Why is the USA arming the Sunni Militia? Is it so that they can fight Sadr's Shiite Melitia? Malike will be?

Question

Happy? Sad? Annoyed?

Answer 1

The sunnis are being attacked badly by Al Qaeda and have asked for American help. Al Qaeda is who we are after. Neither happy sad or annoyed.

Answer 2

the usa wants a sunni militia that can depose the maliki gov't by coup and then go after the shiite militias. the surge troops will help them. they are already taking up positions in shiite areas.this will allow the usa to leave iraqi in the hands of a ruthless sunni strongman that will sell oil to the right people in the right amounts. saudis happy, opec happy, exxon happy, you and me paying $4.00/gal. for gas. if only saddam had been an exxon shareholder we could have avoided a lot of killing.

Answer 3

I thought the US was arming the Shiite militias.

Answer 4

... confused as hell! The US has its own misguided agendas to prop up an Iraqi weakling as leader as do all the Iraqis and foreigners there.

Is there a possibility that by arming the sunnis al-qaeda killing machine in Iraq will be reduced? Unlikely!

Is there a possibility that US soldiers will be killed with US made weapons and bullets (courtesy of US army)? Very real possibility.

Can you tell me what your President is doing?

Answer 5

They aren't! It was an idea and the allied command in Iraq turned it down.

Answer 6

The US will be doing as Maliki wishes, as it is his country.

Answer 7

see? It was not the fault of Iran.The U.S itself arms them.

