This is coolbert:
DEBKA V. Conclusion.
"US puts onus for fighting ISIS on Iraqis"
“'The United States is not going to be responsible for securing the security situation inside of Iraq,' White House spokesman Josh Earnest announced Thursday. 'It is up to the Iraqis to fight and defeat the Islamic State,' he said. 'Our strategy is to support the Iraqi security forces……back them on the battlefield with coalition military air power as they take the fight to ISIL in their own country.'”
"Washington knows that the Iraqi government and army are no longer fully functional and so security will fall to the Shiite militias which are busier fighting amongst each other than fighting ISIS."
"No army in Mid East is challenging ISIS . . . "Not a single competent army capable of launching all-out war on ISIS in Syria or Iraq is to be found"
The response from a knowledgeable person experienced in the area [Middle East and Iraq]:
"Shia militias are being used by the Iraqi government to fight for Ramadi and other places in al Anbar Province, which is predominantly populated by Sunni sect members. That virtually guarantees an all-out civil war, which we (US/Coalition) barely avoided by arming Sunni militias and giving them power in the Iraqi government) . . . A sectarian militia in another sect's area is likely to be involved in any number of human rights/war crimes violations. Even if not, their every action will be alleged to be so, just because they are the other group of infidels. It is worse than having a foreign invader around (such as was the US/Coalition forces), because at least the armies of the foreigners could create a reputation for even-handedness and discipline, compared to a fairly untrained force made upon the opposing sect--which comes with an announced, centuries-old vengeance agenda to impose."
An ancient and "centuries-old vengeance agenda" EXACERBATED IN THE EXTREME BY THE BRUTALITY AND VENALITY OF ISIL. THE MASS EXECUTIONS AND DESTRUCTION OF SHIA MOSQUES AND HOLY PLACES.