Lack Of U.S. Air Support In Ramadi Points To Disguised Darker Aim

[KoKo]

May 26, 2015
Lack Of U.S. Air Support In Ramadi Points To Disguised Darker Aim

Why were there so few U.S. air attacks on the Islamic State attackers when they took Ramadi?

The first excuse put out by the U.S. military was "a sandstorm ate my lunch". That excuse was placed as news in the NYT:

Islamic State fighters used a sandstorm to help seize a critical military advantage in the early hours of the terrorist group’s attack on the provincial Iraqi capital of Ramadi last week, helping to set in motion an assault that forced Iraqi security forces to flee, current and former American officials said Monday.

The stenographer writing the piece did not bother to ask eyewitnesses or to check with some weather service. The myth of the "sandstorm" was thus born and repeated again and again. But people looking at the videos and pictures from the fighting could only see a bright blue sky. The military, though not the NYT, had to retract:

Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters today that last weekend's sandstorm had not affected the coalition’s ability to launch airstrikes in Ramadi, though “weather was a factor on the ground early on.”

Now the U.S. military needs a new excuse to explain why it does not really bother to attack the Islamic State troops. Again it is the NYT that is willing to stenograph:

American officials say they are not striking significant — and obvious — Islamic State targets out of fear that the attacks will accidentally kill civilians. Killing such innocents could hand the militants a major propaganda coup and alienate both the local Sunni tribesmen, whose support is critical to ousting the militants, and Sunni Arab countries that are part of the American-led coalition.

The alleged restrain in in fear of killing civilians in bonkers. The few U.S. airstrikes on Islamic State targets, though not admitted, have already killed hundreds of civilians.

This excuse for not helping the defenders of Ramadi is also nonsense as many occasions for potential attacks, like the Islamic State parade in this picture, are in areas with no or few civilians around. Why are Islamic State fighters free to travel the roads between Syria and Iraq in mass?

Nether the "sandstorm" excuse nor the "fear" of accidentally killing civilians seem to be an explanation for the decision to not support the Iraqi troops against the Islamic State attacks. A sound explanation can be found in the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, recently revealed, that says that the U.S. and the Gulf monarchies do want an Islamic State covering east Syria and west Iraq:

“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

In a recent Sunday show the neocon and former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton put it on the record:

I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical Islamists. What's left of the state of Iraq, as of right now, is simply a satellite of the Ayatollahs in Tehran. It's not anything we should try to aid.

The U.S. military in the Middle East is not helping the legitimate state of Iraq against the illegitimate Islamic State. It is shaping the environment so that it will allow for a delimited "Salafist Principality" in Syria and Iraq, mostly independent Kurdish areas and a rump state of Shia Iraq.
---snip

The only sound explanation for the very, very limited air support the U.S. is giving to Iraq is its aim of dismembering the Iraqi state and creating a new Sunni state entity under its tutelage. The Iraqi government should finally recognize this and should stay away from U.S. advice and dependency.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/05/lack-of-us-air-support-in-ramadi-points-to-disguised-darker-aim.html

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. It serves *many* interests to have a protracted Saudi-Iran proxy war

Last edited Wed May 27, 2015, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Oops. FTFM

[TwilightGardener]

2. Starting to suspect the US let Ramadi fall, deliberately. Yes, it was as much our defeat as

the Iraqis', because we are there to advise and direct the war and provide air support and intel, despite what the idiot Carter says about Iraqi cowardice. Once we partnered with Iraq and other countries to take out ISIS, it's every bit as much our responsibility as theirs. The question is, why did we purposefully let it fall--when it had been contested by ISIS and safeguarded by the Iraqis for over a year? Why did the Mosul take-back effort get advertised in detail "by mistake" in February, and then the effort immediately and indefinitely shelved? Something weird is going on. I don't know if we are trying to break up Iraq, necessarily, but we sure aren't putting up much effort on ISIS lately.

[jamzrockz]

3. I have suspected this for a while now

I think the goal is to destroy any state that is allied with Iran and Russia. You see some of that going on in Yemen and a lot of it in Syria. I think the goal is to enable the IS and once they take out the Syria Army, the west and their allies can really put the squeeze on the terrorists in Syria. Turkey will lock its borders, stop the illegal oil sales in its territory. Jordan will do the same.

Also they would move to Lebanon and take care of the Hezbollah problem for Israel. This is a very smart and cheap way of destroying your enemy but for the Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi people, this will be disastrous for them.

Also you see the antiquated Syria air force doing way more damage to ISIS than the US and coalition strikes. How is that possible?