Iraq
Iraq
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?
5.66K
22
15
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 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 10
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)
1
1
0
If the Shias and Iraqi Army can not channel their passion for a free Iraq, then they are doomed for failure, unless we get a coalition of countries.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google