Category: Terror War

The new Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that the press briefing last month which released plans to the world about the intention that the city of Mosul, Iraq would be the focus of an Iraqi attack in mid-Spring was a mistake.

The briefer, whose presentation for reporters at the Pentagon on Feb. 19 was authorized by U.S. Central Command, said the U.S. wanted the Iraqis to launch the offensive in Mosul in April or May, although he also said it might go later.

“That clearly was neither accurate information nor, had it been accurate, would have been information that should be blurted out to the press,” Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “So it’s wrong on both scores.”

It now appears likely that the offensive will not begin this spring, with Iraq’s security forces requiring more time for U.S.-organized training. It has been widely known for months that the offensive is in the planning stages and that it would likely mark a decisive moment in the campaign to dislodge the Islamic State from Iraq.

Well, I guess ISIS is thoroughly confused now, because I am confused. Which is as it should be.

AFP reports that Harakat Hazm, the group of “moderate” Syrian rebels that Secretary of State John Kerry told us last year were most likely to receive US arms and training, dissipated and melted into the ranks of ISIS. I guess they took their arms and training with them;

…after suffering a devastating defeat at the hands of Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate at the weekend, Hazm appears to have disbanded, with many of its fighters reported to have joined an Islamist coalition.

“The collapse of… Hazm means that, in effect, there is no substantial and credible Western-backed ‘moderate’ opposition throughout most of Syria,” intelligence consultancy The Soufan Group said in a brief.

Well, there goes that idea.

Meanwhile, yesterday, according to the Military Times, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was in Congress again slowly turning up the heat on that pot of lobsters;

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified on Capitol Hill that military commanders will consider the need for small teams of U.S. troops to help local Iraqi and Syrian forces if that is critical for defeating the Islamic State militants.

“If the commander on the ground approaches either me or the secretary of defense and believes that the introduction of special operations forces to accompany Iraqis or the new Syrian forces, or JTACS, these skilled folks who can call in close-air support, if we believe that’s necessary to achieve our objectives, we will make that recommendation,” Dempsey told the House Appropriations Committee’s defense panel.

Maybe if they just wait a little longer, someone will step and do it and solve it all while this administration sits on it’s hands some more. You know, that same strategy that has worked so well for us in Libya and Tunisia.

And, oh, by the way, the REALLY good news is that a Quinnipiac University National poll supports sending US troops to do battle with ISIS;

American voters support 62 – 30 percent sending U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with strong support across all party, gender and age groups, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today.

Men back U.S. troop deployment 68 – 28 percent, while women support it 57 – 33 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

Not coinicidently;

American voters believe 63 – 28 percent that President Obama loves America.

[…]

“Most Americans believe President Obama loves America, but they are not in love with his job performance,” Malloy added

Which should be reassuring for the troops tagged for yet another deployment to Iraq. Or not.

Obama gets a negative 44 – 50 percent approval rating for handling the economy. His approval ratings on other issues are:

Negative 35 – 55 percent for foreign policy;
Negative 39 – 54 percent for terrorism;
Negative 38 – 56 percent for immigration;
Negative 35 – 55 percent for ISIS.

But, hey, as long my kid doesn’t end up in Iraq…you can send that kid down the street and I’ll feel better about myself.

Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post which reports that, as the US reduces it’s numbers of troops in Afghanistan, the Afghan Army and Police forces seem to be shrinking, too;

The top U.S. watchdog for Afghanistan highlighted the trend in a report to Congress released Tuesday. The number of troops in the Afghan army shrunk from 184,839 to 169,203 between fall 2013 and fall 2014, the smallest number since August 2011, according to John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

U.S. Forces-Afghanistan reported that the number of Afghan police was up 3,122 to 156,439 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, but SIGAR questioned whether some of those police had been counted twice and said the actual number may be closer to 151,272. That would amount to a decrease of 2,045 in one quarter.

“Attrition continues to be a major challenge for the ANSF. Between September 2013 and September 2014, more than 40,000 personnel were dropped from ANA rolls,” SIGAR said in the report, using acronyms for the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan National Army. “Moreover, the ANA continues to suffer serious combat losses. Between October 2013 and September 2014, more than 1,300 ANA personnel were killed in action (KIA) and 6,200 were wounded in action (WIA).”

Maybe they’re just confused by the President’s plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. He wasn’t really clear that he wanted to reduce just US presence. But seriously, as US troop reductions continue, the US troops are more dependent on the Afghans for their own security. When folks settled on Afghan troop numbers, I guess they didn’t take into account that there would be casualties associated with their increased participation in combat operations.

Tulsi Gabbard is a newly-elected Democrat Congresswoman representing Hawaii. She’s also a veteran of two deployments in the war against terror and she disputes the White House/the President’s refusal to take the ISIS threat seriously. Members of her party are alarmed at the freshman’s uppity treatment of the President from her own state, according to Fox News;

“Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don’t know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him,” Gabbard told FoxNews.com. “Our leaders must clearly identify the enemy as Islamist extremists, understand the ideology that is motivating them and attracting new recruits, and focus on defeating that enemy both militarily and ideologically.”

Gabbard has been hitting this message for weeks now, putting her at odds with many in her party who toe the line that the Islamic State should not be associated with Islam.

Gabbard called “mind-boggling” Obama’s refusal to associate ISIS with the Muslim religion, even though the terrorist army is emphatic it is enforcing a strict interpretation of Islam.

“[Obama] is completely missing the point of this radical Islamic ideology that’s fueling these people,” she said.

Of course, it won’t change any minds in the halls of policy makers, but it is refreshing to hear someone who speaks from the experience of the war against terror from that side of the aisle. There have been veterans who are also Democrats in Congress, but they surrendered their testicles at the door of Congress.At least no one is challenging her status as a veteran at this point, you know, like they have with Republican women in Congress.

Thanks to GruntSgt for the link.

So, the New York Times wants to test Obama’s strategy against ISIS with that full disclosure of the plan announced to reporters last week by the pentagon.

According to the article, the new Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, says he didn’t know anything about the sand-table discussion that the pentagon had with the media, but, ya know, for some reason, I’m finding that hard to believe;

American officials took the unusual step on Thursday of announcing the timing of the battle and the number of Iraqi and Kurdish forces to be deployed. Openly discussing future military operations is normally off-limits to avoid aiding the enemy, but American officials said it was done this time to try to weaken the resolve of the Islamic State fighters and to spur Mosul’s residents to rise up against the occupiers and help the Iraqi ground forces.

[…]

A defense official said Friday that the White House and Ashton B. Carter, the new defense secretary, “had no advance knowledge” of the briefing.

[…]

American officials said it was possible that announcing the battle for Mosul ahead of time could prompt many of the Islamic State fighters to slip away and make the retaking of the city less of a fight….

Yeah, that hasn’t worked so well in the past, for either the Syrian government forces or for the Kurds at Kobani. These are people who think that blowing themselves up into a fine mist is a victory. They’ll gladly pour back into Mosul on the chance they might get to kill more Iraqis before they bite the big one.

But, then this is the administration that sees the world the way they want it to be, rather than the way it is.

The State Department is out of ideas to combat terror, so, they ask you how they can fight extremism and they launch this cutesy logo pictured above.

Secretary Kerry described this effort as the “the defining fight of our generation” and a task not just for governments but everyone, including civil society, the faith community, foundations and philanthropists, and the private sector. The Secretary urged the Summit participants to provide their ideas and suggestions on how we can counter violent extremism, and we ask you:

What solutions do you think are most critical to countering violent extremism?

Personally, I think we should release all of the detainees from Guantanamo, that would cure most of the problem. We should also give weapons to everyone who tells us that they’re moderate rebels (because why would they lie to infidels?) I think that police and the lawyers can fight the war against terror better than the military – I’d rather have the legal system entrusted with our safety at home than having our military fight the extremists in their own countries. Also, we should stop arming countries like Syria and Egypt which are carrying the fight to the extremists in their backyards. Instead, we should arm moderate rebels in Syria who will eventually turn those weapons on our troops. Also, the Federal government should tell us which hash tag we can use to defeat extremism. There should be a Department of Hashtags in the President’s Cabinet.

Or, maybe not.

In case you missed it the other day, the Pentagon released it’s plan to take back the Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIS come Spring. They announced troops numbers and the plan to use Iraqi ground forces in conjunction with American air power. They announced that the plan would start in April or May. So the internet lit up with outrage that the Pentagon was giving away the store by talking with the press about it. Well, the Washington Post says that’s all part of their plan;

The Pentagon and Iraqi military commanders are hoping to avoid a massive, bloody battle in Iraq’s second largest city. “We want Mosul to look a lot more like the liberation of Paris than Stalingrad or Fallujah,” said a senior military official familiar with the planning. In other words, U.S. and Iraqi commanders are hoping that they can convince most of the Islamic State fighters to leave the city before the big battle.

So far it remains unclear whether the strategy will work.

Yeah, because ISIS is known for the way they run away from tough fights. I’m pretty sure that if the US and Iraq make a big deal out of the upcoming battle for Mosul, that will only strengthen ISIS’ resolve. The 2,000 troops that they think are defending the city now will grow ten-fold in the next few months in anticipation of being able to kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers and, perhaps, by chance get an American adviser or two.

In fact this plan shows how little the Pentagon planners, and the White House folks from whom they’re taking their cue, understand about the extremism that they’re facing. These are folks who think that blowing themselves up is some kind of great victory. They don’t care abut their own casualties, they only care about how their message is received by the world’s media. If they can stage a huge useless bloodletting in Mosul, they’ll call it a victory no matter who ends up occupying the town in the end. And the compliant media will join them in celebration.

Most military officials believe that there are more than 2,000 Islamic State fighters currently in Mosul. It’s unclear how the outnumbered enemy will react to the news of the coming assault by Iraqi forces. For now, though, it appears that the Islamic State fighters are determined to dig in for a hard fight, said military officials.

The bigger deal that West makes about retaking Mosul, the more ISIS criminals we can expect there. It would have been nice if there had been only 2000 to face the planned the 20,000 Iraqis, but that isn’t what it’s going to look like by Spring.

Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.