Author Topic: Petraeus says ISIS isn't biggest long-term threat to region  (Read 2843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jujyjuji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Petraeus says ISIS isn't biggest long-term threat to region
« on: March 23, 2015, 11:58:44 AM »
*eyeroll* ... It was US supporting Maliki's weak Shia govt in Iraq before the dissaster... And nobody is saying anything to Saudi Arabia for backing ISIS... but Paetraeus says --->

---


Petraeus: ISIS isn't biggest long-term threat to region

By Jeremy Diamond, CNN

Updated 1240 GMT (2040 HKT) March 21, 2015

 (CNN)The biggest threat to Iraq's long-term stability isn't ISIS, according to Gen. David Petraeus, who led the U.S. surge during the Iraq War.

Instead, Petraeus said the Iran-backed Shiite militias who are helping to fend off ISIS are "the foremost threat" to long-term stability in Iraq, according to an interview with the Washington Post. The comments provide the most expansive glimpse yet into how Petraeus may be helping to shape the Obama administration's strategy in Iraq as he continues to advise the National Security Council on the issue.

Those militias, many funded and trained by Iran, have been an important part of efforts to push ISIS out of Syria, but they have also been accused of war crimes -- allegedly murdering not just ISIS fighters, but also Sunni civilians.

"They have, to a degree, been both part of Iraq's salvation but also the most serious threat to the all-important effort of once again getting the Sunni Arab population in Iraq to feel that it has a stake in the success of Iraq rather than a stake in its failure," Petraeus told the Post. "Longer term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran."

Petraeus' comments come as the U.S.'s strategy to defeat ISIS is facing increased scrutiny on Capitol Hill as lawmakers debate how to enshrine the U.S.'s war against ISIS into legislation formally authorizing military force.

Lawmakers pressed the U.S.'s top national security officials during a hearing last week on the growing influence of Iran in the region and the long-term implications for security -- something Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Marin Dempsey said raised legitimate concerns.

"We are all concerned about what happens after the drums stop beating and ISIL is defeated," Dempsey said.

Iran's growing influence in the region dates back to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which toppled Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime and put Shiite Muslims -- the country's dominant group -- in power. Iran, also a Shiite-majority country, seized the opportunity to rekindle ties with its formerly rival neighbor.

And the ISIS threat also gave Iran an opening to expand its influence in the region, sending its elite Revolutionary Guards to Iraq to train, advise and fight ISIS, whose advances into Iraq sounded alarm bells in Iran.

Despite ongoing negotiations with the U.S., Iran, which supports destabilizing terror groups in the region, remains a threat to U.S. allies and the U.S.'s strategic interests -- like Iran's support of the Assad regime in Syria.

The situation in Syria is also one Petraeus said he is "profoundly worried about."

"Until it is capped, it is going to continue to spew radioactive instability and extremist ideology over the entire region," said Petraeus, who also served as President Barack Obama's CIA director. "Any strategy to stabilize the region thus needs to take into account the challenges in both Iraq and Syria. It is not sufficient to say that we'll figure them out later."

The Obama administration's strategy in dealing with the still-ongoing civil war in Syria has been just one of the many magnets for criticism from GOP lawmakers, the most prominent of which is Sen. John McCain, who has argued the U.S. should do more to stem the violence in that country -- notably, arming moderate rebels fighting the Syrian regime.

The Obama administration has trained and armed some opposition forces and is still trying to identify the ideal partners for the U.S. on the ground in Syria, but those efforts would only be aimed at defeating ISIS, not the Assad regime.

And the U.S. has focused on fighting ISIS, leading a coalition that is pummeling the extremist group from the air while coordinating with local forces on the ground. Those efforts have spared the Syrian regime.

Source/More: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/20/politics/petraeus-greatest-threat-iraq-isis-shiite-militias/

Offline J.C

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 866
  • la plume est plus puissante que l'épée
    • Snowden
Re: Petraeus says ISIS isn't biggest long-term threat to region
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2015, 19:20:19 PM »
Even if it sounds worse, but the guy seems to be right. There will always be an "after-ISIS" (so-called) in this region.
Assange fears the Pigeon.

https://goo.gl/QjIHja

Offline jujyjuji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Petraeus says ISIS isn't biggest long-term threat to region
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2015, 14:33:47 PM »
Yes this is for sure and it's correct that we should be careful about an eventual rise of Shia-based regimes, but really I'm afraid the US are still trying a "divide and conquer" strategy in ME, and it depends on who are their political allies (all Sunni-based regimes including Qatar and Saudi Arabia).

Till the Cold war US has worked to destabilize whatever Baathist regime/Govt in ME (ake the socialists) and supported the Sunni coalitions while Russia often got allied with Shia ones; and this game is still ongoing, hiddenly.
In Middle East the religious feelings are strong enough to motivate politics and ignite wars. And what I see is that US rarely (almost Never!) supported secularist entities that could instead try to create a balance, in politics at least.

In Iraq after the war against Saddam, a dictator that has been overthrown mainly for attacking the Oil allie Qatar, US have supported the weak Maliki govt. that was Shia-based (Saddam was Sunni and more secular than AlQaeda for sure!); Maliki wasn't accepted by the main part of Iraq and has done a valuation error after another... and he was Shia^^...

In a study of WL documents on the rise of ISIS in Iraq I noticed how much played the local Govt & administration's weakness in countering AQIZ (AlQaeda) and their worst derivate ISI (ISIS).

This has let ISIS grow like a fish with a lot of space and that has eaten too much.
And it has nothing to do with Iran.

Meanwhile the US have worked to weaken the already disastrous Assad's regime (another Iran's allie), and Assad is another potential secular regime.

About the amount of human rights abuses on citizens of Each Middle Eastern regime I have no doubt: we can find them everywhere.
But at least the last Iranian President was voted and chosen between several persons running for the role; and Rouhani isn't Ahmadinejad at all.
Also, with whatever previous political entity in Syria, Iraq, Lybia, etc. the local minorities had protection.
Now they haven't at all.
The US allies are instead Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Emirates, Bahrain... where Nobody is voted and beheadings are used as a "normal punishment" for oppositors or... in Saudi Arabia even women that have (may be) betrayed the husband. These regimes are more similar to the ISIS ideology than the others and are known to have even fundraised ISIS.

But for Petraeus the problem is Iran.

*Eyeroll*

For me the contradiction of what he declared is evident.

Of course this war to stop ISIS doesn't have to be an excuse for Shia-based militias to become like IS and get hegemony. But for me the main problem is that religion is used as a propaganda tool to commit genocides. This is the main problem in that zone. Surely bigger than Iran.

And... about the nuclear power: Pakistan has nuclear weapons too and is full of Talibans that are getting even worst than the Afghani Talibans... And Bin Laden was Saudi #justsaying... Do we really think Iran, that has a stable government, is the main problem?