The other Iraq air campaign

[ORAC]

Iraq voices anger as US air force defends Irbil – but not Baghdad (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/16/iraq-anger-us-air-force-defends-irbil-not-iraq-kurds-maliki)

.....Iraq's small, American-trained air force has been busy in the skies over the country, but is unable to turn the tide against Isis. "We are hitting them 24 hours a day in Tel Keyf, Khazir, Shalalat and in Mosul," said pilot Raad Faqe, a Kurd. "I have bombed Mosul myself. We do a lot of bombing but our weapons are not good. Our best weapon is the Hellfire [missile]. The problem with Hellfire, it does not cause major damage, but it is good in terms of hitting the target. I fly a Cessna Caravan 202 which is designed for transport purposes but we have converted it into a bomber."

Faqe confirmed that Iranian air force pilots were active above the skies of Iraq. "I have seen with my own eyes that the Iranians have brought Sukhoi planes," he said. "Everything in that unit is Iranian including the pilot and the mechanics. They are in Rasheed base, a huge base in south of Baghdad … the Iranians make barrel bombs and then use Antonov and Huey planes to drop them in Sunni areas. Some Iranian pilots have been shot down.

"When we go to bomb a place, the ground troops don't accompany us. We bomb a place and kill a few, then Isis disperses, but they regroup later."

The pilot said that five helicopters had been brought down by the militants, while another seven planes were put to the torch on an airfield in Tikrit........

[MSOCS]

The [F]Utility Of Force.....

This mess requires the right strategy and a full-spectrum, comprehensive engagement plan. It is absolutely NOT Libya all over again, whereby Air Power alone can surgically tip the odds in favour of an indigenous army, fighting against oppression.

I feel this whole thing will likely go terribly wrong before the correct level of engagement by the International community has to commit and try ten times harder to make it right.

Meanwhile the clock ticks....

[TBM-Legend]

There is a chance that Iran will do a Russia and annex Shiite Iraq [whats left!] and the Kurds may do a deal with Turkey with US/UK help. ISIS will be somewhat isolated and become a den of snakes in the region. Jordan and SAudi together with Kuwait and the Gulf states will have US/UK/West/Israeli support to stop further movement at this time. Watch what happens in Yemen too...

[500N]

There is a chance that Iran will do a Russia and annex Shiite Iraq [whats left!] and the Kurds may do a deal with Turkey with US/UK help.

Interesting thought, especially the Iran bit.

[rh200]

Whilst there are elements of the Iraqi ****e population who would like that, the current dominating ****e Clergy in Iraqi is not in favor of that from what I understand.

And there are other complicated geopolitical matters that would be highly resistant.

[Boudreaux Bob]

The Kurds and Turkey holding hands.....now that would be a marriage made in Heaven!

[TBM-Legend]

The Kurds are perfect buffer for Turkey against rising ISIS and Iran type stuff...

Allegiances change due circumstances as we know.

[Hangarshuffle]

Do you mean Iran to now attack the south, cut across Basra, grab the port, terminals and oil fields and refinery processing? Would they dare? Could they? Would America stop them?

[Robert Cooper]

I don't think America would.

Bob C

[500N]

I'm not sure they would.

But the pressure from Saudi Arabia and possibly Kuwait
would be intense, especially Saudi !

[Lonewolf_50]

I think they/we would, Robert.

Iranian Aggression in that arena would trigger the mutual defence agreement we have with Iraq. Believe it or not, our pols have offered to support them if they are attacked. IIRC, this goes back to Bush administration, and I don't think Pres Obama has repealed this. It would have made no sense to do so, since both of our governments (for all of their internal imperfections and shortcomings) do not wish for Iran to take over bits of Iraq.

No, it's not NATO Article V, not hardly, but that is one of many deals worked out. It is also in America's political interest for Iraq to remain cohesive, and to oppose Iranian expansion in the region. Has been for about 35 years, that last bit.

[Not_a_boffin]

Faqe confirmed that Iranian air force pilots were active above the skies of Iraq. "I have seen with my own eyes that the Iranians have brought Sukhoi planes," he said. "Everything in that unit is Iranian including the pilot and the mechanics. They are in Rasheed base, a huge base in south of Baghdad … the Iranians make barrel bombs and then use Antonov and Huey planes to drop them in Sunni areas. Some Iranian pilots have been shot down.



Oh that'll help enormously - straight out of Bashir's TacMan.

[Robert Cooper]

We have spent a great deal of blood and treasure in Iraq over the last few years, and to see it all coming to nought because of this IS scourge is galling.

It's time to go back in with overwhelming force and wipe them off the map once and for all. Anything less and this will drag on for years, and certainly entice Iran to get more involved. Kill this thing now and circumvent any thought of escalation by Iran.

Bob C

[Stanwell]

Sorry to butt in - but where's Tony B. Liar?
I would have thought he'd have the answer to all this by now.

[Not_a_boffin]

Bob

If it's coming to naught it's not just because of the IS scourge, it's mainly because the various tribes of the region and the two factions of the religion of peace appear to have inordinate difficulty in finding reasons not to slaughter each other. The fact that the Shi-ite side appears to be perfectly happy to lob unaimed barrel bombs indiscriminately into Sunni areas is a bit of a giveaway.

They're not helped by one side being funded by those nice people in Iran (and what's left of Syria) and the other by those nicely balanced folk in Saudi and Qatar.

At this point, it ain't the fault of "the West". People can burble on about Sykes-Picot and Bliar and breaking it and owning it all they want, but that's just an am-dram version of "something must be done". The fundamental bottom line is that a sizeable fraction of these folk can't actually get over their local hatreds to get on with the enjoyable business of living. Instead they'd rather compete in a "Who owns the fewest heads?" competition, funded and encouraged by their rather paranoid neighbours.

Regrettably, no outside force is going to solve this one and certainly not one based on "western" boots on the ground.

[Typhoon93]

I agree with Not a boffin.

I can't say I would be overly impressed if yet more lives of our service personnel were lost in this country, for what seems to be absolutely nothing at this point.

This 'war' is political, and it will continue to be fought on the battlefield for as long as all sides involved continue to be arrogant and disregard human life. They need to wake up and take it to the negotiating table where it belongs and it should stay.

[Robert Cooper]

Good luck getting ISIS to the negotiating table!

Bob C

[Robert Cooper]

Not a Boffin,

I agree that this is a problem between the Sunni and Shi’ite that has been going on for 1,300 years, and it will not stop. And the naive opinion by some that this is a political war and can be solved at the negotiating table is absurd. This conflict is about the establishment of a Muslim caliphate and the genocide of all other religions.

The IS is a radical Islamic Sunni sect that is hell bent on establishing a Sunni caliphate in Iraq and the Levant for the purpose of establishing a base for the expansion of Islam and the eventual conquest of Europe and the West. That is from their own mouths.

Iran, which is Shi’ite, will probably react strongly if the IS appears to be about to take over Iraq because they will not want a Sunni caliphate on their border. That will be a confrontation the US and the West will probably not want to get involved in.

If we don’t stop this now, while it is in its infancy, we will have confront it later when it is established and in a much stronger position.

Bob C

[500N]

Interesting article from General Mike Rose in the DM today, saying a lot of things we have all been saying.

Always was a clear thinker !

I fear our panic stricken politicians are leading us into another bloody shambles in Iraq, by GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2729438/I-fear-panic-stricken-politicians-leading-bloody-shambles-Iraq-GENERAL-SIR-MICHAEL-ROSE.html)

[Robert Cooper]

As Sir Michael said:

"I am convinced that there is a powerful moral — and practical — case for intervening now against the Islamic State. For what we are witnessing is the terrible consequences of the so-called Arab Spring, so naively celebrated by our leaders just a few months ago. As I have watched and read news reports from this embattled and disintegrating region, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we must intervene to protect the lives of Iraqis and hold back the rising tide of the Islamic State."

But the bigger picture is to protect our own Western civilization from the Islamic state.

Bob C

[500N]

I like the bit before that

"Like panic-stricken rabbits caught in the headlights, our political leaders do not appear to know which way to go.
The only thing that they do know is that something must be done. But developing a viable, effective strategy against the brutal campaign of the Islamic State has, so far, clearly been beyond their competence".

and this


"Sadly that is lacking as the West’s leaders seem to be stumbling daily as they try to configure exactly what they want to achieve.
Indeed, I have grave fears that they do not have a clear idea of what form such military intervention should take. For it is imperative that before we send so much as one British soldier back to Iraq, our government’s strategists must decide with absolute clarity and precision the objective of the mission.
They must also commit sufficient resources to ensure the job is done with as little risk as is possible to the lives of our men."


And like I said a few days ago - Maggie and don't micro manage the military, he confirms it


"Today’s floundering politicians could learn from one leader who handled such issues brilliantly: Margaret Thatcher.
Whether it was over the Falkland Islands or the Iranian Embassy siege (when the SAS stormed the building in London in 1980 after it had been held by gunmen for six days), she always gave clear instructions at the outset.


She never changed her mind once operations had commenced and didn’t try to micro-manage what was happening on the ground."

[Party Animal]

our government’s strategists must decide with absolute clarity and precision the objective of the mission.
They must also commit sufficient resources to ensure the job is done with as little risk as is possible to the lives of our men."



Spoken like the very capable and experienced leader the general was and he is absolutely right of course.

Unfortunately, the reality is of a 23 year old govt strategist with an Oxbridge degree in political history strongly 'advising' our political leadership from behind the scenes on how to conduct affairs in the ME. His/her 'advice' is married to that of the PR media luuvie team of 'don't make any decisions in case they turn out to be wrong' and heaven forbid an article on the cover of the Daily Star with any British casualties caused by any decisions made above.

This results in wishy woshy political decisions that are all based on how the polls could start to look with an election building. We could commit troops to posture on the world stage and inflate Camerons ego but at the same time, they could be confined to a safe area doing nothing of any use to avoid all risk.

Actually, what Iraq needs is a harsh and brutal military dictator to grip it by the balls and crush any form of rebellion. Someone in the mould of Adolf Hitler springs to mind. They used to have a bloke that kept the country in check and provided everyone agreed with him and did as ordered, life was fairly reasonable. People went to work, shopped, married, bought houses and raised families etc. Unfortunately, this didn't fit with the wests view of a modern democracy and how an independant country should govern its own affairs so we invaded to sort them out.

Maybe Putin should start spouting off in the UN about Ukraines WMD threat to Russia as a basis for a Russian invasion?

[Not_a_boffin]

They used to have a bloke that kept the country in check and provided everyone agreed with him and did as ordered, life was fairly reasonable. People went to work, shopped, married, bought houses and raised families etc.

And if they didn't, ended up maimed or dead in the thousands each year. Or gassed or starved of water if they were the wrong tribe/religious sect. Or ended up maimed or dead if one of the nutcase sons took a fancy to your other half, or just imagined that you'd spilt his pint.

Not for one minute saying what's there now is better, just noting that it's not necessarily worse either. Thousands of people have died every single year since the eighties, of which only those in GW1 and GW2 and its immediate combat aftermath have not been victims of either tribal or sunni/shia violence.

Most importantly, it's not going to be solved by western military power - particularly not boots on the ground. For once, let's let those who are funding it bear the responsibility for fixing it. That's not to say, let the caliphate develop, merely pressure those responsible into dealing with it.

[Robert Cooper]

Inaction toward the radical Islamic State (IS), formally known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is no longer an option. They are an army, and it takes an army to defeat an army. We either confront the IS now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future. The Islamic State is operating with military expertise, advancing across Iraq, and rapidly consolidating its position.

According to intelligence estimates the Islamic State is 80,000 strong and growing by the day. Al Jazeera reports that they attracted 6,000 recruits in the last month alone.

IS is not a problem that will remain in the Middle East if left unchecked. IS continues to warn that if U.S. airstrikes continue, Americans will be attacked “in any place, at any time.” The gruesome video of an IS militant purportedly beheading journalist James Foley in retaliation for airstrikes is one such example, and the executioner threatened to do the same to American journalist Steven Joel Sotloff, depending on President Obama’s next move.

Islamic militants, particularly IS, have proven again, and again, and again that they will never compromise with non-Muslims. They will never cooperate. They will never coexist. They are fundamentally, lethally opposed to non-Muslims, Muslims of other sects, and even peaceful Muslims. They revel in a culture of death.

Meeting with them diplomatically merely reinforces their self-aggrandizement, and they've already declared time after time that they are not bound by any promises or agreements we think we accomplished.

We need to get serious and treat IS like the plague they are. You isolate and exterminate, to ensure the safety of others.

Bob C

[dagenham]

For once I have too agree... This is becoming properly worrying.

We should take particular notice that Iraq and Iran are cooperating, witness the su25 movements.

It would be nice to think the Saudis might use their toy box, but highly unlikely!

Not sure what the solution is that will not cause further escalation! Boots on the ground turns this into a major Islam versus kafir battle. Doing nothing risks our south London friend exporting his homies to come to paradise. Short of the old Vietnam solution involving boats I am at a very real loss to suggest something that is not totally ridiculous ie. involving buckets of sunshine or walk away and let them piss off Iran, Israel and eventually the Saudis and see what happens. Probably leading to something equally serious.

Answers on a postcode to wood lane, shepherds bush, London W1 and you get a shiny blue peter badge.

[Not_a_boffin]

We need to get serious and treat IS like the plague they are. You isolate and exterminate, to ensure the safety of others

Absolutely right and no argument. However, Western

Boots on the ground turns this into a major Islam versus kafir battle

which is why those closest and most responsible (they live in Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran and Qatar) need to be the ones who implement the extermination solution.

Will be seen far better in the wider Muslim world if their various religious leaders are seen to be meting out "justice", rather than the west.

[Robert Cooper]

You are absolutely right to suggest that only a 'local' resolution will hold, but where is the will for this to happen? The deafening silence of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia speaks for itself, and can only signify either their complicity or fear. More likely their effort will be to turn the jihad towards the west which will buy them a few more years but at immeasurable cost to those whose only error is their choice of the wrong religion, or none.

Bob C

[Typhoon93]

The problem is that this is not limited to Iraq and Syria. The same problem is in Afghanistan and has been for many years, also Palestine. It's all over the Middle East. It's a war we'll be fighting for all of our lifetimes, and probably the lifetimes of some of those not born yet.

[Robert Cooper]

There are reports coming out of Washington today indicating that Top U.S. military brass and former administration officials are publicly pressuring the White House to increase efforts in Iraq and take the fight against the Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL) into Syria, warning that the terror organization poses an unprecedented threat to the United States. They are not talking about a limited engagement and seem to expect a “multi-year” effort.

Be interesting to see what the Administration does.

Bob C

[RatherBeFlying]

IS seem to be the spiritual descendants of al Wahhab who lived in the 18th century. His interpretation of Islam is the avowed doctrine of the Saudi royal family. Their takeover of the Arabian Peninsula was also a spreading of the true religion - not that much different from how Spaniards spread Catholicism to Latin America.

It seems that buckets full of Saudi cash are making their way to IS. The mindset is spreading the true religion along with exterminating heretics, in this case Shias, Yazidis, Christians...

Protestants and Catholics got up to the same kind of mischief against one another during religious wars post Reformation - - 20th century examples being the Holocaust, the Troubles in North Ireland and former Yugoslavia which adds Orthodox to the mix.

The current problem is that IS got a massive infusion of US military equipment courtesy the former Iraq army. The 2003 fecklessness has spectacularly come to roost:}

So where do we go from here :confused:


Airstrikes can remove all the nice military hardware that fell into the wrong hands,
Delivery of sufficient arms to the Kurds will allow them to block IS from spreading North.
The Baghdad regime needs sufficient assistance to stand up to IS once they have been deprived of the military hardware that fell into their hands.
The Northern Alliance had no problem booting out the Taliban once their artillery and tanks got taken out. US boots on ground were pretty much limited to SF/CIA with laser designators.