Arab Nations Offer to Conduct Airstrikes Against ISIS, U.S. Officials Say

[Biplab Bijay]

Is your Anti-Islamic mentality so high that you begin to imagine words? Or perhaps you need further lessons in English before posting in this forum, either way you appear to be someone I rather not waste time with.

Ok. So tell me who are these nobody who is blaming you ?

 

[1000]

See what did I tell you?
Iraqi president: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE don't need to join airstrikes against Islamic State | Fox News

The Iraqi government would not agree to Arab troops helping them. So that's that. We offered you said no. And then you will accuse us of helping ISIS again when we ourselves offered to help you kill them.

So don't anyone dare say we didn't do our part, Muslim countries themselves would rather see western troops in its soils than other fellow Muslim countries.

President is a Kurd, they are against anything that helps Iraq.
I prefer hearing it from Abadi

 

[Mosamania]

President is a Kurd, they are against anything that helps Iraq.
I prefer hearing it from Abadi

Saudi Arabia even offered to send land forces to fight, let's see how it turns out. But as I said I don't think Iraqi president will agree to the offer.

 

[mylegend]

See what did I tell you?
The Iraqi government would not agree to Arab troops helping them. So that's that. We offered you said no. And then you will accuse us of helping ISIS again when we ourselves offered to help you kill them.

So don't anyone dare say we didn't do our part, Muslim countries themselves would rather see western troops in its soils than other fellow Muslim countries.

It makes perfect sense. Just as Ottoman use Janissary as their core guards, Christian can not rule a majority Islamic nation. Western government have no intention to directly to rule middle east. However, country fear intervention of another Muslim country because they fear their rule of land would be threaten.

 

[mylegend]

What I means is the Sultan of Ottoman think that a Christian guards would not be able rule the country by overthrown him, just as other middle east ruler think of western power.

 

[-SINAN-]

What I means is the Sultan of Ottoman think that a Christian guards would not be able rule the country by overthrown him, just as other middle east ruler think of western power.

Nope.

Pls read more.

 

[1000]

Saudi Arabia even offered to send land forces to fight, let's see how it turns out. But as I said I don't think Iraqi president will agree to the offer.

Also take into count that Iraq's gov is still forced to keep as neutral as possible to appease both Iran and the US, if it accepts Arab military support it means angering Iran, they can then take action through either proxies or other methods which will cause trouble. If going on the Iranian side then the US will treat Iraq like Syria.

Unless either Iran or the US gains a stronger foothold in the country (US is currently returning military forces so going in the US direction in my opinion ) Iraq won't be able to do much but play both sides as it has for the last decades.

So there will not be any request for either Arab or Iranian military interference, as Iran said Iraq didn't ask them for help neither will they ask Arabs for help, they're forced to keep neutral.

 

[Mosamania]

Also take into count that Iraq's gov is still forced to keep as neutral as possible to appease both Iran and the US, if it accepts Arab military support it means angering Iran, they can then take action through either proxies or other methods which will cause trouble. If going on the Iranian side then the US will treat Iraq like Syria.

Unless either Iran or the US gains a stronger foothold in the country (US is currently returning military forces so going in the US direction in my opinion ) Iraq won't be able to do much but play both sides as it has for the last decades.

So there will not be any request for either Arab or Iranian military interference, as Iran said Iraq didn't ask them for help neither will they ask Arabs for help, they're forced to keep neutral.

Torn up between its Arabism and its Shiism, that is a situation I would hate to be in. But there will come a time when Iraq is forced to choose either or. I was really hoping that a military action for Iraq by Saudi Arabia will end the sectarian flare up by having the two countries working together, and in effect empowering further the strong anti-religious establishment movement in Saudi Arabia by giving it even more legitemacy but I guess the sectarian fire is already too severe for the cure to work. I really hate our region you know, if only people here could learn to think for themselves instead of only taking what is spoon fed to them that would be great don't you think?

 

[1000]

Torn up between its Arabism and its Shiism, that is a situation I would hate to be in. But there will come a time when Iraq is forced to choose either or. I was really hoping that a military action for Iraq by Saudi Arabia will end the sectarian flare up by having the two countries working together, and in effect empowering further the strong anti-religious establishment movement in Saudi Arabia by giving it even more legitemacy but I guess the sectarian fire is already too severe for the cure to work. I really hate our region you know, if only people here could learn to think for themselves instead of only taking what is spoon fed to them that would be great don't you think?

