Pentagon plans attacks against Iraqi Shi'ite militias

(March 28) Last week in the US, the Pentagon issued a secret directive that asked US military commanders in Iraq to plan a huge campaign against Iraqi Shi'ite militias with the plan of wiping out some at least.

	1 of 2

Initiative urged by Mike Pompeo

The offensive plan is being advocated by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who believes the US can destroy some Iran-backed militia operating in Iraq. He thinks they act as proxies for Iran by attacking US facilities. Pompeo believes he can do this while Iran is distracted as it has to deal with the effects of the coronavirus weakening the government. The US has refused to temporarily reduce the sanctions to aid Iran cope with the virus. Indeed, it has been increasing sanctions. Some US commanders in particular Lt. Gen. Robert White object to Pompeo's plan.

General White's criticism

General White is the US top commander in Iraq. He warned that any offensive campaign could be bloody and even counterproductive and risked outright war with Iran. Perhaps Pompeo would welcome a war with Iran. White also noted that any new military campaign would need thousands of more US troops. It would also divert resources from the US mission of training Iraqi troops and combating the Islamic State ISIS.

The US mission is virtually finished with ISIS in survival mode as it has lost all territory it held. Iraqi forces are no doubt able to meet any ISIS challenge on their own. The Iraqi parliament earlier this year voted 170 to 0 that all foreign troops be withdrawn. The US ignored the resolution and refused to talk about withdrawing. Trump has threatened Iraq with severe sanctions if it tries to force the US to leave. The US obviously wants to stay in Iraq to counter Iranian influence and to be ready to attack it if necessary.

Response of other officials

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and General Mark Milley, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been wary of any sharp military escalation. Both have warned that such actions could destabilize the Middle East when President Trump has said he hopes to reduce the number of troops in the region. Trump often changes his mind and there have already been more troops and equipment sent into the Middle East region including Saudi Arabia to confront Iran.

However Esper authorized planning for a new campaign inside of Iraq even as the military reduces its counter-terrorism presence in the country. The plans would provide options for the Trump administration should militia groups in Iraq escalate their attacks on US targets in Iraq according to two senior by anonymous officials.

Trump's response

It is not clear if Trump has signed off on the plans for the offensive but he has allowed planning to continue, and advocates of the plan are likely to believe that they can move from planning to engagement without too many obstacles.However, there may be some opposition within the Trump administration as there was about earlier strikes on March 12 at a top level meeting: "Before the meeting Mr. Trump convened with his top advisers, a lower-level meeting descended into acrimony when Brian H. Hook, the State Department’s top Iran adviser, erupted at Pentagon officials who professed not to have seen the military options being prepared for Mr. Trump, according to senior administration officials with knowledge of the meeting." So far the maximum pressure tactic has not stopped Iranian-backed militia from attacking the US in Iraq.

US actions are exacerbating conflict

The US assassination of key Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad airport resulted in retaliatory attacks from Iran and also on US bases in Iraq by Iran-supported Iraqi militia. The militia the US intends to attack are part of the Popular Mobilization Forces that are financed and approved by the Iraqi government. They are in effect part of Iraqi security forces. Given the fact that the US has been asked to leave by the US parliament, the Iraqi government can hardly accept an attack on its own forces. There will be even more pressure on a weak government in political crisis that could see it fall and the country descend into chaos. Perhaps the US wants to occupy Iraq again and appoint its own officials to be in charge such as Jay Garner and Paul Bremer.

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.

Iraqi military warned not to ask for US help

Tensions may have eased a bit since the US carried out the assassination of Qaseem Soleimani a top Iranian commander along with an Iraqi deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization forces in a drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport.

+ Add Image

Tensions still high

Iran in retaliation for the US assassinations attacked two US bases in Iraq with missiles. While no one appears to have been killed 64 in all are said to have had brain injuries. The Iraq parliament passed a resolution asking that all foreign troops leave Iraq 170 to 0 some time ago. The Iraqi government asked that the US discuss the withdrawal of US troops but the US refused to do so,

The tension continues as Iraqi military officials claim they have been ordered not to seek help from the US or coalition forces in any operations against the Islamic State (ISIS). (February 7) However, the whole point of the US being in Iraq is to counter ISIS. ISIS is now so weakened that it is basically in survival mode. It does not have permanent control of virtually any territory in Iraq now. Iraq does not really need the US to control any threat from ISIS. Nevertheless the US would like to stay in Iraq to counter the increasing influence of Iran on the Iraqi government.

