- The Chivers NY Times piece concerning the utter disintegration of an Iraqi Army border guard brigade is illustrative of the many reasons for doubting the salvage potential of that army. The non-existent leadership of the "officers" of that unit would be laughable if not so sad.
- The US has positioned some helicopter gunships at the Baghdad airport. It is reported that these are Apaches. That would mean an Army aviation unit. I had thought that these "birds" were from the fleet marine force contingent in the Gulf, but perhaps not. Whatever they are, they will be very useful in a large scale NEO. Presumably they would be used to keep Baghdad International Airport open for the NEO. Ground troops and maintenance crews will be needed to defend the Apache base at the airport. IMO the basic idea wold be to keep the airport open for large transport aircraft.
- Russia is going to provide Iraq more SU-25 Frogfoot CAS aircraft and as predicted here the Russians will fly them at least initially.
- Iraqi politicians are threatening to introduce Iranian aviators, materiel and ground troops into this fight. It is not clear that the Iranian government wants to do this. pl
http://news.yahoo.com/us-troops-baghdad-fly-apache-helicopters-drones-222125739.html
http://news.yahoo.com/us-troops-baghdad-fly-apache-helicopters-drones-222125739.html
"Iraqi politicians are threatening to introduce Iranian aviators, materiel and ground troops into this fight. It is not clear that the Iranian government wants to do this. pl"
And I see Chalabi is back. I guess he's going to take the Iranians for bigger ride than he took our DOD. Does he have a new "Curveball" who's telling Iran that ISIS has WMD on the way to Karbala?
Posted by: Matthew | 02 July 2014 at 09:45 AM
"The US has positioned some Apache helicopter gunships at the Baghdad airport. Presumably these are from the fleet marine force contingent in the Gulf"
Apache is an army bird. Marines fly Cobras.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 02 July 2014 at 09:53 AM
Would Shia Iraqis like al-Sadr view a large scale Iranian military present any different than they viewed the US present?
Posted by: Poul | 02 July 2014 at 10:00 AM
From the NYT article...
Several officers said the system the Interior Ministry had devised to supply its forces was suited for peacetime, and predictably failed in war. They said it relied on contracts with businesses that would deliver supplies to the troops’ main garrisons. But as the border-police convoys headed for territory under militant influence or control, the vendors would not follow.
Sounds like the IA had Cheney advising them.
One colonel offered only that he left for “business in Baghdad.” A spokesman for the Fourth Division said that General Abdilal remained at work, but refused to provide a way to reach him.
“business in Baghdad.”, that is, arranging a flight out of the country.
Taking this article at face value I can see why the troops wanted to frag the divisional commander.
Posted by: Ryan | 02 July 2014 at 10:10 AM
CP
OK, so what. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2014 at 10:17 AM
Ryan: I suspect our trainers had an impossible mission. The USG wanted to build an "Iraqi Army" that would be strong enough to defend the country (from Iraqis?) but too weak to frighten Iraq's neighbors.
BTW, the one thing Abbas's US-trained police in Ramallah learned is how not to defend Palestinians from Israelis.
Posted by: Matthew | 02 July 2014 at 10:24 AM
Ryan,
That passage about relying on contractors for all the 9th brigade's logistics struck me as well. Did we, the U.S. military, teach them to rely on logistical contracts or were we ourselves relying on contractors to do the training? IMHO contractors have no place on the battlefield. An army should feed itself and maintain itself. That goes for our Army, too. We spend too much time telling our troops they are pure warriors rather than ingenious, resourceful and self-reliant soldiers. There's a world of difference between the two.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 02 July 2014 at 10:34 AM
Here's another McClatchy article to throw in the pot by Mitchell Prothero.
"In the conquest of Mosul, however, ISIS unveiled itself as a conventional fighting force with clear tactical and strategic goals _ and the patience to execute them. Its announcement Sunday that it was establishing an Islamic caliphate has taken virtually everyone in the region by surprise _ except for perhaps two men.