The thing is that choosing between Arabism or Shiism requires power first, power which the government does not have. The army is not well trained and quite weak, they can't use iron fist to force people into accepting their authority like back in Saddam's time. Militias under command of religious Shi'a figures can from time to time go their own way even though the major ones stated their goal is to defeat ISIS then they will go back to civillian life. Still you have groups under command by for example previously Wathiq al Battat and others, it's unlikely that they will kill gov forces but they will play vigilantes which is when they become quite similar to ISIS forcing self made religious law on neighborhoods.

Forming well trained and capable security organizations ( army, police, intel agency ) is the only way for the gov to have control and make choices without fearing neighbors, there are plans to re-structure and re-train the army but this is a huge costly project of training ~300k forces which will take a long time.

Currently the US is sending more and more military forces to Iraq, their presence is returning even though it's about combatting ISIS but they will be weakened in a matter of time, in a matter of time it can be a return of Iran-US rivalry in Iraq, it's clear the US ignored all of Maliki's requests to drone ISIS 8-9 months ago and did nothing until he left and the more pro US Abadi came to power.

 

[Mosamania]

The thing is that choosing between Arabism or Shiism requires power first, power which the government does not have. The army is not well trained and quite weak, they can't use iron fist to force people into accepting their authority like back in Saddam's time. Militias under command of religious Shi'a figures can from time to time go their own way even though the major ones stated their goal is to defeat ISIS then they will go back to civillian life. Still you have groups under command by for example previously Wathiq al Battat and others, it's unlikely that they will kill gov forces but they will play vigilantes which is when they become quite similar to ISIS forcing self made religious law on neighborhoods.

Forming well trained and capable security organizations ( army, police, intel agency ) is the only way for the gov to have control and make choices without fearing neighbors, there are plans to re-structure and re-train the army but this is a huge costly project of training ~300k forces which will take a long time.

Currently the US is sending more and more military forces to Iraq, their presence is returning even though it's about combatting ISIS but they will be weakened in a matter of time, in a matter of time it can be a return of Iran-US rivalry in Iraq, it's clear the US ignored all of Maliki's requests to drone ISIS 8-9 months ago and did nothing until he left and the more pro US Abadi came to power.

In all due fairness all countries of the world are obliged to cater to their own needs and interests, their is no such a thing as either benevolence or malevolence in the world stage, Maliki was a very sectarian and pro-Iran figure and since that contradicted Saudi Arabia's own interests and needs as Iran's own interests and needs comes heads on against KSA's, so supporting in anything doesn't make a lick of sense. Now that Maliki is somewhat marginalized (Not-completely though) KSA is approaching Iraq and it is very sad to see Iraq snuffing KSA's approach (Re-opening Embassy, Offering to help Iraq military completely by both air and boots on the ground) will only create bad blood that we want shed.

With Abadi saying that he regrets Iran was not invited and that Arab forces can go bugger off he is alienating them again. US is trying to leave this area ASAP, and just when they were about to completely withdraw (Time frame set for 2016 where the bulk of US forces will be stationed in the pacific) they are pulled back in by Daesh. But not for long as you can see they won't commit forces in the ground again because they want to leave quickly. So betting on the US is a lost bet, and allying completely with Iran as we can see by these two gestures will put Iraq in a different middle eastern Axis, and to try to approach a force that is trying to leave is not a smart thing to do.

I say Iraq can tip the balance of power, if Iraq remains in Iran's axis it the balance of power will be more or less equal, but if it joined the other axis (Which honestly can provide a huge benefit much bigger for Iraq especially economically) then the Middle East may just have a united front for the first time in a very very long time. But as you said, the Shia militias would probably answer a call immediately to fight the Wahabi Iraqi government then wouldn't they? so they have to be taken into account, which quite honestly sounds like Iraq is Iran's hostage this way.

 

[monitor]

US Will Use “ISIS Airstrikes” in Syria as Aircover for Rebels, Hit Syrian Military Targets
By Patrick Henningsen
Global Research, September 14, 2014
21st Century Wire 12 September 2014
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Theme: Media Disinformation, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?

President Obama’s much celebrated ISIS(L) ‘strategy’ speech came on Tuesday night amid great fanfare and even greater debate. Sure, he outlined a strategy, but the President has been harboring another hidden agenda – one you won’t get a straight answer on.

Obama rode a wave of public outrage and fear into Tuesday’s address, mostly due to the extensive media coverage of the alleged murders of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff – a drama played out on Youtube of all places. The beheadings were important in this process because they set the US military media campaign into hyper-drive. The timing in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary seemed uncanny.

