Beyond the frontline: watching ISIS

[Bill Moore]

Another hard hitting article from Frontline that illuminates the dysfunction in our approach that our leaders and the talking heads on the media who claim to be strategy experts keep side stepping.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...campaign=ICYMI

The Clashing Agendas In The Fight Against ISIS

To listen to this year’s crop of presidential candidates, defeating ISIS is just a matter of enlisting more of our regional allies’ help. We need to build a coalition of Sunni Arab nations, the candidates all say, to form a ground force to go in and take ISIS out. If only it were so simple.

We hear this tune too many times that rings empty, just like elevator music. Through, by, and with, FID, security force assistance, and drivel continues to spew forth regardless of the facts that contradict the effectiveness of this approach when you don't have willing partners.

The author points out that ISIS is a problem, but they're a symptom of a larger issue which is Shia oppression. An oppression we arguably enabled by removing Saddam and enabling mob rule under the rubric of democracy, and then shifting our effort from putting pressure on Assad to myopically focusing on ISIS as though that will work.

When the U.S. airdropped weapons and ammunition in October 2014 to support Syrian Kurds of the YPG fighting ISIS for control of the Syrian border town of Kobani, Turkish tanks and troops stood by. President Recip Tayip Erdogan was furious that the U.S. had decided to supply and support the YPG.

The Turks denied the U.S. to conduct combat operations from Turkey in response, and now this.

Turkey has since opened Incirlik but has continued to target the YPG forces, despite the fact that the YPG is America’s principal and most reliable ground ally in the fight against ISIS.

Next door in Iraq (not to mention the riots in the Green Zone)

Meanwhile, sectarian tensions continue to fester in Iraq. The central government, without a strong national army, has relied on Iranian-backed Shia militias to confront ISIS. The results have been disastrous. After U.S. airstrikes routed ISIS from Tikrit, Iranian-backed Shia militias mounted dozens of revenge attacks against Sunni residents of Saddam Hussein’s hometown and in neighboring provinces as well.

If this was a novel it would be a best seller, but the so called experts in the region prior to 9/11 would argue that while this is good fiction, the probability of something like this happening is quite low or even impossible.

In some regards it reminds of Richard Clark's novel, "The Scorpion's Gate"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Scorpions-...ct_top?ie=UTF8

And one reviewer's comments,

So this is the prediction of the near future Middle East the sage of the 9/11 commission brings us? Rest Assured, none of it will actually happen.

[davidbfpo]

RUSI has a new, very short commentary and they conclude:

Daesh has clearly learned lessons from Al–Qa’ida, and AQI in particular, so that it can hold territory more successfully and more effectively utilise the skills of its recruits. However, the evidence from the Daesh database suggests that the fundamental mechanisms of terrorist recruitment and radicalisation are still the same.
Social media has given the group greater access to a global audience, but the social processes underlying the radicalisation and mobilisation of foreign fighters still mirrors that seen among the recruits of Al-Qa’ida. Behind the bureaucracy, foreign fighters are still just a bunch of guys.

Link:https://rusi.org/commentary/friends-...daesh-database

[CrowBat]

The Turks denied the U.S. to conduct combat operations from Turkey in response, and now this.

For years - read: long before the USA ever came to the idea to ask Turkey for permission to deploy its combat aircraft at Incirlik AB so they could fight the Daesh from there - Turkey, a loyal NATO-ally since 50+ years, demanded few things, from the USA and from the NATO. Between these was the NATO to provide full support if they (Turks) go into Syria to fight the Daesh (and Assad, of course). Foremost on behalf of the NATO (even more so considering what happened afterwards; see below).

Half the NATO said 'nyet' (literally, because of all the various talking-heads there on Putler's paylists) and the other couldn't bother to pay attention.

When nearly 3 million of Syrian refugees flooded Turkey, NATO just couldn't give a damn: it was the EU that began screaming when about half a million of these began flooding Greece...

Meanwhile, Turkey did grant permission for the US aircraft to deploy to Incirlik AB, and even began flying air strikes on Daesh in Syria - only to have the CENTCOM call it to stop immediately: supposedly, Turks were 'disturbing' US operations...

A month later, Russians forgot to announce ops of their Su-24s along the Turkish border, prompting Turks to conclude these would be Assadist Sukhois - and shoot one down, which was fully in line with currently valid NATO's ROEs for such cases ('unidentified aircraft, violating airspace, deploying weapons...').

Instead of informing themselves properly about what happened, all the possible NATO-relevant talking-heads de-facto sided with Russia and accused Turkey for doing that....

As next, certain official with job description 'President of the USA' ordered a significant contingent of the US-supported, Sunni-Arab 'Syrian Democratic Force' (a US-supported coalition of Sunni Arabs and YPG's Kurds, specifically created with the aim of fighting Daesh) to be transferred over 300km via Turkey to the Afrin enclave. And this in support of the YPG, which is an offshot of the PKK - considered a terrorist organization by all of the NATO.

Two weeks later, the same official then ordered Turkey to close its borders to Syria.

You know, I'm not the least pro-Erdo, and surely not curious to defend him. From my POV, he couldn't get bashed any more.

But, every story has two sides. Especially this one. And foremost because the US official in question - who, BTW, is the very same character repeatedly insisting on respect for 'Iranian interests' from all possible US-alllies - seems not to consider Turkey even for a sovereign state.

