Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---I will paraphrase something JMA told you recently--it is far easier as you do to tear something about-but then that is what your and mirhond both tend to do calling it debate.

Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.

Finally say something that means anything, finally have your own opinion---unless you can counter the Robert concept of rule of law and good governance then not say anything. If you noticed which you did not I was paraphrasing Robert not putting words in his mouth which you tend to do.

My opinion, as I've stated in numerous discussions with Robert and others, is that law, good governance, and inclusion evolve locally. They cannot be externally imposed and there's very little that outside powers can do to move the evolutionary process along.

Yes, inclusive government and good governance would be wonderful in Iraq. They'd be wonderful in Afghanistan. Hell, they'd be wonderful in America. Neither the US nor any other outside power can impose or otherwise create inclusive government in Iraq or Afghanistan until the local political cuture evolves to the point where it's ready to accommodate them. That is not within our power. We could impose the structures and institutions that we think appropriate, but as always, structures and institutions that are not compatible with the prevailing political culture will simply be bypassed or ignored. The US cannot transform Iraq into Massachusetts, not with all the blood and treasure on earth. Whatever Iraq's political future will be, it will have to be determined through an evolutionary process driven by Iraqis. That process is likely to be messy and violent, as it has been in most places.

Do I as a superpower having invested say at the least 1 tillion USDs with a big T, having lost 4.4 KIA over 200K WIA and had one MIA until 2009---have I actually "pressure" power to get an inclusive government if I play my game correctly. This "pressure" is also not counting at least 160K troops inside your country and oh by the way the corruption money you are making off of me in the millions of USDs counts as well as "pressure" does it not?

Of course it's pressure. There are things pressure can't accomplish. Transforming Iraq into a an inclusive democracy is one of them.

The actual question should be if you read carefully my comments---just why did not "we" play the "game?

We did play the game. We lost. We lost because we failed to achieve our objective. We failed to achieve our objective because the objective of transforming Iraq into a democracy was never realistic in the first place.

If we wanted to hold the arbitrary construct of "Iraq" together, we should have left the army intact and handed it over to a new dictator... moot point of course because US domestic politics made that an unacceptable option. Having declined that option, we get to watch that arbitrary construct fall apart, which may not be the worst of all possible outcomes. Is it really our function to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together?

The lesson, if any, is that we should have a practical, realistic, achievable end game plan in hand before embarking on regime change. "Install democracy" does not exactly meet those criteria.

[OUTLAW 09]

Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.



My opinion, as I've stated in numerous discussions with Robert and others, is that law, good governance, and inclusion evolve locally. They cannot be externally imposed and there's very little that outside powers can do to move the evolutionary process along.

Yes, inclusive government and good governance would be wonderful in Iraq. They'd be wonderful in Afghanistan. Hell, they'd be wonderful in America. Neither the US nor any other outside power can impose or otherwise create inclusive government in Iraq or Afghanistan until the local political cuture evolves to the point where it's ready to accommodate them. That is not within our power. We could impose the structures and institutions that we think appropriate, but as always, structures and institutions that are not compatible with the prevailing political culture will simply be bypassed or ignored. The US cannot transform Iraq into Massachusetts, not with all the blood and treasure on earth. Whatever Iraq's political future will be, it will have to be determined through an evolutionary process driven by Iraqis. That process is likely to be messy and violent, as it has been in most places.



Of course it's pressure. There are things pressure can't accomplish. Transforming Iraq into a an inclusive democracy is one of them.



We did play the game. We lost. We lost because we failed to achieve our objective. We failed to achieve our objective because the objective of transforming Iraq into a democracy was never realistic in the first place.

If we wanted to hold the arbitrary construct of "Iraq" together, we should have left the army intact and handed it over to a new dictator... moot point of course because US domestic politics made that an unacceptable option. Having declined that option, we get to watch that arbitrary construct fall apart, which may not be the worst of all possible outcomes. Is it really our function to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together?

The lesson, if any, is that we should have a practical, realistic, achievable end game plan in hand before embarking on regime change. "Install democracy" does not exactly meet those criteria.

Dayuhan---we can debate all day long slicing and dicing each paragraph--core issues are;

1. why not go back to the decision making group of individuals and hold them responsible for the deaths of 4.4K killed, 200K wounded and a waste of 1T USDs---really question the lies, deceit and manipulations of the American public
2. why not go back a openly and seriously question the entire US intelligence community for the initial failures and the continued failures while we were in Iraq at not understanding what was going on
3. why do openly and seriously question the senior military leadership that served in the MNF-I for not calling a spade a spade

Then when that is finished question the American public for not wanting to know anything about anything and asking serious questions of their politicians and military.

Because right now we are seeing the results of that lack of an open and serious conversation in the current events in Syria and Iraq all over again.

Then once we can get off the stupid discussions centered around declaring everything a "terrorist" then maybe we can get onto the discussion that some are in fact freedom fighters for a specific cause and not a threat against the "homeland".

Then when we can separate the terrorist from the freedom fighter without panicking and hiding in a closet from that discussion then we can incorporate what Robert has been saying for a long while here in the SWJ.

Are we at that point and will we ever get to that point---not in my life time nor yours.

So stop the slicing and dicing and have an opinion and state it so we can slice and dice your thoughts to death.

BUT again no we do not know how to play the "game" that in the Cold War days would have been reserved for a "superpower" or did you think with the efforts, time, money, and loss of life did not "give" the US at least a "voice" in the game.

If so then why did we not use it?

So explain that piece to us in order that we might understand your thinking so we can dissect it.

[Dayuhan]

Malaki has fired his Foreign Minister a Kurd and the Kurds are talking about independence almost every day---appears more every day that by Malaki hanging on he has lost the Sunni and Kurdish regions even if his Army regains their footing.

He definitely is losing his oil fields.

I expect the Kurds will go their own way and take the northern fields with them. The larger reserves in the south remain firmly in Shi'a territory and don't appear to be going anywhere. If Iraq dissolves along sectarian lines, the Shi'a portion will still have plenty of oil.

If (when?) full dissolution occurs it will be interesting to see whether the Kurds will try to take Mosul and the Baiji refinery complex, which apparently is still contested. If ISIS can gain control of some of the northern Iraqi fields they will have more oil than they can get from Syria.

This prior post is so chaotic that it's difficult to figure out what the point is or how to reasonably respond, but to try to address specific questions...

1. Then how can we the US declare it a "terrorist organization" when it is no longer a member of AQ and has formally rejected AQ?---the US laws passed in the post 9/11 period state Taliban and AQ not the now IS? Especially if they have in the past and now not declared the US their enemy---yes the US was an enemy within the confines of Iraq but not outwardly because it had invaded Iraq.

Direct connection to AQ is not a prerequisite for "terrorist" designation... though I'd certainly agree that the official "terrorist" designation has been widely abused and misused.

2. Then how do we engage with an organization with approximately the same stated long term goals---creation of a Sunni state ie Caliphate and the overthrow of Assad?

Are you assuming that we must engage with them at all? If so, why?

3. Then how do we fine tune our thinking to assist in the redrawing of the colonial Sykes-Picot boundaries which goes to the heart of most of the ME issues if we do not even talk with even yes "moderate Islamists".

Why should we be involved in redrawing the boundaries of Iraq? How well have our previous attempts to shape the pattern of Iraqi governance worked out?

As far as I can see, we should not be involved in that process unless we have clear, specific, and achievable goals to our involvement. What would those be? I can't see trying to keep Maliki in power as something the US should be getting behind, same for keeping the physical "Iraq" that we know intact. So what's the goal? If we aren't clear on what that is, better to let the Iraqis hack it out themselves and deal with whatever emerges at the other end.

Here is the crack point because we the US have gotten ourselves so tangled up in the view of the US vs. them "the terrorists" we cannot see the trees any longer and at the same we were fighting the GWOT we gave up our inherent personal freedoms so we can no longer even complain without being defined as the "enemy" if one is using the legal software "Tor" in order to maintain privacy on the Net.

Yes, the whole "us vs the terrorists" routine is simplistic and pointless. What's the point? Is that pointing toward some variant on the "let's support the good guys" theme?

I will change directions and look at the Israeli/Palestinian problem as another example of our not fully understanding the role of a "superpower".

