The Real Story On The Battle For Ramadi And Why It Matters

 

The latest headlines about the key battle between ISIS and the Iraqi Army are talking about the 'liberation' of the ISIS held city of Ramadi...including the map above, which I include for reference purposes. The truth is something rather different.

It only took 600 ISIS fighters to capture Ramadi from a much larger army of fully armed and equipped Iraqi troops when the predominately Sunni city fell to ISIS last May. The current battle underlines how disparate the two forces are. Ramadi has been held for months against the attacks of large forces of US equipped Iraqi troops by a fairly small number of ISIS fighters. The way the current battle for the city is shaping up tells us quite a bit.

 

There are an estimated 300 ISIS fighters who are in Ramadi pitted against 10,000 Iraqi troops and Iran-armed militia forces aided by US air cover. So far, the best the Iraqis have been able to do is to 'liberate' about half of the city. The well publicized flag raising occurred in the city's government compound, and while that plus a few major neighborhoods are now liberated, even the Iraqi military is quietly admitting that about half the city, much of which is now a heavily damaged ghost town is still under ISIS control. Even more telling, Brigadier General Ahmed al-Belawi, one of the chief Iraqi commanders admitted that the ISIS troops whom were dug in at the government compound pulled out in good order and escaped rather than being killed or captured.
 

Since there's nothing much left to plunder in Ramadi and a lot of the population left when the US led airstrikes began, this suggests to me that what ISIS had planned here is a delaying action, with a small number of troops ordered to hold off the Iraqi forces and inflict the maximum amount of Iraqi casualties as they retreat in force. If that's what ISIS has planned, they seem to have succeeded so far.

That doesn't mean that this isn't a setback for ISIS, merely that it's not quite the dramatic victory it's being painted as. One could argue that Russia's Vladimir Putin is doing far more damage to ISIS by targeting its oil shipments and refineries, where a fair amount of ISIS's wealth derives from.

What the battle really underlines is how poorly the Shi'ite army the American taxpayer spent billions of dollars to train and equip performs, even when they outnumber the enemy by better than ten to one and are much better armed and equipped.How the Iraqi army will perform when the fighting moves up to Ninevah and Mosul is anyone's guess.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Shi'ite dictatorship we put into place in Iraq has little or no respect or gratitude for American efforts on their behalf. The Shi'ite Iraqi government made a point of not mentioning the key role US airstrikes played in whatever progress they have been able to make against ISIS. The Iraqis would not have taken Ramadi without our air power.

This attitude is something I saw coming a long time ago. Americans should perhaps keep this in mind the next time anyone starts blathering about 'nation building' or 'Arab democracy.'

Ramadi Falls To ISIS In A Major Victory - And Why It's Important

On Sunday, Islamic State forces captured Ramadi, routing the Iraqi army, many of whom literally fled from the scene, those that could. Over 500 Iraqi soldiers died in the assault, and the debacle came so quickly that substantial pockets of Iraqi troops were trapped there after taking heavy casualties. They aren't expected to hold out very long and I've already received reports that some of them have already been captured and executed by ISIS.

Hundreds of civilians fled along with the Iraqi troops.






ISIS is using some fairly innovative tactics against fixed defensive points like Ramadi. First they seek to control the ingress and egress via outlying areas, to prevent or delay reinforcement and resupply. The next step in Ramadi was to break the defensive line using car and truck bombs, after which ISIS fighters stormed into the breach.

Many Americans may recall hearing the name Ramadi before, and some might recall that quite a few American lives were spent in securing it. Here's why Ramadi matters.

Look at the map above. Ramadi controls all of the traffic on the Euphrates River. It is only 68 miles (110 Kilometers) from Baghdad and opens the road to that city from the west, just as Fallujah, which ISIS also holds does from the east paving the way for a two-pronged assault. Also, ISIS captured the town of Jubbah in this new offensive, next door to Iraq’s biggest air base at Al-Ansar. That's where US soldiers, AKA advisers are trying to train Iraqi troops to fight ISIS, which so far hasn't been particularly successful.

ISIS has also surrounded the oil-producing town of Baiji near Ramadi, where a small Iraqi army force of a few hundred soldiers is trying to hold out. It's probably only a matter of tie until they're forced to surrender or are wiped out.

Our Secretary of State John Kerry announced from a news conference in Seoul, South Korea that as far as he was concerned Ramadi was " a target of opportunity" for ISIS rather than a carefully planed strategic offensive.

"I am convinced that as the forces are redeployed and as the days flow in the weeks ahead that's going to change, as overall (they) have been driven back ... I am absolutely confident in the days ahead that will be reversed."

Let's examine that.

Exactly what forces is Secretary Kerry talking about? True, the Iraqi government announced that "major military reinforcements" were being deployed to halt the advance of ISIS. The problem is that between Ramadi, the recent 'victory' in Tikrit (about which more later) and an attempted counterattack on Fallujah that went horribly wrong, the Iraqi army has very little strength to 'deploy' between ISIS and Baghdad right now. They're a badly defeated army that is incapable of an offensive against Islamic State right now. The only thing keeping ISIS away from Baghdad is a series of 19 U.S, airstrikes near Ramadi over the past 48 hours.

 Iraq's almost completely Shi'ite army has very little motivation to risk lives taking back Sunni dominated Anbar. The army purged almost all of its Sunni officers and men once the Americans left and the Iran oriented Shi'ite dictatorship we installed there took over.The careful relationship the Americans nurtured (okay, bought) with the Sunni tribes in Anwar via the Awakening Movement is long gone. If they're not actively fighting with ISIS, they're mostly supporting it, and they aren't going to believe any horse manure about being full partners in a Shi'ite dominated state a second time.

There are the Americans, who President Obama has seen to it have been kept out of combat. He has little choice in the matter, even if he had the inclination. George Soros and the Democrat National Committee have recreated the Democrats as a far Left anti-war party, and Barack Obama was their candidate. He was the one whom constantly talked about 'Bush's War' and how wrong it all was, and how he was going to end it. And when it finally did end he bragged about that as his 'achievement as well.'*

At this point, it would be politically devastating for him to involve U.S. boots on the ground, especially with elections coming up soon and every Democrat candidate having made explicit statements opposing the Iraq war.

So that leaves one other force available - Iran and Iran's proxy Shi'ite militias in Iraq like Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

They're more than willing to mix it up with ISIS, but there are problems.

The few times they've gotten involved, like Tikrit, they have treated the Sunni civilians viciously. Rapes, plundering and murder of Sunni civilians were the Shi'ite victory parade in Tikrit, to the point where the Iraqi government and the Obama Administration had to order them to leave. The Iraqi army is incapable of recovering control and holding Tikrit without them, and as we've seen, ISIS had other objectives to go after. So right now, the town is in total anarchy, with various armed gangs, some of them ISIS sympathizers, battling each other over territory.

However, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi may have little choice. As I write this, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan is in Baghdad, and it may be that the Shiite militias form a defensive line with the Iraqi Army to keep ISIS at bay with the help of U.S. airstrikes until the Iraqi army recovers. I expect this to heat up into a long, drawn out sectarian war.

*(President Obama, in spite of his constant chest thumping had nothing to do with ending the war in Iraq, or for that matter, seeing to it that any U.S. forces remained in Iraq. The Bush Administration had already set out all the details of our withdrawal in the disposition of forces agreement with the Iraqi government under Maliki before George W. Bush left office, and they insisted that we leave. All Barack Obama had to do was make sure the script was followed...and take credit for it all, of course.


Both Maliki and the Shi'ite bloc led by Moqtadeh al-Sadr who put him in power were always in bed with Iran. As I predicted a long time ago, in the end it was 'thanks for your time and money, infidels. Now get out.'

