Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

Iraqi army failing again:

If the survivors’ accounts are correct, it would make Sunday the most disastrous day for the Iraqi army since several divisions collapsed in the wake of the Islamic State’s capture of the northern city of Mosul amid its cross-country sweep in June.

In any case, the chaotic incident has highlighted shortcomings in an army that the United States has spent billions of dollars training and equipping, and it has further undermined the force’s reliability as a partner as President Obama expands airstrikes into provinces including Anbar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-state-attack-on-iraqi-base-leaves-hundreds-missing-shows-army-weaknesses/2014/09/22/9a8b9e4d-0fea-4650-8816-5e720dbffd04_story.html?hpid=z2

"It was one thing to attack in Iraq, where you had a government that wanted us to," Beinhart said. "But Congress did not vote for U.S. airstrikes in Syria and we don't have a government requesting us to do that."

What are U.S. lawmakers saying?

When the strikes began, Congress had already left town to campaign for the midterm elections, and most of the reaction came from those who had pressed the administration to act sooner. Privately, many of them conceded they were relieved not to have to take a vote on a controversial issue just weeks before voters went to the polls in November.

from cnn

x-post--legal authority for US Syrian actions seems attenuated, but hey no need to think about it before November elections

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world/middleeast/israel.html?rref=world/middleeast&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&pgtype=article

Israeli troops closed a significant chapter in the summer’s bloody escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Tuesday by cornering and killing the two men they suspected of kidnapping and murdering three Israeli teenagers in June.

Israeli military officials said the two suspects, Marwan Qawasmeh, 29, and Amer Abu Aisha, 33, had been holed up for a week in a two-story building in the West Bank city of Hebron, and refused to surrender when Israeli special forces units surrounded the building before dawn. Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman, said the two men “came out shooting.” One was “killed on the spot,” he said, while the other fell back into the destroyed building, where the troops then tossed grenades.

The two men, who were affiliated with Hamas, the militant Islamist movement, were hailed as heroes at their funerals in Hebron on Tuesday afternoon. Hundreds of mourners who walked behind the white-shrouded body of Mr. Abu Aisha shouted, “Go on, Hamas, you’re our dignity, and we’re your bullets.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/turks-leave-for-family-friendly-islamic-state-1.304677

not a single post about Khorosan yet? How am I supposed to get to know the Existential Threat to the US of the Week?

oh look David Brooks' son is in the IDF

x-post ha

Here you go

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Sep-24/271841-pentagon-says-still-investigating-if-khorasan-leader-killed-in-syria.ashx#axzz3EFvXNTXj

plus that green beret Lang blog upthread mentions them with a sarcastic tone. Fun reading

Brutal as they are, ISIS displays a certain competence at what they do. Of course, they only know how to recruit and how to conquer. They don't have any more notion about how to govern than a cat does. But they are gangbusters at conquest.

Alternatively, Iraq doesn't exist as a nation and the predominantly Shia army simply evaporates under fire (certainly true since the late 80s). No amount of training, weapons or money will fix this. Some peoples are simply not cut out for the war business.

The biggest surprise of the whole conflict has been how poorly the once fearsome Peshmurga (Kurd militia) have performed. Perhaps they've grown soft since '03.

thats fairly trite reasoning

baathist forces preferring not to be killed by overwhelmingly superior forces is not comparabale to current iraqi forces run as a sinecure or an enrichment scheme by friends of the administration

neither they or the peshmerga have any sort of ethically locatabale martial capability else you are recalling imperial british racial theories

ugh /ethnically locatable/

@JamesRisen
The Khorasan Group is kind of like the Kardashian Group. They became famous even though they've never done anything.

I'd missed this:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4574214,00.html

Israel shot down a Syrian army jet that had apparently strayed into its airspace while attacking ISIS positions in the Golan Heights. This is being taken by some as an indication that Israel still prioritises nobbling Assad (and by extension Hizballah) over tackling any notional threat posed by the rebels. Would imagine they'd shoot down pretty much anything straying into its airspace from Syria irrespective of wider political motivations, though.

yeah not really news beyond the syrian pilot fucking up afaict

This is being taken by some as an indication that Israel still prioritises nobbling Assad (and by extension Hizballah) over tackling any notional threat posed by the rebels.

