Mediaboss Marketing

Will the defeat of Islamic State in Iraq be a foreign policy victory for Donald Trump? With the fall of Mosul imminent, what happens next?

There will be winners, like the Kurds. There will be losers, like Iraqs Sunni minority. There will be gains for Iran, which backs the Shiite militias drafted to fight Sunni-dominated IS. And there may be a silver lining for the Trump administration - specifically in the form of Kurdish independence and permanent American bases in a Shiite-ruled Iraq. But any declaration of victory on the part of the United States depends on how the measure of those results is taken.

Start with the Kurds. Their military forces currently control a swath of northern territory, including the oil-rich province of Kirkuk. The area has been a functional confederacy since soon after the American invasion of 2003 and in spite of likely opposition from Baghdad, a fully-realized nation-state of Kurdistan seems inevitable. The Kurds certainly think so; theyll hold an independence referendum on September 25.

Previous U.S. administrations restrained Kurdish ambitions, trying to keep Iraq more or less as it was within its 2003 borders. George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent Barack Obama, wished for a unified Iraq as a symbol, the conclusion of the invasion narrative of eliminating Saddam Hussein and establishing a new semi-secular ally in the heart of the Middle East. A unified Iraq that enveloped the Kurds was also sought by NATO ally Turkey, which feared an independent Kurdish state on its disputed eastern border.

MORE FROM REUTERS

From caliph to fugitive: IS leader Baghdadis new life on the run

Commentary: UKs Theresa May is right to stay. For now.

Podcast: How the Pentagons wasteful budget hurts the military

The Trump White House appears less anguished about Kurdish independence; Trump is for the first time, for example, overtlyarmingpro-Kurdish independence militias, whom the Turks call terrorists, to take on Islamic State. Washington doesnt seem to have a plan for disarming the militias before they start fighting for control of disputed ancestral Kurdish lands held by Turkey.

So the key question has become not if the Kurds will announce some sort of statehood, but whether the Kurds will go to war with Turkey to round out their territorial claims in the process. The United States, with the ties that previously bound Washington and Ankara weakened following Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's authoritarian crackdown, might just be ready to stand aside and allow Kurdish ambitions to play out. The Kurds are respected in American conservative circles important to Trump, and the Turks have fewer friends than ever there. Kurdish oil will be welcome to Washington, and the Kurds have always championed close security ties with the U.S. A strong U.S.-Kurd alliance will also help Trump keep Iran in check.

Meanwhile, an Obama-era marriage of practicality which brought Shiite militias into the fight against Islamic State will not play out as well for Trump.

Any reluctance on the part of the United States to act as a restraining force on the Iraqi central government's empowering of Shiite militias disappeared in 2014. As the Iraqi National Army collapsed in front of Islamic State, the crisis demanded battle-ready forces, and the militias were the only option available outside of Kurdish-controlled areas.

The problem for America is that many of those Shiite militias owe significant allegiance toIran, whichhelpsarm them and supplements their efforts withspecial forcesand leadership. Unlike the post-invasion years of about 2006 forward, when the United States and Iran fought a shadow war for control inside Iraq, America has had to accept that it needs the militias to defeat Islamic State.

Time will tell what Iran will do with its influence in Iraq. But there is certainly nothing for the White House to celebrate seeing Iranian boots on the same ground where Americans died to hold territory. Or with having to deal with a Baghdad government beholden to Tehran and its Shiite militias.

In the Sunni parts of Iraq, there is no real win for the Trump administration. The fight against Islamic State is destroying Mosul, and has already devastated Sunni cities like Ramada and Fallujah. Neither Washington nor Baghdad has any realistic plans to rebuild.

Yet despite a tangential win alongside the Kurds, and with clear losses vis-vis the Shiite and Sunnis, there is perhaps a real silver lining in Iraq for Trump. Permanent American military bases.

Post-Islamic State, Iraq will be a Shiite nation with close ties to Iran. The price Iraq and Iran will be forced to pay for Americas reluctant pragmatism over this will likely be small but permanent American military bases inside Iraq, mostly out of sight in the far west. (You wont laugh if you remember that the U.S. maintained its base at Guantanamo even after it severed ties with Soviet-dominated Cuba.)

Trump is unlikely to give up bases in a rush to declare victory in Iraq, as did his predecessors, and has several thousand American troops already in place to back up his plans. America seeks bases as a symbol of some sort of victory, a way to block any politically-ugly Shiite reprisals against the Sunnis, and as a bulwark against whatever happens in Syria. In addition, Israel is likely to near-demand the United States garrison western Iraq as a buffer against expanding Iranian power.

Sealing the deal is that Iran will have little to gain from a fight over some desert estate that it would probably lose anyway, when their prize is the rest of Iraq. Those bases even might, at America's expense, keep any Sunni successors to Islamic State from moving into Iraq - as happened after al Qaeda outstayed its welcome.

While the fight against Islamic State in Iraq isnt over, an ending of sorts is clear enough to allow for some reasonable predictions. But whatever happens will leave an unanswered, and sadly, perhaps unasked, question: was the outcome worth to Americans the cost of some 4,500 dead, and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent, over the last 14 years?

The Pentagon lost track of equipment worth more than a billion dollars, according to a now declassified Department of Defense audit obtained by Amnesty International last month. The F-35 program has already cost $100 billion to develop, and may not even be ready for combat according to an ex-director. The Justice Department has charged at least 20 U.S. Navy flag officers in the Fat Leonard scandal one of the biggest corruption scandals in American military history.

The chancellor of Germany no longer trusts the United States or the United Kingdom. In a May 28 campaign speech in Bavaria, Angela Merkel signaled distance from the two Anglo Saxon states, telling her audience we Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.

Continue reading here:
Commentary: Trump's silver lining in Iraq - Reuters

SALT LAKE CITY The aromas upon entering Iman Alshrahebs Salt Lake Valley apartment, a world away from where she grew up, deliver a message Iraqi food travels well.

Middle Eastern dishes have a special way of tickling the taste buds. For members of the Alshraheb family, they also help savor memories of their southern Iraqi home in better times. Food is an important cultural lifeline for refugees, who have left almost everything behind to forge new lives in an unfamiliar land.

Recently, Iman, 56, stirred a skillet of onions, peppers, mushrooms, shrimp and spices as she talked with her daughter, Baidaa, 28, about their hometown of Basra and their more recent home as refugees in Jordan. The dish, a stew called magbus rabyan in their native Arabic tongue, is a mainstay in their household.

Iraqi recipes draw from a long history dating back to ancient Mesopotamia and they are influenced by Turkish, Persian and Syrian cultures.

Iman dreams of cooking again for her mother and brother, who remain in Iraq.

I want to see my family again, she said while preparing saffron rice that is traditionally served with the stew. I dont want to lose anyone.

Basra sits along the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway, which runs into the Persian Gulf, 65 miles away. Seafood is a staple of the denizens of the ancient city and surrounding area, Baidaa explained.

Here in Utah, her father, Abdul Rahman Alshraheb, 62, fishes the Jordan River regularly, keeping the refrigerator stocked with carp all summer.

In Iraq, Abdul Rahman owned and operated a car-parts store. The family had a large house surrounded by big, leafy trees in a pleasant neighborhood. On Sundays, the extended family would gather at Baidaas grandmothers house to drink tea in small, glass cups and catch up before a bountiful midafternoon meal.

Before the war, life was good in the city of 1.5 million. There was music and dance, and the family had a wide circle of friends that included writers and poets, Abdul Rahman recalled.

In addition to Baidaa, Iman and Abdul Rahman have three sons. In 1998, the youngest, Asad, then 18 months old, became extremely ill. At the hospital, Iman saw many babies who seemed to be dying. A doctor told her the best treatment for the youngster was in neighboring Jordan.

The family moved to Amman, believing they would return to Basra once Asad was well. That didnt happen. On March 20, 2003, the United States and its allies invaded the country that had been led for decades by strongman Saddam Hussein.

Although southern Iraq now is safer than Baghdad and parts north, violence mostly from car bombs remains unpredictable.

Go here to see the original:
Savoring memories from Iraq, family finds safety in Utah - Daily Herald

SOUTHWEST ASIA, June 10, 2017 U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria yesterday, conducting 27 strikes consisting of 70 engagements, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of yesterday's strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Strikes in Syria

In Syria, coalition military forces conducted 21 strikes consisting of 30 engagements against ISIS targets:

-- Near Abu Kamal, a strike destroyed an ISIS oil refinery.

-- Near Raqqah, 20 strikes engaged 12 ISIS tactical units; destroyed seven fighting positions, four vehicles, three ISIS headquarters, a car bomb, and an ISIS-held building; and suppressed an ISIS tactical unit.

Strikes in Iraq

In Iraq, coalition military forces conducted six strikes consisting of 40 engagements against ISIS targets:

-- Near Al Huwayjah, a strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed three ISIS-held buildings, a supply cache and an ISIS headquarters.

-- Near Bayji, a strike destroyed three car bombs, two car-bomb staging areas and a tactical vehicle.

-- Near Kisik, a strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed five fighting positions and a car bomb, and damaged two fighting positions.

-- Near Mosul, three strikes engaged two ISIS tactical units; destroyed seven fighting positions, three ISIS-held buildings, a command and control node, a car bomb, and a car-bomb staging area; and suppressed an ISIS tactical unit and a mortar system.

Previously Unreported

Additionally, seven previously unreported strikes were conducted in Syria and Iraq on June 7-8.

-- On June 7, near Raqqah, Syria, a strike destroyed an ISIS minefield.

-- On June 8, near Raqqah, Syria, three strikes destroyed four fighting positions and a car bomb.

-- On June 8, near Mosul, Iraq, two strikes engaged three ISIS tactical units; destroyed three front-end loaders, a car-bomb facility, a fighting position, a rocket-propelled grenade system, an excavator, and a command and control node; damaged 12 ISIS supply routes and a fighting position; and suppressed two ISIS tactical units.

-- On June 8, near Rawah, Iraq, a strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed four ISIS-held buildings.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

These strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The destruction of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria also further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct external operations throughout the region and the rest of the world, task force officials said.

The list above contains all strikes conducted by fighter, attack, bomber, rotary-wing or remotely piloted aircraft; rocket-propelled artillery; and some ground-based tactical artillery when fired on planned targets, officials noted.

Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike, they added. A strike, as defined by the coalition, refers to one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single or cumulative effect.

For example, task force officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined, officials said.

The task force does not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.

More here:
US, Coalition Continue Strikes to Defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq - Department of Defense

Since the announcement of the plan for a referendum in the Kurdistan Region to decide whether to stay with Iraq or leave and build an independent state some worry that such a project would lead to the establishment of a dictatorial state.

Others have come up with a long list of preconditions to be met before going for a referendum such as writing a fantastic constitution, good institutions, strong economic infrastructure and a functioning parliament.

At the end of all their negative comments they say they are not against independence, they are only against referendum especially the one planned for September.

How do they think you can decide on your future if not through a referendum? Also a date has to be set for a referendum whether it is now or ten years from now.

Besides, their concerns and fears are misplaced. They worry about a dictatorial Kurdish state as if right now we are part of the most democratic country in the world. They warn of lack of institutions and a constitution and Iraq miserably fails at all of those.

Part of their fear is that one party and one man should not be in charge of the referendum project and that it is a national ambition. But historically and everywhere in the world it has always been one man and one party that have pushed for independence and the rest of the nation follows.

Who cares at this stage what kind of state Kurdistan will be. It would certainly be nice to have a successful democratic state with a strong economy, high standards of living and a useful member of the international community. But right now, the biggest thing is to make sure we successfully separate from Iraq. Then those questions could be addressed.

You cant have your dream state without declaring it first. Also, being part of Iraq for a hundred years has made many Kurds unable to invest in the land. Almost everything, whether it is building a highway or a dam or a family home is put on hold because no one is sure what happens next and when we might face another attack from Iraq or a group like ISIS.

An independent state would finally give people some breathing space and a chance to invest in their own future and that of the country.

If anyone has issues with the political parties here or with corruption or lack of institutions, they will better be able to hold them accountable in an independent state than a de facto region that is neither fully independent nor fully part of Iraq.

In many aspects now, the Kurdistan Region is doing better than Iraq and as an independent state it will do better still.

Tens of years of fighting the Iraqi regime, all the mass graves and sacrifice was for Kurds to be able to have their own country. Now that that chance is upon us there is no excuse not to seize it.

Concerns about corruption, fear of dictatorship, philosophizing or texts from political science books are irrelevant here. It is a simple yet historical project for a people to separate from a country they have never been proud or felt part of.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.

Read the rest here:
Let's separate from Iraq first then talk about state-building - Rudaw

KUALA LUMPUR: Another Malaysian Islamic State (IS) fighter, identified as Mohd Nizam Ariffin (pic), has been killed in clashes with security forces in Iraq.

The 38-year-old militant, also known as Abu Afghan, was killed in the city of Mosul on Friday.

Intelligence sources indicated Mohd Nizams death, but no other details were available.

It is learnt that Mohd Nizam appeared in an IS propaganda video in January last year along with fellow militant Abdul Halid Dari.

Identifying themselves as members of Katibah Nusantara (the Malay-speaking wing of IS), the militants called on Katibahs brothers from Somalias al-Shabaab to join the group in the real frontline in Syria.

They spoke in Bahasa Malaysia and urged the al-Shabaab members to join IS.

The Katibah militants also warned the Malaysian Government against thwarting IS terror plots, another source said.

According to other sources, the Ipoh-born Mohd Nizam travelled to Syria on March 6, 2014, and joined the Ajnad al-Sham militant group.

However, after the death of former Kedah PAS Youth information chief Lotfi Ariffin in September 2014, Mohd Nizam joined IS.

It was in IS that he teamed up with other militants from Malaysia and Indonesia in Katibah Nusantara, a source said.

Mohd Nizams death brings the total of Malaysian militants killed in Iraq and Syria to 31, with some 56 others believed to be still at large.

See more here:
Another Malaysian militant killed in Iraq - The Star Online