Not one Iraqi government official bothered to attend the ceremony where our flag was lowered for the last time as our military left Iraq. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about whether the price we paid to rescue them from Saddam was worth it. Certainly the $25 billion we spent to build them an army obviously wasn't)

Troops To Be Sent To Iraq In Spite of Obama's 'No Boots On The Ground' Promise

 

The Pentagon has announced that that up to 1,300 U.S. soldiers will be heading to Iraq in the New Year, in spite of those  promises by President Obama that there would be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq or Syria.

The troops involved found out today.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel took the fall for the president and  “authorized” the deployment,. It will initially consist of about  1,000 soldiers  the 82nd Airborne Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team,  based out of Fort Bragg.

Their mission, according to Pentagon Spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby "will be to train, advise, and assist Iraqi security forces.”

Based on how those Iraqi security forces have been performing so far, I'd say the emphasis is on 'assist.'

This will be the second of  President Barack Hussein Obama'a illegal wars. Even Pravda -On-The-Hudson, AKA The New York Times recognized this.

Just imagine what the press would say if George W. Bush had done anything like this.

Obama's Loose Lips Sink Ships - And Kill Potential Allies

 

My friend Commander Jennifer D. Dyer (ret) has a great piece on the Obama Administration's non-strategy that will definitely reward your attention. Among other things, it details exactly how the president's preferred strategy collapsed between his turgid speech  last Wednesday and today..because ISIS was listening and took action..emphasis mine:

ISIS is busy neutralizing the Syrian factions that might make common cause with the United States.  On Thursday, Breitbart London reported that several dozen leaders of Syrian rebel factions opposed to ISIS, who were gathered at a meeting in northwestern Syria, were killed in a massive explosion on Wednesday.

Huffington Post on Friday evening summarized reports that ISIS has signed a non-aggression deal with a separate group of rebel factions in Syria, nominally so that all of the factions can continue to fight the Assad regime.

According to the Dubai-based Arabic news site Orient News, one of the signatories to the agreement is the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), a group that has received U.S. support and has been touted as a likely partner for a U.S. strategy to oppose ISIS in Syria.

The SRF has been losing ground in recent weeks, suffering a major blow when one of its top commanders was killed at the end of August.  At the same time, the SRF was reported to be fighting alongside al-Qaeda-affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra in southern Syria, including the battle for the crossing point with Israel in the Golan over which the rebel factions claimed control on 27 August.

Now it appears that the non-aggression pact with ISIS was brokered by Jabhat al-Nusra.(ed note: an ISIS ally)  None of this comes as a surprise to those who’ve been following along with Patrick Poole at PJ Media.  On 3 September, Poole outlined the continuing cooperation of factions in the Free Syrian Army with ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra – cooperation that has resulted in a flow of U.S.-supplied weaponry to the latter two armies.  On 9 September, he expounded on a report from the Los Angeles Times that one of the “vetted moderate” groups, Harakat Hazm, is quite open about fighting alongside Jabhat al-Nusra.

The U.S. has already given this group anti-tank missiles.  Appended to Poole’s analysis is the tweeted text of an alliance agreement concluded by “vetted moderate” faction Harakat Hazm and other similar groups with Jabhat al-Nusra.  The text was tweeted on 8 July.

It’s not just credible, it’s highly bloody likely that some of the rebel factions – including U.S. client SRF – have indeed made a pact with ISIS.  The fact that it won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit ought to serve not as an encouragement to U.S. delusions of a meaningful alliance in Syria, but as a warning.[....]

In fact, ISIS hasn’t sat still.  Once Obama made his speech on Wednesday, the option of mounting coordinated attacks on ISIS’s strategic rear in Syria immediately became a major threat posed by the U.S.  If we could do it effectively, we could force ISIS to defend its rear: shift resources away from the campaign in Iraq, and perhaps even rework its overall strategy.

So ISIS promptly took out nearly 50 opposition rebel leaders and signed its non-aggression agreement with America’s potential partners in Syria.

Remember that ISIS doesn’t have to show good faith over time with any of those Syrian factions.  It just has to preempt their cooperation with the United States.  The mechanism for that is straightforward.  We’re an easy read – ponderous making decisions, easily spooked, committed to at least perfunctory public transparency – and our president is a slow learner.

If ISIS can prevent anyone in Syria from cooperating with the U.S., ISIS can concentrate its effort in Iraq, where our forces on the ground will be: small, scattered, un-concentrated, embedded with local groups which may not all be fighting for the same objectives.  Remember this also: Obama is determined not to overlay an obtrusively coherent U.S. framework on this operation.  Kurds fighting in northern Iraq and Sunnis fighting along the Euphrates in Anbar – each with a separate ill-defined connection to the struggling Shia-majority government in Baghdad – will have the lead.

Even in Vietnam and Somalia, I don’t think we’ve ever backed into anything with our hindquarters flapping quite so egregiously in the breeze.  Military success doesn’t just happen.  It’s as much a matter of political will, and a coherent strategy and operational plan, as it is of training, expertise, and weapons superiority at the tactical level.  Assuming we do go ahead with the plan-deficient, few-boots non-war the Obama administration has been proclaiming for the last 72 hours, I am very concerned that American troops could find themselves vulnerable under fire and fighting for their lives within weeks.

I would actually feel better at this point if we weren’t enlarging our footprint in Irbil at all, but instead planned to just keeping flying strike-fighters from Kuwait and Qatar.  There are sound operational reasons to be gravely concerned about Obama’s decision to dismiss the advice of his military leaders and go with a toxic brew of half-measure objectives and exposed deployment situations.

The rapid, cynical, homicidal initiative shown by ISIS in seeking to neutralize Obama’s Syria option is a pretty good indicator of what we’ll be up against.  Pundits and officials who are vocally criticizing the president are not just showing partisan sour grapes.  This is real, and it’s bad.

Commander Dyer also  makes the point that the troops we do have in the region are going to be in very small concentrations, particularly in the vulnerable Kurdish capitol of Erbil. We going to be basing both troops and fighter planes there because, as I reported before,  our Turkish  'ally' won't let us use bases in their country to attack ISIS, even ones we pay a handsome fee to lease, most notably Incirlik, a mere 100 miles from the front. So much for all that appeasement .



 
Moreover, as Commander Dyer points out,  putting together an airbase in Erbil, this close to the front with ISIS makes the planes vulnerable to any heat seeking missiles, of which ISIS has plenty.It's one thing once they're up in the air, but very different when it comes to landing and takeoff.

The bottom line, of course, is is that there is no real strategy, except a political one. President Obama isn't trying to destroy ISIS, he merely wants to rescue his poll numbers by launching a few airstrikes and giving the appearance of doing something so he can kick the can down the road for his successor.

 

Of course having opened his mouth in prime time on national television, the president has pretty much destroyed any chance of  real cooperation with any Syrian  opposition. The ones whom ISIS thought might be a problem are dead, and the others are neutralized, especially after they saw what happened to the others.

Read the rest of Commander Dyer's piece here..

BREAKING: Obama's 'Coalition Of Partners' On ISIS Chrashes And Burns

 


President Obama's ridiculous speech last night on combating the Islamic State had these main components - making sure to mention that Islamic State was neither a state or Islamic, airstrikes on Iraq and Syria, reassuring his Leftist base that no U.S. ground troops would be participating, and this:

This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.

Apparently President Obama opened his mouth before actually taking roll call on those 'allies.'

 

The Brits, supposedly our closest strategic ally have already said they won't do any airstrikes in Iraq and have expanded that 'no thanks': to include Syria:

Britain’s foreign secretary says his country won’t participate in airstrikes on Syria, following an announcement from Washington that it would begin hitting targets inside the country.

Speaking Thursday after talks with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Philip Hammond said Britain won’t be “revisiting” the issue after Parliament decided last year against participating in airstrikes.

And apparently Steinmeier's presence was no accident. The Germans opted out too.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a news conference in Berlin that Germany has not been asked to take part in the air strikes and would not be participating. “To quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so,” Steinmeier said.