So far Iraq has failed to expel US troops

In spite of being asked to leave by the Iraqi government and facing protests and even attacks on their bases the US shows no sign of leaving. Indeed, Trump has threatened Iraq with severe sanctions should it try to force the US out. However, at least by not cooperating with the US in joint military operations it is signalling its autonomy and desire to be independent of US forces.

Tensions after the US assassination performed without permission of the Iraqi government led to a brief suspension of joint operations. The US announced late last week they would be resumed but it seems clear that Iraq is not interested in doing so certainly not to the scale as was happening earlier. The US is anxious to resume operations to make it appear that the US is still needed and carrying out its mission in Iraq. However, it is clear that the US is no longer welcome.

An anonymous senior military official said: “After the killing of Soleimani, the Iraqi government decided to inform us formally not to cooperate and not to seek assistance from the U.S.-led international coalition in any operation. Until now, we have not asked the Americans to provide assistance, we rely on our capabilities to pursue IS elements. The presence of the Americans in the joint operations is only formal."

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

Russia claims US is poised to sell millions worth of Syrian oil

(November 3)Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for Russia's Foreign Ministry accused the United States of "criminal activity" associated with President Trump's plan to deploy US troops to guard the oil fields in eastern Syria

Zakharova's accusations

The Russian news agency Tass reports Zakharova's exact claims: "Bypassing their own sanctions, the Americans are smuggling oil from Syria worth over $30 mln per month and are not going to leave these areas in the near future. Today’s international community cannot help but ask questions at a time when a civilized country that systematically declares its commitment to some democratic values and international law, is pumping oil out of the northeast of Syria, a sovereign state, and masks its criminal activity by some pretexts of a struggle against the Islamic State.."

Zakharova estimates that the US stood to make tens of millions of dollars every month from the oil extracted in the region.

Mark Esper confirms troops to guard eastern oil fields

The US Defense Secretary Mark Esper confirmed last month that US troops supported by armored vehicles would be deployed to guard the oil fields. The official narrative is that the mission is designed to prevent the oil resources falling back into the hands of Islamic State militants and providing them with funds. However, Trump and other in his administration have made claims to income from the operation of the fields.

Trump and others want to sell the Syrian oil

Trump has gone as far as to suggest that he might get companies such as Exxon-Mobil or some other US energy company to work the fields. A recent Bloomberg article notes: "President Donald Trump says he’s secured “the Oil” in Syria, while Senator Lindsey Graham is floating the idea of tapping that bounty to help fund military operations in the war-torn nation." The article also reports: "Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said increasing production of the oil fields will help Syrian Democratic Forces. “We can also use some of the revenues from future oil sales to pay for our military commitment in Syria.”"

The aim of guarding the fields is also to deprive the Assad regime of oil

Recently, Graham said the US control over the Syrian oil fields would deny Assad and Iran a monetary windfall. It would only be with Syrian government permission that Iran could make money through some agreement. The oil is within Syria. It is not evident why the Syrian government should not develop and sell it. Of course the US has imposed sanctions on Syria as well as Iran. The US has followed a policy of Syrian regime change that has failed. Syria is to be punished for that failure.

Syrian oil production is down and deposits are limited

Though Syrian oil deposits are significant they do not compare in size with those of Saudi Arabia or Iraq. The several years of fighting in Syria that has involved extensive bombing has left the industry in poor shape to say the least. Assad and his ally Russia hope to see a full re-unification of the country in the end.

The Kurds have depended upon the US to help keep Assad from taking over Kurdish controlled areas and also to fend off the Turks. However, the US withdrew from the border areas with Turkey where Turkey wants a safe zone. As a result, the Kurds even allowed the Assad regime to take control of a Kurdish-controlled section along the Turkish border. The Kurds may possibly make a deal with Assad although it may be difficult to do this while the US controls areas such as that of the oil fields. It is hardly surprising that both Russia and Assad are much angered by the new US policy and its rationale.

