Maybe the reason we didn't wake Maliki up is because he made it easier for us to walk away. If true, you can be pretty certain it will never be acknowledged.
Just like under Bush, Obama's mission in Iraq is evolving after the fact. The justification for the recent strikes was twofold: protecting U.S. personnel in Erbil and freeing refugees trapped on Mt. Sinjar. Well, U.S. personnel are out of harm's way and it turns out there were far fewer refugees than estimated and none were in real danger. But the intervention continued, going after the Mosul dam. And now it promises to continue even longer with unclear goals. 
Topic: U.S. Aircraft Strike ISIS Targets in Iraq (Read 3804 times)
Maybe the reason we didn't wake Maliki up is because he made it easier for us to walk away. If true, you can be pretty certain it will never be acknowledged.
Just like under Bush, Obama's mission in Iraq is evolving after the fact. The justification for the recent strikes was twofold: protecting U.S. personnel in Erbil and freeing refugees trapped on Mt. Sinjar. Well, U.S. personnel are out of harm's way and it turns out there were far fewer refugees than estimated and none were in real danger. But the intervention continued, going after the Mosul dam. And now it promises to continue even longer with unclear goals. 
but creating more mess in this mess will not help
Creating more conflicts for the future and more armaments already in place to be used when needed.
Arming Kurd instead of Iraqi army is a really bad move in my opinion, considering the situation of Kurds this might create more wars in the region considering that Kurds want a piece of land in the region from Turkey, North Iraq and Syria, I'm discussing here if they have the right to have their own country as I don't know the historical circumstances but creating more mess in this mess will not help
In relation to the article post by umair^ it seems that much of these light armaments are of Russian origin. Like, CIA sources are sitting on random caches of these in unknown areas just waiting to funnel these in under the table. Should be obvious to most people by now what kind of actions this CIA is usually involved in. They likely funded, armed and trained these so-called militants/rebels/terrorist ISIS motherfuckers in or around Jordan to beef them up to claim certain parts of Syria who now crept into Iraq to destabilize once again making the case or need to arm/support the opposition that fully completes the circle that they originally started to begin with.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-arm-peshmerga-iraq-kurdistan-isis
Quote
US to directly arm Kurdish peshmerga forces in bid to thwart Isis offensive
Weaponry, said to be light arms and ammunition, to be brokered though CIA who are better positioned to supply militia
The Obama administration has announced it will arm the militia forces of Iraqi Kurdistan, to prevent the fall of the final bastion of pro-US territory in Iraq.
The weaponry is said to be light arms and ammunition, brokered not through the Department of Defense – which supplies Baghdad and its security forces with heavy weaponry – but the CIA, which is better positioned to supply the Kurdish peshmerga with Russian-made guns like AK-47s that the US military does not use. The news was first reported by the Associated Press.
Weaponry, said to be light arms and ammunition, to be brokered though CIA who are better positioned to supply militia
The Obama administration has announced it will arm the militia forces of Iraqi Kurdistan, to prevent the fall of the final bastion of pro-US territory in Iraq.
The weaponry is said to be light arms and ammunition, brokered not through the Department of Defense – which supplies Baghdad and its security forces with heavy weaponry – but the CIA, which is better positioned to supply the Kurdish peshmerga with Russian-made guns like AK-47s that the US military does not use. The news was first reported by the Associated Press.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-arm-peshmerga-iraq-kurdistan-isis
Maybe the reason we didn't wake Maliki up is because he made it easier for us to walk away. If true, you can be pretty certain it will never be acknowledged.
Maliki don't want to woke up. He is too arrogant. He knows that he has the support of the Shiite Arabs, who forms 60% of the population. In a democracy, it is all that matters.
Maybe the reason we didn't wake Maliki up is because he made it easier for us to walk away. If true, you can be pretty certain it will never be acknowledged.
All in all, I find most situations there to be too complex to easily discuss like this. There are so many conditions that have to be made with any statement to make it consistent.
It's true. Shias and Sunnis have been fighting in Iraq for over a decade and Sunnis feel marginalized.But at the same time, it's like making a deal with the devil.I wish Iraq's Sunnis had a better way to help their people rather than rely on those ISIS monsters.
lol... the Sunni Arab vs Shia Arab vs Kurd fight is centuries old. The Sunnis were holding power for most of the time (from the Ottoman times onward), while the Shiites, despite forming the majority of population were left with little political power. After Saddam Hussain was toppled, the previously marginalized Shiites began to dominate the politics, thereby creating a backlash from the Sunni Arabs.
Much of said "support" has nothing to do with theological beliefs, but practical concerns of sectarian violence and concerns of political marginalization.
I agree it has always been about political manoeuvring and rivalries. they all see IS as a threat because IS wants to destroy all national borders between them.
if the IS caliphate existed the way they want it.. there would be no Syria, No Iraq, No Iraqi kurdistan, no Jordan, no Lebanon, no Palestine and no Isreal.
that is why it was called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) originally. the Levant + Iraq is the fertile crescent which takes in all of those countries.
Much of said "support" has nothing to do with theological beliefs, but practical concerns of sectarian violence and concerns of political marginalization.
I agree it has always been about political manoeuvring and rivalries. they all see IS as a threat because IS wants to destroy all national borders between them.
if the IS caliphate existed the way they want it.. there would be no Syria, No Iraq, No Iraqi kurdistan, no Jordan, no Lebanon, no Palestine and no Isreal.
that is why it was called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) originally. the Levant + Iraq is the fertile crescent which takes in all of those countries.
From MSN News
US sending arms directly to Kurds in Iraq
AP 10 hr ago By LOLITA C. BALDOR of Associated Press
SYDNEY (AP) — The Obama administration has begun directly providing weapons to Kurdish forces who have started to make gains against Islamic militants in northern Iraq, senior U.S. officials said Monday.
Previously, the U.S. had insisted on only selling arms to the Iraqi government in Baghdad, but the Kurdish peshmerga fighters had been losing ground to Islamic State militants in recent weeks.
The officials wouldn't say which U.S. agency is providing the arms or what weapons are being sent, but one official said it isn't the Pentagon. The CIA has historically done similar quiet arming operations.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the operation publicly.
The move to directly aid the Kurds underscores the level of U.S. concern about the Islamic State militants' gains in the north, and reflects the persistent administration view that the Iraqis must take the necessary steps to solve their own security problems.
A senior State Department official would only say that the Kurds are "getting arms from various sources. They are being rearmed."
To bolster that effort, the administration is also very close to approving plans for the Pentagon to arm the Kurds, a senior official said. In recent days, the U.S. military has been helping facilitate weapons deliveries from the Iraqis to the Kurds, providing logistic assistance and transportation to the north.
The additional assistance comes as Kurdish forces on Sunday took back two towns from the Islamic insurgents, aided in part by U.S. airstrikes in the region. President Barack Obama authorized the airstrikes to protect U.S. interests and personnel in the region, including at facilities in Irbil, as well as Yazidi refugees fleeing militants.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking to reporters here, said the airstrikes "have been very effective from all the reports that we've received on the ground." He declined to detail how or when the U.S. might expand its assistance to Iraq, or if military assessment teams currently in Baghdad would be moving to a more active role advising the Iraqi forces.
"We're going to continue to support the Iraqi security forces in every way that we can as they request assistance there," Hagel said during a press conference with Australian Defense Minister David Johnston.
At the same time, the administration is watching carefully as a political crisis brews in Baghdad, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Iraq's embattled prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to maintain calm among the upheaval.
"We believe that the government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining the stability and calm in Iraq," Kerry said. "And our hope is that Mr. Maliki will not stir those waters."
Speaking in Australia on Monday, Kerry said there should be no use of force by political factions as Iraq struggles form a government. He said the people of Iraq have made clear their desire for change and that the country's new president is acting appropriately despite claims of malfeasance by al-Maliki.