Even more importantly, President Barack Obama's dear Islamist friend Turkey not only said it will not participate, but won't even let American forces use bases we lease in Turkey to attack The Islamic State:

Turkey will refuse to allow a US-led coalition to attack jihadists in neighbouring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, nor will it take part in combat operations against militants, a government official told AFP Thursday.

"Turkey will not be involved in any armed operation but will entirely concentrate on humanitarian operations," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Turkey's non-participation is key, because it borders both Iraq and Syria and has a reasonably strong, U.S. equipped military.

The Turks are refusing to get involved because when Mosul fell to The Islamic State, so did the Turkish Consulate and 49 hostages...and also because they don't want to encourage the Kurds because of their own suppressed Kurdinh minority in Turkey. And because they have backed The Islamic State from the start against Assad. You'd think someone might have whispered this  in the ear of our prevaricator-in-chief before he asked them to join up.

So who's left? The French? Possible, in a very limited way, but doubtful...remember all those French Muslim voters and the upcoming elections.Hollande and the socialists will need every vote they can get.

New Europe? The Poles, Baltic States, Georgia and Ukraine all contributed to Iraq and Afghanistan, but after the way the Obama Administration has treated them and what with Putin on the prowl, faggeddabbouddit.

There's the Sunni Arab states, and Secretary of State Kerry is headed there as I write this. The Saudis and the GCC may help,but again in a limited way and certainly not with boots on the ground. Aside from the fact that one of them Qatar is actually funding the Islamic State and has been for some time, there's also the problem of Iran, the president's new friend. The Saudis and the Emirates are smart enough to know even if Obama and Kerry aren't that if ISIS is taken off the board, there's no obstacle to Iran achieving its long time goal of a Shi'ite nuclear armed bloc.

They've long since stop trusting Obama's assurances on the matter. It remains to be seen what Kerry can promise them to get them fully involved. Certainly it won't be with boots on the ground.

The same applies to the Egyptians who are not exactly Obama fans at this point and have their own jihadis to deal with at home and next door in Libya thanks to this president. They won't be fighting in Iraq and Syria in any large way, and anything they do it will be for a steep price demanded of Obama.

That leaves Iran, Iran's Shi'ite militias, Hezbollah, the Iraqi army none of whom have been able to stop Islamic State's fighters thus far. And the Kurds, who don't trust Obama and will concentrate on defending their own territory. Oh, and about1,700 US 'advisers' (the president glossed over those in his speech) who are basically in the same position our advisers in Vietnam were circa 1962. 

Islamic State isn't going to be defeated by air strikes, and those are the boots on the ground. And is the U.S. going to act as the Shi'ite air force now, taking sides in the sectarian conflict in the region? I do seem to remember a certain freshman senator from Illinois and his Democrat buddies criticizing President Bush for getting us involved in a sectarian civil war in Iraq,don't you?

 I hope I'm wrong, but just watch as he sends more 'advisers' in to cover his chest thumping rhetoric.

President Obama has no real strategy, except to make it look like he's doing something and improve his terrible poll numbers before the election to try and hold the senate. As always, everything is about politics with this president - not the country.

 

UPDATE: It appears that just as I predicted, the Arab Countries are not entirely on board either. Can it be they too no longer trust this president? I guess when you lie to people habitually...

Whoopsie.

Some 'coalition'.

Obama's 'Strategy' - Arming Jihadis, Random Airstrikes, No Congressional Oversight

President Obama is set to reveal his strategy on prime time tomorrow. Based on what's being reported so far, it's not only as bad as I predicted, it's even worse.

The president apparently hasn't learned from the mistakes he made previously. After covertly arming ISIS without consulting congress and creating the current mess, he now wants congress to exacerbate his folly by including a last minute authorization to arm 'Syrian rebels' in a must-pass spending bill that comes before the House tomorrow..with no oversight from congress on who gets the $5 billion he wants or how it gets spent.

By the way, this is yet another one of those continuing resolutions. The word 'budget' appears to be extinct, at least when it comes to the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled senate.

Being President Obama, he has also tacked on partisan amendments to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and an Internet tax measure. something hugely unpopular with most Republicans and even some Democrats, and for for good reason. That way, if the Republican controlled House refuses to pass this CR, or insists on more oversight and details, the president and his part can accuse them of 'obstructing the fight against terrorism' and spin this to blame them for his ineptness.

So we're talking about $5 billion dollars to 'fight terrorism', a blank check with no oversight, and no guarantees on how funds and/or arms won't simply go to jihadis again. That's especially relevant given this administration's previous fiascoes in that area. Listen to this Democrat, who's all ready to give the president what he wants no questions asked:

 

“We don’t know what the details are, so we can’t say what is in it and what isn’t,” said Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, who said the fund could be used to fight ISIS in Iraq or even Syria if that’s what the president decides to do. “I think that kind of flexibility is useful.”

You can't make this stuff up.That money, according to the way the White House CR is now written could literally go to anyone, anywhere.It could go to al-Qaeda allied militias, or to Iran allied Shi'ite militias like Moqtadah al_Sadr's Mahdi Army. It could go to Hamas, or to Hezbollah. It could even go to domestic campaign funding, or covertly to elections in say, Israel to help elect far Left candidates to the Knesset who will do the Administration's bidding and surrender to the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians.

With this president, anything is possible.

And to show you how ridiculous this is, President Obama is talking about arming the Syrian rebels on the one hand while engaging with our new allies, Iran in 'security cooperation' and 'coordinated action' on the other. Has no one explained to him that Iran is allied with Syria's Basher Assad?

And speaking of Iran, have you noticed that  nothing's being said lately about their illegal nuclear weapons program or their failure to cooperate with inspections by the IAEA?

Meanwhile, the president took pains to inform congress that even though he wants the money, he can attack Islamic State without consulting them. and do pretty much what he wants, as the Washington Examiner reports:

President Obama told congressional leaders in a meeting Tuesday that he has the authority to launch broader attacks against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, downplaying the prospect of a Capitol Hill vote on his military plan ahead of his prime-time address to the nation Wednesday night.

Obama “told the leaders that he has the authority he needs to take action against [the Islamic State] in accordance with the mission he will lay out in his address tomorrow,” the White House said in a readout of the meeting that included Obama, Vice President Joe Biden; House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif

.
This has the potential to turn into even a bigger catastrophe than the president's illegal war in Libya.

It's about time congress assumed some responsibility for what's going on. They need to find a credible spokesperson (Ted Cruz, Rand Paul or Duncan Hunter Jr. would be good choices) to explain to the American people exactly what's going on, why they're refusing to fund another illegal Obama war and what they need from this president in the way of oversight in order to even consider authorizing the funding...which includes, by the way, a clean resolution without the partisan add ons.

Islamic State isn't the JayVee  Mr.President, you are. And not even in the starting lineup at that.

Islamic State Captures Key Syrian Base In Major Victory - And What It Means

The Islamic State scored a major victory today over Syrian leader Basher Assad's forces when they broke through after a two week siege to capture the strategic Tabqa airbase southwest of their northern stronghold of Raqqa. Hundreds of the 1,000 Syrian soldiers trapped there were killed.

 

Islamic State  killed army commanders and pro-government militiamen, decapitating them before putting their bodies and heads on display.

This was the last Syrian base in the northeastern province of Raqqa, which means the Islamic Stae has now gained full control of an entire Syrian province for the first time in the civil war.

Islamic State is also close to complete control of the rebel-held; province of Deir el-Zour. They are picking off rebel strongholds one by one, and many members of other rebel groups  are flocking to join them.



The next move by Islamic State could be towards the strategic city of Aleppo.Assad's regime troops, Hezbollah fighters and Iranian Revolutionary guard are close to completing their capture of the strategic city from the Syrian rebels, but they could then end up encircled and cut off by Islamic State forces.

