Syria - Iraq Roundup 11 March, 2015

"On March 1, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi ordered Iraqi forces to retake Tikrit and Salahuddin province.

ISIS wasn't making it easy, however. The Sunni extremist group blew up a key bridge near Tikrit, preventing the joint Iraqi forces from using it to cross the Tigris River to approach the city from the east.

Nevertheless, forces have made progress, forcing ISIS fighters to retreat toward the city center from frontline positions, Hashd Al-Shaabi's media office said.

There have been several failed attempts to recapture Tikrit since the second half of 2014. If Iraq regains control of the city, it could mean that retaking Mosul -- a city 10 times bigger -- is possible.

The Tikrit offensive involves around 30,000 fighters."  CNN

************

 "ISIS launched a new offensive on the city of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, on Wednesday morning, Faleh al-Issawi, the deputy head of the Anbar Provincial Council, said in a statement.

The city is being attacked "from all directions," with ISIS firing more than 150 mortar rounds and rockets toward it, he said.

Some 17 explosives-laden vehicles have been detonated at various security checkpoints and in the city center, he said.

This is "the fiercest attack by ISIS" seen on Ramadi, al-Issawi said. Iraqi forces have imposed a curfew on the city.

Al-Issawi said air cover by the Iraqi air force was urgently needed. "We need air cover to repel these attacks but did not see the Iraqi air force do anything -- we only saw one airstrike by the coalition hitting one target," he said.

Officials believe "this is an ISIS response to the Tikrit operation that is ongoing in the north," he added."  CNN

**********

"The Islamic State jihadist group launched a major offensive Wednesday to try to capture a strategic town on the Syrian-Turkish border, leaving dozens dead in clashes, a monitor said.

"Fighters from the Islamic State group started a huge assault towards Ras al-Ain and were able to take over a village nearby," the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

The offensive is a preemptive strike against Kurdish militia who were planning an attack on the IS-held town of Tal Abyad farther west along the border, Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.

Tal Abyad is an Arab and Kurdish town in the Syrian province of Raqa used by IS jihadists as a gateway from Turkey.

At least 12 fighters from the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which control Ras al-Ain and the surrounding villages, were killed in the IS onslaught, according to Abdel Rahman."  Yahoo News

------------------

I have been listening to today's senate hearing on the proposed new AUMF.  It is clear from the action in the hearing that this AUMF would merely augment the 2001 AUMF and not replace it. What that means is that it would be an expansion of the war powers of the government rather than any sort of limitation on them.  IMO the two AUMFs between them add up to a permanent world wide state of war in which the US would feel legally empowered to do just about anything, anywhere.

At one point in the hearing, one of the witnesses said that "they" hope to wrap "this" up within three years. Say what?  There will always be jihadi groups large or small.  That is in the nature of the current awareness in the West of the existence of these groups. They have always existed but now we take note of them and so there will always be justification for renewal of the state of war in these AUMFs.  Senator Isakson of Georgia made reference today to the mini-war against the Barbary Pirates in the presidency of Thomas Jefferson as proof of the unending existential threat from "radical Islam."  Aside from the lack of Islamic fervor in the profitable slave capture and trading operations of the Beys of Tunis, etc., this comparison illustrates the inclination of the Congress to accept a perpetual state of war.  

The three year "sunset" provision in the presently proposed is window dressing.  The AUMF will be easily renewed.  The level of delusion on the part of the administration with regard to possibilities in Syria and Iraq is impressive in its lack of understanding of realities on the ground:

- The process of demonization through information operations (propaganda) of Syria and Iran is well nigh complete.  With the exception of Dempsey's balanced statements with regard to Iran the rest of the senate crew assume that the Reductio ad Hitlerum is appropriate and Kerry/Carter are not much better.  This is what happened in re Qathafi before his ridiculous "conversion" into a friend of the Great Republic (Churchill's phrase).  Over a decades long period we "created" Qathafi as a ten foot tall bogey man when he was really just a pathetic psychopath.  Yes, I am still unrepentant about getting rid of this psychopath.  We then did the same thing to Iraq with all the rubbish about "rape rooms," "mass graves," genocide against the Kurds, Iraqi nuclear weapons, etc.  The same "job' has now been done on the Syrian government and Iran.  Qui bono?

- The present AUMF structure does not mention the desire of Turkey and the Syrian rebels to have the US fight the Syrian government.  Several senators expressed disappointment with that and urged the US to intervene in Syria.

- They were reassured by Dempsey et al that despite this lacuna in the AUMFs the intention is to wipe out IS in Iraq and Syria and then give our full support to the unicorn army of "New Syrian Forces" (their term) in wiping out the present Syrian government.

- Dempsey made it clear once again that the battle for Tikrit and its aftermath would be a turning point in the future of US efforts in Syria and Iraq.  He says that if the; Iraqi Army (mostly Shia), Iranian Pasdaran, Iraq Shia militia in government service (largely former Shia police murder squad members), and Sunni Arab tribesmen can take Tikrit, then their behavior toward the largely Sunni residents of the area will be determinative in the matter of the possibility of a multi-confessional Iraq as it once was.

At the same time, with the exception of Senator Kaine, the level of commitment on the part of these senators to assertion of their supposed power in formulating US foreign policy was absurd.  As Kerry told them, no Congress has ever sought to wrest control of foreign policy from the Executive.  This Congress has clearly sought to do that.  IMO this effort has largely been at the bidding of a foreign power that is an interested party in US ME policy. pl

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/world/iraq-isis-tikrit-duplicate-2/

http://news.yahoo.com/major-assault-syria-border-town-ras-al-ain-090253980.html 

Comments

[alba etie]

Col. Lang
I had the opportunity to watch some of the hearing. I thought it was interesting that right at the end of the hearing Sen Corker's question about whether or not the AUMF would authorize protecting the FSA in Syria once they were trained and equipped was answered with a No by the administration . I still believe that the BHO administration has been trying to slow down if not stop any arming and equipping of the FSA, because the removal of Assad is no longer the goal . I believe for both international & domestic political reasons the BHO administration has continued the 'talking point ' of removing Assad as political cover . We shall see.

[turcopolier]

AE

Carter responded to Corker by saying that the lawyers say that attacking a sovereign state in the absence of a UN resolution allowing you to do so is a crime in both US and international law. True. pl

[mbrenner]

Carter and the Senators apparently overlooked Iraq 2003. The UN resolution came post-hoc; we had failed to get am enabling resolution in the weeks prior. Moreover, there was nothing that even came close to being a cause celebre.

Therefore, we committed a crime.

[Swami Bhut Jolokia]

PL, you talk about a perpetual state of war. This is the subject of James Risen's new book "Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War" reviewed here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchaprilmay_2015/on_political_books/operation_rent_seeking054219.php?page=all

Looking forward to comments on the book from you or others on SST.

[mbrenner]

Sorry - I mean a "casus belli." Hillary is a (rolling)'cause celebre.'

Wikipedia;
"Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning "An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war".[1] Casus is a 4th declension masculine noun. Related to the English word "case", casus can mean "case", "incident", or "rupture". Belli is the genitive singular case of bellum, belli, a neuter noun of the 2nd declension. Belli means of war. A nation's casus belli involves direct offences or threats against it, whereas a nation's casus foederis involves offences or threats to an ally nation or nations—usually one with which it has a mutual defence pact, such as NATO.[2][3]

The term came into wide use in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries through the writings of Hugo Grotius (1653), Cornelius van Bynkershoek (1707), and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (1732), among others, and due to the rise of the political doctrine of jus ad bellum or "just war theory".[4][5] The term is also used informally to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. It is used retrospectively to describe situations that arose before the term came into wide use, as well as being used to describe present-day situations—even those in which war has not been formally declared.

In formally articulating a casus belli, a government typically lays out its reasons for going to war, its intended means of prosecuting the war, and the steps that others might take to dissuade it from going to war. It attempts to demonstrate that it is going to war only as a last resort (ultima ratio) and that it has "just cause" for doing so. Modern international law recognises only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defence, defence of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations."