Obama’s public agenda is the one you can see on the table, one where the US officials promise to “degrade and destroy ISIS”. Sounds great. Who can disagree with that?

Then there’s the hidden agenda, somewhere under the table, and not really up for rational debate. That’s probably because it’s highly illegal and has something to do with what started the ISIS crisis to begin with.

This is how Obama plans to sneak back in and re-ignite with last year’s failed bombing campaign that never was in Syria. He explains, “I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria.”



SLIPPERY WHEN WET: Obama twisting and turning to hide the real agenda to ‘degrade and destroy’ Bashar al Assad in Syria.

Put aside for a minute that any US airstrikes conducted inside Syria without consultation from the Syrian government would be classed by international law and perhaps even by the UN as an act of war against Syria. Why are US politicians, bureaucrats and paid media pundits all guarding their Syrian option so closely? I thought this was an ISIS crisis, not a Bashar al Assad crisis?

The central flaw in all of this is that Washington has no real policy on Syria other than hyperbole. Any policies it does have are centered around clandestine and illegal operations there. US officials will spout now and again how, “we do not recognize Syria as a sovereign state”, even though the US has no legal basis on which to maintain such a position. They simply announce in 2011 that, “Assad must go”, ala regime change per usual.

Obama tried to explain Tuesday evening, “In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost.”

Instead the US only recognizes the fabled “Free Syria Army” – more of a concept than an actual army, as the legitimate governing body in Syria. So much so, that for the last 3 years Washington and its agencies like the CIA have been supporting and arming this proxy guerrilla fighting force – in effect driving a bloody civil war inside Syria.

Ironically (well, not really), the US has been doing the very thing that it’s been accusing (but has yet to prove) the Russians of doing in Eastern Ukraine. If any other country did what the US is doing in Syria, it would be roundly condemned by the US as ‘violating the sovereignty of Syria’ and disrespecting what John Kerry too often refers to as ‘international norms’. But for Obama, John Kerry, McCain and company, they’ve given themselves a free pass. That’s American exceptionalism.

The Myth of the ‘Moderate Rebel’ in Syria

The President is pulling the wool over Americans’ eyes when he tries to sell them the idea that more money, arms and training for his ‘moderate Syrian opposition’ will somehow degrade TheIslamic State in Syria. The absence of logic here is pretty stunning.

“Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters”, said Obama.

What he really means here is, ‘this seems like a good opportunity to get another half billion in Congressional funding for our proxy army in Syria’. If Congress won’t pass it, he’ll go the dictator route. Notice how Obama was careful not to call it a “war”.

The problem with the ‘Moderate Rebels’ is that Washington has never been able to identify who’s moderate and who’s borderline radical, and who are closet Islamic extremists. Rather inconvenient for spooks and politicians in Washington, rebel fighters in Syria don’t carry I.D.bracelets indicating how extreme they are or will be in the future.

It is this very problem which helped to enable the growth of ISIS inside Syria over the last three years. As foreign money, guns and NON-SYRIAN foreign fighters began to flow into Syria, the US and its allies turned a blind eye to a host of known terrorist groups and their heinous acts, as they infested the region from outside (including hundreds of British, French, and American terror recruits), including al Qaeda, AQI, al Nusra, Front Victory, and of course, ISIS.

Like it or not, that is what has happened over the last three years. The logic in Washington and London was basically, “whoever is fighting the Syrian government is OK by us. We want regime change, so the end justifies the means”.

Yes, US and NATO guns and equipment have moved from FSA hands to ISIS hands, and US special forces have knowingly or unknowingly (only they know) trained and armed future ISIS terrorists in Jordan. That’s not a theory, that’s a fact. Still, no comment from Washington.

Syrian Rebels Are Actually Working with ISIS

Here’s the real kicker. Even today, as the FSA/Moderate Rebels being backed by the US – they are also working together in joint operations with ISIS. Beirut’s Daily Star reported this week:

“Often at odds on the Syrian battlefields, the FSA,

US Will Use Airstrikes to Direct its Civil War in Syria.

Think about it: only 12 months after failing to secure another WMD narrative laying blame on Bashar al Assad and the Syrian government, the US military machine has done the impossible and found a new backdoor into Syria.

We’ve been observing US airstrikes overseas for a few decades now, long enough to understand the reality beyond Pentagon propaganda. Not to be naive, expect that the US will certainly use any air strikes in Syria to offer real time air intel to the rebels, provide air cover, and create much-needed corridors for the FSA Syrian rebels.