One of my sources told me that Islamic State is withdrawing its fighters from the central Syrian province of Homs, after handing over its headquarters to its allies, the al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front. This could mean a two pronged assault on Aleppo from both the south and from Tel Abayad and Raqqa in the east.

Meantime, the official Saudi news agency reported that the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar and Jordan are meeting in the Red Sea city of Jeddah for a major conference.

Here's what I'd bet money they're discussing:

What are Barack Obama and the Americans going to do? Islamic State is not only a threat to Iraq and Syria, not only a threat to the Sunni Arab countries but a huge security threat to the United States.Aside from a few arms shipments and air strikes, thus far the U.S. has not been overtly involved, certainly not the way President Obama was in Libya.

Islamic State has already rolled back almost a year of advances made by the Syrian military and their Hezbollah allies against the insurgency.Is President Obama going to go in full bore? And if he does, is he going to extend the U.S. military action to Syria?

If the president decides to go into Syria, Obama is basically preserving the rule of Basher Assad, and relieving pressure on Iran and Hezbollah, allowing them to consolidate their own Shi'ite bloc, something the Saudis, Egypt, the UAE and the other GCE countries see as just as much a threat to them as Islamic State...while Qatar sees Islamic State as a major force to combat the Shi'ites and supports them more or less covertly.

After declaring for nearly four years that 'Assad must go', Barack Obama is in a position where he just might end up sending in U.S. troops and air power to save Assad, believe it or not.That of course would put America on the same side as Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. And it would also have a direct effect on the security of Jordan and Israel, both of whom border Syria because taking out Islamic State would simply remove the counter weight to Iran and Hezbollah and facilitate their consolidating their own nuclear armed Shi'ite bloc.

Just to show you how convoluted this all is, at the same time the Obama regime is making air strikes on Islamic State (who are largely armed with SOTA U.S. weaponry captured in Iraq from the fleeing Iraqi army)an dmaking common cause with Hezbollah. Assad and Iran, the U.S. is completing an $11 billion arms deal with - wait for it - Qatar, who had been funding Islamic State and Hamas! Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is in this particular transaction with both hands.

Another point of discussion, probably on the sidelines is what to do if America does nothing much, a not unlikely scenario. What defense arrangements can be made to counteract both Islamic State and the Shi'ites if that happens, especially with Iran on the verge of going nuclear? Or should the Sunnis give limited backing to Islamic State against Iran and the Shi'ites?

And what role can Israel play? Yes, believe it or not. Faced with a war on two fronts and a dysfunctional American president, the Sunnis may even be looking at Israel, the most powerful country in the region in a new light.

The Iraq Shuffle - Showdown In Baghdad

The rumors early this morning about a suspected coup appear to be partly true, as political factions in the Iraqi government engage as Washington attempts to force Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki out of power.

Maliki had launched into an angry tirade yesterday against new Iraqi president Fuad Masum, who had refused to intervene with parliament to give Maliki a third term after he 'won' a dubious election back in April, threatening to 'take him (Masum) to court.He backed it up by placing army and Shi'ite militia units loyal to him in key areas of Baghdad, at one point surrounding the president's residence.

Meanwhile President Masum, a Kurd has declared Haidar al-Abadi, a former Maliki lieutenant the new Prime Minister and the Obama State Department issued formal congratulations. Meanwhile Maliki's Dawa Party announced al=Abadi's appointment illegal and Maliki's son-in-law, Hussein al-Maliki said they would overturn it in court...while Washington sent a stern warning to Maliki to bow out gracefully and not try using force to stay to power.

The White House said Vice President Joe Biden personally relayed President Barack Obama's congratulations to Abadi in a phone call, which is actually a pretty nasty insult although Abadi probably doesn't know that.



"The prime minister-designate expressed his intent to form a broad-based, inclusive government capable of countering the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant," the White House said in a statement, using the former name ISIS for the Islamic State.

 

Even worse in terms for any prospect of success, Reuters reported that John Kerry weighed in:

"There should be no use of force, no introduction of troops or militias in this moment of democracy for Iraq," Kerry said. "The government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining stability and calm in Iraq and our hope is that Mr. Maliki will not stir those waters.

"There will be little international support of any kind whatsoever for anything that deviates from the legitimate constitution process that is in place and being worked on now."

You tell 'em, Mr. Secretary! I'm sure that will cause all of Maliki's Shi'ite troops and militiamen to throw their guns down and flee in terror.

That, you see, is the problem. Once we pulled out of Iraq, al-Maliki promptly put that $25 billion Iraqi Army the American tax payers  provided him with and put it under his control, like any sensible Middle Eastern autocrat would. He  purged of most of the Sunnis and Kurds and any Shi'tes not loyal to him from the army and the security forces, disarmed them when he could and made sure they were excluded from most positions of power.

At  this point, it's al Maliki who has the boots on the ground, and I'm not sure what leverage the Obama team actually has on him. They can withhold spare parts for his military, but that means Islamic State takes over, so that's self defeating..especially since this president does not want to send American troops back to Iraq. It will be interesting to watch how this standoff develops.

Speaking of developments, an excellent one is that the Kurdish Pesh Merga are now receiving weapons and ammo from our CIA. Apparently this was Obama's fall back position. Since that 'inclusive Iraqi government' appears to be a long way off if it's even possible, the Kurds are the next best thing. Or it might simply be that the president doesn't want another overrun consulate and a dead ambassador on his watch. Unlike Maliki's troops who simply dropped their weapons and ran, the Kurds fought hard with inadequate weaponry and low ammo before being forced back by Islamic State. The air strikes and the beginning shipments of arms have re-invigorated them , the Pesh Merga's morale  is superb and they forced Islamic State out of  two towns yesterday.

 

If the Kurds are armed and they can defend their territory from Islamic State,  this could be the start of an independent Kurdistan.

Something Is Going On In Iraq - Coup Time?

I'm hearing all sorts of rumors tonight about a military coup going on in Baghdad. What has apparently sparked it was an angry tirade by Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki over Iraqi President  Fuad Masum not intervening after parliament failed to give him a third term as Prime Minister.

Al-Maliki claimed that this was against what passes for Iraq's constitution and that he was going to 'take  Masum to court.'

He accused him of "committing a clear constitutional violation for the sake of political calculations and... giving priority to the interests of some groups at the expense of the higher interests of the Iraqi people".

Apparently the Obama team had decided that Masum,Iraq'a new president  looked like a better bet than Maliki to put together that 'inclusive' government the Obama team  is seeking and was pushing for him to take over. But it looks like al-Maliki may have decided to take out the competition. Masum, by the way, is a Kurd.

Maliki's party won the most seats in a questionable election back in  April,but parliament is refusing to ratify a third term for al-Maliki. There are rumors of Shia militia and security forces loyal to al-Maliki stationing themselves at key points in Baghdad.The major bridges have been closed.

 

I've gotten a couple of tweets about clashes, but so far nothing concrete, On thing I have heard  is that Iraqi security forces have encircled the president's residence.

Stay Tuned!!

Obama: "What's Happening In Iraq Isn't My Fault !"

I don't know which is worse..the constant lies and excuses or the press that refuses to challenge them.

Here's President Barack Hussein Obama speaking last week on nationwide television: " I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done."

DrewM at AoSHQ (h/t, my pal Debra Heine over at Breitbart) dredged another interesting quote out of the memory banks, from October, 2011:

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end -- for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest national security priorities. Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq. And to date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops. Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security.

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward.

So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.

On the South Lawn of the White House today, after Obama explained why he had ordered the U.S. military to renew airstrikes in Iraq, a reporter, Scott Wilson of the Washington Post noticed a slight discrepancy.

When a reporter asked President Obama about his decision to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq, all of a sudden it wasn't his decision, and nothing that happened was his fault:

President Obama surprised a few people during a news conference Thursday by claiming that the 2011 decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq, a politically popular move on the eve of an election year, was made entirely by his Iraqi counterpart. The implication ran counter to a number of claims that Obama has made in the past, most notably during a tight campaign season two years ago, when he suggested that it was his decision to leave Iraq and end an unpopular war.

