Obama’s No-Win War on ISIS by Shamus Cooke — Antiwar.com

I have been watching and analyzing the Middle East for a long time……and there has never been a time, when we were involved in the region, that I could ever see a clear cut victory….sadly I am NOT seeing one with our newest enemy….ISIS…..

A well thought out article that my readers need to see and understand…..

 

Obama’s No-Win War on ISIS by Shamus Cooke — Antiwar.com.

Peace Has Come Today?

The big news on the wires is that there is a long-term ceasefire agreement between Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Israel……so has peace finally come to Gaza?

(Newser) – Officials from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the main groups fighting in Gaza, said today they have reached a deal with Israel to end a seven-week war that has killed more than 2,000 Palestinians. There was no immediate Israeli comment. Ziad Nakhala, a senior official in Islamic Jihad, said the deal calls for an “open-ended” ceasefire and an Israeli agreement to ease its blockade of Gaza to allow relief supplies and construction materials into the war-battered territory. Talks on more complex issues, such as Hamas’ demand to build an airport and a seaport for Gaza, would begin in a month, he said.

Egypt planned an announcement later today. If the terms of the ceasefire are confirmed, it would effectively mean Hamas in the end settled for terms that are similar to those that ended more than a week of fighting with Israel in 2012. Under those terms, Israel promised to ease restrictions gradually, while Hamas promised to halt rocket fire from Gaza at Israel. The truce held, but Gaza’s border blockade remained largely intact.

This is good news for the people of Gaza……..but I warn the people to be vigilant…Israel will find a way to continue their path of death and destruction…..

Like I said good news for the suffering civilians of Gaza…….but I would not hold my breath that Israel will keep its word……they have destroyed all the infrastructure of a possible free and independent Palestine….they will do what they can to make sure that the two state solution is dead and buried…….and sadly the rest of the world will let it do what it will do to keep the Palestinians down and out…..

Is ISIS Unbeatable?

Inkwell Institute

Middle East Desk

 

That one question is on many people’s tongues.  Since their whirlwind movement took vast swathes of Syria and Iraq….they are looking unbeatable.  But are they?

I will give my readers my take on the situation and try to answer the nagging question of the month.

 

 

Embedded image permalink

 

One point I would like to make is that the “grunts”, that is the average member of ISIS are not necessarily hard core combatants but rather thrill seekers and the disenfranchised……….

(Newser) – Before two young men left Britain last year to wage jihad in Syria, they bought two books that speak volumes about the modern jihadist movement, writes Mehdi Hasan at the New Statesman. Yusuf Sarwar and Mohammed Ahmed, who recently pleaded guilty to terror charges, ordered Islam for Dummies and Koran for Dummies from Amazon. No joke. It is yet more proof that Islam isn’t to blame for what’s happening in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. These men claim to be defending their faith, but “religious fervor isn’t what motivates most of them,” writes Hasan.

Instead, they’re “berks”—think pathetic, bored, unemployed young men looking for thrills and glory, and jihad fills the void. Martyrs they are not. In fact, Britain’s spy service found a few years back that many involved in terrorism aren’t religious in the least, their sloganeering to the contrary. “If we want to tackle jihadism, we need to stop exaggerating the threat these young men pose and giving them the oxygen of publicity they crave, and start highlighting how so many of them lead decidedly un-Islamic lives,” writes Hasan. Click for his full column.

The next that will be asked is….if they are not all that knowledgeable how did they make such fantastic progress?  And there is a two part answer to that question.

First, IS is a loose band of thugs.  But they do have some expert leadership.  I am not talking about their new Caliph…..I am speaking of their officers.  When the US invaded then occupied Iraq it decided to de-Baathify the army….that is to get rid of the officers that had served Saddam so well…..these were officers that had become battle hardened in the war with Iran and now they were cut loose and where would one think they would end up?   In the service of those fighting the occupation and in the end hooking up with ISIS.  These guys have the tactics down pat and now have a wealth of fodder in which to inflict damage on the present Iraqi government.

Second…..take a look at the map.  (Pause here for reflection)……the territory that IS controls are along existing roadways….that makes them vulnerable……how?  Their resupply routes and rearming routes are easily exposed and attacked…….. and eventually demoralization will set in…..

So to answer the question….NO they are NOT unbeatable!  A plan is needed that zeroes in on the ultimate defeat of IS…..any pussy footing around will doom the final deed necessary for a final victory over IS.  Command and control must be eliminated for them to be defeated.

IS can be beat but not by the US alone……we will need all the Arab states to combine and get along long enough to end the horror that is the Islamic State, after all they are more threatened than the US at this time.

I will be watching the scenario play out and it should be obvious if the final defeat of IS is truly the desired outcome of the US return to Iraq.  I want to see just who has the nuts to do what is necessary to defeat ISIS…….

If Only We Had………

Opinion from the desk of the Editor:

 

The Islamic State is once again in the headlines…….they have beheaded an American journalist in retaliation for the US airstrikes…….and the narrative goes on…….if only we had……..

