Iraq to file complaint to UN Security Council after US airstrikes

(March 16)After the US carried out a number of airstrikes in Iraq , Iraq's Foreign Ministry announced that they will submit a formal complaint to the UN Security Council accusing the US of aggression and violation of Iraq's sovereignty.

Earlier on Friday, the Iraqi military said that the air strikes had killed six people and were a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. The strikes may provide more energy to anti-government protests shown in the appended video.

The US narrative

The US blames Iraqi Shii'ite militia for firing rockets at US bases. One attack killed a US soldier a contractor and a UK soldier. The US attacked at least five bases all in Iraq. The militia in the bases are all financed and approved by the Iraqi government and are in effect a part of the Iraqi security forces.

While the US may see its attacks as justified in self-defense, the Iraqi government warns that the US actions destabilize the situation. One would think that it would be obvious to the US that attacking the forces of a sovereign nation in which they have bases would be create even more anti-US feelings. Protests against the government will likely escalate again. The government faces a crisis after the interim Prime Minister resigned and then the PM designate also resigned since he could not gain the support of lawmakers and protesters. Earlier the Iraqi parliament passed a motion 170 to 0 that all foreign troops should be withdrawn from Iraq.

The US so far has refused to discuss withdrawing from Iraq although it has decided to close some smaller bases and consolidate its operations.

This is not the first Iraqi complaint to the UN. In January Iraq's Foreign Ministry submitted a similar complaint after the US assassinated key Iranian General Qassem Soleiman in a drone attack near Baghdad airport. The complaint argued the strike violated Iraqi sovereignty as it was done without Iraqi authorization or even notification.

Iraqi resolution will have no practical effect

The US has a veto in the UN Security Council. Any resolution critical of US actions will promptly be vetoed and have no practical effect. No resolution might be forthcoming as members would realize it would only be vetoed. Many members of the Council probably do not want to face disapproval of the US by supporting any critical resolution.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iraq condemns US retaliatory attacks after US bases hit by rockets

(March 14) Barham Salih, the Iraqi president, issued a statement on Friday that angrily condemned a group of US airstrikes hitting suspected Iranian-back rebels suspected of carrying out the raids.

Iraq claims raids violate Iraqi sovereignty

Salih said the US raids amounted to serious violation of Iraqi sovereignty and could provoke dangerous consequences. Salih added that the attacks amounted to a "dangerous and deliberate weakening of it abilities especially at a time when Iraq faces unprecedented challenges". Iraq is in political crisis right now which is why the president rather than the Prime Minister(PM) made the announcement. There is no PM as the acting PM resigned in recent weeks and the PM-designate has resigned as he lacks sufficient political support from lawmakers and protesters.

US narrative describes attacks as on terrorist bases

The US air attacks targeted Kataib Hezbollah a militia that is part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) that are approved and financed by the Iraqi government. Wikipedia says of the PMF: "It has been called the new Iraqi Republican Guard after it was fully reorganized in early 2018 by its then-Commander in Chief Haider al-Abadi. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued "regulations to adapt the situation of the Popular Mobilization fighters," giving them ranks and salaries equivalent to other branches of the Iraqi military." The mainstream media usually just uses the phrase "Iran-backed militia" to describe the group ignoring the crucial facts that they are Iraqi and in effect part of the Iraqi armed forces. This explains the angry responses when they are attacked. The mainstream media also leave out other important information such as the 170 to 0 vote in the Iraqi parliament asking that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraq. In spite of these militia being in effect part of Iraqi forces the US feels that it can attack them with impunity.

There was one civilian killed in the US attack, a cook. The death toll included three soldiers and two policeman. Four soldiers, two policemen, one civilian, and five militia were reported wounded.

Salih has even warned that the Iraqi government could simply unravel under this US pressure and become a faiead more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/op-ed-iraq-condemns-us-retaliatory-raids-as-another-attack-hits-us-base/article/568736#ixzz6MM17KVQ7led state. This might result in the resurgence of the Islamic State which the PMF had helped defeat. As of now the Islamic State is struggling to survive. The US which is supposedly in Iraq to help combat the Islamic State and other radical jihadists seems oblivious to these possible consequences. Or perhaps control of the Iraqi government is of more concern to them than defeating the Islamic State. For the US it is Iran not the Islamic State which is the enemy.