According to Bloomberg, last year Syria was able to extract about 24,000 barrels a day. This would have been worth about $1.5 million at current prices. However, this year due to the war and sanctions production has fallen about 90 percent.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US drops 80 thousand lbs of explosives on tiny Iraq island

US warplanes have virtually destroyed the tiny island of Qanus in the Salahuddin Province of Iraq in the Tigris river. US officials claim the island is a hiding place for ISIS terrorist.

Bringing stability through destruction

US officials claim the attacks will bring stability to the region. The attacks will disrupt ISIS fighters activity in the region because mostly all vegetation where ISIS forces could hide has been obliterated by the attacks.

Iraqi forces also took part in the attack as they stationed boats near the island with a view to shooting anything on the island that was still alive after the bombing. Locals in the area report that there was repeated firing late into the day.

A US Central Command news release describes the attack: "Coalition Forces and the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service deny Daesh a safe haven during air strikes on Qanus Island located in the Salah ad Din Province, Sept. 10, 2019. Follow-on ground clearance operations are currently taking place by the 2nd Iraqi Special Operations Forces Battalion to destroy a major transit hub for Daesh members moving from Syria and the Jazeera desert into Mosul, Makhmour, and the Kirkuk region. “We’re denying Daesh the ability to hide on Qanus Island,” said Maj. Gen. Eric T. Hill, Special Operations Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, commander. “We’re setting the conditions for our partner forces to continue bringing stability to the region.” " The term "Daesh" is a common name for ISIS. US F-35A and F-15 Strike Eagles were used in the attacks.

The appended video shows explosions from the attack.

No report on casualties

No estimates of how many ISIS fighters were on the island or how many may have been killed by the attacks have been reported as yet. Officials so far have been completely silent on the issue. There have been no reports as to what the locals may feel about the attack. It seems that the US considers destruction a favored means to create stability. It is not clear how much disruption destruction of the island will cause to ISIS movements through the area.

US had less attacks on ISIS than in 2017

According to recent statistics published by the US Air Force Central Command 218 total munitions were dropped on ISIS targets last month. This compares with the peak of 5,075 in the month of August in 2017. In 2017 a record number of bombs 39,577 was used against the group.

Previously published in the Digital  Journal

Iraq bans all unauthorized US flights in the country

(August 17) The US-led coalition in Iraq has issued a statement indicating that they intend to comply with demands from the PM Adel AbdulMahdi respecting the use of Iraqi airspace for US warplanes.

Iraq calls for an end to all US unauthorized flights

The Iraqi Prime Minister called for an end to any unauthorized flights whether by drone, spy planes, jets, or helicopters. He warned that all planes in operating in Iraqi airspace must comply with Iraqi law, under Iraqi government direction.

The US says it will comply with the Iraqi demand

A recent article notes: "The U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group in Iraq says it will comply with new orders issued by the country's prime minister regarding unauthorized flights in Iraqi airspace.In a statement Friday, it says that as guests of the Iraqi government, the coalition complies with all Iraqi laws and direction from the government."

Iraq increasingly annoyed with the US

Iraq maintains close ties with Iran but the US is hostile to Iran and is pressuring Iraq to loosen or even cut ties with Iran. The US has moved many forces into the area including into Saudi Arabia.

Iraq parliament was to vote on expelling US troops

Trump made a surprise visit to Iraq late last December stirring up such anger that the Iraq parliament was to vote on expelling the US: "Iraqi lawmakers have demanded US forces leave the country in the wake of a surprise visit by Donald Trump, which politicians denounced as arrogant and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq’s divided parliament called for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter.“Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty,” said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr." I can find no news results as to what happened or if the vote even took place. What the Iraq parliament does appears not to be of much interest to mainstream media.

Although US troops were withdrawn in December of 20011 they have returned since to battle ISIS: "In January 2019, Secretary Pompeo put the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at approximately 5,000."

