Iran and U.S. forces aligned
By Jim Killebrew
Send a link to a friend
[June 18, 2014]
is almost unbelievable to hear the President even suggest he is
thinking about inviting Iran into Iraq in an effort to help the
Iraqis drive out the ISIS terrorists in the process of toppling the
Iraqi government. As if that is not bad enough, the Administration
is talking like they will side with the Iranians as allies to share
in the fight. Keep in mind it was the Iranians who held American
hostages for 444 days during the Carter Administration releasing
them on the day Ronald Regan was inaugurated. Additionally, from
that time forward the radical theocratic leaders of Iran have
sponsored terrorism throughout the Middle East and world. They have
repeatedly called for the elimination of Israel's existence and
death to the "Great Satan" America.
As the Administration is contemplating a response to the rapid fall of the
Iraqi government, the US Secretary of State John Kerry said recently, "We're
open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be
contributed by Iran." What in the world can Iran contribute in any
constructive manner? The leaders of Iran have not shown any consideration to
Americans, or any of their enemies, for the last thirty-plus years. Their
goal is to eliminate their enemies or anyone who disagrees with them because
anyone who does not agree with them is considered and "Infidel" and is
deserving of death in their opinion.
Iran has already sent thousands of troops into Iraq along with a high
commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. As it teams up with the
Iraqi-led Shiite government Iranian troops and commander will fight
alongside the Iraqi troops. The President has sanctioned the collaboration
between the United States and Iranian diplomats as they met in Geneva
recently in how together they can "de-escalate the ongoing crisis in Iraq."
Needless to say, there has been pushback from leading republicans regarding
the teaming of U.S. forces with Iran in Iraq. The most notable are John
McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Elliot Engel (D-NY). Both of these men in
Congress disagree with the President's movement toward pairing up with Iran
in a fighting war in Iraq against the sectarian insurgents.
One major problem with this arrangement is the past precedent and behavior
of the President. He has demonstrated time and again he is willing to say
and do one thing but then change his mind later and act differently from his
initial stand. The very problem we have in Iraq now is the timing of the
withdrawal of our fighting forces from Iraq. There were warnings from all
levels of Pentagon and Department of Defense officials that leaving a war
theater prematurely would create a vacuum that could only be filled by the
enemy. Leaving a standing military force has been the practice in America
since the second world war. We have forces intact throughout Europe and
Asia. One has to question the President's motives for not leaving a force
significant enough to shield against such as is happening in Iraq presently.
Even the person on the street recognizes that leaving a fight early only
emboldens the aggressor; most people learn that from the school-yard bully
in grade school.
The proof that the President intends to repeat the actions and policies he
practiced in Iraq is that he has already done the same thing in the war
theater in Afghanistan. Not only do Americans now know that the troops are
being pulled out of that war by the end of this year, but only a small
contingent group of ground support will remain after 2015. Is the danger of
terrorist activity ending simply because the President packs up and leaves?
It signals to Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists they only need wait for a few
months until all the Americans are gone before they re-load their efforts to
re-establish their launch platform in that country as well. It seems the
President and his advisors seem consistent in making decisions and
implementing policies that go against all military convention from past
[to top of second column]
Another major problem seems twofold, first it seems like some of the
decisions the President makes repeatedly in regard to the foreign affairs
standing throughout the world is a result of the promises he has made and
continues to make during his campaigns for political office. Secondly, as a
result of that his options are falling on the side of political expedience
rather than the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.
Not only can that be seen in his projecting end dates for withdrawing from
the war on terror, but in other decisions like disregarding notification to
Congress by negotiating away to the Taliban the five most dangerous
high-ranking Taliban members to the Taliban at their request. Additionally,
we see the gathering of thousands illegal immigrant children and some of
their parents crossing the U.S. Southern border under the protection of his
policy not to turn them back.
Not only is that a violation of the federal law to establish a policy of
non-deportation, but it is further exacerbated by having the federal agents
pick up from the original "transportation coyotes'" bringing them to the
U.S. border and transporting them across state lines into Arizona.
This action on his part cause the American people to lose faith in his
ability to provide the security and protection needed for the American
people. That kind of behavior scares a lot of people into thinking that the
President is actually purposely engaging in these policy decisions a part of
a wider, master plan to fundamentally change America in a way that weakens
America's standing in the world and on the domestic side as well. The attack
on the infrastructure alone for years to come as a result of opening up the
borders of America will create hardship on the entire country with security
breach and economic impact.
Establishing an alliance with Iran may not be the President's best idea,
especially with a chance it will only entrench Iranian forces in Iraq
long-term. Not to mention Iran gaining access to the sophisticated American
military weapons systems. Congress needs to take action to prevent that.
[By JIM KILLEBREW]
Click here to respond to the editor about this