| Tango01 | 18 May 2015 3:49 p.m. PST |
…City Of Ramadi. "Iraqi defence ministry says reinforcements on the way after Islamic State claims full control over Ramadi Iraqi militias have begun mobilising towards the predominantly Sunni Anbar province in a belated effort to push back against Islamic State, which seized the region's capital city on Sunday. "We invite our people in Anbar to remain steadfast and hold their ground as reinforcements from your brothers in Hashd al-Shaabi are coming," the Iraqi defence ministry said. The Hashd is a conglomerate of fighters including mainly Shia militias and pro-government local Sunni fighters who have taken up arms against Isis…"
Full article here
link
Amicalement
Armand |
| Cyrus the Great | 18 May 2015 8:49 p.m. PST |
Well now the real fighting will begin. |
 Legion 4  | 19 May 2015 9:48 a.m. PST |
Well according to CNN, Shia Militias, Tribal fighters and Iraqi Police are preping for combat in the area. So we'll see … I'm just not sure how well those 3 elements will coordinate, or how many losses any are willing to take before they fallback. Hopefully none of them will drop their guns and run. Something else to consider, sometimes Shia Militias don't see any difference between Daesh Sunni and Sunni in general … Bad blood left over from Saddam's era and even before … |
| Tango01 | 19 May 2015 10:36 a.m. PST |
Where are the Iranian Guards? (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| Mako11 | 19 May 2015 12:35 p.m. PST |
Hmmmm, begs the question, what were all those Shia militias doing beforehand? Hell of a way to run the defense of a country. Almost seems as if they're happy to let ISIS rout their Sunni enemies for them, but that's crazy talk, right? Surely, the Shia leadership wouldn't be so cynical as to do that to their erstwhile "allies", would they? I suspect they may be working on one of those celebratory parade videos, where they prance like Lipizzaner stallions. Armand. Dancing is illegal in Iran, but prancing in military parades is highly regarded. |
| Gwydion | 19 May 2015 12:39 p.m. PST |
Mako11
The local Sunnis, the army, the govt and the Americans asked them not to get involved because they thought they might:
be sectarian,
suggest the US and Iran were buddies
win and show up the army
end up fighting the Iraqi Army. Now the 'advisors' have lost they are happy to see the Shia get their share (in whatever way that pans out) |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 19 May 2015 1:12 p.m. PST |
Gwydion is quite correct. When the Iraqis were preparing to assault Tikrit early this year, the US demanded that the shia militias back off and let the "Iraqis" take the lead and win all the glory as a condition for supporting the offensive with airstrikes. Many of the shia militiamen then "went on strike" as if they're in a labor union. |
| Legion 4 | 19 May 2015 1:54 p.m. PST |
The local Sunnis, the army, the govt and the Americans asked them not to get involved because they thought they might:
be sectarian,
suggest the US and Iran were buddies
win and show up the army
end up fighting the Iraqi Army.Now the 'advisors' have lost they are happy to see the Shia get their share (in whatever way that pans out)
The key word there is "sectarian" … probably one of the overriding concerns … One of the reasons Daesh got so many local Sunni joining is because of the Shia lead Iraqi gov't went old school and decided to get paybeck on the Sunnis be more important than actually creating a multi-lateral gov't … Again old hatreds and bad blood … |
| Mako11 | 19 May 2015 8:58 p.m. PST |
I have a hard time believing the Iranians, and/or their militias will do anything we ask them to do. Case in point, that cargo ship is back on its way to Yemen, with an armed, Iranian naval escort, again. |
| Gwydion | 20 May 2015 5:51 a.m. PST |
I have a hard time believing the Iranians, and/or their militias will do anything we ask them to do. So now you're saying they did fight?  |
| Cyrus the Great | 20 May 2015 12:13 p.m. PST |
As I understand it right now; we are on the same side in Iraq, against them in Yemen and fighting for and against them in Syria. |
| Gwydion | 20 May 2015 3:21 p.m. PST |
Confusing isn't it? Makes the old 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' routine look a little naïve. |
| Legion 4 | 21 May 2015 9:03 a.m. PST |
Yes, recently heard a retired Army officer say, "The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy." |
| cwlinsj | 21 May 2015 9:42 a.m. PST |
When the Iraqis were preparing to assault Tikrit early this year, the US demanded that the shia militias back off and let the "Iraqis" take the lead and win all the glory as a condition for supporting the offensive with airstrikes. I would disagree with this recounting of events. As I recall: The Iraqis happily announced their assault to re-take Tikrit using only local forces -all without the need for American/coalition air support. These plan to recapture Tikrit included Iranian-backed militia forces. It wasn't until their assault went nowhere that humbled Iraqi officials went back to the Americans "hat in hand" to beg for air assistance. Only after this request for help, did Americans state that air support would resume only on condition of the withdrawal of Iranian-backed militias. The IRG was humiliated by this event. |
| Weasel | 21 May 2015 12:00 p.m. PST |
It's always interesting to me that we expect others to not do the same things we do. |
| Legion 4 | 21 May 2015 3:19 p.m. PST |
I believe that is correct cwlinsj … Had there not been the threat of those Persian supported Shia Militias going on an anti-Sunni Jihad. It might have been a different story. Remember those same Shia militias again backed by and supplied by Iran … Both have American [and probably other members of the Coalition] blood on their hands from GWII … |