Given the hostility to the US presence the Iraqi PM probably felt that he needed to do something to show that he could bring the US under Iraqi control. A recent article notes some of the events that may have precipitated the action: "The ban follows a series of mysterious explosions at military bases in Iraq that some unconfirmed reports said were a result of airstrikes." See the appended video.

Perhaps Iraq will demand that the remaining US forces in Iraq get out.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Defense Secretary Mattis wants to leave US troops in Iraq after Islamic State is defeated

For some time now U.S. officials have said that even though the end of the war against the Islamic State may be in sight, U.S. troops should stay in Iraq.

In recent remarks by Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend he said that he hoped that the city of Mosul would be liberated from Islamic State control before the next U.S. troop rotation, but that U.S. troops should stay. Townsend insisted that the troops would need to stay long after the war against the IS in Iraq was over in order to arm and train Iraq's military. This view fits in with what Pentagon officials have claimed, that the rise of IS between the end of U.S. occupation in 2011 and 2014 when some U.S. troops and air support returned was due to the lack of U.S. ground troops in Iraq in spite of the fact that the U.S. had trained the Iraqi military and had a presence in Iraq for years. Townsend said that since mid-October last year the Iraqi army had had lost more than one thousand troops with about another 5,000 wounded. Only two U.S. soldiers had been killed during the same period. Townsend was addressing Fort Bragg troops.

Earlier, on March 22, , Rex Tillerson, U.S. Secretary of State also announced that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq to avert the possible resurgence of another terrorist organization saying: "The military power of the coalition will remain where this fraudulent caliphate has existed in order to set the conditions for a full recovery from the tyranny of ISIS." However Tillerson stressed that the troops would be engaged in what he called "stabilization" and "normalization" rather than "nation-building'. Tillerson continued:"Local leaders and local governments will take on the process of restoring their communities in the wake of ISIS with our support.The development of a rejuvenated civil society in these places will lead to a disenfranchisement of ISIS and the emergence of stability and peace where there was once chaos and suffering. But none of this will happen automatically. We all need to support this effort."

Both Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and the Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Joseph Dunford also told Congress in March that a residual group of U.S. troops should stay in Iraq after the IS were defeated in order to present a resurgence of the terrorist group. The two were testifying before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee. Mattis said it would be a mistake to simply declare victory and pull out as the U.S. did in 2011.

There is no mention in these reports as to how the Iraqi government would react to all of this. The talk is always as if it is just up to the U.S. as to whether troops stay or not. But it isn't. Indeed the reason that the U.S. did not keep troops in Iraq in 2011 is because they could not strike an agreement with the Iraqi government. The Iraqis refused the US demand for immunity for their soldiers. Don't expect the main-stream media to even notice such irrelevant details!

After comments by U.S. and Iraqi officials that U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis was in talks with Iraqi PM Haider al-Abadi about maintaining a "modest" U.S. military presence in Iraq after the defeat of the Islamic State the Iraqi PM issued a denial. Al-Abadi said:"The Iraqi government has plans and strategies to develop the capabilities of our security forces through training and arming to raise their readiness to face the challenges ahead"... It is open to all international expertise to meet the aspirations of Iraq to build military institutions and security apparatuses that enjoy full readiness to face any future security challenges, whether external or internal and in accordance with the requirements of Iraqi national sovereignty."

The statement is in contrast with that of an anonymous U.S. official who said: "There is a general understanding on both sides that it would be in the long-term interests of each to have that continued presence. So as for agreement, yes, we both understand it would be mutually beneficial. That we agree on." He said the troops would number several thousand or perhaps a little more. The Iraqi PM's office said that only military advisers would remain.

At present there are almost 7,000 U.S. troops in Iraq assisting Iraqi forces in the fight against the IS. Jafar al-Husseini, a representative from the Kataib Hezbollah militia, who are closely allied to Iran, claimed the army and paramilitaries were strong enough to defend Iraq themselves: "Iraq's security forces and the Popular Mobilisation Forces [PMUs] have the ability to protect [Iraq's] internal roads and borders, so why is al-Abadi using American security partners?" Influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is also opposed to the presence of any U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq. He and his supporters may end up attacking US troops if they remain after the defeat of the IS. Al-Haidi must consider the opposition any attempt to keep U.S. troops in Iraq could produce against him. He is obviously trying to downplay any continuing presence of the US in Iraq that he will allow. The U.S. will simply ignore the issue and may end up exactly where they were in 2011.

