Obama Authorizes Air Strikes on "ISIS", and Inevitably Many Civilians

[ckaihatsu]

Good position piece:


---


Update: 5 things you need to know about the president’s rush to war in Iraq and Syria

Dear Chris,

A terrible situation in Iraq and Syria may soon get worse.

Last week both the House and the Senate rushed to pass a bill authorizing the president to train and arm so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels.1

CREDO members reported pouring well over 3,000 calls into their representatives and senators. But, in the end, the majority of Democrats joined with Republicans to rubberstamp the president’s proposal.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which is already fighting with American weapons it captured from the Iraqi military, could likely be the main beneficiary of Congress’ rush to war. The shifting, opportunistic alliances and fragmented opposition in the Syrian civil war make it virtually inevitable that American-funded rebels will end up fighting alongside Sunni extremists like ISIS. They'll bring their American weapons with them, and those weapons may well be trained on American targets.

This is eerily reminiscent of the CIA operation in the 1980s to arm and train the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion -- a fighting force that with the help of U.S. aid evolved into the Taliban and launched al Qaeda into the world.

Congress’ decision will make America less safe and fuel further violence in the Syrian civil war and in Iraq.

Funding and arming the Syrian rebels is the first part of President Obama’s plan to fight ISIS by opening a new American front in Iraq and Syria. Our movement may have lost this round, but it’s a wake up call for the anti-war movement to organize and stop the Obama administration and Congress from repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must not end up entangled in yet another costly and unwinnable war that makes Americans less, not more, safe.

There are five things you need to know about the president’s plan to go to war with ISIS in Iraq and Syria:

1. The main fight over whether we go to war in Syria and Iraq is going to happen in Congress in December over a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force to renew George W. Bush’s blank check for war.

Congress is widely expected to debate and vote on whether to give President Obama the authority to wage a sustained, multi-year war against ISIS during the December "lame duck" session, once the pressures of election season have subsided. This will come in the form of an Authorization for Use of Military Force (or AUMF). Senator Dick Durbin has already announced that the Senate will debate and vote on a new AUMF for Iraq and Syria after the 2014 midterm elections.2

Will Congress write a blank check for war like it gave George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq? Will it approve a limited intervention that expires after a short time limit, bans the president from putting troops on the ground, and includes significant Congressional oversight? Or will it vote to block the administration from starting a war with Syria and expanding the war in Iraq? What happens will depend on us, and whether we can organize strong opposition in the run up to the 2016 presidential election. In fact, several presidential hopefuls voted against arming the rebels, foreshadowing what could be a major issue in both Republican and Democratic party primaries for the presidency.

Our best shot to stop another blank check for war is in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority. The Senate is threatened with a Tea Party takeover if Republicans can win six seats in the November mid-terms. If that happens, it will make a tough fight to stop another war dramatically more difficult. That’s why earlier this year CREDO SuperPAC launched the Save the Senate, volunteer voter contact campaign to organize thousands of volunteers to get out the progressive vote in five key battleground states and stop a Tea Party takeover of the Senate.

President Obama's publicly stated position is that he doesn't need authorization from Congress to go to war with ISIS.3 Instead, he has claimed that the outrageously broad 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- passed at the behest of George W. Bush just days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- grants him sufficient authority to launch airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

This is a dramatic flip-flop for President Obama, who campaigned for president on a platform that included winding down George W. Bush’s disastrous wars of choice overseas, and last year called for the repeal of the very same 2001 AUMF that he is now using to justify bombing Iraq and Syria.

Anti-war activists must urge Congress to vote against authorizing the president's new war in Iraq and Syria. Congress rejecting authorization is no guarantee that the president won't still go to war in Iraq and Syria -- but it's the best shot we have to stop his plan for war.

2. This war is going to get much bigger and include ground troops if progressives don't organize a major campaign to stop it.

President Obama's war plan is to attempt to "degrade and destroy" ISIS by arming and training "moderate" Syrian rebels and launching sustained airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. He's also deployed 1,600 "military advisors" in Iraq to assist the Iraqi government and the Kurds as they battle ISIS -- and that number is likely to grow.

Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the war against ISIS could last for three years, making it clear that the war to destroy ISIS is an open-ended commitment to U.S. military action in the region.4

Obama's plan puts the United States on a slippery slope to a drastically escalated war. It's certain that war hawks will push for a U.S.-led ground war once airstrikes don't immediately resolve the conflict.

While President Obama has declared that no ground troops will be deployed, his top military advisors say different. Joints Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has already said that he would recommend using American ground troops against ISIS if the current strategy is unsuccessful -- which we know it will be.5 Gen. Ray Odierno, Army Chief of Staff, has said publicly that ground troops would be necessary to defeat ISIS.6

Even without U.S. troops on the ground, airstrikes threaten to drag the United States into a massive conflict with Bashar al-Assad, in addition to ISIS. President Obama has reportedly pledged to retaliate against the Syrian government if it fires on U.S. war planes.7 If that happens, the United States would simultaneously be fighting against two sides of the Syrian civil war: ISIS and President Bashar al-Assad's government. That's a recipe for disaster and further instability, which will only make ISIS stronger.

3. The war against ISIS is a war of choice. There is no urgency driving an American response at this moment. Even according to the Department of Homeland Security, ISIS poses no immediate threat to the United States.8

There is no immediate crisis as there was in August when CREDO supported the emergency U.S. air strikes that blocked the genocidal ISIS and helped protect minorities by holding the Kurdish defense line in Northern Iraq.9 Since then, the situation in Iraq has stabilized, and Iraq has formed a new government, replacing the corrupt and divisive former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The civil war in Syria is stuck in a bloody stalemate. The current media frenzy that has been ginned-up largely by chickenhawks from the Bush administration and parroted by politicians from both parties is not an adequate justification for the United States to continue its intervention in either Iraq or Syria.

Despite rampant alarmism from war hawks and media pundits, ISIS is a relatively small extremist group surrounded on all sides by formidable enemies like Iran, Syria, the Kurds and the Iraqi government.

4. The sad and simple truth is that the United States cannot lead any intervention without making a terrible situation even worse.

When it comes to the current brutal conflict, rooted in centuries of religious hostilities in Iraq and Syria, there is no solution that American leadership can offer. Unfortunately, at this point in the conflict there is no viable campaign for peace and stability initiated by any other international or regional actor that the U.S. can join in support.

Given America’s history of waging wars of aggression and covert operations in the region, we are in no position to lead the way in resolving the current conflicts in Iraq and Syria. Regional players have the power to make a difference -- especially Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq’s own government. But at this juncture a U.S.-led military intervention would harm, not help, their ability to broker a solution.

The bottom line is that there is no simple American solution to this messy conflict, and anyone who says there is is deeply deluded.

5. Anti-war progressives can fight back. We did it a year ago and we can do it again, but we’ll need your help.

It was just over a year ago that Congress, under massive pressure from progressives across the country, rejected President Obama's proposal to launch airstrikes against Syria. Leaders in this fight included progressive members of Congress like Reps. Alan Grayson, Rick Nolan and Barbara Lee. CREDO was the first large progressive group to come out against bombing Syria, and CREDO members helped provide the massive grassroots pressure necessary to help them turn their colleagues against war.

Members of the House who were expected to rubberstamp the president's resolution authorizing military force in Syria received an unprecedented number of phone calls opposing strikes against Syria -- including almost 40,000 reported by CREDO members. One-by-one, members of Congress started to come out against the attack. While it was widely believed that the president and Majority Leader Harry Reid had the necessary votes in the Senate to approve bombing Syria, Democratic Senators Tom Udall and Chris Murphy stepped up and opposed a resolution authorizing military action in Syria in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The tide turned in the Senate, and soon the press was reporting that opposition outnumbered support by 2 to 1.

But since last fall when we successfully rejected war with Syria, war hawks have exploited ISIS's military successes and brutal crimes in Iraq and Syria, including the beheading of three journalists, to increase pressure on President Obama to go to war.

The only way to stop the march to war is to raise our voices again and make it clear to President Obama that his progressive base will not support war in Syria, or expanded conflict in Iraq. We’ve done it before, we can do it again -- anti-war progressives can cut through the hype and alarmism and put the brakes on our president's rush to war.

You’ll be hearing from us in the coming months asking you to take action to stop this next war -- from signing petitions and making phone calls, to organizing meetings with your representatives and hitting the streets in protest. It will take massive pushback, but if we fight together we can win.

It's going to take a full-court press from progressives to stop President Obama from starting a third Iraq war. And we need your help to pull it off.

If you haven’t signed and forwarded to your friends our petition to President Obama saying no to this war, do it now.

If you haven’t called all of your representatives in Congress and the White House, make a call now.

Share this update with your friends and family.

Chip in now to help CREDO launch a sustained campaign to stop this war before we once again have combat troops on the ground.
Thank you for all that you do.

Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

1. Paul Kane and Ed O'Keefe, "Senate votes to approve Obama’s plan to fight Islamist militants," The Washington Post, September 18, 2014
2. Alexander Bolton, "Senate Dems to debate force vote against ISIS after the election," The Hill, September 18, 2014
3. Stephen Braun, "Can Obama Wage War Without Consent of Congress?" AP, September 12, 2014
4. Eric Schmitt, Michael R. Gordon, and Helene Cooper, "Destroying ISIS May Take Years, U.S. Officials Say," September 7, 2014
5. Jeremy Herb, "Martin Dempsey: Ground troops possible," Politico, September 16, 2014
6. Alison Smale, "U.S. Army Chief Says Ground Troops Will Be Needed Against ISIS," New York Times, September 17, 2014
7. Peter Baker, "Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama," New York Times, September 13, 2014
8. Rogue Planas, "DHS Doesn't Think ISIS Is Plotting Attack Through U.S.-Mexico Border," Huffington Post, September 11, 2014
9. Michael Kieschnick, president of CREDO Mobile, "President Obama Is Right to Block the Genocidal ISIS and Hold the Kurdish Defense Line," Huffington Post, August 8, 2014


© 2014 CREDO. All rights reserved.

[Rafiq]

It is still important to understand that reactionary ideologies can be as responsive to social change as progressive ideologies, but that doesn't make them any less reactionary. They arise, almost by definition, as reactions to the forces of social change. This was arguably the story of the Prussian monarchy which Marx studied so closely for decades.

This is a very good point. It is undeniable that the forefarthers of ISIL - salafist Islamism was born as a result of the onslaught of globalized capitalism and the cultural changes of its implications.

Having said that, the problem with Islamism, or at least the Islamism of ISIS (and Al Queda) - is that it is not actually an organic expression of conservative, even reactionary classes in the Middle East. I remember Sasha linked an article which basically details how a western convert to Islam, upon studying in Pakistan - was given the advice by a conservative Muslim patriarch not to bother with the Jihadi adventures organized by Islamists. Even in Afghanistan, the reactionary tribal patriarchs and landowners are not necessarily predispoed to transnational Islamism. ISIL is not grounded in any legitimate, established and socially contextual religious establishment, which is why even the most vile of of the Muslim clergy are keen on condemning them.

The point is not that ISIL directly is a meaningful social expression. It is that ISIL is an ideological expression of Islamism as an ideology of capital - Islamism as an ideological universe which contends for control over the world state apparatus (much like Fascism). I great bulk of ISIL is compromised of foreign jihadis born of absolutely no social context in the region in which they operate. Even then, Islam was not nearly as much of a 'big deal' before the "Islamic revival" in the Middle East - the veil was rare in major sprawling cities (I remember reading that in Damascus, during the 1960's nay more a handful of women wore it), drinking was common and so forth - the pre-existing conservative Muslim elements either died off, or mutated into something like Salafist Islamism.

Islamism is certainly an affirmative ideological force. It may parasitically rely on the hegemony of globalized capitalism - but only up to a point. Paradoxically, this parasitic relationship becomes affirmative and no longer dependent on being a negative force. Certainly ISIL represents that there is ambiguity regarding the phenomena of Islamism - but it is still a result of the phenomena of Islamism which is distinctly a capitalist ideology. Islamism arose as a result of the incompetence of Liberal democracy as a viable apparatus for Near eastern capitalist society (directly as a result of the failure of 20th century Communism and the collapse of the Socialist bloc). Islamism is the paradox of the new world order, it is the ideological void that tears through the dream of the post-communist hegemony of Liberalism - it reveals the inconsistency, hypocrisy and overall falseness of claims that "Communism is dead".

