IS in fierce battle with Iraqi forces to control town of Baiji and refinery

The battle for the town of Baiji and the nearby Baiji refinery, the largest in Iraq, began last year in December as Iraqi forces with US air support launched an offensive to retake the facility.

+ Add Image

While the refinery was taken by Iraqi forces back in November, it was left with inadequate troops to guard it and was retaken by the Islamic State. The battle for control of the town and refinery began last December. The situation has remained fluid with different areas changing hands several times. On April 23, just shortly after the US and Iraqi government announced that the refinery had been secured and cleared of IS fighters, it was revealed that IS militants were actually still inside the facility. The situation is much worse now.

After an offensive, the IS controls large areas within the refinery and the Iraqi troops remaining are trapped and surrounded. All supply routes to the troops are now cut off. IS fighters have dug and occupied trenches around storage tanks and the refinery making it difficult to bomb them without destroying the facility completely and starting disastrous fires. The refinery has not been operating since last June and would require considerable repairs to restart. An Iraqi colonel said that up to two thirds of the refinery area was under IS control and air strikes could destroy the refinery. Pentagon spokesperson, Colonel Steve Warren, said that the fighting was "flowing in the wrong direction" but that it was impossible to predict how the battle would turn out. Those trapped in the facility include 200 policemen, soldiers, and elite special forces according to an officer at the scene. The appended video by the Islamic State shows them operating within the facility.

General Martin Dempsey stressed last month that the capture of the refinery and the nearby town of Baiji would not only deprive IS of revenue but the capture of the town was crucial for plans to capture the larger city of Mosul. Some analysts question the value of the facility given that it is not operational and is difficult for either side to hold. IS has lost many fighters and considerable equipment in their offensive.

A source within the Salahuddin Operations Command said:"We have to retake Siniya and Baiji towns to cut all supply routes coming from Anbar province and used by Daesh to send reinforcements whenever they need, What’s the point of retaking a location and suffering casualties while nearby areas and supply routes are still controlled by Daesh?""Daesh" is the Arabic term for the Islamic State or ISIS. Government forces last week started an operation to retake Baiji but have yet to dislodge the IS fighters and have met fierce resistance and appear to be no match for the large resources IS has committed to defend the town.

Washington avoids discussion of costs of war on the Islamic State

If the US war against the Islamic State were a social program there would be immediate requests for an estimate of the costs. If the duration and extent of the program was indefinite criticism would be immediate and harsh.

With respect to the Obama long term program to degrade and eliminate the Islamic State, costs appear to be irrelevant and in any case not worthy of discussing. We have no idea how long the attacks on the Islamic State will last nor the extent of the program but even now the attacks have extended from Iraq into Syria. While Obama so far has ruled out any boots on the ground, he has already sent about 1,500 special forces to Iraq. Apparently they do not count as boots on the ground.
The White House refuses to even estimate how much the war has cost up to now let alone what it might cost in the future. When press secretary Josh Earnest was pressed on the cost issue he said: “I don’t have an estimate on that. I know that we’re interested in having an open dialogue with Congress to ensure that our military has the resources necessary to carry out the mission that the president has laid out.” There is no budget for the war. Up to now, the US has been paying for the air attacks from the Overseas Contingency Operations budget. There is $85 billion in that budget but who knows how long that will last. The last US Iraq War had a total cost of over $2 trillion. While so far this new war has relatively few US forces present on the ground, over time with continued bombings and no doubt many contractors helping out with various tasks the bill could add up.
Last month, Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters the Iraq operations were costing about $7.5 million a day but no doubt that has increased considerably by now. Already the US has made over 170 airstrikes and there are about 60 surveillance flights each day.
 Unlike the first Iraq war, this new one will use mostly proxy troops such as Iraqi security forces and Kurdish peshmerga. In Syria the proxies will also be Kurds as well as many rebel groups who have clashed with the Islamic State. Obama has requested funds to train and arm more "moderate" rebels even though the weapons may end up in the hands of the Islamic State The tactic of using proxy troops will minimize casualties among Americans that might cause negative political reactions on the home front. However, Obama has made it clear that the fight against the Islamic Front will be long term. So will the costs.
 As was the case with the first Iraq War the US will try form a coalition of allies to share the cost of the battle. More than 40 countries have already pledged support for efforts to curb and destroy the Islamic State. France has already joined air strikes in Iraq and several Arab States joined in an attack on the Islamic State in Syria.
 Just last week, Obama again emphasized that he was not about to get the US involved in a ground war in Syria saying on TV: “American forces will not have a com Abat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, however revealed that on at least one occasion small teams of US advisers have gone into battle with Iraqi troops. He also noted that if circumstances changed, Obama could change his mind about sending in US troops.
 So far, Obama has not sought congressional authority for his air strikes even in Syria where Assad has not given permission. The attacks are seen by Assad and Russia as against international law. White House spokesperson Earnest said that Obama "will not hesitate to use his authority to keep Americans safe". He went on to claim that the contemplated attacks in Syria were not against the Assad regime: “What we're talking about now is not about the Assad regime, but about this threat that's posed by [ISIS] that's operating both in Iraq and in Syra". This does not change the fact that the attack is on Syrian territory without the permission of the Syrian government.
 No doubt the air strikes will help slow down if not reverse Islamic State advances, although in northern Syria in the last few days, the group has made significant gains of territory sparking a huge flood of refugees into Turkey. Air strikes have hit the main Islamic State held city and stronghold of Raqqa in Syria. Such strikes are almost bound to kill civilians and cause a great deal of damage to infrastructure. The same can be said of attacks on Iraqi cities. Just as many locals in Iraq prefer the Islamic State to the Shiite-dominated central government so in Syria many locals may prefer the Islamic State to Assad.

Violence greets General Dempsey's Afghan visit with 11 children and American troops killed

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dempsey arrived for a visit aimed at assessing the training of Afghan security forces. Several incidents have been reported one involving Americans and the other children, victims of a NATO air strike.

Dempsey no doubt wants to assess the progress made in training Afghan forces to take over security when the main combat troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

In one attack, a suicide bomber, detonated a car bomb just as an American convoy passed that was accompanying the provincial governor of Zabul. Three US troops were killed as well as two US civilians and an Afghan doctor who was accompanying the governor. Several Americans and Afghans were wounded including two of the governors' bodyguards.

Meanwhile in Shigal district in Kunar province on the Pakistan border, local officials in the region report that eleven children and a woman were killed in an air strike during a NATO operation that targeted Taliban commanders in the area.

The civilian deaths were confirmed by Wasefullah Wasefi a spokesperson for the provincial governor. He said that eleven children and a woman were killed in the air strike. The Interior Ministry did not mention any civilian casualties. A Reuters journalist also reports seeing the bodies of the 12 children. Such overwhelming evidence of the deaths will make denial difficult.

A Shigal district chief said the women and children were killed when houses collapsed on them. As usual the ISAF officials said only that they were aware of the reports of civilian casualties and were investigating them. Karzai has constantly criticized NATO air attacks of this type and has banned Afghans from calling in air support in these situations. An ISAF spokesperson Captain Luca Carniel said that ISAF provided "air support" and that the air support had been called in by coalition forces not Afghans. So to get around the ban on calling in air support the boss just issues the order not the Afghans.

The provincial governor's spokesperson also said that a US adviser to the Afghan intelligence agency was also killed during the attack that lasted several hours. There were two important Taliban commanders also reported killed. The civilian deaths will simply further exacerbate the anti-US sentiments in the area and help the Taliban recruit more Afghans to their cause.