Those would be Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who took over the leadership of the group in 2010, and a shadowy former intelligence officer from the toppled regime of Saddam Hussein who’s known only by a pseudonym, Hajj Bakr."
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/30/6523999/how-2-shadowy-isis-commanders.html#storylink=cpy
According to Prothero Baghdadi put "Hajj Bakr" in charge of ISIS' high command where he removed a number of people replacing them with his own.
"Most estimates of ISIS’s strength in Iraq tend to be in the low thousands. But their easy mobility in convoys of pickups with little threat from an almost nonexistent air force gave the group an outsized presence, the sources agreed."
The figure for ISIS I've seen the most is 7,000 in Syria and 5,000 in Iraq. When the Naqshbandi Order, the Sunni tribes and other unhappy campers are added I suspect the overall force is far bigger, perhaps as many as 20,000 in Iraq. Of course this is a WAG and a low ball one at that.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/mapping-out-iraq-fighting-groups-201462494731548175.html
Posted by: Ryan | 02 July 2014 at 10:38 AM
Poul,
The Iraqi equivalent of Black Helicopters is Iran. I found this among both Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a - as in the Shi'a that did not go into exile or have significant kinship/near relationships with those that do. Every thing that goes wrong, every conspiracy theory somehow touches on Iran. Iran is basically the boogeyman.
Posted by: Adam L Silverman | 02 July 2014 at 10:43 AM
Ryan,
"Sounds like the IA had ..."
No, this is Maliki's government all the way. The soldiers demand leadership, they get the same old corruption. The other and more telling quote in the article is this:
"Moreover, the local people refused to help,..."
Posted by: Fred | 02 July 2014 at 10:51 AM
Col.,
Col.,
From the military times:
“Faily said Iraq is mostly seeking Tehran’s advice on how to combat ISIL — a foe that Iran has faced in Syria’s civil war. ISIL is one of a number of Sunni-led groups that have been fighting for three years to force President Bashar Assad from power”
This would be one of the groups the neocons under Obama have demanded we arm, train and fund? Why hasn't the President fired all those 'advisors' who get us into this mess yet?
Posted by: Fred | 02 July 2014 at 10:52 AM
Well, it means that the unit that was dispatched wasn't Marine aviation but Army aviation and from some other body. That's all.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 02 July 2014 at 11:00 AM
CP
Well, assuming the reporting is right... Most reporters wouldn't know an Apache from the "Spirit of St. Louis.." Nevertheless, if these are Apaches you are quite right. this is an Army aviation unit. If so, then where did they deploy from? it will take a substantial "footprint" to hold the airfield for their operations and to use as an airhead. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2014 at 11:27 AM
All
The McLatchy story about "Haj Bakr," confirms my earlier writing about the obvious presence of ex-Iraqi Army leadership in the "Breaking the Walls" campaign underway. I may know this guy from the period of US/Iraqi cooperation in the Iran/Iraq War. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2014 at 11:33 AM
This article on selling the dignity of the US military personal is painful to read. An epitaph for Bush-Cheney-Rice team:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/02/usg-intimidated-by-its-own-mercenaries/
Posted by: Anna-Marina | 02 July 2014 at 11:36 AM
Anna-Marina
This article deals with Blackwater a security contractor company employed by the State Department. it does not deal with the US armed forces. what is the point? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2014 at 11:49 AM
Col. Lang,
Al-Arabiya has a story with pictures of the top six ISIS commanders. Including Haj Bakr.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/02/13/Exclusive-Top-ISIS-leaders-revealed.html
Of course the source is not exactly reliable
Posted by: Poul | 02 July 2014 at 11:59 AM
Poul
The face in the picture is not familiar. the article says he is now deceased. Who knows? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2014 at 12:08 PM
Adam L Silverman,
That's a good reason for the Iranians to stay behind the scenes. The risk of causing more problems than you solve with to large a present.
