The Iraqi military, going into Fallujah, are supported by Iranian and Shia militia, as well as -- at least officially -- by US air power.
However, Iraqi military commanders have said that US forces were reluctant about launching the latest offensive on Fallujah. In one live report Monday, CNN's Ben Wedeman quoted Iraqi military sources as saying that American commanders wanted the assault to instead concentrate on the northern city of Mosul.
Which raises the question: why is the US military reluctant about taking out Fallujah from the terror triangle that straddles Iraq and Syria? If Fallujah were to fall -- as Iraqi military commanders seem confident of -- then that surely would spell a decisive defeat for Daesh militants both in Iraq and in Syria.
Washington's covert relationship with the jihadist terror groups is mercurial. It is known that elements within Washington -- the CIA and Pentagon -- have covertly supported the terror network as a proxy for regime change and other political ends. On the other hand, Washington is also avowedly waging a war to defeat the terrorists, with air strikes in Syria and Iraq and ground support for the Iraqi army.
One such contradiction is the seeming reluctance of the US military to support the Iraqi assault on Fallujah to terminate Daesh.
Could it be that the US -- or elements within its power structure -- does not really want to see its terrorist proxies wiped out entirely because of Washington's ongoing hidden agenda for regime change in Syria?
Hence the purported concerns expressed in US and the Western media over "civilians being injured" during the Iraqi army assault this week on Fallujah. It seems to be a conniving attempt to restrain the campaign against Daesh, rather than destroy the terrorists.
When were civilian casualties ever the cause of misgivings during the US and British blitzkrieg on Fallujah in 2004?
Precisely.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