U.S. to send 600 more troops to Iraq for Mosul offensive

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter has announced that some 600 additional troops will be sent to Iraq prior to a major offensive against the city of Mosul held by the Islamic State.

Carter said President Barack Obama approved sending the troops. The troops were sent on the recommendation of General Joe Dunford, Chair of the Joint Chiefs. The Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi approved sending the additional troops and supported the U.S. decision. Carter claimed the additional troops would "further enable Iraqi forces", saying:"The troops, in close coordination with the government of Iraq, will provide specific capabilities including logistics and maintenance support; train, advise and assist teams for Iraqi Security Forces and Kurdish Peshmerga for the upcoming Mosul operation; and expanded intelligence resources to help disrupt ISIL's terrorist network in Iraq and beyond." Iraqi PM al-Abadi said: "American President Barack Obama was consulted on a request from the Iraqi government for a final increase in the number of trainers and advisers under the umbrella of the international coalition in Iraq."

The addition of the troops will raise the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to over 5,200 while the cap is supposed to be 4,600. The news did not sit well with everyone in the U.S. government. John McCain, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee called the move "mission creep". Carter will likely send a request for more funds to Congress as expenses mount for U.S. wars, including 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. McCain has suggested that there should be even more funding and that even more troops need to be sent to Iraq. He has complained that the offensive against the Islamic State has been too incremental McCain said: "They're going to need more money than, maybe, they said they'd need a couple weeks ago. And they may have to send more troops over and may have to ask for more money."

The level of U.S. involvement in Iraq has grown throughout the year. This is the third new deployment of U.S. troops since last April. The new troops will serve as trainers and advisers to Iraqi security forces as well as the Kurdish peshmerga forces concentrating on preparing for the battle to take Mosul. Carter noted that although it will be the Iraqi forces who are in combat, that American forces would be "in harm's way". Some of the troops wii be based at Qayara air base which is about 40 miles (60 km) from the city of Mosul. The base was captured in July and is being turned into a logistics hub to support the Mosul offensive. Carter said: "Mosul will be the last of the very large cities that needs to be recaptured but they’ll need to continue to consolidate control over the whole city.” The U.S. dispatched about 200 more troops in April and then 560 more in July. Three US troops have been killed so far since the battle against the Islamic State was launched. At the height of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq there were 170,000 troops deployed to Iraq. The U.S. president continues to insist that in the operation against the Islamic State there will be no troops on the ground.

CNN also has a report on the sending of a new contingent of troops to Iraq but claims there will be approximately 500 new troops. Officials claim that this will probably be the final addition of U.S. troops to Iraq. The article notes that the total number of troops listed in Iraq is misleading in that hundreds of additional troops, currently there on a short term status, are not counted.

U.S. military has used white phosphorus in Iraq against the Islamic State

Pictures and videos posted online by the Pentagon show that the United States is using white phosphorus munitiions in its fight against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq.

While the use of white phosphorus munitions is not banned, they should only be used in areas with no civilians and even the use against combatants is questionable as it causes horrible burns. The phosphorus shells can be used to make smoke screens or as signals for advancing troops. Photos on a Pentagon-managed public affairs website show a U.S. artillery unit in Iraq using white phosphorus munitions, M825A1 155mm rounds. The shell is able to create an effective smokescreen lasting about 10 minutes. There are 116 felt wedges in the shell that are impregnated with the white phosphorus. When they come in contact with the air they automatically ignite.