Posted by: Poul | 02 July 2014 at 12:08 PM
Col Lang
To paraphrase you here - awhile back you said ' there are many rooms in the ME " house . I am wondering is there any argument to be made that "Haji Bakr - and his band of brothers that are secular ,drink beer & scotch and like to fight " in reality may have made common cause with al Bahgdadi & ISIS for a permanent partnership ? And perhaps Tyler 's 'meat shield " theory is incorrect ? Could the Baathist actually share the Abu Bakr Caliphate with ISIS ?
Or perhaps if we go" down the hall into other rooms " are we perhaps seeing an international course correction regarding ISIS ? Perhaps Erdogan is now supporting Barzani in Kirkuk because Ankara has decided to no longer support belatedly the 'liver eaters " . This could could also be why Sheikh Bandar was relieved of his IC duties in KSA ? Reports are that Qatar & UAE are no longer supporting the liver eaters .What is the status of the $ 500 million recent request that BHO has made for the 'moderate rebels ' - does that have to have Congressional approval ? Again I am certainly no expert in the ME - but there may perhaps be a working theory regarding current events in the Levant & USA foreign policy that others here at SST could examine . What if about the time last year when the 'red line " had been crossed regarding Assad's alleged use of Sarin gas , the BHO administration wanted to course correct regarding Syria without openly admitting it wanted to do so . That could be why President Obama went to Congress for an AUMF to bomb Syria - knowing full well that that request would be voted down . This theory also includes a behind the scenes push back against the neocons by the moderates like JSC Dempsey & Secretary of Defense Hagel . What I am trying to do is separate rhetoric from actual actions taken by the current administration . Perhaps even in the Ukraine mess- BHO said lots of harsh & stupid stuff about 'regional powers ' etc , But what has actually happened in Ukraine - Kiev voted to join the EU yes - but the harsh 'sector ' sanctions against Russia never came to be implemented . In short how much of the rhetoric coming from our current administration is kubaki theater , and at the same time the moderates are actually tring to rein in the entrenched , pervasive & persistent Jacobin /trotsky neocons , neo liberals & R2P ers ?
Posted by: alba etie | 02 July 2014 at 12:08 PM
TTG,
Having worked for the USD(AT&L) I personally consider the L part the most important and one that is under the least command control with all of the contractors needed to maintain the logistics tail these days. I spent some time in the AT part as well but I have the heart of a logistician.
This is one of my favorite long quotes:
http://www.logisticsworld.com/logistics/quotations.htm
Regards,
Posted by: Charles Dekle | 02 July 2014 at 12:09 PM
Previously, I had mentioned that Patrick Cockburn, a journalist with the Independent newspaper in Britain, said in an interview that ISIS would easily get weapons provided to the "moderate" Syrian rebels. He has now put that information and more in an article about Iraq--
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-caliphate-has-baghdad-worried-because-it-will-appeal-to-angry-young-sunnis-9574393.html?origin=internalSearch
He has said that the present Iraqi army is shot through with corruption. Bribes are paid so that a person can be made an officer. Commanders of units will falsify the number of soldiers in it so that they get more money for food and supplies, and then pocket the difference, etc.
Posted by: robt willmann | 02 July 2014 at 12:10 PM
Dr Silverman
Is it true Chalabi was being paid by the Iranian government at the same time that the USG was paying him to be our 'agent of influence ' in 2003 - 2006 ?
Posted by: alba etie | 02 July 2014 at 12:13 PM
AE
I don't remember saying that. I have written that there are many houses in Islam. That is something different. It doesn't seem likely to me that many of the officers and men of the old Iraqi Army are good candidates for "conversion" to enthusiastic supporters of Caliph Ibrahim, but individuals are a different matter. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 July 2014 at 12:29 PM
Is there any indication that any of the three main Iraqi belligerents have the ability now or in the foreseeable future to take and hold territory without local popular support?
Posted by: bth | 02 July 2014 at 12:31 PM