US Defense Minister Ashton Carter announces 200 more troops for Syria

(December 10)Manama - US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that another 200 troops will go to Syria in order to aid an offensive by Kurdish and Arab fighters, the Syria Democratic Forces (SDF), to free the city of Raqqa a stronghold of the Islamic State(IS) in Syria.

Speaking in Manama, the capital of Bahrain, Carter said: "I can tell you today that the United States will deploy approximately 200 additional US forces in Syria." There already are 300 US special forces operating in Syria backing the SDF troops. The offensive began in recent weeks and is taking place at the same time as an offensive against the IS-held city of Mosul in Syria. These two cities are the last two urban centers held by the IS after the Libyan city of Sirte fell to Libyan forces just recently. Their other Libyan stronghold of Derna was won by rival Islamist groups earlier this year. Carter said that bomb disposal experts, and trainers, will be included with the special forces. The IS have used car bombs, booby traps, and mines as well as snipers as they have put up fierce resistance when attacked in what they term is their caliphate. The US has used extensive airstrikes to help the advancing SDF forces. Carter said: “By combining our capabilities with those of our local partners, we’ve been squeezing Isis by applying simultaneous pressure from all sides and across domains, through a series of deliberate actions to continue to build momentum."

Carter criticized other Middle East partners for not adding more military support for the fight against the IS while themselves complaining about US efforts: “I would ask you to imagine what US military and defence leaders think when they have to listen to complaints sometimes that we should do more, when it’s plain to see that all too often, the ones complaining aren’t doing enough themselves.” He said it was reasonable that the US should expect regional powers opposed to the IS and other extremists in the Middle East to do more to help fight them. Carter said of the additional troops that they would "continue organizing, training, equipping and otherwise enabling capable, motivated local forces".

Carter also said that if Sunni regional powers were concerned about Iran's influence in the region they needed to become more involved in the area: “The fact is, if countries in the region are worried about Iran’s destabilising activities – a concern the United States shares – they need to get in the game. That means getting serious about starting to partner more with each other, and investing in the right capabilities for the threat.” Saudi Arabia has been busy intervening in the Yemen civil war on behalf of the former government, which until recently was in exile in Saudi Arabia, with disastrous humanitarian results. The opposition Houthi rebels are supported by Iran. Carter said that President Obama had approved sending the extra troops.

Carter said that Russian intervention in the Syrian war had "only inflamed the civil war and prolonged suffering". Russia's intervention not only appears to have saved the Assad regime but to have enabled it to achieve a major victory in Aleppo which may have turned the tide against the rebels supported by the US and many Arab states.

The US support for the Kurdish fighters is complicated by the fact that even though the US considers them to be the most effective partners of the US, they are viewed by Turkey, a US ally, as a terrorist threat. The US has slowly been increasing the number of its troops both in Iraq and Syria since 2014. Troops have not had a direct combat role. This could result in casualties and a negative political reaction within the US. Their main role is as advisors to Sunni fighters and Kurdish militia.

Carter noted that US strategy was to divide IS territory and taking out its leadership:"Leaders of the terrorist group can no longer travel between Raqqa and Mosul without the risk of either being struck from the air or hunted down by the coalition’s Expeditionary Targeting Force. In fact, since we began accelerating our campaign last year, we’ve killed the majority of ISIL’s most senior leaders.”

US Secretary of State, John Kerry is in Paris meeting with EU and Arab foreign ministers to discuss the situation in Syria. He is due to hold talks with Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister. Kerry said he was tired of trying to negotiate with the Russians. Kerry complained:“I know people are tired of these meetings. I’m tired of these meetings. And people are sort of: ‘Oh, another meeting. OK. This one will end the same way the other one did.’ I get it, folks... But what am I supposed to do? Go home and have a nice weekend in Massachusetts while people are dying? Sit there in Washington and do nothing? That’s not the way you do business.”

With the Assad regime appearing near victory in Aleppo, negotiations may be difficult. The UN special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, said that even if Assad takes all of Aleppo the war will not end. He said a serious discussion about the political future of Syria was the only way to peace.

US trying to negotiate a role for Turkey in Mosul offensive

(October 22) Ashton Carter, U.S. Secretary of Defence said that he was confident that Turkey would be able to play a role in the offensive designed to liberate the city of Mosul from the Islamic State.

After a visit to Turkey, Carter said:

"I think there is agreement there in principle. Iraq understands that Turkey as a member of the counter-ISIL (IS) coalition will play a role in counter-ISIL operations in Iraq and secondly that Turkey since it neighbours the region of Mosul has an interest (in) the ultimate outcome in Mosul. I am confident that we can work things out and there are things that would be productive for Turkey to do and we just need to work through these practicalities."

A senior US official said that Turkey could provide medical or humanitarian support or train Iraqi forces. Relationships between Turkey and the Iraqi federal government have been strained. Baghdad has called for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Iraq. The troops are stationed at Bashiga near Mosul at the invitation of the Kurdish regional government. Turkey is concerned that the Mosul operation will be spearhead by Shiite militias and also perhaps by some of the Kurdish groups it opposes. Mosul has many Sunni inhabitants.

Turkey had earlier expressed frustration that as a NATO member it has not been asked to be involved in the offensive on Mosul. Mosul was once part of the Ottoman Empire and is still seen by president Erdogan as within the Turkish sphere of influence. However, Iraq is concerned with any attempts by Turkey to expand its influence into Iraq. The Mosul area may also be a source of friction with the Kurdish regional government as the area is rich in oil resources.

Carter made it clear that the exact role of Turkey in the campaign had not yet been worked out. Carter voiced conditional support for Turkey playing some role in the offensive. The Turkish Defence Minister Fikri Isik, who met with Carter, also claimed that there was agreement in principle on Turkish involvement in "determining the future of Mosul". He also said that the US, Turkey, and Iraq should work together on the issue in order to reduce tensions between Ankara and Baghdad.

Carter met also with Binali Yildirim, the Turkish Prime Minister. Earlier this week Yildirim insisted that Turkish jets woulld be deployed at some point during the offensive against Mosul. Mosul is around five times the size of any other city that the IS has been able to hold. The US is also raising the issue of Turkish participation in regular talks with the Iraqi leaderhip. Turkey is already angry at the US for its support for the Syrian Kurdish YPG which has become a key ally for the US fight against IS in Syria whereas Turkey considers the YPG a terrorist group.

The US hopes that Turkey will agree to some role in the Mosul offensive that will not anger Baghdad such as medical and humanitarian support, as mentioned earlier. Iraqi officials have made it clear they do not want Turkey involved in the ground invasion.

Committee of US House of Representatives passes bill to directly arm Kurds

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee approved a law permitting sending arms and other supplies directly to Kurdish Peshmerga troops operating in northern Iraq.

At present any deliveries of weapons and supplies must be routed through the central government in Baghdad. Representative Ed Royce, a California Republican, accused the Baghdad central government of routinely delaying delivery of arms to the Kurdish peshmerga forces: "This legislation cuts through the bureaucratic tape to get arms, training and medicine directly to Kurdish forces."

The Obama government does not back the legislation since they claim it is not necessary as weapons are already being sent directly to the Kurds from both the U.S. and other countries. Critics disagree, noting Masrour Barzani, the Kurdish chief of intelligence, told the Wall Street Journal that the Kurds had not received the kind of equipment they want or the amount needed — they also often run short of ammunition. Royce introduced a similar bill last year but it failed to pass. This March he reintroduced it. The bill has 49 co-sponsors including 35 Republicans but also 14 Democrats.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter explained how arms and supplies are sent directly to the Kurds: "The mechanism by which that works is there is customs approval by the Iraqi government ... but there's no delay. A large number of arms and other kinds of equipment have reached the Iraqi Kurds from us and, I think I should say, by 12 other countries."Carter did admit arms to be sent to Sunni forces battling the Islamic State move "much more slowly, frustratingly through the Iraqi government." Note the shipments to the Kurds do not go directly to Kurdistan but first must go through customs at Baghdad. There have been delays at that stage. For example, a Canadian transport plane was held in Baghdad for several days and eventually sent back to Kuwait. It had a shipment of arms and equipment for the Kurds.