In addition, the US would not lose the opportunity to test all of Syria’s air defense systems and generate extensive target lists, eventually using the cover of their ‘ISIL Operation’ to hit key Syrian military targets. The deception will be carried out under a complete media blackout, with no western media reporting ‘wrong targets’ or ‘mistakes’. Any such attack will not exist from a western perspective, and only the Syrian and Lebanese news agencies will report these incidents

The US debate has already reached confusing and insane levels, with US pundits arguing that, “airstrikes could be problematic because ISIS is also fighting against the Syrian government and if we strike ISIS in Syria, this could actual provide relief to Assad which is not good for the US”.



Worthless Coalition

Obama claims he’s gathered a broad ‘coalition of the willing’, but in reality, there is no coalition, at least no one willing to get their hands dirty on the ground.

Beyond Americans’ willful denial and refusal to recognize Syria and its people, is the fact that of all countries in the Middle East, no one has done more to fight extremist terrorists on the ground than Bashar al Assad and the Syrian military. No one has spilled more blood than the people of Syria.

In a logical world, if the real objective was to eliminate ISIS, then you would expect that Washington would want to sit down with both the Syria and Iraqi govt’s in order to form a strategy to flush out and destroy the ISIS brigades. With that level of coordination, the terror group could be wiped out in a matter of weeks, but that cannot happen because the US is playing their double agenda. The fact that the US is not coordinating with Syria and Iraq together shows more than anything, that the US is not fully committed to flushing out ISIS, and seems much more interested in regime change in Syria. One only needs to look at Libya today to get an idea of how bad Washington can be get it wrong on such important geopolitical matters.

A coalition without, Iraq, Greater Kurdistan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Iran – all together, is a meaningless coalition. That looks to be the case here. Lebanon is not invited because of their links to Syria. Iran is out because they have already been designated as a pariah state by the US and Israel and therefore are not allowed to participate in anything, not to mention they are the wrong branch of Islam for American planners. Syria is obviously out because the US has vowed not to recognize that state until Washington has installed their own government in Damascus. Jordan cannot participate because Jordan has been instrumental in providing training and refuge for foreign fighters heading into Syria. NATO member Turkey will not commit to any coalition partly because its hands are already dirty having played a damaging role in pumping-up the civil war in Syria since 2011, and has allowed itself to be used as both a staging ground and well as a safe haven for extremist and ISIS fighters inside Turkish borders just over Syria’s the northern border.

Some coalition.

Obama: Lying in Full View

What is most impressive about Barack Obama is his ability to tell a lie right to your face, even if it contradicts what he said a few seconds earlier.

The first one was obvious. “But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil“, said Obama.

Shortly after, he boasts that he will be sending an additional 475 ‘US servicemen’ (Special Forces) to Iraq to help with the fight. Bear in mind that there are already over 1,000 boots already on the groundthere, which gives us a total of 1,700. To Obama, this number really means zero.

The next lie requires a forked tongue and the ability to be duplicitous, and feel cool about it. Here Obama thrives:

“In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.”

How is arming-up a rebel faction in a foreign country, and fueling a civil war… pursuing a “political solution”?

This fight could last another three years, which is perfect timing, as the crisis rides into the US 2016 presidential election. All this crisis needs is a false flag event on US soil to really solidify another 10 to 20 years of hyper security/police state designed mainly for Europe, Australia and North America.

The sad truth is that US actions and policies in the region over the last three decades have created the conditions for ISIS(L) and even the organization itself. It’s Mujahedin all over again, but much better funded and equipped this time.

None of it makes sense, until you study the facts. But facts and history do not seem to mean much to the ruling bureaucratic class in Washington, and London too.


Global Research Related Articles
Pentagon Envisages Military Campaign including Air Strikes against SyriaIndications of a new phase in Washington’s longstanding policy of regime change in Syria are emerging in US planning to expand its campaign against ISIS. The Pentagon envisions a multi-year campaign of air strikes inside Syria and assistance to ...“The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend": How the U.S. is​

 

[1000]

In all due fairness all countries of the world are obliged to cater to their own needs and interests, their is no such a thing as either benevolence or malevolence in the world stage, Maliki was a very sectarian and pro-Iran figure and since that contradicted Saudi Arabia's own interests and needs as Iran's own interests and needs comes heads on against KSA's, so supporting in anything doesn't make a lick of sense. Now that Maliki is somewhat marginalized (Not-completely though) KSA is approaching Iraq and it is very sad to see Iraq snuffing KSA's approach (Re-opening Embassy, Offering to help Iraq military completely by both air and boots on the ground) will only create bad blood that we want shed.