How many time have you heard one gutless politician use that statement?  Such as if only we had cut the budget……or if only we had closed the borders……or if only we had used airstrikes in Syria all would be different.  This is the one I want to talk about today.

That “what if” is a constant criticism of the president……and the loveable ones we call Neocons have been using it profusely in their criticism of Obama especially with the rise of ISIS, the violence in Iraq and the civil war in Syria.

Their constant whipping up the insanity with the notion that if Obama had acted quicker and with airstrikes then the situation in Iraq and the rise of ISIS would have been a thing that we would not be facing today…..

I do not think that any reputable international analyst sees that our involvement early on would have changed anything…….

…………the idea that more U.S. support for the FSA would have prevented the emergence of the Islamic State isn’t even remotely plausible. The open battlefield and nature of the struggle ensured that jihadists would find Syria’s war appealing. The Islamic State recovered steam inside of Iraq as part of a broad Sunni insurgency driven by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bloody, ham-fisted crackdowns in Hawija and Fallujah, and more broadly because of the disaffection of key Sunni actors over Maliki’s sectarian authoritarianism. It is difficult to see how this would have been affected in the slightest by a U.S.-backed FSA (or, for that matter, by a residual U.S. military presence in Iraq, but that’s another debate for another day). There is certainly no reason to believe that the Islamic State and other extremist groups would have stayed away from such an ideal zone for jihad simply because Western-backed groups had additional guns and money.

So when the president called the idea as Horsesh*t…I believe he was accurate…..

(Newser) – President Obama has faced some tough criticism lately over his reluctance to get more involved in Syria; not least among his vocal critics is Hillary Clinton. But it seems he’s tired of the complaints from both parties. When Republican Sen. Bob Corker asked a wide-ranging and critical question about foreign policy, including Syria, at a July 31 meeting, Obama provided a detailed answer—before slapping the notion that arming the rebels could have improved the Syria situation. That idea is “horses—-,” he said, according to a lawmaker who attended the meeting and spilled the beans to the Daily Beast.

The White House noted that such an exchange had taken place, though neither it nor any lawmakers have acknowledged any coarse language, the Daily Beast and Politico note. “The president still feels very strongly that we are deluding ourselves if we think American intervention in Syria early on by assisting these rebels would have made a difference,” says Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel. “I disagree, respectfully. They were not looking for US troops, they were looking for help, and the Syria civil war started with the most noblest of causes.”

Let’s be honest….the rise of ISIS or what it called these days, IS….was inevitable…..the very nature of war especially a bloody civil war helps groups like this come to the forefront……too many people are calling for too much US intervention……will IS be stopped?  A great question and the best answer is ….YES.  But not by the US and its buddies….but rather the people that they are terrorizing at this time.

In Iraq it will be the Sunni tribes that hold the key to the defeat of IS……a new government could go a long way in securing their, the tribes, support in their fight with IS.  IS will be stopped…..sadly many lives will be lost and much more violence is to come…..

Which Way Did They Go?

Opinion from the desk of the Editor:

 

Yes Irene the country of Iraq is suffering through a time of change……the establishment of the Islamic State has hit everyone for a loop.  Now the world is scrambling around trying to find someone anyone that can take the battle to IS and stop reacting to their attacks.  But where to look for the possibility of leadership in this coming battle without using American troops on the ground?

Riyadh, Asharq Al-Awsat—The Iraqi military is seeking the assistance of Saddam Hussein-era military officials in a bid to stem the advance of “terrorist” groups, particularly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) which continues its advance in central and northern parts of the country.

In comments to Asharq Al-Awsat Iraqi Ministry of Defense adviser Lt. Gen. Thamer bin Sultan Al-Tikriti said former officials who served in the military establishment during the era of Saddam Hussein will be able to find a place in the present Iraqi army. They will be organized into military units affiliated with the Iraqi army to help eradicate ISIS and similar-minded groups, the official said.

This comes after Saddam-era military and political officials have been marginalized in post-Saddam Iraq, part of the controversial de-Ba’athification process instituted following the fall of the dictator.

You see in there infinite wisdom the US decided the only way to get Iraq to submit to their occupation was to get rid of the generals and other officers that had served in the Iraqi army of Saddam.

The recent defeats of the present day Iraqi army has shown the powers that they, the Iraqi troops, needed experienced leadership.

You see in 2004 while the country was in the midst of a de-Baathification process an Iraqi general warned that it might not be a good idea……

A general with 32 years of military service at the time of Hussein’s fall, today he is governor of the former dictator’s home, Tikrit, a job handed to him by the U.S.-led occupation authority.

He believes there is a danger in banning former soldiers who were high-ranking Baath Party members from government positions,

So far he has been proven right…….there might not have been a rapid advance of IS if there had been battle hardened generals and officers to take command of the army when it is needed.

Yet another failed policy of the US occupation of Iraq.  In our rush to save the oil industry we overlooked yet another possibility……the return to violence and the possibility of the rise of a more extreme form of foe, aka Islamic State.