[Bill Moore]

For years - read: long before the USA ever came to the idea to ask Turkey for permission to deploy its combat aircraft at Incirlik AB so they could fight the Daesh from there - Turkey, a loyal NATO-ally since 50+ years, demanded few things, from the USA and from the NATO. Between these was the NATO to provide full support if they (Turks) go into Syria to fight the Daesh (and Assad, of course). Foremost on behalf of the NATO (even more so considering what happened afterwards; see below).

Half the NATO said 'nyet' (literally, because of all the various talking-heads there on Putler's paylists) and the other couldn't bother to pay attention.

When nearly 3 million of Syrian refugees flooded Turkey, NATO just couldn't give a damn: it was the EU that began screaming when about half a million of these began flooding Greece...

Meanwhile, Turkey did grant permission for the US aircraft to deploy to Incirlik AB, and even began flying air strikes on Daesh in Syria - only to have the CENTCOM call it to stop immediately: supposedly, Turks were 'disturbing' US operations...

A month later, Russians forgot to announce ops of their Su-24s along the Turkish border, prompting Turks to conclude these would be Assadist Sukhois - and shoot one down, which was fully in line with currently valid NATO's ROEs for such cases ('unidentified aircraft, violating airspace, deploying weapons...').

Instead of informing themselves properly about what happened, all the possible NATO-relevant talking-heads de-facto sided with Russia and accused Turkey for doing that....

As next, certain official with job description 'President of the USA' ordered a significant contingent of the US-supported, Sunni-Arab 'Syrian Democratic Force' (a US-supported coalition of Sunni Arabs and YPG's Kurds, specifically created with the aim of fighting Daesh) to be transferred over 300km via Turkey to the Afrin enclave. And this in support of the YPG, which is an offshot of the PKK - considered a terrorist organization by all of the NATO.

Two weeks later, the same official then ordered Turkey to close its borders to Syria.

You know, I'm not the least pro-Erdo, and surely not curious to defend him. From my POV, he couldn't get bashed any more.

But, every story has two sides. Especially this one. And foremost because the US official in question - who, BTW, is the very same character repeatedly insisting on respect for 'Iranian interests' from all possible US-alllies - seems not to consider Turkey even for a sovereign state.

Disappointing, but sadly not surprising. Thanks for sharing.

[SWJ Blog]

War Against ISIS Hits Hurdles Just as the U.S. Military Gears Up

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Baghdad Bombings Reveal ISIS New Plan: Tearing Iraq Apart

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

How Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Some Considerations on Dealing with ISIS

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...campaign=ICYMI

But who was Zarqawi?

Could his rise have been prevented? Here are six things about his life you might not have known.

An attack plan was fast tracked to the White House, but with the U.S. just months away from

a

full-scale invasion of Iraq, the CIA plan was shot down.

Bruce Hoffman, a former U.S. military adviser explained:

Zarqawi had a strategy. He’s just trying to leave it so that it’s only the United States military left, and it’s a black-and-white conflict. And this will enable him to rally considerably more support to himself and to his cause.

The second part of his plan was to foment a civil war. To do this, he would attack Shia Muslims, causing them to retaliate against Sunnis, who would then have no choice but to turn to jihadists for protection.

[SWJ Blog]

ISIS Will Not Get Far in Asia

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to WoTR where Clint Watts assembles and examines the various data sources on IS recruitment:http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/bey...gerous-trends/

[davidbfpo]

Catching up with emails I found that the PBS documentary also relied upon the now retired CIA analyst, Nada Bakos. In her interview:

..Bakos talks about Zarqawi’s rise, and why she believes “we would not be where we’re at today” had the U.S. acted sooner. “Zarqawi would not have been able to build a jihadist organization,would not have picked up his playbook and then taken it from there.”

She raises a number of issues, notably that AQI simply "laid low" as the allies pursued them and the military wrongly claimed to have defeated them.


Link:https://nadabakos.com/2016/05/20/nad...-isis-founder/

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to WoTR for the latest Clint Watts analysis on the future of ISIS, which starts with:

Panic over which future Islamic State affiliate should be of chief concern rises each day as the Islamic State loses turf in Iraq and Syria and foreign fighters flee.

Link:http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/whe...es-affiliates/

He concludes, bar an important sentence:

Lastly, of all locations, Lebanon may be the most important to watch. A fragile state close to Syria, Lebanon is producing high rates of foreign fighters, faces floods of refugees, lacks a strong international counterterrorism presence, faces constant sectarian strife, and sits proximate to every jihadi’s common enemy, Israel. Lebanon, moreso than any other country, seems an ideal opportunity for the Islamic State should the caliphate end.

That last sentence:

Much like the American withdrawal from Iraq six years ago, the Islamic State’s demise, when it comes, won’t spell the end of jihad — just the close of a chapter and the start of a new one somewhere else.

[JWing]

Just published an interview with Naval War Prof Craig Whiteside about Abu Omar al-Baghdadi IS's 2nd leader after Zarqawi was killed. Abu Omar has been generally denigrated. Originally there were questions about whether he was a real person or not and after that he was called a figurehead. Turns out he had much more standing within the group and helped it survive the Surge Sahwa Awakening and started rebuilding it. Here's a link to the interview.

[SWJ Blog]

CNAS Releases ISIS Study Group Final Report

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

DOJ and FBI Backtrack After Criticism for Removing ISIS from Orlando Transcript

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

ISIS: State or Terror Group?

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Fallujah’s Importance to ISIS Helped Iraq Recapture City

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Security Expert: 'ISIS And Al-Qaida Are Competing On A Worldwide Canvas'

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

In the Age of ISIS, Who’s a Terrorist, and Who’s Simply Deranged?

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.