With Abadi saying that he regrets Iran was not invited and that Arab forces can go bugger off he is alienating them again. US is trying to leave this area ASAP, and just when they were about to completely withdraw (Time frame set for 2016 where the bulk of US forces will be stationed in the pacific) they are pulled back in by Daesh. But not for long as you can see they won't commit forces in the ground again because they want to leave quickly. So betting on the US is a lost bet, and allying completely with Iran as we can see by these two gestures will put Iraq in a different middle eastern Axis, and to try to approach a force that is trying to leave is not a smart thing to do.

I say Iraq can tip the balance of power, if Iraq remains in Iran's axis it the balance of power will be more or less equal, but if it joined the other axis (Which honestly can provide a huge benefit much bigger for Iraq especially economically) then the Middle East may just have a united front for the first time in a very very long time. But as you said, the Shia militias would probably answer a call immediately to fight the Wahabi Iraqi government then wouldn't they? so they have to be taken into account, which quite honestly sounds like Iraq is Iran's hostage this way.

Abadi himself hasn't commented on the offer of Arab forces and the embassy, he responded positively to enhancing relations with SA though according to articles earlier on. The president rejected Arab forces but this is not even a presidents task, he doesn't have those powers or it's as I explained to keep neutral ( rejecting both Iranian and Arab forces ). It's not unexpected that Abadi will want Iran invited, an invitation is a 'neutral/friendly' request, inviting Arab or Iranian troops comes close to alliance which is what he won't do. He will accept opening the SA embassy as that doesn't fall in alliance category either, Maliki himself wanted this.

You do remember the Iranian flights over Iraq to Syria with the US forcing the Iraqi gov to search the aircrafts whereas Iran warned Iraq not to do so, whether they found weapons or not is unknown but even if they did they would probably pull a blind eye as that again is the most neutral option to avoid trouble. The same applies to all the requests/offers done by Iran and Saudi to Iraq. It's taken hostage and forced to stay neutral until a powerful military grows it will remain that way.

Now foreign Arab militaries deployed in Iraq will result in some Shi'a groups carrying out attacks on them as they did on the US forces, the US said Iran was behind it.
Special Groups (Iraq) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Therefor this is a bad option, the only good options are airpower and training & forming a proper command & control structure for the army, right now it's traitors and idiots all over the place.

Abadi just got in so we'll have to wait to see what his plans are.

Allawi seems supportive of Abadi.
Allawi endorses PM, says will help win over Sunnis | Arab News — Saudi Arabia News, Middle East News, Opinion, Economy and more.

 

[Hussein]

I just give my advice as Iranian

I agree with you @1000 about being neutral is a good idea

My opinion is that Iraq will have some efforts in the future not only to keep unity and to avoid the militias power

If KSA help is a good step and it is clearly a good direction followed by them
KSA asked as well that Iran should not be involved so this is the bad point to me ...

but it is good if none of them are doing in Iraq

As you say you have much job to do inside . And my heart goes to the future of your country foor good

let me give some news from Iran. Khamenei said he didn"'t want Iran helps US and that's a problem of ultras inside Iran
the reality is that saudis asked not including Iran and US couldn't unsatisfy their saudi ally, that's quite logic
even if it seems they really want to work on destroying IS , but with keeping their allies and strategies (supprting Syrian rebels, their allies...)
the bad part is that the Iranian government is doing much effort to have good relations with US
and the ultras are just acting more and more against them
even now they will send morale militias in the streets of Iran they said
they use all opportunities to cheat the country, to have power and cheat the people of Iran.

instead of a policy ot help for change, not only US policy is not helping but it helps the ultras in Iran who need excuses
the animosity of some saudis are not helping Iranian people, a vast majority of people who have nothing to do with the foreign policy of a very few in our country

anyway it is good to keep the neutral line

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

What I means is the Sultan of Ottoman think that a Christian guards would not be able rule the country by overthrown him, just as other middle east ruler think of western power.

Nope.
Pls read more.

It was a slogan of the Turkish Calvary, "Horsemen don't Mutiny". Usually every mutiny against the ruling Sultan was arranged with the help of the Janissary.

 

[The SC]

“They have a very new air force,” a third State Department official said, referring to the Iraqi military. “Their targeting is not nearly as precise as ours, and they have made some real mistakes.”

Like in Gaza!? Iraq1 and 2? Afghanistan?