Maliki is resisting calls to step down and says he'll file a complaint against the president for not naming him prime minister.
Kerry noted that Maliki's Shia bloc has put forward three other candidates for the prime minister job and says the U.S. stands with the new president, Fouad Massoum.
Maliki has accused Massoum of violating the constitution because he has not yet named a prime minister from the country's largest parliamentary faction, missing a Sunday deadline.
Hagel and Kerry are in Sydney for an annual meeting with Australian defense and diplomatic leaders.
___
AP White House correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.
US sending arms directly to Kurds in Iraq
AP 10 hr ago By LOLITA C. BALDOR of Associated Press
SYDNEY (AP) — The Obama administration has begun directly providing weapons to Kurdish forces who have started to make gains against Islamic militants in northern Iraq, senior U.S. officials said Monday.
Previously, the U.S. had insisted on only selling arms to the Iraqi government in Baghdad, but the Kurdish peshmerga fighters had been losing ground to Islamic State militants in recent weeks.
The officials wouldn't say which U.S. agency is providing the arms or what weapons are being sent, but one official said it isn't the Pentagon. The CIA has historically done similar quiet arming operations.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the operation publicly.
The move to directly aid the Kurds underscores the level of U.S. concern about the Islamic State militants' gains in the north, and reflects the persistent administration view that the Iraqis must take the necessary steps to solve their own security problems.
A senior State Department official would only say that the Kurds are "getting arms from various sources. They are being rearmed."
To bolster that effort, the administration is also very close to approving plans for the Pentagon to arm the Kurds, a senior official said. In recent days, the U.S. military has been helping facilitate weapons deliveries from the Iraqis to the Kurds, providing logistic assistance and transportation to the north.
The additional assistance comes as Kurdish forces on Sunday took back two towns from the Islamic insurgents, aided in part by U.S. airstrikes in the region. President Barack Obama authorized the airstrikes to protect U.S. interests and personnel in the region, including at facilities in Irbil, as well as Yazidi refugees fleeing militants.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking to reporters here, said the airstrikes "have been very effective from all the reports that we've received on the ground." He declined to detail how or when the U.S. might expand its assistance to Iraq, or if military assessment teams currently in Baghdad would be moving to a more active role advising the Iraqi forces.
"We're going to continue to support the Iraqi security forces in every way that we can as they request assistance there," Hagel said during a press conference with Australian Defense Minister David Johnston.
At the same time, the administration is watching carefully as a political crisis brews in Baghdad, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Iraq's embattled prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to maintain calm among the upheaval.
"We believe that the government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining the stability and calm in Iraq," Kerry said. "And our hope is that Mr. Maliki will not stir those waters."
Speaking in Australia on Monday, Kerry said there should be no use of force by political factions as Iraq struggles form a government. He said the people of Iraq have made clear their desire for change and that the country's new president is acting appropriately despite claims of malfeasance by al-Maliki.
Maliki is resisting calls to step down and says he'll file a complaint against the president for not naming him prime minister.
Kerry noted that Maliki's Shia bloc has put forward three other candidates for the prime minister job and says the U.S. stands with the new president, Fouad Massoum.
Maliki has accused Massoum of violating the constitution because he has not yet named a prime minister from the country's largest parliamentary faction, missing a Sunday deadline.
Hagel and Kerry are in Sydney for an annual meeting with Australian defense and diplomatic leaders.
___
AP White House correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.
Much of said "support" has nothing to do with theological beliefs, but practical concerns of sectarian violence and concerns of political marginalization.
I agree it has always been about political manoeuvring and rivalries. they all see IS as a threat because IS wants to destroy all national borders between them.
if the IS caliphate existed the way they want it.. there would be no Syria, No Iraq, No Iraqi kurdistan, no Jordan, no Lebanon, no Palestine and no Isreal.
that is why it was called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) originally. the Levant + Iraq is the fertile crescent which takes in all of those countries.