The scary thing about Islamism is that it is distinctly not a pre-capitalist ideology - it is not residue of centuries old practices and customs waiting to be washed away by the social onslaught of capitalism - what is scary is that this Islamism irrevocably is one and the same with the social onslaught of global capitalism. It is a distinctly capitalist ideology with its own affirmative ideological universe that is capable of residing over a new capitalist society. The same darkness that spawned the American religious revival, the same darkness that gave rise to European national chauvinsim and neofascism, the same darkness that gave us the Ukrainian conflict gave us Islamism. It is the degeneracy of capitalist politics itself - it is the barbarism that Luxemburg spoke of, incomparable with anything we have known in the past (besides, of course, Fascism).

But again, it is important to know that Islamism is very ambiguous - besides cosmetically there is very little Iranian Islamism (which in turn means shia Islamism in general, as a rule, i.e. Shia Islamism being an extension of Iranian interests) has to do with Sunni Islamism (though they both resulted from very similar factors).

[Red Son]

UK parliament 'debating' air strikes on IS / ISIL -

bbc -dot -co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-29362884?live_variant=nonjs

Everyone, save Galloway, seems behind the notion that they constitute a enough of a threat to at least start bombing and even send in troops. Labour, Lib Dems and Tories all bleeting from the same 'just war' hymn sheet...yuck.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is a very good point. It is undeniable that the forefarthers of ISIL - salafist Islamism was born as a result of the onslaught of globalized capitalism and the cultural changes of its implications.

Having said that, the problem with Islamism, or at least the Islamism of ISIS (and Al Queda) - is that it is not actually an organic expression of conservative, even reactionary classes in the Middle East. I remember Sasha linked an article which basically details how a western convert to Islam, upon studying in Pakistan - was given the advice by a conservative Muslim patriarch not to bother with the Jihadi adventures organized by Islamists. Even in Afghanistan, the reactionary tribal patriarchs and landowners are not necessarily predispoed to transnational Islamism. ISIL is not grounded in any legitimate, established and socially contextual religious establishment, which is why even the most vile of of the Muslim clergy are keen on condemning them.

The point is not that ISIL directly is a meaningful social expression. It is that ISIL is an ideological expression of Islamism as an ideology of capital - Islamism as an ideological universe which contends for control over the world state apparatus (much like Fascism). I great bulk of ISIL is compromised of foreign jihadis born of absolutely no social context in the region in which they operate. Even then, Islam was not nearly as much of a 'big deal' before the "Islamic revival" in the Middle East - the veil was rare in major sprawling cities (I remember reading that in Damascus, during the 1960's nay more a handful of women wore it), drinking was common and so forth - the pre-existing conservative Muslim elements either died off, or mutated into something like Salafist Islamism.

Islamism is certainly an affirmative ideological force. It may parasitically rely on the hegemony of globalized capitalism - but only up to a point. Paradoxically, this parasitic relationship becomes affirmative and no longer dependent on being a negative force. Certainly ISIL represents that there is ambiguity regarding the phenomena of Islamism - but it is still a result of the phenomena of Islamism which is distinctly a capitalist ideology. Islamism arose as a result of the incompetence of Liberal democracy as a viable apparatus for Near eastern capitalist society (directly as a result of the failure of 20th century Communism and the collapse of the Socialist bloc). Islamism is the paradox of the new world order, it is the ideological void that tears through the dream of the post-communist hegemony of Liberalism - it reveals the inconsistency, hypocrisy and overall falseness of claims that "Communism is dead".

The scary thing about Islamism is that it is distinctly not a pre-capitalist ideology - it is not residue of centuries old practices and customs waiting to be washed away by the social onslaught of capitalism - what is scary is that this Islamism irrevocably is one and the same with the social onslaught of global capitalism. It is a distinctly capitalist ideology with its own affirmative ideological universe that is capable of residing over a new capitalist society. The same darkness that spawned the American religious revival, the same darkness that gave rise to European national chauvinsim and neofascism, the same darkness that gave us the Ukrainian conflict gave us Islamism. It is the degeneracy of capitalist politics itself - it is the barbarism that Luxemburg spoke of, incomparable with anything we have known in the past (besides, of course, Fascism).

But again, it is important to know that Islamism is very ambiguous - besides cosmetically there is very little Iranian Islamism (which in turn means shia Islamism in general, as a rule, i.e. Shia Islamism being an extension of Iranian interests) has to do with Sunni Islamism (though they both resulted from very similar factors).

Rafiq: If I understand you correctly (although I'm not sure I do), then I more or less agree that capitalist reaction gets dressed up in the reactionary ideology de jour, whether that be Islamic fundemantalism in the middle east or nationalism in eastern Europe.

But what does that analysis mean for the day to day struggle? Does it mean we should struggle against islamism the same way we struggle against, say, Tory-ism or neoliberalism in general?

Here I think there is a reason for distinguishing the two. A first, and perhaps some what reductionist, view is that the west and neoliberalism will operate as it does whether or not groups like ISIL exist. So the critique must go beyond the contingent reality that a bunch of nuts in the middle east have done what the western crazies have been doing for decades with fascism and whatnot.

But perhaps a more meaningful response is that ideologies like ISIL, much as racism, homophobia and other social discimination in the global north, require their own critique and "struggle against" which is rooted in identifying their "extra-capitalist" stronghold on the ideology of privileged groups within their societies. In other words, just as, say, the struggle against the American Christian Right cannot be reduced to an entirely economic struggle, so to cannot the struggle against groups like ISIL be entirely reduced to an anti-capitalist struggle. Understanding that we cannot "reduce" ISIL to capitalism any more than we can reduce, say, white supremacy to capitalism, this will open up new avenues of struggle against a group like ISIL that would not be available otherwise.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext...13930825001416


Thursday 20 Nov 2014 / Tehran - 19:21 / GMT - 15:51

Old FNA

Ar | En | Fa | Tr HomePolitico-DefenseWorld CupEconomySociety & CultureSci-TechWorldInterviews & CommentariesMultimedia All Stories

World

Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:55

Iraq Intel Report: US Planes Supplying ISIL with Weapons, Foodstuff
Iraq Intel Report: US Planes Supplying ISIL with Weapons, Foodstuff



TEHRAN (FNA)- Iraqi intelligence sources disclosed that US military planes have been supplying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Takfiri terrorists with weapons and foodstuff under the guise of air raids on militants' positions.
The Iraqi forces have found out that the US aircraft usually airdrop arms and food cargoes for ISIL militants who collect them on the ground, Asia news agency quoted Iraqi army's intelligence officers as saying.

"The Iraqi intelligence sources reiterated that the US military planes have airdropped several aid cargoes for ISIL terrorists to help them resist the siege laid by the Iraqi army, security and popular forces," added the report.

On Saturday, Iraqi security sources disclosed that the ISIL terrorist group is using the state-of-the-art weapons which are only manufactured by the US and each of their bullets are worth thousands of dollars.

"What is important is that the US sends these weapons to only those that cooperate with the Pentagon and this indicates that the US plays a role in arming the ISIL," an Iraqi security source told FNA.

The source noted that the most important advantage of the US-made weapons used by the ISIL is that "these bullets pierce armored vehicles and kill the people inside the vehicle".

He said each of such bullets is worth $2,000, and added, "These weapons have killed many Iraqi military and volunteer forces so far."

The crisis in Iraq escalated after the ISIL militants took control of Mosul in a lightning advance on June 10, which was followed by the fall of Tikrit, located 140 kilometers (87 miles) Northwest of the capital, Baghdad.

Soldiers of the Iraqi army, popular forces and Kurdish Pishmarga troops have been engaged in heavy fighting with the militants on different fronts and have so far been able to push them back in several areas.











Related News
Source: ISIL Using US-Made Weapons
LATEST STORIES (44)
Bottom
Nazis With Beards, Hats & Dual Citizenship
Ferguson Chaos: Government Stereotyping African-Americans as Violent
French Militants Appear in New ISIL Video
London Student Demonstration Sees Arrests, Scuffles
Iranian Deputy FM Calls for Enhanced Economic Cooperation with Afghanistan
Official: Vietnam Eager to Continue Growing Cooperation with Iran
Iran, Kyrgyzstan Discuss Development of Economic Ties
US Unrest: Several Arrests in Ferguson
White House Orders Review of US Hostage Policy Following ISIL Executions
Speaker: Even Americans Admit Iran's Influential Role in Region
Iran Launches Hectic Diplomacy over Oil Prices
Nuclear Chief: Agreement with Russia Gives Iran Upper Hand in Talks with Powers
Swedish Court Rejects Assange Appeal to Revoke Arrest Warrant
Iran, Serbia Underscore Broadening of Economic Ties
Iraqi Forces Regain Control over Several Villages in Anbar
top 




Sections
HomeWorldPolitico-DefenseInterviewsEconomyMultimediaSociety & CultureAll StoriesSci-Tech
About
About us
Contact us

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

"News on US Imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order" lol.

Why wouldn't this source name the weapon that uses these $2000 bullets? Seems like an odd thing to leave out

[John Nada]

Why wouldn't this source name the weapon that uses these $2000 bullets? Seems like an odd thing to leave out

It's the US military. They have $80 hammers, buying $2000 bullets wouldn't be too far out there.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I have no doubt, It's just interesting that they somehow know how much the US pays for the bullet but apparently don't know the name of the weapon itself

[ckaihatsu]

Update / clarification on my position:

It's good to have a *general* anti-U.S.-war line regarding Iraq and Syria, in the sense of not infringing on the national sovereignty of those countries, such as they are.

But I remain very concerned with the expansionism of ISIS / ISIL, as with its newly founded 'Caliphate', and its religious fundamentalism and social intolerance generally. I don't think it's glib to term it a religious-style *fascism*, which is only going to fester and worsen as the black-hole of international politics in a worldwide worsening economic situation.

For *this* context I am taking a decidedly *neutral* position regarding U.S. / imperialist incursions against ISIS, because I think the Western powers are best-equipped to intervene in that situation, even though the actuality happens to be far less than what the Obama Administration promised, according to news reports -- see post #65.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...appears-to-ebb


After Making Waves In 2014, ISIS' Power Appears To Ebb

JANUARY 03, 2015 5:18 PM ET

Alice Fordham
ALICE FORDHAM

Twitter Instagram
Listen to the Story
All Things Considered 4 min 21 sec
Playlist
Download
Transcript


Iraqi crowds cheer as the countdown and fireworks begin during a New Year's Day celebration at Firdos Square in Baghdad on Wednesday.

Hadi Mizban/AP

In the heat of summer in 2014, Baghdad was spooked. A third of Iraq was under the control of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS. The extremist group thrived in the chaos of the Syrian civil war, then surged over the border into Iraq and took over the cities of Mosul and Tikrit. People worried the capital might be next.

Six months on, that's changed. On New Year's Eve, for instance, the usual midnight curfew was lifted and people partied in the streets and uploaded videos of themselves letting off fireworks.

Baghdadis say that change is because they feel the pushback against ISIS has begun in earnest.

"We're always optimistic, looking for the best," says Alia al-Taiee, at a Baghdad book market. What's encouraged her is a mass mobilization of volunteers to fight the extremists.

ISIS is a Sunni Muslim group; most of those who volunteered to fight against them were Shiite. But Alia and her sister Khaha want people from every religion and ethnicity in Iraq to sign up: Sunnis, Christians and Yazidis.

And of course, the fight against ISIS hasn't come just from Iraqis, or even just from their Iranian military allies. Over Iraq and Syria, since September, American warplanes have led a coalition's efforts to cripple ISIS with bombings. Now, Americans are training Iraqi troops to fight ISIS and say they'll do the same with the rebels they back in Syria.

Analyst Hisham al-Hashemi reckons the airstrikes have already had an impact.

"The coalition targeted some of the leadership at the organizational level," Hashemi says. "This has been the most painful attack on ISIS."

Hashemi says the group has lost three senior leaders and mid-level commanders. It's more difficult for them to move around freely, and oil fields — key sources of funding — have taken a pounding. Plus, his sources tell him the number of foreigners volunteering to join them has slumped.

"There are 80 percent fewer Arab and foreign recruits," he says. "ISIS lost all of this since the coalition announced the war."

U.S. commanders say they're debating hard with Iraqi counterparts about when to push ground troops into the ISIS-occupied areas — maybe the spring.

Maj. Gen. Dana Pittard thinks the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, the most populous ISIS-controlled city, should be taken back fast.

"We're just getting indications of morale problems," Pittard says. "And with the people that are in Mosul and seeing [ISIS], they say it's not more than a thousand there now; certainly no more than 2,000."

Pittard also says the extremists are losing local support because the people in Mosul are finding that ISIS does not govern very well. Analysts reckon the group's cachet depends on its being able to govern. But Pittard says in Mosul, Iraqi Kurdish soldiers have cut off ISIS' crucial supply lines so they can't provide fuel and clean water.

"They are clearly on the defensive, except a couple [of] tactical ambushes and a couple of small tactical counterattacks," he says, "but other than that, it's not like what we saw in June at all."

The extremists themselves constantly issue propaganda with ambitious plans for expansion and global attacks. As the international efforts to stop them get more organized, that's looking more farfetched. However, Iraqi analyst Hashemi says that doesn't mean they can't cause harm.

"They have more than 20,000 fighters in Iraq directly engaged in warfare and more than 40,000 fighters in sleeper cells," he says.

Under pressure, Hashemi thinks the group could go back underground, focusing on insurgent tactics like bombings. Meanwhile, in Syria, U.S.-led training of ground forces to fight ISIS is much slower, and complicated by the messy civil war there.

The group is likely to be weakened in 2015, but no one is betting on them being defeated entirely.

[ckaihatsu]

F.y.i., there's an exchange about this thread's subject matter at another thread, starting with this post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...2&postcount=18

[RevUK]

Update / clarification on my position:

It's good to have a *general* anti-U.S.-war line regarding Iraq and Syria, in the sense of not infringing on the national sovereignty of those countries, such as they are.

But I remain very concerned with the expansionism of ISIS / ISIL, as with its newly founded 'Caliphate', and its religious fundamentalism and social intolerance generally. I don't think it's glib to term it a religious-style *fascism*, which is only going to fester and worsen as the black-hole of international politics in a worldwide worsening economic situation.

For *this* context I am taking a decidedly *neutral* position regarding U.S. / imperialist incursions against ISIS, because I think the Western powers are best-equipped to intervene in that situation, even though the actuality happens to be far less than what the Obama Administration promised, according to news reports -- see post #65.

Yet ISIS has some support among the local population because the Iraqi national government is a kleptocratic sectarian mess.

[Ravn]

I agree with this but even if America still feels the need to be there they should atleast do a good job or try too..

You want the fox to do a better job at pretending to guard the hen house?

[ckaihatsu]

[LaborTech] Turkish Government Allows Fundamentalist Islamic Websites While Cracking Down On Left Websites

Turkish Government Allows Fundamentalist Islamic Websites While Cracking Down On Left
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/wo...ship.html?_r=0

Islamist Websites in Turkey Manage to Evade Strict Internet Censorship

By TIM ARANGOMARCH 13, 2015


A hallmark of the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been a crackdown on freedom of expression.CreditBurhan Ozbilici/Associated Press

ISTANBUL — The websites of an atheist association, the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a Kurdish separatist organization are blocked to Turkish Internet users. But many sites that promote extreme Islamist messages — even some that are outright sympathetic to the Islamic State, the militant organization that has marauded through Iraq and Syria — escape Turkey’s censors.

A hallmark of the decade-long leadership of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Islamist Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., has been a crackdown on freedom of expression. Yet what Turkey chooses to censor reflects the Islamist values of the government, critics say. With the rise of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, this dynamic has been set in sharp relief, highlighting the deep divide between Turkey and its Western allies in the fight against the militants.


The presidential palace in Ankara. Experts check President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s meals in a lab in the building.In Turkey, Testing the President’s Food Not for Taste, but for PoisonMARCH 4, 2015
The contradictions are often striking, as Turkey largely maintains a hands-off approach to extremist Islamist expression while widely cracking down on other speech. Last year, for instance, Twitter fielded more requests from Turkey to remove material than from any other country. And lately, a beauty queen, a top newspaper editor, an actor, a teenage boy and dozens of others have been targeted by prosecutors for insulting Mr. Erdogan.

At the same time, one prominent site, Takva Haber, a widely used forum for recruiting Turks to the Islamic State, operates freely. It is also a popular news site for jihadists, and it recently offered tips to fighters in Iraq and Syria about how to avoid being spotted by drones from the American-led coalition carrying out an air campaign against the militants.

“It sparked curiosity in me and guided me to the forums where people provide information about the recruitment process and logistics,” said Can, a 27-year-old from Ankara, the capital, who had joined the Islamic State and then defected, speaking on condition that he be identified only by his middle name, out of fear of reprisals.

“The ISIS Internet community in Turkey is big and has a big following,” he said. “That’s how everyone comes together and communicates. If we all met on the street, people would notice.”

American officials have sharply criticized Turkey for doing little to aid the fight against the Islamic State, denying coalition planes an air base for strikes in Syria and Iraq and standing by while the militants attacked the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani. American diplomats say the reluctance is attributable in part to the government’s dependence in this Sunni nation on a deep well of religious conservatism that bridles at assisting in attacks against a Sunni group, even one as brutal as the Islamic State.

But allowing militant websites to flourish is problematic, analysts say, alienating allies and, at worst, opening the government to accusations of tacitly collaborating with the militants.

“Leaving the ISIS propaganda to flourish is equivalent to endorsement,” said David L. Phillips, the director of the Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University and a former State Department official who has researched Turkey’s policy on the Islamic State.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Turkey’s reluctance to crack down on militant websites also reflects the government’s view that the primary enemy in Syria is the government of President Bashar al-Assad, not the Islamic State. Turkey has also opposed efforts by Kurds within Syria to secure an autonomous region, fearing it would embolden Turkey’s restive Kurdish minority.

“They continue to be more concerned with Assad and Kurdish separatism than they are about ISIS,” said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Haass said Turkey’s reluctance to go after Islamic State-related websites is consistent with a “domestic tolerance” within Turkey toward the group.

The government’s priorities in the arena of censorship are protecting “the reputation of political figures” and religious defamation cases, such as the decision to block the Charlie Hebdo website, said Yaman Akdeniz, a cyberlaw expert and professor at Istanbul’s Bilgi University who is advising the legal teams defending the beauty queen and the atheist association.

“The censorship is in line with government sensitivities and matters that make them uncomfortable,” he said.

A senior government official, speaking anonymously as a matter of protocol, refused to address the issue of what is censored and what is not, at least not directly. “The regulation of the Internet is a very technical matter that involves many different factors, from citizen complaints to court orders,” he said. “The government doesn’t sit around a big table and make decisions on what should and shouldn’t be blocked.”

Susan Corke, the director of Eurasia programs at Freedom House, an advocacy group that promotes freedom of expression, said that the government’s censorship priorities were quite evident. “Apparently,” she wrote in an email, “that means blocking sites it deems offensive like those promoting atheism, but being tolerant of radical Islamist sites like Takva Haber.”

In addition to Takva Haber and countless Twitter accounts that promote the Islamic State, there is the work of Ebu Hanzala, a Turkish Salafist cleric who is sometimes called the “spiritual leader” of the militant group within Turkey. He has been arrested several times over the years — once on suspicion of planning attacks on synagogues in Istanbul, other times in raids targeting Al Qaeda — but he is free today, and his online magazine promotes Shariah law. While he does not explicitly promote the Islamic State, his teachings have helped inspire recruits.

Speaking in New York last week at the Council on Foreign Relations, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was asked by Mr. Haass about what appeared to be the contradiction of his participation in a march in Paris after the attack in January on Charlie Hebdo’s offices and Turkey’s record of censorship.

Mr. Davutoglu said, “Freedom of speech, that does not mean freedom of insult.”

Asked who decides what expression to censor and what to allow, Mr. Davutoglu said, “The social values decides.”

Turkey was no paragon of free speech under its old secular and nationalist system, although, then, the frequent offense was to insult notions of “Turkishness.” Now the government focuses on speech it deems insulting to Islam or the president, or that promotes atheism.

“Social values in Turkey today are Islamist values,” Mr. Phillips said. “The A.K.P. sees itself as the enforcer of Turkey’s values.”

Ceylan Yeginsu contributed reporting.