[bth]

Col., just a few observations from the news in the last 24 hours. Tikrit is virtually a done deal and a spectacular victory for Iraq govt./Iran. Blowing the bridge looks like rear guard action considering that the city is already surrounded. If you google or youtube for videos from Tikrit in the last 24 hours there are a number of excellent links (not from US sources) that would make me think 30,000 dismounts with some armor and artillery can defeat lots of IEDs and 300-1000 die-hards. Also of interest is that the population was about 260K in Tikrit but only 10% of population remained and those were being held in place by IS. Now barring a sectarian massacre I'd say things went pretty well. Whether Iraqi forces turn north to Mosul or south to secure the Samarra and adjacent areas is to be determined.

I've been saying that only the Americans have been talking up Mosul which is true. But to weigh in on the opposite opinion for a moment, today ISIL were driving around Mosul telling residents and over loudspeaker that anyone who left would have property forfeit and declared an apostate. This is the first real indication I've seen that Mosul locals might want to displace and avoid being human shields.

http://www.guampdn.com/usatoday/article/24649737 this article was Tikrit population as depopulated and human shields a day ago. And this article is from today about IS warning Mosul citizens from leaving. http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-warns-people-mosul-not-leave-city/

So for your consideration.

[Fred]

bth,

The maneuver elements of the Iraqi army have been sucked into Tikrit while IS forces attack elsewhere. What's available to stop them?

[alba etie]

Col Lang
Do you have an opinion on whether or not President Obama wants to see Assad go or stay ?

[turcopolier]

AE

Obama is a mass of inner contradictions. He wants him gone but that desire conflicts with other desiderata and he can't sort it out. pl

[bth]

Demographic limits and supply limits I would imagine will slow them down. They seem to have been stopped around Baghdad when last summer we feared it might fall. They seem to have gotten to the canal SW of Kirkuk but now may be slowed if not pushed back. They need to keep a supply line to Turkey open and are fighting to do that and have their supply lines around Mosul constricted with a captive and largely unproductive population to feed. The harvest has to be brought in and refined fuel must be procured with cash. I don't see where IS is making headway in Syria. I'm not saying they are finished by any means, but they do seem to be contained and main supply routes partially impaired. Correct me if I am wrong.

[confusedponderer]

And that's int'l law 101.

It's telling that Carter would have to explain Corker that. Because if Corker doesn't know that he has no place to sit on the "Foreign Relations" committee.

[confusedponderer]

My hunch is that Obama doesn't care, but State and some NSC people do and want to see him dead.

Obama will sit, listen to the infighting between reason and madness and tip the scales based on considerations of political expediency and an interest to preserve 'his legacy'.

US did renege in a heartbeat from assurances made towards Russia and China about the nature of intervention in Libya. They'd do so again.

The US under Obama is unpredictable. Under Bush 1th-term US policy was easier to factor in with them being simply overtly and reliably antagonistic and hostile to everybody. That was annoying but predictable. It is more difficult to factor in Obama-ish capriciousness in foreign policy.

I think Obama will stick to it in Iran, considering that they have now chosen to invest so much political capital in the deal.

If they played the GOPers into taking their asinine stance and their pathetic defetrence to Adelson, AIPAC and Bibi they did so quite skillfully. The supine aspect of the congressional-Israeli relations hasn't been so clear to see ever, and the GOPers, AIPAC and Israel richly deserve all the insult they get in addition to their injury.

Though, if Obama wants to stick with an Iran deal, and have Assad killed anyway, the Iranians would object to that.

Though, one can never rule out that one genius at the NSC calculates and manages to persuade Obama that since Iran needs the deal with the US more than the US the deal with Iran, getting Assad killed was doable, since the Iranians would either swallow that frog, or quit, which could be spun as Iranian intransigence, that would put blame on Iran for the failure.

P5+1 wouldn't like that at all and there would be a lot of sunk cost for Obama in that approach.

If the US did that, their conduct in foreign relations would finally be relatively close that of Blackbeard when he extorted Charleston for Laudanum* under threat of burning down the city.

That after negotiating for years? So I have a hunch that an interest in not antagonising Iran, coupled with the general lack of appeal for an attack on Syria and yet another war, will be an incentive for Obama to stay his hand on Syria.

If Obama wanted greater mischief he only needed to give the loons in his own administration free reign. It's hard to take that as confort, but he doesn't.