Col. Joseph Scrocca the public affairs director the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq claimed that the rounds are used for "screening and signaling". Scrocca claims the use of the shells is always in conformity to the Law of Armed Conflict on areas known to be free of civilians and not against enemy forces. Scrocca's statement was somewat revised by Air Force Col. John Dorrian when he commented on the photo:“In the foreground of the photo are 155mm white phosphorous rounds, which are used for screening, obscuring, and marking. When U.S. forces use these munitions, as required by the Law of Armed Conflict, they do so in a way that fully considers possible incidental effects on civilians and civilian structures,” Dorrian said in an email. “The U.S. military takes all reasonable precautions to minimize the risk of incidental injury to non-combatants and damage to civilian structures.”When asked if they had been used for other purposes, Dorrian said only that the munitiions were "used generally for the circumstances which I described." He did not say how many times the munitions had been used or if they had been dropped on enemy fighters or their equipment.

Dorrian said the photo had been taken during a 48-operation called Evergreen II involving 2,000 Kurdish fighters who were to take control of a bridge over a river in the town of Gwer. The white phosphorus was used to obscure the movement of the Kurdish forces. Islamic State forces were on the opposite side of the river. Dorian could not say if the rounds were used against Islamic State positions away from the town, or even if they had been used in the town.

This is not the first time the U.S. has used white phosphorus munitions in Iraq. The munitions were extensively used in the battle of Fallujah as described in Wikipedia:On November 9, 2005 the Italian state-run broadcaster Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. aired a documentary titled "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre", alleging that the United States used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah causing insurgents and civilians to be killed or injured by chemical burns. The filmmakers further claimed that the United States used incendiary MK-77 bombs in violation of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Mark Hiznay, the associate arms director for Human Rights said that he was concerned about the possible use of white phosphorus munitions in the campaign to retake Mosul from the IS:“When white phosphorus is used in attacks in areas containing concentrations of civilians and civilian objects, it will indiscriminately start fires over a wide area. U.S. and Iraqi forces should refrain from using white phosphorus in urban areas like Mosul because whatever tactical military advantage is gained at the time of use, it will be far outweighed by the stigma created by horrific burns to civilian victims.”

NATO has also used the munitions in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has also used the munitions in the war in Yemen,

Powerful Shia cleric says US troops are a target

Powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr told his followers to target U.S. ground troops deploying in Iraq to help fight against the Islamic State.

While Al-Sadr has tolerated the allied bombing campaign, he has constantly warned about the presence of U.S. troops on the ground. The U.S. has been continually raising the number of troops on the ground in Iraq even though they are supposedly just in an advisory role. On Monday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said 560 additional troops will be sent later this year to Iraq to help retake the city of Mosul from the Islamic State. The total U.S. troops in Iraq now will be 4,647, although troops just in Iraq for a short term apparently are not counted.

Al-Sadr was prominent after the 2003 occupation of Iraq. His Mahdi army — disbanded in 2008 and replaced by the Peace Brigades, who helped keep the Islamic State out of Baghdad — often battled with U.S. troops. The group is present in Baghdad and several other cities.

Sadr's main target so far has nothing to do with the U.S. and its troops but is against his own government. Sadr and others have been demanding reforms of the government and political system to root out corruption. Sadr's followers and supporters of reform have already twice breached the Green Zone, an ultra-secure area where the parliament and many embassies are. When the Zone was breached, the Iraqi parliament was the target, not the U.S. embassy.

Other Shi'ite militias have made similar pledges to target U.S. troops, but so far none have attacked them. If Sadr actually carries through on his threats, this could cause serious problems for the U.S. deployment in Iraq — the U.S. might find itself having to fight Shi'ite militias who are allies in the fight against IS. However, it seems Al Sadr's more immediate goal is to reform the Iraqi government. He wants to replace often corrupt cabinet ministers appointed by parties by technocrats. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has tried to implement reforms of the type Sadr recommends but political pressure has prevented him from doing so. The present parties benefit from the existing power-sharing system.

Just last Friday, Sadr supporters demonstrated at the entrance to the Green Zone but no attempt was made to breach the barrier. Security was tight and included representatives of the Peace Brigades.

Just today, Al-Abadi announced the resignation of six cabinet ministers. One was the Interior Minister who resigned after the recent blast in Baghdad on July 3 that killed almost 300 people. However, the oil minister also resigned, as did the minister of transport, housing, water resources and industry. Al-Abadi said he wanted to move away from the present power-sharing system. Perhaps with the resignation of the six ministers, Al-Abadi will be able to meet some of Al-Sadr's demands for reform.

