Obama may send more troops to Iraq

At a recent new briefing Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joe Dunford said Obama will decide soon whether to accept proposals to increase the number of ground troops in Iraq.

Dunford claims that nominally 3,800 US troops are in Iraq now. However, this number does not cover those who are in Iraq only on a "temporary" basis. Pentagon officials concede that the actual number deployed is closer to 5,000. According to a U.S. diplomatic deal with Iraq, the US will maintain only a total of 3,870 troops in Iraq at any one time. However, the U.S. seems to be increasing the number of troops for the last few months without changing the deal or officially counting more.

On March 19 Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin was killed in an Islamic State rocket attack on Fire Base Bell in northern Iraq. Until Cardin was killed military officials had not acknowledged that the base existed. It was part of the temporary deployment of added troops and was created just several days before the attack. It was near the front lines and the Iraqi Army division headquarters in the town of Makhmour.

General Dunford has brought new proposals to Defense Secretary Ash Carter who will then discuss them with the president. In a press briefing Dunford said: “We have a series of recommendations that we will be discussing with the president in the coming weeks to further enable our support for the Iraqi security forces. The secretary and I both believe that there will be an increase to the U.S. forces in Iraq in the coming weeks but that decision hasn’t been made."The extra troops would help the Iraqi forces in a major offensive to be launched against the Islamic State to retake Mosul.

Defense Minister Carter had told Congress in December that the administration was willing to send more combat advisers and helicopters to Iraq if the Iraqi government requested the help. At the time, the Iraqi army declined the offer because several Shiite militias objected to any additional US presence. We should know in a matter of weeks if the US is intending to become even more involved in the battle against the Islamic State in Iraq.

United States planning military intervention in Libya against the Islamic State

The Obama administration is planning to launch a third front against the Islamic State in Libya. The U.S. is increasing intelligence-gathering activities as a prelude to the intervention.

A New York Times editorial writes that the significant U.S. escalation is being planned before any meaningful debate on the issue in Congress. The campaign is expected to include airstrikes and raids by U.S. special forces. Reports indicate that some troops from several countries have landed already in eastern Libya. Several western countries have planned intervention in Libya from as long ago as last August. Britain, France, and Italy are expected to help out with the US operations. Most countries plan on waiting for the establishment of the UN-brokered Government of National Accord (GNA). However, before it can begin operation it must have a vote of confidence from the internationally-recognized House of Representatives(HoR) in Tobruk.

Just the other day, the HoR rejected the GNA and demanded that a smaller government be presented to them. They also rejected the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) unless a clause was deleted that removed the commander in chief of the Libyan Armed Forces (LPA) from his position. Actually the clause was to go into effect on December 17 when the LPA was signed in Skhirat. It has been ignored up to now. The members of the HoR may fear that when the GNA starts operating the clause could be invoked to remove Haftar.

On Friday, General Joseph Dunford Jr. the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said: "You want to take decisive military action to check ISIL’s expansion and at the same time you want to do it in such a way that's supportive of a long-term political process." If the U.S. and other foreign countries intervene you can be sure that the political process in Libya will be even further disrupted and that there will be outright civil war involving more than just the Islamic State. No doubt foreign intervention is exactly what the Islamic State wants and has been trying to provoke by attacks on oil facilities and on a police training center.

The Times editorial warns extending the battle against the Islamic State or Daesh into Libya is fraught with dangers:That is deeply troubling. A new military intervention in Libya would represent a significant progression of a war that could easily spread to other countries on the continent. It is being planned as the American military burrows more deeply into battlegrounds in Syria and Iraq, where American ground troops are being asked to play an increasingly hands-on role in the fight.

The present authorization for the war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is based upon a 2001 law that allowed the U.S. to take action against those associated with the September 11 attacks. There does not seem much appetite for giving any fresh authorization. A debate over the issue might bring into question whether the anti-IS campaign was successful or should even be continuing as it is. The White House position is that it would be "nice" if Congress gave authorization for an extension of the campaign against the Islamic State into Libya but not necessary. There are a number of reports about the new plans suggesting that perhaps the public are being prepared for what may happen within a couple of weeks. There are more reports in The Hill and also on CNN. as well as Defenceweb.

Foreign military intervention in Libya increasing with more likely to come

As the Islamic State launches more attacks in Libya, there is an increasing likelihood that there will be further foreign military intervention to confront the group.

The U.S. top general, Joseph Dunford, chair of the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff, is reported by the New York Times as having said in Paris:

 “Unchecked, I am concerned about the spread of ISIL in Libya…You want to take decisive military action to check ISIL’s expansion and at the same time you want to do it in such a way that’s supportive of a long-term political process.”

Dunford said action was likely to be within weeks rather than hours. General Joseph L. Votel, commanding general of the Joint Special Operations Command, noted that fighting the Islamic State would not be all about Iraq and Syria but concerned Libya as well. Apparently a large meeting in Rome last week was not just about bringing humanitarian and other aid to Libya but about security and military options. Military intervention in Libya has long been planned by several western countries since at least last August.

The German newspaper Die Welt makes it clear that the foreign military intervention hopes to gain international legitimacy through being invited into Libya by the UN-brokered Government of National Accord:

“The only thing missing for a military intervention is the legal framework. As soon as the new Libyan unity government is formed, it can proceed. When Libya has a united and to some extent legitimate government again, then there is someone in response to whose request a western military intervention can take place within the framework of international law.”