“Do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?” a reporter asked.

“Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,” Obama said. “That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.”

Wilson also recalls the Obama Romney debate, in which the president emphatically declared he wanted every U.S. soldier pulled out of Iraq and took credit for doing it...something he now declares was somebody else's decision:

"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That’s not true," Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

President Obama is correct that the decision to get all American forces out of Iraq was the decision of the Maliki government. The fact that he chest thumped about how this was his decision for 3 years? Just another in a long string of self-serving egregious lies.

That being said, let's get something straight - what's going on in Iraq and in the Middle East right now is entirely the fault of President Barack Obama and his team.

It was Senator Barack Obama, along with Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Harry Reid and Senator Joe Biden along with many other Democrats who did their very best to sabotage our war effort in Iraq. They played endless games with funding and re-supply (in other words, with our troops' lives). They worked night and day to obstruct and make a failure out of the surge strategy and insult and belittle its architect and commander, General David Petraeus. They put forth a huge effort to discredit both the general and his strategy with the American public. And they did it all expressly with partisan politics in mind, as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed in his recent memoirs.

Gates, who served in the Bush Administration and the first Obama Administration makes no effort to hide the anger he felt hearing these senators (three of whom ran for president) laughingly admit to him that it was all 'just politics.'

And those 'politics' undermined President Bush's position with the American people and with Maliki and the fledgling Iraqi government, to the point that they felt able to simply tell us to leave without a Disposition of forces agreement..something we see President Obama actively opposed then when it was politically expedient and now says 'wasn't my decision.'

Even more to the point was President Obama's undermining of our relationship with Israel, Egypt, the Saudis and the Gulf Emirates, his appeasement of Iran, his assassination of Osama bin-Laden that helped al-Qaeda's resurgence in the Middle East, his ill advised and illegal war in Libya against Khaddaffi on behalf of Islamist and Salafist jihadis in Benghazi that created a failed state in Libya and put Khaddafi's arsenal of weapons in jihadi hands, his attempt to empower the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere, and worst of all his secret arming and training of what became ISIS and has now morphed into Islamic State.

Try as he might to spin it, to blame someone else for his failures, this debacle is entirely of his making.

 

When Will Barack Obama Say Something About The Genocide Of Christians?

 


The lives of Christians in the Middle East are becoming a horror story, at least everywhere but in Israel.

In Syria, the Christians have been almost entirely driven out. Murders, rapes, kidnappings and forced conversions abound. Some have fled to Jordan, others to Lebanon where they have taken refuge with what's left of the local Maronite population.

 

“We are facing real genocide, but all the world has been silent, especially what we call the ‘First World,’” said Syriac Catholic Bishop Barnaba Yousif Habash, based in New Jersey, who has written President Barack Obama and visited both the State Department and Capitol Hill, pleading for U.S. action.

Now, Bishop Habash said during an Aug. 5 interview with the Register, “I don’t trust anyone in the American administration. I don’t have any expectations that they will help.”

Syria's Christians have been mainly targeted by Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS) as well as the other Sunni factions. The Christians are being murdered using arms from Libya or from Qatar via Turkey that Islamic State and the other rebels got courtesy of the Obama Administration. President Obama has been supplying arms and training to ISIS and the al-Qaeda affiliates covertly for quite some time now, while lying about it numerous times publicly and without bothering to clear it with congress

In Iraq, the news is even worse.Over 1500 civilians were slaughtered yesterday by Islamic State. Qaraqosh, the largest Christian town in northern Iraq’s Nineveh province was attacked by Islamic State, and all of its 60,000 residents who could manage to get away fled to Erbil in Kurdistan.

 

The Kurdish Persh Merga had managed to hold out against IS so far and literally begged the Obama Administration for arms to defend themselves. The response was that Washington was 'considering it' but they got no arms or aid because of President Obama's relationship with Turkey's Erdoğan and because the Obama Administration was concerned about upsetting the Maliki government in Iraq.

To add insult to injury, a $100 million cargo of Kurdish oil in a tanker off the Texas coast that would have provided the money to the Kurds to buy arms was ordered seized by U.S authorities which honored a demand from the Baghdad government who claimed the oil belonged to them. The Obama Administration supported this on the grounds that helping the Kurds might result in a break up of Iraq.

According to one of my sources Israel, who has a long standing relationship with the Kurds and supports an independent Kurdistan would be willing to help, but have no way to get any arms to the landlocked country. They helped arm and train the Persh Merga during the No Fly Zone era, but that was when Turkey had a very different relationship with Israel and could be used as a transit point. That's no longer possible.

 

The latest I hear is that Islamic State managed to push the Persh Merga back with the aid of all those gently used U.S. weapons the Iraqi Army dropped when it ran away and are advancing on Erbil,the capitol.Islamic State considers the Kurds 'apostates' because of their moderate Sunni beliefs but more importantly, this gives IS easy access between Iraq's second city of Mosul, which they overran on June 10, and the Syrian border. Even more importantly, IS gained control of Mosul Dam, Iraq's largest and the Ain Zalah oil field.Control of the dam would allow Islamic State to flood major cities or cut off significant water supplies and electricity.

Even worse is what is happening to the Yazidis, an ancient people whose religion mixes elements of Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. IS considers them devil worshipers and infidels. The largest community of them lived in Ninevah and when that was overrun by IS about 200,000 Yazidis and some Christians fled for Erbil, but about 40,000 people are now trapped on Mount Sinjar and surrounded by th Islamic State.The Washington Post today is quoting a UNICEF spokesperson as saying “There are children dying on the mountain, on the roads. There is no water, there is no vegetation, they are completely cut off and surrounded by Islamic State. It’s a disaster, a total disaster.”

 

The ones who were captured by Islamic State in Sinjar, Tal Affar and Zummar are even worse off. Here is a description from a report by Christiana Patto of the Assyrian Aid Society of Iraq:

Yesterday 45 children died of thirst. Some families throw their children from the top of Sinjar mountain in order not to see them die from hunger or thirst, or not to be taken by the terrorists. 1500 men were killed in front of their wives and families, 50 old men died also from thirst and illness. More than 70 girl and women including Christians were taken, raped and being captured and sold. More than 100 families are captured in Tel afar airport. There is about 50 Christian families in Sinjar. The terrorists were able to control the Syriac church there and cover the Cross with their black banner. Till now we do not know anything about those Christian families.

Others are apparently being help as prisoners and human shields by IS in Tel Afar.

And President Obama? Silence, although our UN Ambassador did make a statement:

I condemn in the strongest possible terms the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) recent attacks on Sinjar and Tal Afar in Ninewa province that have reportedly led to the displacement of tens of thousands of people, many from vulnerable minority communities, deepening Iraq’s already acute humanitarian crisis. ISIL’s reported abuse, kidnapping, torture and executions of Iraq’s religious and ethnic minorities and its systematic destruction of religious and cultural sites are appalling.

The United States supports the Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga Forces working to defend these areas against ISIL. We urge all parties to the conflict to allow safe access to the United Nations and its partners so they can deliver lifesaving humanitarian assistance, including to those Iraqi families reportedly encircled by ISIL on Mount Sinjar. The United States is committed to helping the people of Iraq as they confront the security and humanitarian challenges in their fight against ISIL. Iraq’s leaders must move swiftly to form a new, fully inclusive government that takes into account the rights, aspirations and legitimate concerns of all of Iraq’s communities. All Iraqis must come together to ensure that Iraq gets back on the path to a peaceful future and to prevent ISIL from obliterating Iraq’s vibrant diversity.

Just compare this language with some of the rhetoric the president and the ObamaState department have used to describe Israel defending itsaelf.