Obama says that the U.S. will be in Iraq for a long haul

At a press conference during his visit to Saudi Arabia, President Barack Obama said the U.S. will continue its presence in Iraq over the longer term. He cited the country's political instability as showing that the U.S. needs to remain involved.

The U.S. has been increasing its military involvement in Iraq for some time, with 200 more troops sent recently. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq is now more than the cap imposed by the Iraqi government.

The political situation in Iraq is chaotic. Prime Minister Hader Abadi has been trying to have a reform cabinet of technocrats approved. The Shia mullah Moqtada al-Sadr has led huge demonstrations demanding reform. There have been fist-fights on the floor of the parliament. The speaker was sacked. The parliament has been suspended until further notice. In an attempt to force the parliament to act quickly, Obama said that increased funding for Iraq would be based on the ability of the government to get a cabinet in place. Obama said he was concerned that Abadi's hold on power was not very strong. Abadi is facing strong resistance from party members who prefer the old corrupt system which gives them more power and influence. For once, the fiercely anti-American al-Sadr and the Americans agree on something. However, Sadr is opposed to more U.S. ground troops in Iraq.

While visiting Saudi Arabia, Obama appealed to the Saudis and Gulf states to provide more financial aid for Iraq. However, the budgets of the rich oil producers are stretched by the steep decline in oil prices. The Sunni nations are not anxious to provide funds for their mainly Shia neighbor under in those circumstances. They also want the political situation to improve and Iraq to better integrate its Sunni minority into the government. Even Obama said:“Right now in Baghdad, there’s some big challenges. Until that’s settled, I think it’s important for us to make sure that any additional stabilization dollars that we put in are going to be effectively spent.”Obama has not been able to wind down U.S. involvement in the Middle East or Afghanistan, as conflicts continue. Many of Obama's Middle East allies are concerned that Obama is willing to make a peace deal in Syria that would leave Assad in power. Obama noted that the ceasefire seems to be breaking down.

United States to send more troops to Iraq

- The United States is to send more troops to Iraq. The troops will be put closer to the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State.

Most of the troops will serve as advisers for Iraqi forces who are advancing towards Mosul, the main city in Iraq still held by the Islamic State. In an interview with CBS news U.S. president Barack Obama said: "As we see the Iraqis willing to fight and gaining ground, let's make sure that we are providing them more support, My expectation is that by the end of the year, we will have created the conditions whereby Mosul will eventually fall." Earlier, Obama had been saying that Mosul would fall this year.

The advisers will be accompanying Iraqi units of about 2,500 troops moving closer to the front lines of the battle for Mosul. Until now the advisers have been with larger units far behind the lines The move could leave U.S. advisers more vulnerable to enemy mortar and artillery fire. Without mentioning the increased danger of casualties U.S. Defense Secretary, Ash Carter, said: "This will put Americans closer to the action. Their whole purpose is to be able to help those forces respond in a more agile way."

Another source claims the Pentagon said the U.S. would send 217 more ground troops, along with attack helicopters, and that they were heading for the front lines near Mosul. The new deployment makes the violation of the agreement with Iraq to cap U.S. troop numbers in Iraq quite clear:The deployment is the formal point at which the US will be violating its deal with the Iraqi government, wherein US ground troops were to be capped at 3,870. The Pentagon has admitted having almost 5,000 troops in Iraq for months, but didn’t count many, listing them as “temporary” even though they have no end date for their deployment. Today’s move will put the “official” figure at over 4,000.During previous escalations Ash Carter pressed for Apache attack helicopters to be sent but this was alway rejected by the Iraqi government.

The U.S. move could add even more problems to those faced by Iraq PM Abadi who is under pressure not to allow further US ground troops in Iraq. Abadi hopes to gain approval of a cabinet of technocrats to avoid the corruption and graft of the present system. Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has held huge demonstrations demanding reform. If the government allows in more U.S. troops this could lead to even more unrest as Al-Sadr is opposed to more U.S. ground troops.