The White House is no doubt concerned that it does not anger further the Iraqi central government. Baghdad worries about the increasing Kurdish incursion into territory that formerly was outside of Kurdistan. When the Islamic State routed Iraqi troops, the Kurds occupied Kirkuk and area and declared it part of Kurdistan even though before it had not been part of the nation. More recently, when with the help of U.S. bombing and U.S. special forces, the Kurds retook Sinjar, they also declared it a part of Kurdistan, a position that angers the central government. The Iraqi government has also reacted angrily to Carter's announcement that he is sending more U.S. special forces to Iraq. Just a few days ago Iraq demanded that Turkey withdraw new troops it sent to northern Iraq. The Iraqi government is becoming more and more concerned that not only is its sovereignty being violated but the Kurds are carving out new territory for an autonomous if not independent Iraqi Kurdistan. No doubt some international corporations might be happy to deal with Kurdistan rather than Iraq. Global oil companies could probably sign more lucrative deals for oil exploration and development with Kurdistan compared to Iraq. We can expect the Iraqi government will try to foster even stronger relations with Russia and Iran to counteract U.S. and western influence.

Iraq objects to US sending more special forces

Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Ashton Carter announced he would send special operations forces into Iraq to assist local troops in fighting the Islamic State.

Carter said at the time:

 “In full coordination with the government of Iraq, we’re deploying a specialized expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces to put even more pressure on ISIL.”The U.S. had announced earlier it was sending about 50 special operations troops to Syria. An Al Jazeera reporter Rosalind Jordan reporting from Washington said:"We don't know yet how many forces are going to be deployed.The Iraqi government wants US troops to be helping with the effort and move ISIL off its territory."

In spite of the U.S. claim that sending the troops had been coordinated with the Iraqi government and other claims of the Iraqi government asking for the troops, the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi reacted to the announcement in a manner suggesting there had been no coordination with the government:"The Iraqi government stresses that any military operation or the deployment of any foreign forces - special or not - in any place in Iraq cannot happen without its approval and coordination and full respect of Iraqi sovereignty."

He also said Iraq did not need foreign ground troops and had not requested that any foreign nation send any. Al-Abadi claimed Iraq would regard any foreign country sending troops into the country as a hostile act, if it were not approved by the Iraqi government. Iraq has already demanded that Turkey withdraw troops it sent to northern Iraq.

The reason for Abadi's objections to the deployment probably lie in the political situation in Iraq. There are a large number of Shi'ite militias who are a powerful political influence. They do not want Americans on the ground in Iraq and have even warned that they could shift to fighting U.S. troops rather than the Islamic State, according to one article. If Abadi does not want to be seen as at the beck and call of the U.S., he needs to be careful. He may have actually been consulted by the U.S., as claimed, but he now has to change his tune to escape strong political opposition. Apparently the U.S. thinks it can work around Abadi's objections. He has been a close ally of the U.S. so far as he can be. Iraqi MP Sami Askari, an ally of Abadi, suggested the U.S. could just add 100 or more troops at a time but without making any public announcement, and no one would reject this. It remains to be seen if Iraq will demand the U.S. special forces be withdrawn. It seems unlikely.

On the appended video, it is clear the U.S. administration does not want to speak of a combat role for troops in Iraq, even though the special forces are clearly involved in combat. Carter says the new role is just an extension of the advise and assist role of the several thousand troops already in Iraq. However, the extension even as described on the video involves a combat role.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/op-ed-iraq-objects-to-deployment-of-us-special-forces-in-iraq/article/451475#ixzz3u80WkTfV

In spite of denials US has changed policy to allow combat roles for troops in Iraq

Last week, a U.S. special forces team together with Kurdish Peshmerga freed 70 hostages from an Islamic State compound in the north of Iraq. They also called in airstrikes that destroyed the compound.

+ Add Image

Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler was fatally injured during a firefight with IS fighters during the raid. The action was obviously a combat mission. Obama has constantly insisted that there will be no boots on the ground in Iraq engaged in combat. Those U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq are there to advise and train Iraqi forces. When U.S. troops have come under fire in the past, this has been explained as happening as part of the training role. However, in the recent action the US forces were obviously actively involved and even called in air support.

At first the action was called a unique case, but later Defense Secretary Ashton Carter promised more such attacks, contradicting the earlier explanation. On Tuesday, Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that that the U.S. will begin direct action on the ground against the Islamic State(ISIL):

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground,"Even though these attacks are clearly combat missions, Carter insisted that such a raid "represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission." If this is so, the administration's insistence that the mission did not involve combat was incorrect.

Senator Jim Inhofe, who represents Oklahoma Wheeler's constituency said:“While the (Obama) administration declared an official end to our combat mission in Iraq in 2011, Oklahomans and our nation are reminded today that combat is still a reality for our all-volunteer force in the Middle East.”

Nevertheless, Carter continues to insist the U.S. policy is not changed and that there will no U.S. combat role on the ground in Iraq. Sending special forces troops into combat "doesn't represent us assuming a combat role."

