Obama paving of Australia to enter the massive ground in Iraq and Syria under the "pretext" to fight "Islamic state" in the event of control over nuclear weapons .. Where these weapons? It is owned by Israel? And why this condition now?

Abdel Bari Atwan

Those who live in the West, following the methods of governments in the progressive boot, or marketing of political and military specific public opinion stands, is well aware that US President Barack Obama when he says in a press conference held on the sidelines of the economic top twenty in the city of Brisbane, Australia on Sunday, "We will not hesitate to send ground units to the area in the event of "Islamic state" forces seized control of a nuclear weapon, for example, but we want the Iraqi security forces take office ", this means, At first glance, the decision to send US troops to Iraq and Syria may have been taken early and waiting for an excuse , and we are at the doors of the implementation phase.

President Obama has doubled the number of US ground forces in Iraq to 3,100, said a week ago that the number will rise, and that the other forces in the road, and justified the sending of these forces, old and new to train the Iraqi army and re-military rehabilitation so that he can address the forces of the "Islamic state".

***

We do not believe that the training of Iraqi forces needs to be this huge trainers and advisers number, unless the census this army will reach millions of officers and soldiers, and expect that there is a US-Iraqi joint plan, a strong return of Washington's military intervention in Iraq and Syria, but the "window" the fight against "Islamic state", that is, they will not be invading forces, but friendly, but what is the price you waiting for Washington?

What we tend to believe that several indicators of a large degree of importance are summarized in the following points:

First: There is a consensus among most military analysts Americans that the US aerial bombardment of gatherings "Islamic state" in Iraq, and Syria has not achieved little success in weakening it and reduce its strength, and it is no substitute for the presence of troops on the ground.

Second: The steady drumbeat of news for many, credible, from Western sources about the "advisers" Americans accompany Iraqi forces in the fight to restore the cities and towns in Anbar province, as well as break the siege of the city of Baiji oil refinery, which provides sixty percent of the country's needs of Petroleum products such as gasoline and the necessary fuel oil.

Third: Visit Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chief of Staff of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff suddenly to Iraq, and offer a bid for the involvement of US troops in battles that may be launched in dangerous places (Nineveh, the Iraqi-Syrian border) against al-Islamic state, a bid that Mr. Haider Abadi, the Iraqi prime minister, he said rejected.

Fourth, most of the members of the coalition of Arabs, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates and Qatar refused Furthermore Turkey to send ground troops to Iraq and Syria, Mr. Abadi declined in contrast presence on the land of his country because he believed that "Iraq does not need any land by foreign forces, and Iraqi army, supported by the popular crowd and the sons of the tribes is able to accomplish its functions without external interference. "

Mr. Abadi's remarks about the rejection of any US ground forces may come to cover up the agreement reached actually during a visit by Gen. Dempsey flash to Baghdad to send more troops land of America, because denial is meaningless in practice, reflects the contradiction "incomprehensible" US forces land actually exist and increasing, and this first, and, secondly, we do not see any difference between the ground forces or air, Valastaana foreign troops have been, in principle, and the rest are details.

Another point can not be ignored and summed up in the words of President Obama, he would not hesitate to send US ground units to the region if it took control of the "Islamic state" on a nuclear weapon, where there is this even a nuclear weapon is controlled by the state? In Iraq or Syria or Iran?

The only country in the region that has nuclear weapons is Israel Is "Islamic state" and its forces have the ability at the moment to get to the Dimona reactor, or the Israeli nuclear warheads stores and grab them and how?

***

No doubt there is a "recipe" US being prepared for the entire region, entitled the return of US troops to Iraq, but under the pretext of protecting the region from the threat of "Islamic state", and was reported in more than a Western capital, that there is a plan already on the table to send eighty thousand troops, half the number of troops that occupied Iraq in 2003.

Perhaps not coincidentally feet "Islamic state" the execution of former US soldier who was held hostage to have (Peter Kaseg) in front of the cameras in the "glutinous" area and telling a spokesman that "the first crusader" buried there, and it was waiting for (any country) eagerly rest US soldiers to be buried in the same area.

President Barack Obama said in an interview with US television station that his country will move onto the offensive in the war against "Islamic state"? Is Gen. Dempsey carry this offensive plan and details to his Iraqi counterparts? Are we in front of New American occupation of Iraq and perhaps Syria as well? Is America will repeat the same mistakes, or you will learn them the next time?

Likelihood of sinking America in the bloody quagmire of Iraq Syrian again, and after three years of its withdrawal, a large, but very large, and it will enter costly for them and the people of the region, said this during the 2003 invasion, and repeat it now without hesitation, and the days and months ahead pregnant surprises.