The Iraqi Army that cost $25 billion of your tax dollars to create is doing nothing, people are fleeing Erbil ahead of the Islamic State's US equipped armies and the Obama regime is still backing the corrupt and inept Maliki government! No arms for the Kurds and no US military support to stop the jihad of Islamic State. The answer is to wait for Maliki to form that magical 'new and inclusive government.'

 Maliki whose been essentially a 'caretaker'  since a fraudulent and inconclusive election in April has continued to defy any notion of doing anything like that and the Obama regime continues to support him for some reason, while Islamic State just gets stronger. So, stalemate.

Just compare this with the Obama team's quick action,pledges of vast amounts of money and support and florid language and outrageous demands on behalf of Hamas. Or the president's unilateral war on behalf of jihadis in Benghazi, Libya.

None of this, by the way came out of nowhere. President Obama and his team were fully aware of what was likely to happen. They just had other concerns,like partisan politics, fundraising and flooding America with illegal aliens:

Three weeks ago, a group of leaders from the opposition Free Syrian Army warned U.S. officials that a strategic city along the Iraqi border was about to fall to ISIS. It was the latest in a long series of increasingly anxious cries for help. The rebels never heard back from the Americans.

Five days ago, the predictions came true. Free Syrian Army units in the city of Der al Zour handed over their territory to the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham, following weeks of desperate requests for help to international officials, including a direct appeal in a private meeting with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.

“[The U.S. officials] showed an understanding of the situation but there was no movement at all,” the commander of the FSA battalion near Der al Zour told The Daily Beast in an interview. “There’s no clear American position in that part of Syria. We told the Americans we are going to fight ISIS and ISIS is close to us, but they did nothing.” [...]

For several weeks prior, FSA leaders had tried to sound the alarm. If Der al Zour fell to ISIS, the extremist group would have control of the transportation routes from their stronghold in Raqqa, Syria to their new territories in northern Iraq. The area is also rich in oil and gas resources and was the last FSA stronghold along the rapidly disappearing Iraq-Syria border.

About six weeks ago, a group of representatives of the FSA and the Syrian Opposition Coalition went to Jordan, and met with the international committee coordinating aid to the FSA based there. They presented a detailed urgent request for money, food, and weapons to be sent to the FSA in and around Der al Zour. Three weeks ago, just days after Mosul fell to ISIS, a group of FSA and SOC officials met with Power in Turkey and briefed her about the impending disaster on the Syrian side of the border. But after the meeting: nothing.

Again, the FSA are not exactly free of Islamists themselves, but the point is that the president and his team knew all about what was going on, and did nothing about it. They still haven't.

President Obama makes a very big deal about being a Christian. So do his followers. But whether it's Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Syria or Darfur, President Obama has done nothing concrete to stop the jihad against Christians by Muslims.

In fact, if you actually look at his foreign policy, he appears to be aiding and abetting it.

The hard question, the one no one seems to want to ask is why.

Kerry Signals That Joint Military Action With Iran In Iraq Is Imminent

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry today  left the door wide open on joint military action with Iran in Iraq and as much as said it's practically a done deal.

“We’re open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran, if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and ability of the government to reform,” Kerry said.

And military cooperation?

“At this moment, I think we need to go step-by-step and see what in fact might be a reality. But I would not rule out anything that would be constructive in providing real stability, a respect for the constitution, a respect for the election process and a respect for the ability of the Iraqi people to form a government that represents all the interests of Iraq,” he said. “We are open to any constructive process here that would minimize the violence.”

Yes, Iran and the Maliki's Iran-friendly government can certainly be counted on not to go tribal again.

Kerry, in fact, is already laying the ground for a 'go' on  air strikes and drone attacks that will be coordinated with Iran once the president finishes yet another golf holiday in Rancho Mirage.



Air strikes “are not the whole answer, but they may well be one of the options that are important to be able to stem the tide and stop the movement of people who are moving around in open convoys and trucks and terrorizing people,” Kerry said. “When you have people murdering, assassinating in these mass massacres, you have to stop that and you do what you need to do if you need to try to stop it from the air or otherwise.”

Of course, what Kerry isn't saying in so many words is that in order to do that, you have to coordinate those air strikes with the boots on the ground. Which means we'll be abandoning ISIS, whom the Obama Administration trained and armed to fight Syria's Basher Assad and moving over to the Shi'ite side with teammates like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, and Hezbollah, all of whom have lots of American blood on their hands..and incidentally, contributing to keeping Assad in power, chemical weapons and all.

In other words, what Kerry and President Obama are preparing to do is to have the U.S. pick sides in a sectarian civil war, something I seem to recall a certain Massachusetts Democrat senator and presidential candidate having an absolute hissy fit about back when President George W. Bush did it.

There's absolutely no reason for us to do so.Iraq, a made up country, is now merely reverting to it's natural divisions, and the Sunnis and Shi'ites will fight each other to a standstill, just as Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollahs did for 8 years back in the 1980's, weakening them both. That's definitely to our benefit, especially if Iran gets heavily involved. A war by Iran right now against ISIS and the Sunnis in Iraq with only Iran's minimal air power involved could last a long time without a decisive result for either side.

And the argument that Iraq will become 'a failed state' and a base for terrorist attacks on America? If you look around the region, most of what you see is failed states,. In fact, President Obama created one himself, in Libya.Any of these states can easily become a base for terrorist activity. And speaking of terrorist threats, the last time you checked was the Obama Regime really doing anything about Iran, a major state supporter of terrorism that was complicit in 9/11 and is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons?

If we're talking security risks to America, Iran is a far bigger clear and present danger than ISIS.Yet President Obama and his team are not only pretty much ignoring their illegal nuclear weapons program, they're actually talking about helping them secure a Shiite bloc to strengthen Iran's poisonous regime.

You literally couldn't make this stuff up.

 

US Secretly Flying Drones In Iraq

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, The U.S. has benn flying drones in small numbers over the areas of Iraq now occupied by ISIS. The drones are unarmed and for surveillance only..at least so far.

Someone described as a senior U.S. official was quoted as saying that the intelligence collected under the small program was shared with Iraqi forces, but added: "It's not like it did any good."

There's an understatement for you.

But with all that intelligence, the offensive by ISIS reportedly, 'caught the U.S. by surprise.'

Following the takeover of the two Iraqi cities, administration officials have asked the U.S. military and intelligence agencies to draw up options that include limited U.S. military action in Iraq, officials said.

One of the options being drawn up for the White House would expand the drone flights over Iraq, a step that could aid Iraqi forces or facilitate possible U.S. airstrikes.

"They're looking at everything and anything and have been told explicitly by the White House to think outside the box of what is possible," a senior U.S. official said.

In recent weeks, the U.S. has also stepped up planning for the possible evacuation of the American embassy in Baghdad, a U.S. official said. U.S. military officials say they don't believe an evacuation will be necessary and doubt Baghdad will fall to militant forces, but said expanded planning is prudent.

They were 'caught by surprise' by ISIS but now are saying Baghdad won't fall? Expanded planning is definitely prudent!

 

What will be interesting is the interaction between U.S. forces and the Iranians, whom already have units of Iran's Revolutionary Guard on the ground. And then there's the Iranian backed Shi'ite militias like Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. The Iranians, as I mentioned before are not at all pleased at their Shi'ite colony changing management,

This seems more and more like deja vu, with American troops being caught in between two sides of a religious civil war.

Based on the 'rewards' we got from intervening last time, I think we might be better off staying out of it, to say the least. Let the two sides work it out. The only people I favor arming in Iraq are the Kurds..if they're willing to be our allies after the sordid betrayals of two consecutive American administrations.

 

UPDATE: The Latest On Iraq

 

Things are not looking up so far for Maliki and the Iraqi government.

The New York Times has reported that Iraqi PM Nuri al=Maliki made an appeal to President Obama for military strikes on ISIS - and was turned down flat.