The best one can say about this, is that Carter is making the point that there are not regular troops sent to Iraq to engage in combat on the ground. Still, that special forces units are now involved in what are clearly combat missions in Iraq directly contradicts Obama's promise that no U.S. troops will wage combat missions on the ground in Iraq as shown on the appended video.

US paying Syrian rebel recruits up to $400 per month

The US is now paying the rebels it is training to fight Islamic State militants in Syria. Training of the first 90 fighters began in May.

+ Add Image

Navy Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a Pentagon spokesperson said that the trainees would receive $250 to $400 per month. Training of the first group of about 90 fighters began last month. They will be paid stipends of $250 to $400 per month. The amount paid will depend on the skills, leadership, and performance displayed. Training is expected to take several months before they are sent to Syria. Smith did not say how many were being trained at present. She also said that there would be no announcement when the rebels enter Syria.

Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter, said in May that the recruits would receive some compensation but did not give any amounts. Colonel Steve Warren, a Defense Department spokesperson, said that up to 200 Syrian fighters were undergoing training and that a further 1,500 had been screened for training. Smith said that the Pentagon's target was to have 3,000 recruits trained by the end of this year and 5,400 for a 12 month period. The training is taking place in countries bordering Syria including Jordan. There are about 6,000 Syrians who volunteered to take part in the program with more than 4,000 waiting to be vetted.

Carter said that the Pentagon was having difficulty in finding good recruits as well in Iraq to train to fight the Islamic State there. While Iraqi and Kurdish forces have regained some ground with the Iraqi government retaking Tikrit, another city Ramadi has been taken by the Islamic State.

In Syria, there seems to be a division of financing with the US financing moderate rebels while Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding radical Islamists including the Al-Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front. While the US claims to be troubled by funding of the militants against Assad, they themselves are considering extending the concept of moderate rebels, and now any group not associated with the Islamic State may become the new moderates as James Clapper, US Director of National Intelligence suggested recently. While countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia appear to make defeating Assad a first priority, the US is concentrating on defeating the Islamic State first.

Saudi with UK residency likely to be released from Guantanamo soon

Shaker Aamer, a Saudi with residency status in Britain, is expected to be released from Guantanamo in June. He has a British wife and four children in London.

+ Add Image

The UK has made repeated requests for Aamer's release. The 48-year-old Aamer is accused of having been a key recruiter and financier for Al Qaeda while in Britain and to have worked for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. However, he has been held in Guantanamo for 13 years without charge. A US government officialtold AFP that Aamer would be released along with up to 10 other detainees.

A new commander Rear Admiral Fernandez Ponds will take over the command of the facility in July. There are still 122 men held prisoner. 57 have been classified as "releasable" by a review committee, including Aamer. Obama promised to close the prison even during his first presidential campaign. Congress has continually blocked Obama's attempts to take actions that could lead to closing the base. The base is technically Cuban territory but has been leased from Cuba since 1903 at a cost of just over $4,000 annually but the Cuban revolutionary government has refused to cash the checks. Cuba considers the lease arrangement not binding. Recent normalization of relations with Cuba do not include the return of the base to Cuba. Recently considerable investment and upgrades to the base have been made indicating the prison is not likely to close for some time even if the plan is to transfer the 57 cleared for release out of the facility Lieutenant Colonel Myles Caggins, a Pentagon spokesperson said: "The goal is to transfer all 57. We're going to support the president's mission of closing Guantanamo through transfers of detainees and prosecutions through military commissions,"The transfer of the ten in June would be after a thirty day notice period to the US Congress and then Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, would sign off on the transfer.

48 of those to be transferred are Yemenis who will not be repatriated in spite of continual protests for them to be returned to Yemen. With the present conflict in Yemen, the US will be even less likely to allow them back to Yemen. The US has had trouble finding host countries but Uruguay accepted a number and Oman, Estonia, Slovakia, and Georgia have also accepted prisoners. The one place you can be sure will not accept them is the United States which jailed them in the first place.

Campaigners in the UK for Aamer's release were heartened by the news but noted that Aamer had been cleared for release eight years ago by the Bush administration and then again under Obama in 2009 but nothing has happened. Karla McLaren, of Amnesty International in the UK, noted: ‘These reports are obviously encouraging but we’ve been here before.There have been so many false dawns over the release of Shaker that we won’t believe it until a plane bringing him back actually touches down here in Britain. Guantanamo has always been a complete travesty of justice and whoever is in government must ensure... Shaker is returned to his family as soon as possible if he’s not going to be charged.’

