Hasta ahora
sabíamos que los chicos del ISIS son un invento del Imperio; que sus líderes se
recibieron con honores en esa Universidad del Terrorismo que es Guantánamo; que
reciben información y partes diarios de inteligencia sobre la situación en el
terreno; que sus “militantes” (rentados, obvio) reciben instrucción militar;
finalmente, que regularmente reciben armamento y provisiones por parte de la
“coalición” de países que acompañan al Imperio en sus correrías por Medio
Oriente. Todo eso se sabía, pero se decía en voz baja. Ahora, en cambio, se
dice abiertamente; las autoridades iraquíes, nada menos. Leemos en Zero Hedge:
Título: US Is
"In Cahoots With ISIS," Iraqis Swear: "It Is Not In Doubt"
Texto: On Tuesday
evening, we took a look at how Iran’s Shiite proxy arms fighting ISIS in Iraq
responded to Ash Carter’s contention that the US would soon send an
“expeditionary targeting force” to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces in
the battle against Islamic State.
From Kata'ib
Hezbollah: "We will chase and fight any American force deployed in Iraq.
Any such American force will become a primary target for our group. We fought
them before and we are ready to resume fighting."
From the Badr
Organisation: "All Iraqis look to (the Americans) as occupiers who are not
trustworthy."
And as for the
official reaction from Baghdad, we go to PM Haider al-Abadi: “Iraq does not
need foreign ground combat forces on Iraqi land."
So basically,
“thanks, but we’ve seen enough of your ground troops over the past 15 years and
if they come here again, they’re likely to get shot at, and not just by ISIS.”
This is a
conundrum for Washington. The US-trained and armed Iraqi regulars fight
alongside, and in some cases report directly to, the Shiite militias and these
militias are far more effective at fighting ISIS than government forces. In
some battles, there are more militiamen fighting than Iraqi soldiers.
Additionally,
Iran wields considerable political influence in Baghdad and as we said on
Tuesday evening, the comments out of Kata'ib Hezbollah, Badr, and Abadi might
as well have been issued directly from Tehran because that’s unquestionably
who’s pulling the strings here. 9,500 US troops in Afghanistan is bad enough
and the IRGC isn’t thrilled about the prospect of America building up a troop
presence in another neighboring country.
Obviously it says
a lot about the army that the US left behind in Iraq that they have to rely on
Iranian proxies to fight for them, and that would be embarrassing enough as it
is without the militias’ leaders habit of calling out Washington for not taking
the fight against ISIS seriously.
“U.S. airstrikes
targeting ISIS around Ramadi are proving not very effective," the head of
the Iran-backed militias surrounding the conquered Iraqi city told NBC back in
June. "We expect more from the Americans. There are no real airstrikes
against ISIS headquarters."
That’s but one of
many examples. In short, Iraqis are asking the same question everyone who isn’t
wedded to the Western narrative is asking. Namely, “how is it that the most
powerful army on the face of the planet just can’t seem to put a dent in the
conquest plans of a group whose fighters only number 30,000?” Iran is using its
influence in Iraq to make sure that this question is being raised not only
among civilians, but among politicians in Baghdad as well.
Now, The
Washington Post has taken a look at what, to the American public, probably
seems like a peculiar phenomenon: Iraq is pretty sure the US is “in cahoots”
with ISIS.
“Iraqi fighters
say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters
airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and
relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion,” WaPo reports, adding
that “ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached
the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely
believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State
for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control
over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.”
Sure, that
conclusion “may seem absurd to Americans” now, but more people are beginning to
ask questions. Take Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for example.
Recall that last
month Shiite fighters backed by the Iraqi army retook the Baiji refinery near
Siniya (we profiled the fight here). Here’s what Mustafa Saadi, a Shiite
commander involved in that particular effort has to say about America’s
relationship with ISIS: “It is not in doubt. ISIS is almost finished. They are
weak. If only America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in
days.”
Yes, “if only the
US would stop supporting them” they’d be finished “in days,” which is what we,
and countless others have been saying for the better part of a year. Saadi also
said a friend of his witnessed the US airdropping bottled water to an ISIS
position. Here's a now infamous video that surfaced after the assault on Baiji which
purports to show US parachutes and other items delivered to ISIS inside the
refinery (obviously, there's no way to authenticate this and it's just
presented here to give readers an idea of how rampant the speculation is):
As for The
Pentagon, Col. Steve Warren, the military’s Baghdad-based spokesman says the
idea that the US is supporting ISIS is “beyond ridiculous.” “There’s clearly no
one in the West who buys it,” he added.