The White House is content so far to watch al-Qaeda take over Iraq. Aside from how its prog base would scream and yell, congress is not really in the mood to allow yet another Obama war without their approval, especially since it's now known that the president and his team have been covertly funding, arming and training ISIS and other jihadi groups fighting in Syria for at least 2 years. The locals are certainly aware of it.



If Obama does intervene, we'd be involved in the ludicrous spectacle of sending our forces in to fight jihadis their commander-in chief armed and trained, along with help from Qatar, the Saudis and the other GCE countries. And we'd also be helping Assad, the Iranians and Putin! That would not bode well for the Democrats in the midterms.

The Brits likewise have made it clear that the Iraqis are on their own as far as the UK is concerned. Maliki's government is at the point of arming raw civilians as a militia and sending them to the front lines. THis does not look like it's going to end well,based on who's turning out:

 

Maliki seems to be losing whatever authority he had fairly quickly.

He called an emergency meeting of the Iraqi parliament on whether or not to declare a national state of emergency, but failed to even get another members of Iraq's parliament to attend to make up the required quorum . Only 128 of 325 MPs showed up to the meeting to vote,which sounds an awful lot like 'the tribe has spoken.'

It's now been officially confirmed a day after I first reported it that the Kurds have indeed occupied and taken Kirkuk for their own.The reports say that the units are Kurdish Persh Merga,but one of my Notorious Lil' Birdies on the scene says that it's a mixture of Persh Merga from Irbil and fully equipped Kurdish members of the 2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army divisions, formerly stationed in Nineveh and the 4th division, formerly hunkered down in Salahadin. Apparently, as I surmised, they simply voted with their feet, decided not to shed blood for Maliki and rather than head south towards Baghdad they headed Northeast to Kirkuk and Kurdistan, which could very well mean that there is an arrangement between the Kurds and ISIS, since ISIS has yet to attack or invade any territory in either Iraq or Syria held by their fellow Sunnis,the Kurds.

A deal could make sense for both ISIS and the Kurds, who have no love for Maliki or the corrupt Shi'ite kleptocracy he presides over. ISIS doesn't want the Kurds allied with their enemies, while the Kurds want Kirkuk back and a market for their oil. The Kurds have the oil fields, but the pipelines all run through ISIS held territory. If a deal's been made, it works for both of them and this could be the birth of an independent Kurdistan carved out of the Kurdish territories in Iraq and Syria.

As I also predicted, Iran is making a fair amount of noise about their Shi'ite colony possibly going under new management:

In his broadcast, live on state television, he said, "This is an extremist, terrorist group that is acting savagely." Al Jazeera described him as agitated. It has been reported that a unit of the Quds force, Iran's elite special forces, has already been sent to Iraq.


Speaking of which, while ISIS has definitely been mounting executions and insuring that Sharia rules th eday, so far they haven't made al-Qaeda's mistake and engaged in wholesale butchery of the civilian population. Most of the executions have been confined to policemen, Iraqi troops and Iraqi government officials. There are no wholesale rapes and abduction of young girls, no gratuitous brutality, no kidnappings for ransom and no blatant thievery or looting, as we saw with al-Qaeda in Iraq. For now, ISIS appears content to maintain order, especially among Iraq's Sunnis.

 

I think that what we'll see is the Shi'ites consolidating their forces and making a stand to keep the Baghdad-Karbala-Basra corridor in their hands, together with the Southern oilfields and the Persian Gulf pipeline. Baghdad could very well become a war zone and a stalemate, with the dividing line being where the Shi'ite and Sunni areas meet.

So far, the Iraqi forces seems to have slowed ISIS's advance at Samarra,just north of Baghdad using aircraft. Samarra, you may recall, is home to the Golden Mosque, al Askaria, one of the holiest shrines in Shi'ite Islam. The dome of that mosque was destroyed by al-Qaeda in February of 2006. ISIS has promised to raze the mosque to the ground if the Iraqi Army doesn't withdraw.

Meanwhile, ISIS has leapfrogged the Iraqi defenses, making raids on towns along the rods between Samarra and Baghdad, only a few miles away.This make sense tactically. Aside from making sure that any reinforcements and supplies coming from Baghdad to Samarra's defenders have difficulty getting through, it will also make a retreat from Samarra if it becomes necessary will have to fight its way through to safety.

Stay tuned...

The Chess Pieces Move In Iraq As ISIS Takes Mosul And Tikrit In Major Offensive

Iraq is falling apart. And al-Qaeda is on the move.

Following a lightning strike that captured Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, the forces of The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS) have continued in an unchecked advance to the south. Aside from Mosul, ISIS has taken the entire province of Nineva along with other areas of Salahaddin and Kirkuk provinces yesterday. And in a major coup, ISIS has now captured the Salahaddin cities of Bayji, the site of Iraq's largest oil refinery, and the city of Tikrit, the provincial capital:




The Iraqi army we built up at such a huge cost to the American tax payer is retreating headlong towards Baghdad. Actually, it's less of a retreat and more of a rout.

Mosul, a city of two million people was a particularly juicy plum for the jihadis. As the Iraqi forces were routed, ISIS seized the provincial government headquarters, the airport, TV and radio stations, police stations and military installations where U.S.-supplied weapons and aircraft were based. ISIS doesn't have any pilots on hand, at least at the moment. But they now have an air force.

They also now have quite a bit of money. ISIS reportedly helped themselves to 500 billion Iraqi dinars - the equivalent of $429m (£256m) - from Mosul's central bank, as well as millions from numerous banks across Mosul according to Nineveh governor Atheel al-Nujaifi.

According to the Wall Street Journal, witnesses said government soldiers ran away in disorder, leaving the streets littered with abandoned army vehicles, weapons and uniforms. The soldiers reportedly knocked on doors and begged for civilian clothes so they could escape without being taken by the ISIS fighters.


ISIS also freed hundreds of prisoners being held in Mosul. More than 2,500 prisoners, many of them members of ISIS or other al-Qaeda factions were freed yesterday when ISIS took control of the city. That should more than replenish any casualties they suffered, and provide manpower either for a move on Baghdad or reinforcements for Syria.

As you can see in the map above two things are apparent. First, ISIS has literally erased the border between Syria and Iraq, both artificial countries anyway. ISIS still holds Fallujah, and their western lines st this point extend to the outskirts of Baghdad. At the same time, ISIS is advancing quickly from the north which will soon give  them a unified front to assault  Baghdad from two directions, perhaps in a matter of days.

 

This was an amazing strategic coup for ISIS. Shi'ite Iraq was cheerfully letting Iran funnel supplies to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Syrian Army and Hezbollah in Syria.This will effectively cut off a large part of that flow, and may even be decisive in winning the war for the jihadis there. or at least pushing Assad back to the northeastern coastal redoubt I've spoken about before.

ISIS and the other al-Qaeda and Islamist fighters are being heavily backed by the Saudis, Qatar and the other GCE countries..and, as I pointed out the other day, by President Obama, who has been supplying arms and training to ISIS and the al-Qaeda affiliates  covertly for quite some time now, while lying about it numerous times publicly and without bothering to clear it with congress, of course. As for the Saudis and the other Sunni states, this is there way of attempting to checkmate Shi'ite Iran, since they've realized by  now that President Obama never will.

 Sponsor putting an Islamist, terrorist affiliated government in power  instead of  Basher Assad? That would certainly not be an unusual step for this president if you look at his actions on Libya and Egypt.

At this point, thanks to the assistance they've received, ISIS has a solid area of influence in both Syria and Iraq, and may one day put together the unified Islamist state of their dreams, while the Shi'ites will be forced back into their traditional areas in the south...if they can hold them. Since Iraq's two biggest oilfields are in the south as weel as their Shi'ite's holy city of Karbala, they may very well make a stand there.

There are several wild cards going on that bear mentioning.