* The analogue to Teach's opium addiction would be the US craving for regime change in Syria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum

[confusedponderer]

You are right, but the US stridently deny that.

Resolution 1441 that was invoked by the US as justification threatended Iraq with 'serious consequences'. The US maintained that war was the serious consequence. Not true.

Wiki's summary puts it so well that there is little to add:

"While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3]”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4]”

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

Alas, Bush and Cheney were not to let let pesky details like that stand in the way of The Treat Transforming by force of arms the Middle East, starting with Saddam.

[confusedponderer]

"Modern international law recognises only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defence, defence of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations."

Yes, absent these three reasons, an attack is a violation of the prohibition of war and of national sovereignty.

That is what puts the enthusiasts for the use force in the US, like Madelein Albright, in such a awkward situation.

Indeed: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

The answers to that dilemma differ.

Clinton seeing a NATO mandate when he couldn not ge a UN mandate was a straightforward, if illegal, attempt at an answer.

Bush and Cheney reading out of UN resolution 1441 a mandate that wasn't there is another straightforward, if illegal, solution to that dilemma.

The R2P approach used on Libya, likewise reading a mandate out of a resolution that contained none, is another expression today.

And when the US are bombing Yemen or Somalia by drone, they don't even bother to conjure up a justification under international law.

A hegemonic US neither likes nor respects the prohibition of war or the contraints imposed on it by the national sovereignty of others, because that would impose on them unacceptable limitations on their freedom of action.

Leave it to Madeleine Albright to explain why the US having such a free hand is not just acceptable but necessary for the good of us all:

"But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."

Clearly, the US engineered downfall of the wicked witch of the East, Saddam, the destruction of his evil regime and country are a perfect example of the exercise of the unique foresight and able stewarship America is ordained with by virtue of being America.

Hubris and ambition ... plain and simple.

[confusedponderer]

... and that leads straight to PL's observation in this post:

" What that means is that it would be an expansion of the war powers of the government rather than any sort of limitation on them. IMO the two AUMFs between them add up to a permanent world wide state of war in which the US would feel legally empowered to do just about anything, anywhere."

Indeed.

The disturbing aspect is that there is actually a large degree of continuity that has led to this state of perpetual war coming to be seen as natural in the US. That development started well under Clinton.

[confusedponderer]

In a sense, the US by their actions roll back Int'l law to pre-1914, without indulging in the quaint courtesy of formally declaring war.

[turcopolier]

bth

IMO one must wait to see what the entire combat situation is across Syria/Iraq before judging success or failure for any of the combatants. pl

[Swami Bhut Jolokia]

Better to have inner conflicts and sort them out before acting. Than say, the way his predecessor made decisions.

[confusedponderer]

And to build on that - Cheney snarled "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it".

Obama today is his intellectual heir. Not only does he live and breathe Cheney's unitary executive branch - the US still doesn't think that the states they target for take-over restructuring deserve being listened to.

In Geneva II the US only offered Assad, who at any given time during the civil war controlled 13 out of 14 provincial capitals of the country, unconditional surrender.

To Putin the US didn't speak for months. And indeed, what does he have to say about Ukraine anyway? This talk of spheres of interest is so 20th century. It would need to be Cameron to add that Putin's childish obsession with overseas naval bases is unacceptable, preferrably in Spanish.

Clearly, it isn't as if Putin had any legitimate interests in Ukraine, in particular regarding it's NATO membership. Ignoring him serves to imply that he is, indeed, illegitimately meddling in Ukraine.

The insistence to not speak is part and parcel of the stress and pressure 'delegitimisation' program the US and her close allies subject enemy leaders to.

The idea is to cut them out, make them feel isolated, in a first step to cut them out from power. The show the US, others and Australia put on during the G20 summit summit in Australia was, however inane, certainly in tune with that.

Even though it looks like puerile schoolyard bullying (in particular when Abbot does it), there is method behind the silliness (or I may be wrong and overanalyse and it IS schoolyard bullying - you never know).

To me, it seems as if the dictates for successful information operations drive diplomacy.

And talking with another party is of course anathema to the idea of diplomacy, which is based on communication. Now, it also is anathema of winner-take-all schemes in which one party imposes its will on another. And strikingly, it appears that in pursuit of maximalist objectives diplomacy is of lamentably limited utility. How quaint and obsolete!

Contrast that with an armed intervention, overt or covert- it cuts through the gordic knot of diplomacy and that silly status quo oriented int'l law of old with its sovereignty ad all that like a HEAT warhead through homogenouos steel ...

[confusedponderer]

"And talking with another party ..." was to read: "And NOT talking with another party ..."

[alba etie]

Col Lang
It brings to mind one of the best singer song writers musing I have ever heard
" He 's a walking contradiction , partly
truth and partly fiction , taking every wrong
direction -- on his lonely way back home "
Kris Kristofferson
Perhaps the unintended consequences for the 47 Red Hots & Professor Fleckless POTUS - will be a strategic realignment after all with the Iranian becoming our go to partner instead Israel in the SW Asia and beyond . Wouldn't that be the height of international irony .
We Shall See..

[alba etie]

CP
I believe its telling that Erdogan did not get his no fly zone in Syria. What if President Obama now sees the folly in ousting Qathdafi ; if any many experts here & abroad thought at the time we could have a quick fix in Libya. I also think the question of his Legacy will drive President Obama to stick with the Iranian deal . It will be very interesting to have the Iranian deal on th etable in our national election cycle in 2016 . I am praying it might be a teachable moment in our National Polity . We shall see.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Strategic re-alignment with Iran is not in the cards, in my opinion.

[kao_hsien_chih]

CP,

Demand for unconditional surrender in guise of negotiations also took place vis-a-vis Serbia, at Rambouillet. It's the habit of the arrogant and the self-righteous, who can't possibly believe that they have a price to pay for their choices. The problem is that, up to a point, they are right. What would Milosevic have done if he didn't surrender? What can Assad do? Whatever they do, it won't hurt the US much for having made such demands. If, on the other hand, US did look to actually negotiate with them, what would US government have gained, other than bad PR? So the choice becomes an easy one: good PR coupled with irresponsible policy that carries no cost, except for the locals, or bad PR with a chance of saving lives of "heathens," and very few care much for the "heathens" in the US.

The continued call for unicorn armies, in this perspective, makes good political sense: it continues the irresponsible policy with good PR without serious consequences. They can't actually win so there will be no aftermath to be responsible for. They are not "obviously" bad guys, unlike the religious extremists or the SAG, so they look nice to the masses supporting their cause. Continued chaos and dead natives are merely acceptable cost to the human rights paradise of the believing R2Pers/neocons (and for the cynics among them, who knows?). This is, on a small scale, the logic of perpetual war in 1984, except Orwell was too naive to think that the superpowers would fight the wars themselves: they (or it, in this case) can have proxy armies in faraway lands do it for them.

The real threat to this scheme, then, might be somebody winning--anybody. Whoever it might be, if it should happen, will attempt to create/perpetuate some kind of political order not to the liking of the Westerners (except the unicorns, but they don't really exist, so that's that). Unlike, say, the KLA, these factions may not be so easily bribable to keep up good enough appearances--well, except perhaps SAG, but they have already been so demonized that their victory would not be acceptable either. Somewhat ironically, then, Assad might do more harm to the US by losing (to IS or other Islamic extremists, since they are the only serious enough threat) than by holding on to power.

In some sense, then, in this scheme, everyone "wins" and "loses" at the same time. We in the US expend much diplomatic and considerable physical capital and get a lot of innocent blood on our hands, all so that our leaders can indulge in their moralistic fantasies or PR scams. Locals suffer losses in lives, limbs, and property...for nothing, really. But at least nobody suffers a total defeat, right? If anyone could break out of this mess, though, would they not try? This is setting things up for some very creative and potentially very deadly schemes by the entrapped factions to break the stalemate.

[Bryn P]

I wonder, Colonel, whether many Libyans will share your lack of regret over the ousting and murder of Gadaffi? He may indeed have been a psycopath, but he did spread some of the wealth from oil to his fellow countrymen in such areas as free health, free education and even free electricity. Somehow I doubt if the murderous thugs now competing to rule this poor, benighted country will be offering much more than blood and tears.