Actually Steve,
there are a lot of people in the West that “buy it,” and that number is growing
with each passing Putin accusation and with every bit of incremental evidence
that incriminates US ally Turkey in participating in the lucrative ISIS oil
trade.
So who’s to blame
for this vicious "propaganda"? Well, Iran of course.
The allegations
of U.S. collusion with the Islamic State are aired regularly in parliament by
Shiite politicians and promoted in postings on social media. They are
persistent enough to suggest a deliberate campaign on the part of Iran’s allies
in Iraq to erode American influence, U.S. officials say.
In one typical
recent video that appeared on the Facebook page of a Shiite militia, a lawmaker
with the country’s biggest militia group, the Badr Organization, waves
apparently new U.S military MREs (meals ready to eat) — one of them chicken and
dumplings — allegedly found at a recently captured Islamic State base in Baiji,
offering proof, he said, of U.S. support.
“The Iranians and
the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are really pushing this line of propaganda,
that the United States is supporting ISIL,” Warren said. “It’s part of the
Iranian propaganda machine.”
Of course you
really can’t call it “propaganda” if it’s true.
As WaPo goes on
to note, Abadi has to be careful when it comes to denying the accusations as a
handful of Shiite militia commanders are set to use their reputation on the
battlefield as a kind of political trampoline. In short, if Abadi doesn’t toe
the line, he could find himself out of a job.
Meanwhile, Naseer
Nouri, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense blamed the perception of US-ISIS
collusion on America’s sluggish response to requests for help. “We don’t
believe the Americans support Daesh, but it is true that most people are saying
they do, and they are right to believe that the Americans should be doing much
more than they are. It’s because America is so slow that most people believe
they are supporting Daesh.”
If it walks like
a duck Mr. Nouri...
Make no mistake,
none of this is going to keep The Pentagon from putting SpecOps on the ground.
As we said last night, Washington probably wasn't looking for permission in the
first place despite Carter's lip service to Baghdad on Tuesday. The US will
likely embed the Spec Ops with the Peshmerga via the KRG in Erbil. “Iraq’s
semiautonomous region of Kurdistan, where support for the United States remains
strong, has said it would welcome more troops,” WaPo notes.
We’ll close with
the following quote from Mustafa Alani, director of the Dubai-based Gulf
Research Center, who explains in very plain language why more and more people
believe the US just may be in bed with ISIS.
“The reason is
that the Americans aren’t doing the job people expect them to do. Mosul was
lost and the Americans did nothing. Syria was lost and the Americans did
nothing. Paris is attacked and the Americans aren’t doing much. So people
believe this is a deliberate policy. They can’t believe the American leadership
fails to understand the developments in the region, and so the only other explanation
is that this is part of a conspiracy.”
El problema de fondo está en Washington. Necesitan otro presidente que pare todo lo que está avalando Obama directa e indirectamente, explícita o implícitamente, pública o discretamente.
ResponderEliminarEl hecho de que muchos crean que es un "progresista" no impide el hecho de que, con ese presidente, por segunda vez en la historia de la humanidad, se colocaron en el tablero mundial todas las piezas de tal modo que cada vez estamos más cerca de una guerra mundial nuclear. No solo no lo impide sino que lo hace más propicio a este resultado.
A diferencia de la crisis de los misiles de los '60, en la que JFK se encontró con una situación producto, en parte, de cosas heredadas y en parte de cosas que él mismo permitió que ocurran, pero, a diferencia de hoy, JFK tenía enormes capacidades morales, políticas e intelectuales para dar vuelta la situación y encontrar una solución. Obama no le llega ni al tobillo a aquél presidente. Está más preocupado por él mismo y su disputa con Putin que por el futuro de su propio país y del mundo.
¿Qué creerá el pobre hombre? Que, luego de iniciada la guerra, lo van a seguir alabando y rindiendo pleitesía en microclimas de las profundidades de un bunker antinuclear??
oti, Obama sigue la lógica de los intereses geoestratégicos de EEUU, ni más ni menos que lo mismo que JFK.
ResponderEliminaroti, Obama sigue la lógica de los intereses geoestratégicos de EEUU, ni más ni menos que lo mismo que JFK.
ResponderEliminarCreo que sigue la lógica de los intereses geoestratégicos de las oligarquías globales, no de EEUU.
EliminarJFK paró la pelota, en contra de la sugerencia de varios de sus asesores. Luego, lo asesinaron. No creo por ir a favor de los intereses geoestratégicos de EEUU.
¿Cuándo va a parar la pelota Obama?
Todo indica que la sigue y la sigue, creyendo que Rusia y China se van a someter. Pero no lo van a hacer. Por lo tanto, seguir en la misma senda de provocaciones es acercarse más y más a una guerra nuclear.