The US provides a massive financial aid package to both the Israeli's and the Palestinians especially in the last five years---and especially on the PLO side which is getting virtually nothing more from other Arab donors.

On the Israeli side we provide advanced weapons and R&D funding for their military research and weapons production or who do you think paid for the Iron Dome missile system which to this day the Israeli's have not provided the technical details on regardless of funding requirements.

So using your thinking we must not have a "voice" in the game ---right?---I would state we must have and should have a "voice" even if both sides do not like it and or even the the rest of the world does not like it.

But where do we find that "voice" in the currently stated Obama foreign policy?---nowhere would be my answer. By the way I would argue that since 9/11 American foreign policy displays a tad bit of we do not really care what the rest of the world thinks attitude.

Having a "voice" doesn't mean anyone will listen to your "voice", and both the Israelis and the Palestinians have been ignoring our voice for generations, perhaps partly because we keep giving them money even when they ignore us. Nothing unique to this administration about that: it's been going on for decades. If it were up to me I'd declare a pox on both their houses, cut off all the money, and maybe think about restoring some if the parties come to us offering specific concessions, but obviously it isn't up to me. If the money is intended to buy influence or to buy a voice, the ROI is unacceptably low, to put it very mildly.

I do not believe that being a superpower means you must have a finger in every pie, everywhere: overextension is ever the grave of empire. That doesn't mean we should never get involved, it means that we should only get involved where we have a clear and compelling interest at stake, where we have clear, specific, and achievable goals, and where we have realistic and practical plans for achieving those goals. Jumping into someone else's mess just because we're a superpower and the superpower ought to be there just doesn't seem very smart to me.

Dayuhan---we can debate all day long slicing and dicing each paragraph--core issues are;

1. why not go back to the decision making group of individuals and hold them responsible for the deaths of 4.4K killed, 200K wounded and a waste of 1T USDs---really question the lies, deceit and manipulations of the American public
2. why not go back a openly and seriously question the entire US intelligence community for the initial failures and the continued failures while we were in Iraq at not understanding what was going on
3. why do openly and seriously question the senior military leadership that served in the MNF-I for not calling a spade a spade

Then when that is finished question the American public for not wanting to know anything about anything and asking serious questions of their politicians and military.

I think we both know the answer to those. The US traditionally does not hold its leaders accountable for the consequences of their decisions, we just vote the fools out and vote a new bunch of fools in. There was no shortage of voices in the leadup to the Iraq invasion warning that a post-Saddam Iraq would be unmanageable and would likely dissolve into civil war; the voices were simply ignored. The leadership didn't want to hear it, and the post 9/11 public just wanted to see some Arab butt getting kicked. It was not an environment conducive to rational thought, and what little there was on the table was quickly swept away.

Because right now we are seeing the results of that lack of an open and serious conversation in the current events in Syria and Iraq all over again.

The conversation is going on, all over, it just hasn't reached any very attractive conclusions.

Then once we can get off the stupid discussions centered around declaring everything a "terrorist" then maybe we can get onto the discussion that some are in fact freedom fighters for a specific cause and not a threat against the "homeland".

Then when we can separate the terrorist from the freedom fighter without panicking and hiding in a closet from that discussion then we can incorporate what Robert has been saying for a long while here in the SWJ.

I don't think anyone here is declaring everything a terrorist, so that's a bit of a straw man, but again, I'm not sure where you're going with that. Is it pointing toward some variant on the "support the god guys" theme?

So stop the slicing and dicing and have an opinion and state it so we can slice and dice your thoughts to death.

My opinion, stated repeatedly, is that unless there's a defined and compelling US interest involved, unless we have clear, specific, and achievable goals, and unless we have a practical and realistic plan for achieving those goals, we should not be getting involved in these fights, directly or by proxy. Winning is achieving your goal, and if your goal is nebulous, ephemeral, or aspirational, your chance of winning is near nil from the start. Why engage on those terms? The start of any conversation on action, intervention, or engagement has to be defining the interests at stake and the specific goals of the action. Those ingredients are all too often missing from the conversation. How can there be a rational discussion of method if we aren't clear on what specifically we are trying to achieve?

BUT again no we do not know how to play the "game" that in the Cold War days would have been reserved for a "superpower" or did you think with the efforts, time, money, and loss of life did not "give" the US at least a "voice" in the game.

If so then why did we not use it?

We did use it. We just didn't use it effectively.

[JWing]

Little update on some events.

Iraq Oil Report finds that IS is smuggling oil from the northern fields it controls into Kurdistan making an estimated $1 mil/day.

With regards to the Kurds they are taking a two track policy. On the one hand they are trying to hep form the new Iraqi government. They haven't decided who will be president yet, keeping with the ethnosectarian quota system, but once the Shiite National Alliance decides on whether to keep Maliki or not this issues will be quickly decided. It will probably end up being Barham Salah. Their second poicy is to continue to move towards independence. That is not going to happen anytime soon. They are not a financially viable state. Just take a recent announcement by the Natural Resource Minister Hawrami who said that Kurdistan will suffer from gas shortages or 2-3 years until it build more refineries. Until then there are huge lines of people waiting for gas throughout the region and the regional government has had to increase purchases of gas from Turkey. Its estimated that the Kurds need to export an average of around 1 mil/bar/day to pay for themselves. They only have a capacity of 400,000 bar/day. Adding Kirkuk field does not help because the Kirkuk pipeline is down and the insurgents control much of the territory it passes through.

In Anbar the insurgents are moving on Ramadi. They had a presence in the southern portion of the city since the beginning of fighting in December but now control the western half and are moving on the rest of the city. Reinforcements were sent but these are the new recruits which supposedly are only getting 3-10 days of training and will probably be cannon fodder. Insurgents are also trying to take Haditha Dam but have been repulsed. I would suspect that Anbar will eventually fall in the coming months. Insurgents already control around 85% of the governorate.

The 6th consecutive security operation is taking place in northwest Babil with major militia support. As usual the government is claiming this is a great success. I expect a 7th security operation to be quickly announced after this one as IS has proven resilient in the area.

One positive the Sunni parties have picked Salim Jabouri to be the new speaker of parliament.

Forgot to mention that I just posted about 15 videos on Iraq covering Asaib Ahl Al-Haq and Badr Brigade militias, the Iranian SU-25s, a longer discussion of the situation in Iraq at the London Frontline Club, and others. Here's a link.

[OUTLAW 09]

Appears the fighting is now moving into Baghdad proper---this attack is interesting as they moved in their typical fashion using trucks and that inside Baghdad---which shows some ease in freedom of movement despite all the extra Shia militia being called up. There had been rumors of IS cells in place months ago--appears to be true.

http://news.yahoo.com/gunmen-kill-le...203144904.html

Also heavy fighting 30 miles south of Baghdad in the Sunni belt ---Iraqi's admit to 21 killed but "claimed" dozens of IS killed---in their typical over estimating of IS for the public fashion.

This over estimating is actually hurting them as it leads them to assume they are holding on well when they are not.

[OUTLAW 09]

For those that speak German---this link goes to the core reason the Sunni's are splitting Iraq as I doubt seriously they even believe it possible to have a federated Iraq as long as the Shia do not stop the torturing, random killings, large scale detentions of local Sunni's under no legal charges, raids on peaceful protest camps, declaring Sunni politicians terrorists or worse Baathists, and "disappearing" of Sunni's also on a large scale---and now we wonder about why the Caliphate was created?

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/i.../10190082.html

These types of activities we the US Army saw in Iraq starting just before the elections in 2005---not starting with the Shia ethnic cleansings in late 2006 early 2007---it was there to be seen by all we just did not want to believe it possible.

Notice while the world ie the West in particular panic about a "Caliphate" and the IS attacks---not a single western country and or western leader has openly attacked Malaki for the summary killings of over 250 Sunni prisoners---ever wonder why?---because they hold the same belief mechanism---well if he was arrested he must have been a terrorist and we do a GWOT going on.

We in the West spend a lot of time claiming we support human rights and that international law/international military law must be held to as a critical part of good governance---but is it really just mouthing the words in order that we have a good feeling that we are doing something positive in the world or is it deeply embedded in our own DNA? Really doubt that it is in our DNA these days?

The US Army claimed that they had extensively trained the ISF on prisoner handling, the use of legal evidence, and the courts as an anchor for good governance.

But did we just go through the motions on a good governance checklist just to get out of Iraq just as we went through the motions in setting up the ISF as a military requirement to get out?

[davidbfpo]

Some very tart passages in this article by Patrick Cockburn 'Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country':http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...y-9602312.html

Here is one:

The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end.

[JMA]

Easier than what? None of us here are in a position to do anything about anything. Ideas get tossed out and picked apart. That's discussion. Are ideas supposed to be sacrosanct and immune to criticism? I don't see how throwing out bold and utterly unrealistic plans is any more productive than pointing out that those plans are bold and unrealistic.

Easier than you stating what you believe in some detail rather than just picking holes in what others post. You are not contributing to the discussion at all... just a distraction.

Came across a number of people in my time who waited for others to contribute then criticised them for all it was worth. Where I was able I posted them out of my command/unit and kicked them off the officers courses I ran. Nasty people, bad for morale.
(I have come to learn that this problem is likely to be caused by a neurological chemical imbalance which is easy to fix)

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---will nudge you to think about this.

1. QJBR (AQ in the Land of Two Rivers (2004) which formed out of the 90s Tahwid group) then AQI (2005) then ISIL/ISIS and now IS---if one strictly looks at the group---outside of claiming they were initially part of AQ and now no longer part of AQ and if one accepts the fact that they were assisting Iraqi Sunnis resisting an illegal invasion by the US and if we see them fighting Assad which the US has stated it wants removed from Syria--and the organization has not declared the US it's avowed enemy nor the Great Satan and from their messaging seems to not be interested in striking the "homeland"-------

1. Then how can we the US declare it a "terrorist organization" when it is no longer a member of AQ and has formally rejected AQ?---the US laws passed in the post 9/11 period state Taliban and AQ not the now IS? Especially if they have in the past and now not declared the US their enemy---yes the US was an enemy within the confines of Iraq but not outwardly because it had invaded Iraq.

As a thinking refresher exercise just go back and read the press articles about the GWOT and the AQ/Taliban from the 9/11 to 2005 periods.

As a thinking refresher go back and reread the many us vs. them articles during the same period.

2. Then how do we engage with an organization with approximately the same stated long term goals---creation of a Sunni state ie Caliphate and the overthrow of Assad?

3. Then how do we fine tune our thinking to assist in the redrawing of the colonial Sykes-Picot boundaries which goes to the heart of most of the ME issues if we do not even talk with even yes "moderate Islamists".

Here is the crack point because we the US have gotten ourselves so tangled up in the view of the US vs. them "the terrorists" we cannot see the trees any longer and at the same we were fighting the GWOT we gave up our inherent personal freedoms so we can no longer even complain without being defined as the "enemy" if one is using the legal software "Tor" in order to maintain privacy on the Net.

When was the last time you read a report of AQ attacking a water tower in the middle of Des Moines, Iowa?

I will change directions and look at the Israeli/Palestinian problem as another example of our not fully understanding the role of a "superpower".

The US provides a massive financial aid package to both the Israeli's and the Palestinians especially in the last five years---and especially on the PLO side which is getting virtually nothing more from other Arab donors.

On the Israeli side we provide advanced weapons and R&D funding for their military research and weapons production or who do you think paid for the Iron Dome missile system which to this day the Israeli's have not provided the technical details on regardless of funding requirements.

So using your thinking we must not have a "voice" in the game ---right?---I would state we must have and should have a "voice" even if both sides do not like it and or even the the rest of the world does not like it.

But where do we find that "voice" in the currently stated Obama foreign policy?---nowhere would be my answer. By the way I would argue that since 9/11 American foreign policy displays a tad bit of we do not really care what the rest of the world thinks attitude.

Look how far that got the CIAs Chief of Station here in Berlin yesterday when the US government was asked for some direct answers to alleged CIA spy recruitments---they tap danced and provided nothing and the COS is being diplomatically "sent" home after getting a great career boost by coming to Berlin.

[Bill Moore]

Nightwatch reports today that:

Iraqi Sunni rebel factions have agreed that "each group should operate in its zone of influence," and that "the issue of unifying them under one command is currently not on the table." They also agreed that Sunni rebel groups would seek to conclude a truce with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in order to halt infighting and to give up the ISIL demand for a pledge of allegiance.

Ba'athist militants have started "a systematic assassination campaign" against ISIL commanders in areas under their joint control in Diyala Governorate. Some smaller tribes near Mosul also said they killed several ISIL commanders today.

Other reports indicate IS are conducting their own purge of Ba'athists in Mosul and other areas.

This attempt to consolidate power is normal in most revolutions/insurgencies. Ho ruthlessly consolidated power in N. Vietnam by killing off his political rivals, the LTTE did the same in Sri Lanka, and in El Salvador there were several factions within the insurgent movement which frustrated the Cubans who wanted them to unite so they could provide effective assistance to them. This is obviously an opportunity to keep them relatively weak if we can prolong the divisions in the ranks between the ISIL, Ba'athists, and Sunni Tribes.

Further reports of oppression in Mosul by IS may indicate that waiting for the IS to show their true colors to the people may be a useful strategy. If the IS turns the population against them, it will make a subsequent military operation much easier. The missing step that both the Iraqi government, our occupation, and ISIL share is the inability to effectively consolidate tactical victory into an enduring strategic gain.

[davidbfpo]

A short article by an Israeli academic 'A call to arms: what lies beneath Sistani’s potent fatwa?':

Ayatollah Sistani’s fatwa, urging collective responsibility for Iraq’s religious sites, has been variously construed as a Shi’i mobilization campaign or a nationalist call to arms. But beneath the fatwa’s surface lie deeper roots: the very ruptures and fissures that plague Iraq’s Shi’is.

(It ends with) Sistani’s potent fatwa might have been misconstrued as an attempt to mobilize Iraqi Shi’is against ISIS and the Sunni insurgency, instead of a call for all Iraqis to defend their homeland and its various religious sites as intended by its author. But its real significance lies less in the gravity of ISIS’s threat to Iraq and more in its reflection of the profound divisions that plague Iraq’s Shi’is.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-aw...s-potent-fatwa

[OUTLAW 09]

Malaki has fired his Foreign Minister a Kurd and the Kurds are talking about independence almost every day---appears more every day that by Malaki hanging on he has lost the Sunni and Kurdish regions even if his Army regains their footing.

He definitely is losing his oil fields.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...oses-divisions

[OUTLAW 09]

IS is still grinding it out on the ground with a new move on Ramadi---evidently they still hold portions of Ramadi---is an attempt to relieve pressure on Fulluja.

Malaki seems to be losing his mental state with his latest round of uncontrolled tirades/reactions (throwing out the Kurdish FM) against the Kurds who with those comments appears to really want to lose the Kurdish regions. Two more oil fields in the north are taken over by the Kurds.

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/ur...uk-bai-hassan/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/....html?hpid=z10

If in fact Ramadi goes over to the IS---IS has successfully begun to implement an encirclement of Baghdad. They simply need to blockade it not take control of it in order to prove to the Sunni global community their victories over the Shia thus the legitimacy of the Caliphate.

The JCoS Dempesy virtually said that last week when he indicated they could only defend the city but not recover lost terrority.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/600431

[JWing]

Here's my latest article on the security situation in Iraq "Do Dead Bodies In The Street’s Of Iraq’s Capital Point Towards A Renewed Civil War?" There has been a decided increase in the number of bodies dumped on the streets of Baghdad province this year. This is likely the result of increased insurgent operations and the return of the militias who are now openly operating in the capital.

[JWing]

I just posted some new videos on Iraq. They include the BBC visiting an Asaib Ah Al-Haq base in Salahaddin, the Kurds seizing two oil fields in Kirkuk and the opinions of the regional powers and the U.S. to Kurdish independence, a report on ISF & militias executing over 200 prisoners recently, PBS Newshour interviewing CSIS's Anthony Cordesman on how foreign military aid to Iraq will only have limited effect, Turkmen refugees from northern Iraq, and then a 1 hr+ video from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on the Kurdish situation. Click on this link

[JWing]

The new wave of fighting that started in January 2014 in Anbar and has now spread to northern and central Iraq has created a new refugee crisis in Iraq. The International Organization for Migration has counted almost 900,000 internally displaced Iraqis but the real numbers are much higher. Here's a link to my article on the topic.