A second rocket attack on US Iraq base

The tit-for -tat actions continue as Iraqi security officials report a barrage of rockets on Saturday hit the Camp Taji base north of Baghdad that house US and other coalition troops. The officials claimed over a dozen rockets had rained down on the base some hitting coalition headquarters while others fell on a runway used by Iraqi forces. An earlier attack on Wednesday had killed two Americans plus one UK soldier. There has been no immediate word on any casualties in the second attack which was made in broad daylight rather than at night which is more common. Should the US respond again the Iraqi government may not be able to withstand pressure for the US to withdraw.

CENTCOM Commander Gen. McKenzie visits Iraq to try to mend relations

(February 5) General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie, Centom Commander, made a quiet visit to Iraq on Tuesday. Multiple media reports claim that McKenzie "slipped" into Iraq in an attempt to mend ties during what he called a period of "turbulence" between the two countries.

Assassination by the US near Baghdad airport caused protests against the US

On January 3 the US carried out a drone attack near the Baghdad airport that killed a top Iranian general Qassem Soleiman as well as Iraqi General Abu al-Muhandis a deputy commander of the government approved and financed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMC).

Iraqis were furious. The Iraqi parliament passed a resolution 170 to 0 demanding that all foreign troops be withdrawn from Iraq. The resolution however was not binding and some Sunnis stayed away from the session. The Iraqi government did not give permission for the US attack and were not even informed. No doubt, most Iraqis saw the attack as a clear violation of their sovereignty.

Iran retaliated by missile attacks on two US bases in Iraq. There was considerable damage. While no one was reported killed as of last reporting there were 64 cases of concussion caused by blasts. There have also been attacks on US Iraq bases by Iraqi militia that are pro-Iran.

McKenzie's visit

McKenzie is the most senior US military official to visit Iraq since the US drone assassinations. The US has made it clear that it has no intention of leaving Iraq at the present. The US is supposed to be in the country to help fight ISIS but ISIS has lost all the territory it has held and is more or less in survival mode. The Iraqis probably have the ability to deal with any threat that remains on their own. However, the US worries about Iranian influence in Iraq and would like to stay to counteract that influence as much as possible.

McKenzie said he believes there will be a "way forward", presumably one that involves few or no US troop withdrawals. The Pentagon has not been forthcoming about who exactly McKenzie had talks with but did say that McKenzie was personally heartened by the reaction he had received. McKenzie also asked Iraq for permission to install Patriot missiles as US bases do not have sufficient defenses against Iranian missiles.

At least one news report does indicate some of those who spoke with McKenzie: "McKenzie said it’s difficult to predict how Tuesday’s discussions will pan out, particularly because the government is in transition. McKenzie spoke with Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, President Barham Saleh, and Speaker of the House Salim al-Jabouri, but he did not speak with Mohammed Allawi, who is expected to succeed the current prime minister."

Protesters have been demanding a new independent policy that is not determined by the US or Iran. However, the US assassination may have directed much of protesters' anger against the US. The US has refused to discuss any withdrawal mechanism with the Iraqi government even though the Iraqi government asked it to do so.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US threatens Iraq with crippling sanctions if it demands that US troops withdraw

Iraqi officials warn that the country would face almost immediate economic collapse should US President Trump impose sanctions on Iraq and freeze oil revenues because Iraq demanded US troops leave.

In early January the Iraqi parliament voted 170 to 0 to expel all foreign troops.

Trump's response

Trump said that Iraq could be hit with massive sanctions and also the freezing of Iraq's New York Federal Reserve bank account where all Iraq's oil revenue is deposited.

Joe Kaeser, the chief executive of the German firm Siemens noted: "The US threat of sanctions against Iraq following the recent escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran "was not helpful", said Siemens chief executive Joe Kaeser, who affirmed the company's commitment towards power rehabilitation in the war-torn country."We need to deal with what we need to deal with. I think putting sanctions on something just because you don't get your will is maybe also not always helpful," he told The National in an interview in Abu Dhabi."

Siemens has a $15 billion electricity development contract with Iraq. There is a risk for the company along with all others working in Iraq that US sanctions and freezing of revenues could leave Iraq with no money to pay contractors working for the government.

Oil revenue is almost all of Iraq's budget

Oil revenues are 90 percent of the Iraqi government so freezing these funds would be even more disastrous for the Iraqi economy than even severe sanctions.

A recent article says of the account: " That account holds substantially all oil trade revenue, and that is a substantial part of Iraq’s government’s entire revenue. The US is now threatening to block Iraqi access to this account, and with it virtually their entire treasury, if they expel US troops. The US froze this account very briefly in 2015 and it did major damage to the Iraqi economy, causing a panic. This freeze is a threat of a more permanent type, and would all but bankrupt Iraq overnight."

