The Iraqi government asks for more help to the Shiites against the Islamic state

The fall of the city of Ramadi, in Iraq's Anbar province, a Sunni-dominated territory, conquered by the militias of the Islamic State, marks a new setback for the army of Iraq. The dead would be over 500. The city of Ramadi was one of the few cities in the region that the state of Iraq could still control. The battle, which resulted in the conquest of the Caliphate was very bloody and marks a new advance of the fundamentalists, in ways similar to those that occurred at the beginning of the conflict. Indeed, many Iraqi soldiers have fled leaving the field open to the invaders and denouncing once again the total inadequacy of the army of Baghdad. Despite the level of confrontation has been lifted and the field experience of regular soldiers would have to have increased, it seems that without the support of other military forces of Iraq are not yet able to compete with the Islamic militants. Despite this signal indicates that the war is still long, by the Pentagon seem to minimize, stressing that defeat denounce only the need for more support and support for the army of Iraq. This admission, however, implies implications, that could become problematic in relations between the US and Sunni weights. Ensured that the war against the Islamic state is essentially won on the ground, having characteristics of classical war, where even the contribution of air power is complementary, it would require greater involvement of departments land by the coalition fighting against the caliphate. But this need can not answer yes the United States, whose soldiers Obama does not seem willing to deploy, if not for operations short and highly targeted, but not even the Sunni states. The reasons why the Islamic states participating in the coalition does not intend to deploy their men can only assume, since there are no official explanations. One might be that would be considered counterproductive choose to fight Sunnis against Sunnis, although reasons of expediency recommend as the best solution for this very eventuality not pollute with reasons of religious or political war against the Islamic state. Another reason would be in the direction of the US choice, which is conditioned by the refusal of civil society in the country to still see their soldiers used in conflicts difficult to understand the social strata Americans. However, this objection does not appear to be valid for the states that are threatened almost to the limit of their borders militia of the caliphate. More likely it is cold political calculations, seeking to gain parts of Iraq and Syria to their influence. If that were the venture would be no small feat, the Sunni countries then seek to defeat the Caliphate when they had managed to take out the Iraqi Shiite-led country and the same tactic could be applied in Syria. Baghdad for the only alternative is once again relying on the Iranian combatants and those Kurds, the only ones who so far have been able to stand up on the ground to the Islamic state. Precisely because of this, the Iraqi government would have already asked for help, authorizing them to operate on its territory under the Shiite militias. If this decision is true it not seems credible that has been agreed with the United States. Washington to contain the caliphate has become the most pressing problem, which can overshadow even the attempts to mend relations with the Gulf monarchies, which see the Iranian intervention an attack on their stability. Perhaps Washington at the beginning of the fight against the caliphate has wrongly evaluated the support provided by the Sunni states, who have never driven a certain threshold and is now with Tehran as an ally and those who were to be true allies, that do not provide the support necessary for reasons far from clear.