Answer 8

I hope you remember this particular post if you will remember anything in a couple of years. The US objective in Iraq is two-fold: 1. to gain unlimited access to Persian Gulf Oil, oil routes and a future gas pipeline from the Caspian sea. (If you need scholarly resources I suggest Antonia Juhasz, The Bush Doctrine) 2. To preserve the geopolitical puzzle left by the British in the Middle East in order to neuter Arab or Persian (Sunni or Shia) proto-powers.
In order to do this, anything BUT a shi'a democracy in Iraq is favorable. Would you be a happy Whitehouser if the largest untapped gas and oil fields in the world belonged to two countries where past Penn. Ave thugs have sowed the seeds of anti-Americanism for centuries to come? And to top it all, those two countries happen to be the only in the world where Shi'a Islam is dominant and the populations are relatively friendly.
If history is a lesson (which it is and it isn't for reasons too obvious to state), past engagements of the US against thirdworld country over far less precious resources were resolved with increasing brutality according to difficulty. That is Panama, 13 days, 24 dead; Grenada, 2 1/2 months, just under a hundred; Viet Nam, short of decade from the Tonkin Incident to the closing of the US embassy and estimates range between 2 and 4 million dead without counting the Pol Pot fiasco (for which the US is largely responsible).
So you see, any observer of US international policy should clearly see that the US clearly sets out to destroy any entity which may stand in the way of its crusade for cheap resources. When populations turn against the US invaders, as they always do in cases of long term occupations, the US generally resorts to inciting civil war and even genocide as a means to 'neutralize' the opposition while avoiding PR disasters.
In this case, the opposition is not Al Qaeda (which for all intents and purposes is an ALLY of the US), but rather the rising threat of a non-violent nationalist movement as the one embodied in Moqtada Al-Sadr, already cherished by Sunni and Shi'a and soon to be galvanized with glory if a convincing disarmament of the Mahdi Army can be portrayed as model for other insurgents to join the strategic shift.
Al Sadr is already popular, his coalition in Parliament just passed a bill requiring any extension of the UN mandate for the occupying forces to be passed by the legislature. The mandate expires in December. Al Sadr has also waged fiery campaigns against the Walls perceived to be turning Bhagdad into Ramallah. Truth is he did not even need to point out the similarities with Nasrallah, Mr. Al Sadr might turn out to be more popular than the defender of Lebanon.
Ring a bell? Popular leaders seeking a non-violent resolution to US imposed conflict? It's happened a dozen times and the US tactic has been generally the same: Kill the guy or occupy him with civil war. The attempts to against Al-Sadr have ended up in such disgusting blunders as last weeks' strafing of an elderly couple sleeping in their roof (supposedly a Mahdi man SHOULD have been in the building). The US is playing Whack-a-mole with Mr. Al-Sadr except the mole is running circles around the would-be whacker, and building a hell of a reputation for himself as a Resistance leader.
Just as in Viet Nam, the dream of turning the native population against national hero Ho Chi Minh gone, a pussilanimous Peace Front making headlines in the corporate press and an election campaign to be won by the NO MORE AMERICAN DEATHS ticket, the consiglieri are already asking that an example be made of the unworthy Babylonian race and the bombs are already dropping.
Pay attention to the significant failure of the surge, which after a year has only inflated the vainglorious US casualty rate while only a THIRD of Bhagdad lies under coalition control.
HISTORY QUIZ: What did Milhaus do after he lost the JUNKY'S GAMBLE of escalation back in Nam? If you answered "Bomb them back to the Stone Age" (to quote the horse), you are right!!! The foreseeable consequence was anarchy, which Repos and Demos alike (with the possible exception Sen. McGovern if you believe Hunter) hoped would bring down Uncle Ho's regime (he was dead then and all the more powerful for it).
Just to spice things up, the CIA had been running a not so covert operation flying planes under the Air America banner and distributing weapons, ammunition and basic training to anyone willing to kill Vietnamese. The Laotian army was on the CIA paycheck and shortly every goon, sadist and psychopath with taste for spilling guts was being shipped to Indochina, trained in Spanish-style inquisition and armed to the teeth. (Please contact me if you want to find the interviews with US Marines who, much like McGivers on PCP, describe the usefulness of shoe string when committed to inflicting savage pain and boundless fear)
Anyhow, to get back from what must look like a tangent, the mix of massive bombing (more tonnage dropped than over the whole Pacific theater in dubya dubya two!) and the proliferation of arms (thugs included) resulted not in the successful overthrow of a popular socialist government, or victory over the most recalcitrant insurgency in the history of empires, but rather in the savage murder of a large portion the Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian peasantry under a barrage of US bombs, Agent Orange and Napalm. Which did the deed, as far the mafiosi running the Pentagon were concerned, the lesson would not be forgotten that no limit would be placed on any act of savagery, sodomy or recklessness as long as it was committed in the name of anti-communism.
I am willing to bet anyone with a spare dime that this summer's top tune in DC is McCain's version of Barbara Ann. Surely, the Nixon aides riding shotgun in the Executive Branch are having nightly wet dreams about Iraqis being bombed back to the paleolithic. Not that we will find out until those papers are declassified in fifty years, because the unmistakable lapdog we call the media has been playing dead rather than cover the mounting air campaign over the Gulf.
So, to answer your question, why is the s arming every fanatic in the Muslim world waging jihad against popular Shiite leaders? well, just as in Viet Nam, the brass wants to see blood and they won't stop until every sensible opponent is either brutally murdered or maddened into vengeance. The US is the only party who would benefit from a civil war in Iraq, as it would give something for the presses to run, particularly against Iran, and thereby justify 50 more years of neglecting the domestic population, pumping low-royalty oil and getting back to the business of making Latin Americans' lives a living hell.
The difference with Nam is that the US has a vested interest in the oil most Iraqis consider their rightful patrimony. Chances are the Pentagon wants Sadr and co. to cry uncle so that they won't be forced to cover up yet another genocide, but i would not over-emphasize the rationality of the people who waged war on SOME drugs, SOME terrorism and EVERY hapless peasant who has ever been rumored to have heard the first stanza of the International.
Still, one must assume that at some point, the CEO's running the hacks running the country will prefer oil to savage vengeance. Thereby cutting short Cheney's vendetta and saving the Iraqi people of a likely repetition of the Khmer Rouge Show. Then again, you never know.
If in 10 years you are watching a History Channel special called "Genocide by the Euphrates", remember this post. The US wants anarchy in the Middle East and it wants it blamed on somebody else. Somebody will step up and you can bet he will make Saddam look like a people person. All so that Mr. Al Sadr is stripped of power, Iraqi oil is sold in the nearest gas station and Iran is demonized into an acceptable target for the next nuclear holocaust.
Or, what, you thought they were kidding? ("bomb bomb bomb... bomb Iran")

PS: Maliki is a puppet. He will dance if the US wants him, he will laugh, he will cry. What he won't do is defend his country's sovereignty, and that is another bet i am willing to make with the next person naive enough to set a wager.

Answer 9

cause the u.s. is being stupid as hell over there!