The problem with Iraq is the US has made promises to support the Shiite Government of Iraq, a Government the main US ally in the Middle East, the House of Saud, wants destroyed. Thus the US has to show it keeps its word, but not enough to defeat what the House of Saud wants.
At the end of Desert Storm in 1991, the US refused to assist the Shiites who revolted against Saddam. The reason being the House of Saud did not WANT an independent Shiite State, especially an Independent Shiite Arab States that shares the larges and main oil fields with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (Both of which have more Shiites then Sunnis, in regard to the total population of Kuwait, and in regards to the main oil fields in Saudi Arabia).
This has been a policy of the House of Saud since the 1980s, to keep the Shiites and Iran down. Kuwait and the House of Saud fully funded Saddam during his war with Iran. When Saddam attacked Kuwait, the House of Saud panicked and had the US intervene, but made sure that intervention would NOT extend to liberating the Shiites from Saddam.
When George Bush became President in 2001, the plan was to take over the oil fields of Iraq NOT to leave the Shiites have them. The problem was once Iraq was taken International Law clearly said any occupational government can NOT sell the property of the Country their occupy, and if they do such sales are invalid UNLESS ratified by a free government of that country at the end of the occupation. The US arranged for such sales, but even the big oil companies refused to buy, for their lawyers told them such sales could be later ruled illegal.
Thus Bush's plan to take over the Iraqi Oil Fields could NOT be done until Iraq had its own government. Bush then tried to set up a government of tribal leaders (as he had done in Afghanistan) but the Shiite religious community revolted peacefully, and to suppress that more or less peaceful revolt, Bush had to agree to elections. The Elections resulted in the present Government, that promised to privatize its oil field after the end of the US Occupation (The Iraqi government made the promise to sell those fields, but never introduced the ratification into the Iraqi Congress and has failed to do so to this day).
Yes, during the occupation you had various guerrilla wars being fought in Iraq but none of them actually threatened to end the US occupation except by keeping up the pressure for the US to pull out. This pressure was applied not only by the Sunnis who opposed the Shiite Government, but by the Shiites themselves.
Now, after the US pulled out of Iraq, the Sunnis (who appears to be supported by the House of Saud) revolted again, this time in the form of IS. Yes, IS started in Syria but spread to Iraq where it recruited a lot of ex Saddam era Iraq Army officers. IS is clearly a House of Saud operation to get rid of the present Government of Syria AND Iraq.
Iraq and Iran sees this, and Iraq is citing the US promises of support against any revolts. Thus the US finds itself fighting what its chief ally, the House of Saud, created. Dempsey has the duty of "fighting" those forces, knowing in reality the US government wants its main ally, the House of Saud, to win and defeat Dempsey's efforts to stop them.
What a job, doing all you can do to APPEAR to be fighting IS, but at the same time making sure IS is NOT defeated. The US would be better off, allying with Iran, tell the House of Saud to go to hell and tell the American People we need a $5 a gallon tax on oil, to free the US from dependence on Oil from Saudi Arabia. The first two are easy, it is the third, the gas tax, that the US government does NOT want to do. Without it, the US MUST support Saudi Arabia, even when such support is NOT in US interests for the American People will not accept $10 a gallon gasoline that a cut off of Saudi Arabia Oil would lead to.
An addict (and the US is addicted to Oil) can NOT go against its supplier, even when it is the best thing to do. Thus the US CAN NOT DESTROY IS, FOR IS is the creation of the House of Saud, who in turn is the supplier of oil to the US and its allies, Europe and Japan. US self sufficiency is NOT enough, the US has to secure oil for NATO/EU and Japan. That requires the US to support the House of Saud and IS. Thus the US can NOT destroy IS, the US is in a box that would take a true leader to lead the US out of, but I see none on the horizon with the possible exception of Sanders.
= new reply since forum marked as read