Iraqi bank officials said they doubted that the US would freeze the US Federal Reserve account as it would result in a permanent break in US-Iraqi relations. However, the US has done it before and Trump seems anxious to ensure that the US military stays in Iraq in spite of his presidential campaign promise that the would withdraw US troops from foreign wars.. But now he is threatening economic ruin on Iraq that is requesting US troops to withdraw. Trump is not even willing to discuss the issue with Iraq.

The US can hardly claim that it respected the sovereignty or Iraq when it refuses to even discuss with the Iraqis a mechanism to carry out the Iraqi parliament demand that their troops withdraw from Iraq. Earlier, a letter indicating that the US would withdraw from Iraq was said to be a draft only that was unsigned even though it was received by Iraqi authorities with a signature.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Many Iraqis claim that US attack on Iran-backed militia in Iraq violate sovereignty

(January 1) Within Iraq powerful political blocs claim that US-strikes against an Iran-backed militia are a violation of Iraq's sovereignty. There likely will be increased calls in Iraq's parliament to end the agreement allowing US troops to stay in the country

Already there are calls for ending US troop presence

Powerful blocs within Iraq are claiming that the US attack against the Iran-backed militia as violating Iraq's sovereignty. The Wall Street Journal reports that Badr al-Ziyadi a member of the Iraq parliament and also part of a coalition that is closely associated with Moqtada al-Sadr the powerful Shia cleric has called for an end to the agreement that authorizes US troop presence in the country.

Sadr's militia has often fought with US troops after the US-led invasion of 2003. Sadr said that he would work with Iran-backed militia using legal means but would also use other means if legal action such as that in parliament failed. However, at the same time Sadr regards the Iranian militia as his rival. As a recent Reuters article notes: "Sadr, who portrays himself a nationalist rejecting both Iranian and U.S. influence, called in a statement on Iran-backed militias to avoid “irresponsible actions” that can be used to justify attacks on Iraq."

US attacks on Kata'ib Hizbollah(KH) militia

A recent Guardian article reports on the recent attacks on KH: "A senior US official said there had been 11 attacks against Iraqi bases hosting coalition forces in Iraq over the past two months, many of them carried out by a Shia militia group, Kata’ib Hizbullah (KH), culminating in an attack on a base near Kirkuk on Friday, killing a US contractor and injuring US and Iraqi soldiers.On Sunday, the US conducted retaliatory airstrikes against five KH bases in Iraq and Syria, which KH said killed 19 of its fighters and injured 35."

The attack was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty

The Wall Street Journal said that US Defense Secretary of Defense Mark Esper had phoned Iraqi PM Adel Abdul-Mahdi about half an hour before the attacks. Note that there is no mention of Esper getting permission for the attacks or even asking for such permission. The US simply informed the Iraqi PM what the US would do. According to the Wall Street report the Iraqi PM asked Esper to call off the strikes but obviously Esper refused. This meant the attack was clearly a violation of Iraqi sovereignty in that it was carried out against the expressed wishes of the Iraqi PM.

General Khalaf a spokesperson for the PM quoted him as saying: “We consider it a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and a dangerous escalation that will threaten Iraq and the region.”

Grand Ayatollah Ali Ali al-Sistani top Shia cleric in Iraq denounced the US strikes calling them illegal practices that violated Iraq sovereignty. According to Reuters he said: “The Iraqi authorities alone are entitled to deal with these practices and take the necessary measures to prevent them. They are called upon to do so and to ensure Iraq does not become a field for settling regional and international scores and that others do not interfere in its internal affairs.”

Iran , for its part has denied that it has any role in the recent attacks that hit US and other coalition troops. An Iranian spokesperson said on Iranian state TV:“We strongly deny any role in attacks against the U.S. forces. This undocumented U.S. claim cannot justify bombing and killing people in violation of the international laws. This incident showed again that as long as the U.S. continues its uninvited presence in Iraq and Syria, peace will be out of reach for everyone."

The US appears unfazed by reaction to the attacks

The Popular Mobilization Forces

What I have failed to find so far in mainstream accounts is the fact that KH and other militia groups that the US attacked are not just supported by Iran but also have been instrumental in fighting against ISIS. Even the WIkipedia account of KH recognizes this but does not discuss its association with the PMF: "Kata'ib Hezbollah (Arabic: كتائب حزب الله‎, Brigades of the Party of God[31]) or Hezbollah Brigades is an Iraqi Shia paramilitary group that is supported by Iran.[32] It has been active in the Iraqi Civil War[33] and the Syrian Civil War.[34] During the Iraq War, the group fought against American invasion forces.[31][35] The group is commanded by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis."