Much of said "support" has nothing to do with theological beliefs, but practical concerns of sectarian violence and concerns of political marginalization.
I agree it has always been about political manoeuvring and rivalries. they all see IS as a threat because IS wants to destroy all national borders between them.
if the IS caliphate existed the way they want it.. there would be no Syria, No Iraq, No Iraqi kurdistan, no Jordan, no Lebanon, no Palestine and no Isreal.
that is why it was called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) originally. the Levant + Iraq is the fertile crescent which takes in all of those countries.
Much of said "support" has nothing to do with theological beliefs, but practical concerns of sectarian violence and concerns of political marginalization.
I agree it has always been about political manoeuvring and rivalries. they all see IS as a threat because IS wants to destroy all national borders between them.
if the IS caliphate existed the way they want it.. there would be no Syria, No Iraq, No Iraqi kurdistan, no Jordan, no Lebanon, no Palestine and no Isreal.
that is why it was called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) originally. the Levant + Iraq is the fertile crescent which takes in all of those countries.
Much of said "support" has nothing to do with theological beliefs, but practical concerns of sectarian violence and concerns of political marginalization.
even Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah see them as a threat.. lets not get too carried away with the idea of state sponsored terrorism.
Hmm.... Iran and Hezbollah have reasons to hate the ISIS. But what about Saudi Arabia and Hamas? Right now, the ISIS pose no danger to Saudi Arabia. And the Saudis are more concerned about the Shia population in the oil producing Eastern province (Dhahran / Dammam region), than any Sunni Arab terrorist organizations.
ill post the link again since I added it while you were typing.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/08/07/Lebanon-Saudi-Arabia-ISIS-and-Hezbollah.html
Hamas is a national liberation movement.. if they were taken over by ISIS there would be no Palestine and no point to Hamas. Hamas do not want to be part of Isreal and they certainly do not want to be part of some caliphate.. they want to rule over Palestine by and for themselves just like the Zionists do..
Saudi motivations are also clear.. being a puppet regime of the US they need US backing to stay in power.
they don't get US backing if they do anything to support ISIS.
even Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah see them as a threat.. lets not get too carried away with the idea of state sponsored terrorism.
Hmm.... Iran and Hezbollah have reasons to hate the ISIS. But what about Saudi Arabia and Hamas? Right now, the ISIS pose no danger to Saudi Arabia. And the Saudis are more concerned about the Shia population in the oil producing Eastern province (Dhahran / Dammam region), than any Sunni Arab terrorist organizations.
It still doesn't excuse the formation of ISIS. They're too radical regardless of how Sunnis feel excluded.
He wasn't explaining the formation of the ISIS. He was explaining why Iraqi Sunnis would rebel against the central Iraqi government which creates a space for ISIS to operate in. 
No, I don't want Sectarian fighting, but I do want different Sects to control different countries. This keeps the Middle East in balance. My nightmare would be the Syrian and Iraqi Governments being toppled and being replaced with a Sunni ultra-religious State. This would drag Israel into war with it and would cause even more chaos in the Middle East.
Shia states aren't much better... That's the main issue, there's no peace in Islam, never been and never will be. Other than Shias and Sunnis, you still have Sufists, Amahddya and a whole lot of Islamic shreds, every of them hating others and none better than others.
The only solution is to move them towards secularism, like Turkey, other than that they will keep fighting. But a move to secularism has to come from within them, not imposed at gun point, and that can only be achieved by providing them with schools - not shitty Madrassas - and providing protection to those willing to move away from Islam.
To sum this up: an Arab born Arab, nobody born Muslim (or Christian or whatever), that's imposed to them at young age by a dark aged culture, and this is what needs to be stopped. But as long as the ignorant elders are in control, new generations are sunk into ignorance as well.
Israel on the other hand is well able to keep by itself. It was already attacked by a joint muslim force, with no success.
Jump to: