Saturday, March 14, 2020

Iraqi military condemns U.S. airstrikes- 2 Naval Carriers in Gulf, A First Since 2012- Birth Pangs

Following up on the previous report :

Breaking: US "Retaliatory" Airstrikes Underway in Iraq- Birth Pangs



For the 1st time since 2012, U.S. has 2 Naval carriers in the Gulf due to recent tit-for-tat attacks

 Recent "tit for tat" attacks?

Iraqi security forces on Friday check the damage at a civilian airport under construction that was hit by a U.S. airstrike in the holy Shia city of Kerbala
"Iraq's military condemned overnight U.S. airstrikes on Friday, saying they had killed six people and describing them as a violation of sovereignty and a targeted aggression against the nation's formal armed forces.

"The pretext that this attack came as a response to the aggression that targeted the Taji base is a false pretext; one that leads to escalation and does not provide a solution,"
Iraq's Joint Operations Command said in a statement.
 "The pretext that this attack came as a response to the aggression that targeted the Taji base is a false pretext; one that leads to escalation and does not provide a solution,"

Iraq is straight out saying the US is lying.
Pretext as defined "a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason"
"This action is against the will of the Iraqi state and a violation of its sovereignty, it strengthens outlaws. No party has the right to substitute itself for the state, its sovereignty, or its legitimate decisions."

The tit-for-tat strikes potentially signal another cycle of violence between Washington and Tehran that could play out inside Iraq. And they threaten to hamper ongoing U.S. negotiations with the Iraqi government to keep American troops in the country.
Negotiations to stay? Come on! How does one negotiate when a gun or several guns are being held to their head?  And bombed at will? Simply not credible to even state such a thing.
Due to the ongoing threat, McKenzie said Defence Secretary Mark Esper has agreed to keep two navy aircraft carriers — the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS Harry S. Truman — in the Gulf region "for a period of time."
He said this is the first time since 2012 that the U.S. has had two carriers in the region at the same time.


He also said that Patriot air defence missile systems are being moved into Iraq to provide defences against ballistic missile attacks like the January strike by Iran that hit an Iraqi airbase where U.S. troops were present.
 From Jan.2/20
  • US Escalation in Iraq: Taking Kirkuk & Further Entrenching the US in the Region

    "This is not about responding to a militia- and it’s not directly, though it will eventually get to  being, more about a response to Iran. This is about Kirkuk. Control of territory. Control of resources. And most likely a challenge to Russia. As well as Turkey. 

      The very idea that one would send thousands of additional troops to respond to a militia,  into a nation that already has at least 5000 US troops, an unknown number of mercenaries along with other coalition forces present, is absurd. The existing force should make a firm response to the blamed militia, a cakewalk. That said, taking and holding additional territory would require more man power. And that is, in my opinion, what’s really going on."

4 comments:

  1. The US has been covertly building up forces for awhile now, just like before they attacked Iraq originally and Iran's response to this is tepid at best. I wont even begin commenting on the lapdog Iraqi government's lack of actions.

    It amazes me that these countries ( Iran, Iraq, Russia, Turkey, China etc ... ) don't seem to grasp that they need to put up a unified , cohesive, robust defense, otherwise they will be picked off one by one. Its also possible that Russia and China are not who we think they are and are actually facilitating the destruction of Iran and Turkey. So many questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mieszko;

      I'm aware of the latest build up and did report about it being done at the beginning of 2020

      "The very idea that one would send thousands of additional troops to respond to a militia, into a nation that already has at least 5000 US troops, an unknown number of mercenaries along with other coalition forces present, is absurd. The existing force should make a firm response to the blamed militia, a cakewalk. That said, taking and holding additional territory would require more man power. And that is, in my opinion, what’s really going on."


      "It amazes me that these countries ( Iran, Iraq, Russia, Turkey, China etc ... ) don't seem to grasp that they need to put up a unified , cohesive, robust defense, otherwise they will be picked off one by one."

      This is where I see the Astana and Sochi agreements as being an attempt at unification and cohesion (not perfect) but it's definitely cooperation in action

      Delete
  2. Holding Kirkuk is really about maintaining control of core future Kurdistan. That's why the Israelis are bombing here also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tsigantes:

      "Holding Kirkuk is really about maintaining control of core future Kurdistan."

      I understand that completely having written repeatedly about that-

      Last time mentioned was the beginning of this year, a referral back to the myriad of other mentions

      "Kirkuk, disputed and resource rich

      I've talked the remake of the region for so long now... we're not getting into that in any detail, except to say it's factor in the taking of Kirkuk."



      That's why the Israelis are bombing here also.

      That I was unaware of. Not surprised, but, unaware.

      Delete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS