion has morphed to "well that was stupid of us." Based on that, I don't see how our continued intervention will really be productive, but since our current leadership seems intent on it, I figured we might as well pick the side which seems most successful, cohesive, and least hostile to us; which IMHO is the Kurds.
Of course the Turks could decide "F*** it" and attempt to reestablish the Ottoman Empire, and I think that could be pretty effective in the end too....as unrealistic and impractical that is.
I definitely agree Saddam kept things locked down (as did Assad until a few years ago...), which is part of why I wonder why the heck we bothered toppling him. There's plenty of bad guys we could've gone after around the world, so why knock off a key source of Middle Eastern stability? I understand we had a complex past with Saddam, but I suppose I haven't studied the subject enough.
I remember watching Al Qaeda in Iraq's rise to prominence on TV as a kid (sorry sir, it's not my intention to make anyone reading this feel old lol), and getting the impression that we unintentionally lured them there. However my opinion then was basically, "well good, more terrorists to kill", but now that ISIS has effectively grown from them that opinion has morphed to "well that was stupid of us." Based on that, I don't see how our continued intervention will really be productive, but since our current leadership seems intent on it, I figured we might as well pick the side which seems most successful, cohesive, and least hostile to us; which IMHO is the Kurds.
Of course the Turks could decide "F*** it" and attempt to reestablish the Ottoman Empire, and I think that could be pretty effective in the end too....as unrealistic and impractical that is.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google