So far, the GNA has not begun to function, as it needs a vote of confidence in the internationally-recognized House of Representatives or HoR. This must happen according to the terms of the Libyan Political Agreement(LPA) by January 27. Martin Kobler, head of the UNSMIL, has yet to announce when the vote will take place. It met four times already but failed to achieve a quorum. It is not clear it will be able to vote on the issue this time around in spite of tremendous pressure to do so. Meanwhile the Libyan National Army seems to be experiencing divisions, with several groups rejecting the commander in chief Khalifa Haftar a former CIA asset.

A number of sources claim that foreign troops are already in Libya. The Libya Observer says:Military forces from Britain, US and Russia have arrived in Libya to support the new UN-backed government, London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported on Saturday, adding a French one is to follow soon. The newspaper said foreign troops made up of dozens of soldiers and officers landed at Jamal Abdel Nasser military base south of Tobruk. Eyewitnesses said the number of foreign military personnel arrived at the base has reached 500, while a military source indicated that the number does not exceed a dozen of officers who came to give consultations to the army.Al Arabiya provides a similar report. There is also a report that a plane carrying military experts from France arrived in Tobruk yesterday. A group of U.S. commandos landed in Al-Watiya airbase in Libya but left when confronted by Zintani militia who demanded they leave.

The Israeli intelligence source Debka has much more detail of what is allegedly planned with maps of the operations. Debka claims that Obama decided earlier in January to open a third anti-terror front in Libya to eradicate the Islamic State there. To the surprise of many, he decided to launch the campaign in cooperation with Russia. Debka claims the first step took place on the weekend with a group of US, Russian, French, and Italian Special Forces landing at a point south of Tobruk near the Egyptian border. Some 1,000 UK SAS were standing by as they had prepared for the landing. Debka goes on:At the peak of the assault, large-scale US, British and French marines will land on shore for an operation first billed as the largest allied war landing since the 1952 Korean War. The attachment of Russian forces was negotiated later. According to the scenario sketched in advance by DEBKA Weekly, large-scale US air, naval and ground units are to spearhead the new coalition’s combined assault on the main Libyan redoubts of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia and other radical Islamist organizations. Cruise missiles strikes will blast them from US, British, French and Italian warships on the Mediterranean.

While Debka has its supporters, and is sometimes right, a bit of caution is in order:

...Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."There seems little doubt however that many foreign countries are lining up to militarily intervene in Libya as soon as the GNA gets up and running or as it seems even before this happens. Parts of the Debka report also fit in with other reports. For now, it appears most likely that there will be small groups of special forces operating in Libya from a number of countries.

General Joe Dunford says U.S. troops will stay in Afghanistan long after 2014

Obama's choice for next commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General Joe Dunford, told the Senate on Thursday (Nov. 15) that he sees U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan long after 2014 when all U.S. troops are supposedly to depart.

Dunford told U.S. senators:

“In my view our overall objective in Afghanistan after 2014 will be to sustain our hard-won security gains after 2014 so that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists.

To accomplish this objective, the primary missions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan should be to (1) train, advise, and assist the ANSF; (2) provide support to civilian agencies, and (3) conduct counter-terrorism operations. This mission set will include force protection for our brave young men and women and, as available, the provision of in extremis support for our Afghan forces.”

As the enclosed video from a year ago shows, it was clear even back then that the U.S was not going to withdraw all troops after 2014. On July the 4th this year, a Strategic Partnership Agreement between Afghanistan and the U.S. came into force. The agreement was signed on May 4. The agreement set out a number of aspects of the continuing relationship between the U.S. and Afghanistan for up to a decade after 2014.

There were no specifics about how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan and exactly what their role would be. But among the provisions were:

Access to and use of Afghan facilities by US personnel beyond 2014

Granting the United States the possibility of keeping forces in Afghanistan after 2014 for purposes of training Afghan forces and targeting al-Qaida

Negotiations began Thursday (Nov.15) on a bilateral security agreement (BSA) meant to now determine the role of U.S. troops that remain in Afghanistan, their number, and the terms and conditions of their stay. The Afghan chief negotiator, Afghan Ambassador to the U.S. Eklil Hakimi said:

"The talks between the United States of America and Afghanistan on Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) formally began here in Kabul today,."

James Warlick, Deputy Special Representative of U.S. on Afghanistan and Pakistan, leads the U.S. team. He said:

"The documents to provide legal authorities for United States armed forces and our civilian components to continue presence in Afghanistan with the full approval of the government of Afghanistan."

We will not know for some time exactly how many troops will be staying or what exactly their role will be but it certainly will go beyond training to helping to fight the war on terror and that will no doubt include operations against the Taliban and perhaps operations against targets in Pakistan even though the Afghan government may object to that. During the election campaign,in debate, Biden said:

“We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we’re going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion We’ve been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we’re doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It’s their responsibility, not America’s.”

Biden should read the terms of the Strategic Partnership and while he is at it he might find out about the BSA negotiations that are ongoing now.

So far Karzai has maintained that any U.S. military personnel who stay in Afghanistan should be subject to prosecution in local courts. However, the U.S. has always taken the position that any crimes committed by U.S. troops must be tried in the U.S. Afghans were infuriated when Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, who allegedly killed 16 Afghans, was whisked off to the U.S. for trial. Failure to solve this issue in Iraq, resulted in most U.S. troops being withdrawn from Iraq when the Status of Forces agreement expired.