U.S. Fears Shi'ite Militias Could Worsen Iraqi Sectarian Fires

[Purveyor]

Source: Reuters

The use of Shi'ite militias to try to take back the Iraqi city of Ramadi from Islamic State risks unleashing more sectarian bloodletting, current and former U.S. officials said, but Washington and Baghdad appear to have few other options.

The prospect of Iranian-backed militias leading efforts to retake Ramadi underlines Washington’s dwindling options to defeat Islamic State in Iraq, with Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s grip on power weak, a national army still in its infancy and Tehran increasingly assertive.

Islamic State's capture of Ramadi, despite months of U.S.-led air strikes and military advice, marked a fresh low for the shattered Iraqi army, which beat a chaotic retreat from the city over the weekend.

Abadi immediately turned to the Shi'ite militia groups, backed by Iran, which together have become the most powerful military force in Iraq since the national army first collapsed last June in the face of sweeping Islamic State gains.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/19/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-ramadi-idUSKBN0O40D620150519

[delrem]

1. Maybe the US should get the fuck out of the ME "War on Terror",

instead of ramping it up year after year after year after year!

[newfie11]

5. My exact thought!!! Nt

[trusty elf]

2. Mission Chimpossible

[img][/img]

[JonLP24]

3. They already have long time ago

The Iraqi government too long time ago 2010-2014 protests all of that was cracked down with brutal oppression and the Shia militias left unchecked created the environment that contributed to the 2014 ISIS offensive. You tolerate their existence because they offer protection against the Shia militias or the Iraqi government who respond after a battle victory by ethnically cleansing the neighborhood.

[jtuck004]

4. 'Can't just have an army. Gotta have the RIGHT army to attack with. Quagmire. n/t

[McKim]

6. Sectarian Strife Serves US Interests

It's called Divide and Conquer. For years now the US has been stirring up sectarian strife in the Middle East. If they are fighting each other then they are weaker and cannot attack other countries in the Middle East. Brilliant.

My source is a 2002 panel of Iraqi Labor leaders at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre Brazil. The labor leaders said that from time to time uniformed men with no logo or ID would suddenly appear and blow up a mosque. Sunni and Shiite leaders would disclaim responsibility for the bombing. Up until 2002 Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq would intermarry and got along well. So who was doing the bombing? Who would benefit? The good ol' USA.

[McKim]

7. Sectarian Strife Serves US Interests

It's called Divide and Conquer. For years now the US has been stirring up sectarian strife in the Middle East. If they are fighting each other then they are weaker and cannot attack other countries in the Middle East. Brilliant.

My source is a 2002 panel of Iraqi Labor leaders at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre Brazil. The labor leaders said that from time to time uniformed men with no logo or ID would suddenly appear and blow up a mosque. Sunni and Shiite leaders would disclaim responsibility for the bombing. Up until 2002 Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq would intermarry and got along well. So who was doing the bombing? Who would benefit? The good ol' USA.

[Ford_Prefect]

8. Where was this wisdom when they were planning the invasion?

Ask Rumsfeld, or Feith, or Cheney, or Wolfowitz, or any of the other PNAC planners who lead the coup in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere on the way to the great patriotic war.

Talk about inconvenient truth.