Supporters of Aamer claim that he was detained in Kabul in 2001 while doing volunteer work for an Islamic charity. They say he was handed over to US military in exchange for money and then tortured at a secret "black site" prison. He denies accusations he helped finance Al Qaeda. Aamer wants to return to the UK but Washington wants to send him to Saudi Arabia. He fears he would be tortured there. Given that he has a wife and four children in the UK it surely makes sense to send him there. Aamer's lawyer say UK and US authorities want to silence Aamer who claims to have witnessed abuse in the presence of UK security official.The Daily Mail in the UK has long campaigned on behalf of Aamer. Aamer's family says that if he comes to the UK he will be quite willing to face a UK to answer any charges he is a dangerous extremist. Apparently, Washington does not want that either.

The Mail discovered documents that showed, David Milliband, when foreign secretary in the Labor government, had plotted to hand Aamer over to Saudi authorities if he were released while leading his UK family to believe he was trying to have him returned to them in Britain. It will be interesting to see where Aamer ends up, in the UK, or Saudi Arabia. Given past experience he may even end up staying in Guantanamo. The appended video deals with another detainee in Guantanamo who wrote and published a diary about his experiences in the facility well over 12 years.

Academic hawk Ashton Carter Obama's likely choice for new defense secretary

Ashton Carter is now widely seen as Obama's choice for defense secretary after Obama's reportedly more favored candidate Jeh Johnson of Homeland Security and others indicated they were not interested in the position.

Carter has plenty of experience in government, the private sector, as well as academia. Although a Democrat, he was active during the Bush era: During the Bush administration, he was also a member of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's International Security Advisory Board, co-chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Policy Advisory Group, a consultant to the Defense Science Board, a member of the National Missile Defense White Team, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control. Carter was responsible for oversight of a number of very expensive weapons development projects that included the F-35. Although many claim he was quite active in attempting to cut costs, others note that there were still questionable weapons programs on Ashton's watch.
 In response to Ashton's constant criticisms of defense spending reductions caused by the sequester conditions, Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress said: "Carter grossly exaggerates the reduction to the level of defense spending caused by the budget control act. Sequestration resulted in part from the inefficient and unsound choices the Pentagon has made over the past decade, much of it occurring on Carter's own watch,"
Ashton strongly supports a policy of pre-emptive military action. In 2006 he suggested that the Bush administration should attack North Korea before it developed an intercontinental ballistic missile. He is very much concerned with the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction WMD's. He even wanted the war on terror to be renamed as a war on WMDs. Ashton argued that the Iraq war was justified because at the time the administration thought that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He is also hawkish on Iran and favors military action if diplomacy does not work. He would not even allow a civilian Iranian program which he claims would still be a threat to the region.
On the other hand, Ashton is all for the US modernizing its nuclear weapons and there are plans for huge expenditures in the area. Joe Cirincione of Project Ploughsares notes that Ashton will be in a tough spot: “He inherits plans for spending $1 trillion on new nuclear weapons over the next 30 years but not the money to pay for them. He doesn't want to cut the contracts, but he can't afford them either."
Given his hawkish stance and promotion of defense spending Ashton appeals to many Republicans including John McCain, who will be next chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. McCain told Bloomberg that Carter and he had similar ideas on several different issues saying of Carter: “Working together, if you are not having to fight the Pentagon, if you’ve got the leader actively working towards the same goal, that’s immensely helpful."
 Ashton is a typical representative of the revolving door that sees senior government officials go into the corporate world and then back again. In Ashton's case the door led back into academia as well: In between his government appointments, he has served as the chairman of the Harvard Kennedy School's global affairs faculty and as co-chair of its Preventative Defense Project. Carter also has extensive experience in the corporate world, having served as a senior partner at Global Technology Partners, a member of the board of trustees for the MITRE Corporation, and an adviser to Goldman Sachs.[24] He also serves on the the Advisory Boards of MIT's Lincoln Laboratories and the Draper Laboratory. As of September 2014, Carter was serving as a senior executive director at the Markle Foundation. Carter's work at Markle is focused on "advancing transformative strategies that use technology and globalization to help all Americans flourish in the economy of a networked world." These connections serve to link corporate profit, academia, and government policy.