In the Syrian war KH fights on behalf of Assad no doubt this is a reason why the US has labelled it a terrorist organization. Yet the organization is one of the militia's supported by the Iraqi government part of the Popular Mobilization Forces: "The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), also known as the People's Mobilization Committee (PMC) and the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) (Arabic: الحشد الشعبي‎ al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī),[21] is an Iraqi state-sponsored umbrella organization composed of some 40 militias that are mostly Shia Muslim groups, but also including Sunni Muslim, Christian, and Yazidi individuals as well.[22][23] The popular mobilization units as a group was formed in 2014 and have fought in nearly every major battle against ISIL.[24] It has been called the new Iraqi Republican Guard after it was fully reorganized in early 2018 by its then-Commander in Chief Haider al-Abadi. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued "regulations to adapt the situation of the Popular Mobilization fighters," giving them ranks and salaries equivalent to other branches of the Iraqi military.[3]"

As shown in the list brigades in the PMC, KH is the 45th brigade. Note that the PMF in Iraq are state-supported militia whose salaries are paid for by the government and who are given ranks and salaries equivalent to other branches of the Iraqi military.

So the US attacked not just a militia supported by Iraq but one financed and recognized by the Iraqi government itself. The PMC members are treated as virtually an adjunct to regular security forces. In other words the US was in effect attacking Iraqi security forces. The US can expect that the attack on the US embassy is just the first move in attacks that could eventually see US forces ejected from Iraq.

US response

The US is critical of the Iraqi government claiming that it has not carried out its responsibility to protect US and other coalition bases in Iraq. However, the Iraqi government may have concerns about using too many resources to protect the foreign troops in the country. There could be negative results politically especially if Iraqi troops were killed carrying out such protection.

The US has already deployed an additional 14,000 US troops to the Middle East. As the appended video shows in reaction to attacks on US bases and the US embassy the US is sending even more troops to Iraq. The New Year is likely to see even more conflict in Iraq with the Iraqi parliament demanding that US troops leave.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iraqi PM will not retaliate after Trump imposes travel ban

On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump temporarily banned entry to the U.S. for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somaiia, Sudan and Yemen. All are predominantly Muslim countries.

Iraqi president Haider al-Abadi said Tuesday that he will not initiate a retaliatory ban on Americans as neighboring Iran has already done. Al-Abadi said he does not want to lose cooperation from Washington in the fight against the Islamic State. When he was asked at a news conference if he would act on a parliamentary motion that favored retaliation, Abadi said: "We will not do anything of the sort. We are studying (possible) decisions but we are in a battle and we don't want to harm the national interest." The U.S. and coalition partners are providing critical air and ground support for Iraqi troops fighting against the Islamic State which in 2014 overran almost a third of Iraq. The are more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq.

Iraqis were already angry at the US because Trump has said that the U.S. should have taken Iraqi oil to help pay for the expense of its invasion and occupation of the country and even suggested that the U.S. might have another chance.

On Monday Iraqi lawmakers called on the government to enact a reciprocal travel ban unless Washington withdrew Trump's order to bar the entry of Iraqis. The 90 day ban was designed to keep the U.S. safe from terrorists according to Trump. The order has already alienated many Iraqis who are fighting against the Islamic State, the very terrorists that the U.S. claims are a threat to the U.S. None of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq.

Iraqi MP Hakim al-Zamil said: "Parliament voted by majority on calling on the Iraqi government and the foreign ministry to respond in kind." Another MP Sadiq al-Laban confirmed the motion saying:"We are against this stance from the new administration. We hope that the American administration will rethink... this decision."

The growing backlash within Iraq could undermine relations between the two countries just as the large offensive to retake Mosul from the Islamic State is in full swing. Hassan Shwairid, the deputy head of the foreign affairs committee made a similar call for retaliation but said that the ban would not apply to any of the U.S. military personnel in the country. Yet U.S. senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham said Trump's would have an impact on military cooperation with Iraq. In a joint statement the two said:"This executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism."

Hashed al-Shaabi a powerful paramilitary umbrella group including Shiite militias that fought the U.S. in the past also demanded that U.S. citizens be banned from Iraq. Units from Hashed al-Shaabi and the American troops are both deployed in Mosul. The Trump order increases the danger to American troops. The popular Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who often fought against the Americans during much of the Iraq war said: "Get your nationals out before removing expatriates."

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