First, Iran.  I would not be surprised at all if Iraqi PM Maliki asks for Iranian support to hang on to things, especially if his calls to President Obama to put U.S. boots back on the ground in Iraq again falls on deaf ears. Either way, we could see a widening of the war. If America goes back in . we could see the ludicrous spectacle of U.S. troops fighting ISIS, whom their own commander-in-chef has armed and trained to preserve the Shi'ite dictatorship we put in power after we took out Saddam Hussein. Or we could see what amounts to simply an extension of the Syrian civil war to Iraq,which was largely a tribal conflict itself anyway. 

Of the two scenarios, I would see Iran coming in as the most likely, for domestic American political reasons if nothing else.

Another wild card is the Kurds. In spite of what  the map above says about ISIs and allied tribes being  'anti-Kurd' , I wouldn't be surprised if there was something interesting going on behind the scenes. Iraq's Shi'ite government has not been particularly friendly Kurdistan,especially when it comes to th eoil rich city of Kirkuk, which the Kurds claim as part of their federated area.

In both Syria and Iraq, ISIS and other Sunni jihadis have pretty much steered clear of the Kurdish areas, including Kirkuk. Partly, that's because the Kurds have maintained their own independent fighting force, the Persh Merga who were originally trained by the IDF covertly during the Saddam
' no fly zone' years. They're good fighters, and have close links with the Kurds in Syria, just over the border from Iraqi Kurdistan.

It's not impossible that the Kurds have made an agreement with ISIS, their fellow Sunnis.

The 2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army divisions in Nineveh and the 4th division in Salahadin are where most of the Kurds still in the Iraqi Army serve. To get to Bayji and Tikrit, the 4th division's headquarters, an dadvance as quickly as they did ISIS would have had to run through a lot of Iraqi troops putting up little or no resistance. Did the Kurdish troops, instead of retreating south towards Baghdad decide to go northeast with their arms and equipment instead, back towards Kirkuk and Kurdistan? I've heard several reports of Kurdish troops in Kirkuk, both Iraqi Army and Persh Merga.

The Kurds would also need to strike a deal with ISIS in any case, since while the fields might be in Kurdistan, the pipelines flow though ISIS held territory.

 

Did the Kurds  negotiate a separate peace with ISIS, that in exchange for allowing them to take Kirkuk and form an independent  Kurdistan, the Kurds would dissolve and not fight ISIS, either in Iraq or in Syria? It's possible, and  if that's true, we may be seeing the historic partition of Iraq.

In any event, this is going to be interesting as it plays out. Stay tuned...

Obama Is Aiding And Abetting Jihad Against The West - In Syria

 

In his commencement address at West Point, President Obama has announced that the U.S.is 'weighing military aid' for Syrian rebels. Separately, administration officials spoke off the record to reporters from the Associated Press and said that Obama and his team are planning to send U.S. military advisers to Jordan to train and equip certain moderate Syrian rebels.

Actually, the president has been covertly indulging his desire to intervene in Syria on the side of Islamist rebels without congressional oversight for quite some time, and its pernicious effect is starting to be felt. Just like the president's illegal intervention in Libya, our intervention in Syria has been like a rock dropped into a lake, sending ripples far beyond the original point of impact.

The training has mostly been done in Qatar and conducted by the CIA,although training of jihadis has also occurred in Jordan, where we already have almost 2,000 U.S. troops stationed and in camps along Syria's border with Turkey.

The president predictably lied about this when he was asked, but a documentary made by PBS ( hardly a right wing, anti-Obama platform) entitled " Syria: Arming the Rebels" actually shows jihadis training, holding up U.S. weapons and supplies and describe their journey from the Syrian battlefield to meet with their American handlers in Turkey and then being shipped to Qatar. Once there, they're instructed in sophisticated combat techniques, including one course on “how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.”

As PBS notes "it appears the Obama administration is allowing select groups of rebels to receive US-made anti-tank missiles."

The United States has already spent $287 million so far in what's described as nonlethal aid for the rebels, with whom knows how much for military aid and training since the Obama Administration and the president still deny that took place. I mean, who are you going to believe? Barack Obama or your lying eyes?

In any event this new emphasis means that a lot more money and arms are headed to Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry is talking in the neighborhood of $5 billion. He also claims we have the ability to vet who the aid goes to, which is ridiculous given the facts on the ground unless we really are going to send boots on the ground to Syria to get involved and see who lines up next to us.

How have our efforts in Syria been turning out so far?

Well, first of all, as was apparent from the PBS documentary and other sources, we haven't really had all that much control of where the arms, money and supplies go, or really, even who gets trained.
It's a similar situation to what happened in Afghanistan back in the late 1970's when President Carter began arming the Afghan muhadejin to fight the Soviets. We sent the stuff to Pakistan and it was our dear friends the Pakistanis who decided who got what, not us. Any wonder the Taliban took over once the Soviets skedaddled?

What Syria is becoming is jihadi summer camp, with foreign fighters flocking there, picking up valuable experience and skills like how to make an IED that won't result in a work accident, gaining combat experience in Syria and Iraq and then ultimately heading back to their home countries to teach others. Al Nusrah and ISIS already run their own training facilities in Syria and in the parts of Iraq ISIS now controls.

The resurgence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, where ISIS now controls 3 of Iraq's 18 provinces can be directly linked to President Obama's covert decision to support and arm the Syrian rebels, and, as we will eventually find out when the truth about Benghazi surfaces, to his intervention in Libya. We have only estimates of how many jihadis with Western citizenship have been trained and indoctrinated there, and no one in the Administration is paying any attention to how many have received U.S. arms, money and training.

 In late October 2013, Mike Rogers, chairman of the US House Intelligence Committee, warned that al Qaeda allies in Syria were now "talking about conducting external operations, which is exactly what happened in Afghanistan, which led to 9/11."

 

'External operations'...that's pretty much what's going on in Iraq right now.And it isn't just Iraq.

Hundreds of EU citizens have ended up in the ranks of ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), Al Nusrah and al-Qaeda, and a number of them who have returned are actively involved in terrorism on the home front.

In Belgium, for instance, Mehdi Nemmouche, the jihadi accused of killing four people in an attack on the Jewish museum in Brussels is a French national who spent time fighting in Syria and had a flag from ISIS in his possession as well as a Kalishnikov, a handgun, and jihad videos. None of this was news to the French Authorities that picked him up in Marseilles, since they had been attempting to track hi since they knew he had been fighting with ISIS in Syria.

Bomb threats were made against the Belgian Royal family after Belgian police arrested Ismail Abdelatif al Lal, a major al-Qaeda financier who was funding the recruitment and transport of Spanish and Moroccan Muslims to Syria. And the Belgian government ended up finally cancelling the government welfare benefits of 30 Belgian jihadis who were having the checks forwarded to banks in Turkey while they were fighting in Syria!

France's French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve estimated that almost 400 jihadis who hold French passports are currently fighting in Syria. Back in March, former Interior Minister Manuel Valls "estimated that 700 French nationals or residents of France were more or less involved in the Syrian conflict, that 250 were currently in Syria, 99 were in transit to get there, 150 had showed interest in going there, 76 had already returned, and that 21 had died on Syrian soil."

Those whom have returned will bring interesting skills back home with them, and a number apparently already have.

There are instances of this happening all over Europe.

And the U.S.? The estimates of battle trained Syrian jihadis who've returned here range from 70 to fifty.

If we can't even vet our own citizens returning from Syria or stop them from going in the first place, how does the Obama team imagine it's going to vet who gets U.S. military aid and training?

And is it a major leap to conclude that these arms and more importantly the training will be turned against us someday?

If you look at President Obama and his team and their actions in Syria,in Libya, in Egypt, in Iraq and our funding of the new Hamas-Fatah government, you'd have to conclude that not only is our current regime tolerant and favorably disposed towards Islamists, they're now actually aiding and abetting them.

And as we've seen, such things have a history of backfiring....horrendously.