Tuesday, March 10, 2015

The Battle for Tikrit

Michael L. 

Qassim Abdul-Zahra writes in the Times of Israel:
fighterBAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi security forces regained control of a town next to the Islamic State-held city of Tikrit Tuesday, continuing their offensive against the jihadi stronghold, military officials said

The Iraqi forces entered Alam early in the morning and hours later took full control of the town adjacent to Tikrit, two officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters.

The battle for Saddam Hussein’s hometown is a key test for the Iraqi forces as they struggle to win back some of the Islamic State group’s biggest strongholds in Iraq.
I take this to be a positive development and an indication that, perhaps, the Obama administration is involved with a little quiet push-back against Islamic State Jihadis.

If that is the case it will represent a rare day in which the President of the United States, Barack Obama, receives warm praise in these pages.
The offensive to wrest Tikrit from IS has received significant assistance from Iranian military advisers who are guiding Iraq’s Shiite militias on the battlefield. 
What we seem to be looking at is a coordinated effort between US Intelligence, Iranian advisers, and Iraqi national troops, with an implication of a division between Sunni and Shia soldiers.
U.S. military officials have said a coordinated military mission to retake Mosul will likely begin in April or May and involve up to 25,000 Iraqi troops.
This is fascinating, actually, and it highlights President Obama's efforts at détente with Iran.

The Obama administration seems to have welcomed Iran as a foreign policy partner and, if this is in fact the case, it will undoubtedly have serious ongoing repercussions for US - Israel relations.

We seem to have two conflicting priorities.  On the one hand, we must oppose an Iranian nuclear bomb.  Netanyahu was right to bring the question to the floor of Congress because the question is far too vital to be left in the hands of single man.

On the other hand, the Obama administration seems to be working with the Iranians to push against the Islamic State.

My position on such things has been consistent from the beginning.

The United States should never partner with any Islamist state or regime or organization.

Period.

Political Islam, as represented by both Iran and the Islamic State, are self-proclaimed enemies to the West, to the United States, and to the Jewish people.  For these reasons they should forfeit the benefits of our association.

8 comments:

  1. Unfortunately, even with any very welcome pushback against the Islamic State, this all plays into Iran's hands. The Iranian regime now
    effectively control Iraq. And Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Obama's belief that Iran is a rational actor is enabling Iran to achieve a kind of extraordinary dominance across that region. I think Obama, ideologically, wishes for that to be the case. He seems to be convinced that that is a situation that will stabilise the middle east. And reduce America's role there. His worldview sees both of those outcomes as positive. A more powerful Iran, in Obama's eyes, is a good thing. Fairer. Inclusive.
    And more in keeping with his profound wish to show that America has no more right to power on the world stage than other nations. Especially Islamic nations. Détente with Iran is one of the great goals of his presidency. His legacy.
    As with most ideologues obsessed with the idea of American power being a destructive force in the world, Obama has a great desire to placate and to compensate countries that he feels have been less powerful, and 'wronged' by the west.
    He is capable of ignoring almost everything about the Iranian regime's brutal human rights abuses and its theocratic rule in the pursuit of this end.
    Blind, naive and leading the world into very dangerous territory.

    As for the Iranian regime's genocidal jew- hate, it is clearly a matter of no interest or concern to Obama and his administration.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the rub. Obama thinks he is making it better by trying to be nice, but does not seem to consider the way it may get worse.

      Not to mention the behavior that belies the claims of honesty and transparency to achieve the objective.

      From the results thus far, it's no wonder that so many are concerned how this will turn out.

      Delete
  2. Raising Iran's footprint is only going to turn Sunnis towards ISIS and other jihadists. No win situation for Obama et al or the West.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Have there been any "Imperialist dogs, hands off The Islamic State's lands!" diaries at you-know-where yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that I know of, since DKos is really Iranian Territory after all and Iran and Hizbollah are taking the fight to ISIS in some sectors (of course there are very few props for the Kurds who are really the "good guys" in all of this - though there are some). Thre have also been a few, "Look at the mess the U.S. created this so we shouldn't get any more involved with it" diaries. But most of the commentary there is "Go Iran, Hizbollah, and Assad... take down the Zionist controlled ISIS".

      Delete
    2. Yeah. The Kurds don't hate the West, or Jews, or women, so they clearly don't qualify for the Exotic Anti-Imperialist International Progressive club, like those other guys the useful idiots drool over and ogle.

      Delete
  4. Apologies - off topic:

    Is Hillary Clinton the only person who doesn't know you can have two separate email accounts on one device? How much completely ridiculous lying can the Democratic voters ( and media) choose to ignore?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems unlikely that any of this will matter. "Nation Building" doesn't work, it's never worked in Iraq and it never will. So they push out ISIS. It's STILL Tikrit, it's STILL Iraq. It's still just sitting around waiting for the next psychotic murderous cannibal to move in and wage hair raising genocide on someone.

    ReplyDelete