Pretty much the gist of this article:

http://pando.com/2014/09/24/the-war-nerd-bombs-away-in-the-middle-east-but-why-is-israel-so-quiet/

Israel has never attacked ISIS. They've a history of supporting Islamists over more secular Arab movements (Hamas over the PLO in the early days).

John Dolan / Gary Brecher / War Nerd:

Israel and the Sunni jihadis in Syria are allies. If anybody had the sense to look carefully at how the IDF has reacted to the Syrian Civil War, god damn it, they’d have seen this years ago. Every time Israel has used its air power against any military force in Syria, it’s been against the Alawites and their Shia allies, Hezbollah. Especially Hezbollah. Never, never once, against these supposedly fearsome Sunni jihadis overrunning Syria. You know why? Because (a) they ain’t that fearsome, just a handful of undisciplined assholes; and (b) more importantly, by being undisciplined thug assholes, they make for wonderful Israeli propaganda, while also (c) bleeding Hezbollah and Assad, who are organized enough to really worry Israel in a way the grab-bag of Sunni militias never could. There’s no moral distinction between Assad and his Sunni enemies. Assad is a mass murderer many times over — but he happens to be an Iranian client and an ally of Hezbollah and those are the only two forces that really worry Israel.

XP: just noticed brownie linked to a more recent Nerd.

i had read that the US told Israel that they can't be involved in the current coalition against IS (so that they don't scare away the Arab participants). but i think in a general sense Nerd is right - Israel doesn't see IS as enough of a threat that it's worth stopping them from annoying Assad/Hezbollah/Iran.

Our first aim should be to look for ways to place the responsibility where it belongs – with the people of the region. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Jordan have made a military contribution, but what is needed is a political contribution from the heavyweights – Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Egypt.

In theory this sounds great mr. Guardian columnist, but its not gonna happen out in the open, if at all

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/26/west-isis-crusade-britain-iraq-syria

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29339696

More than 3,000 Yazidi women and children have been captured by Islamic State militants and are being trafficked for sex, the BBC has learned.

Those who have escaped have spoken of being raped, tortured and starved.

Tens of thousands of members of Iraq's Yazidi minority fled from Islamic State (IS) in August and are now homeless.

Human rights activists say more than 5,000 men, women and children are still missing.

Yolande Knell reports.

Glenn Greenwald's coverage is different. No mention of the Yazidi:

That means that Syria becomes the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama—after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Iraq.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-obama/

Greenwald says that since humanitarian efforts have failed in the past, they should not be tried again

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/08/the-road-to-baghdad-is-paved-with-good-intentions/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/08/us-bombing-iraq-redundant-presidential-ritual/

On a different aspect, Greenwald says Qatar is unfairly being demonized as the main supporter of extremists like IS. He says the UAE, Israel and American lobbying groups are behind the efforts to blame Qatar

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/25/uae-qatar-camstoll-group/

I should say, to blame Qatar alone and not other Gulf countries

The point here is not that Qatar is innocent of supporting extremists. Nor is it a reflection on any inappropriate conduct by the journalists, who are taking information from wherever they can get it (although one would certainly hope that, as Kirkpatrick did, they would make clear what the agenda and paid campaign behind this narrative is).

The point is that this coordinated media attack on Qatar – using highly paid former U.S. officials and their media allies – is simply a weapon used by the Emirates, Israel, the Saudis and others to advance their agendas. Kirkpatrick explained: ”propelling the barrage of accusations against Qatar is a regional contest for power in which competing Persian Gulf monarchies have backed opposing proxies in contested places like Gaza, Libya and especially Egypt.” As political science professor As’ad AbuKhalil wrote this week about conflicts in Syria and beyond, “the two Wahhabi regimes [Saudi Arabia and Qatar] are fighting over many issues but they both wish to speak on behalf of political Islam.”

What’s misleading isn’t the claim that Qatar funds extremists but that they do so more than other U.S. allies in the region (a narrative implanted at exactly the time Qatar has become a key target of Israel and the Emirates).

So even Iraqi troops who tried to stay and fight ran into trouble:

A lack of faith right now in Iraq's military may not help, especially after ISIS overran the Iraqi Saqlawiya military base near Falluja this weekend.

It wasn't just the defeat that stung, but claims from Iraqi soldiers that their pleas for backup went unanswered by military commanders for hours. Iraqi officials said they had tried to support them but failed.

"There is no leadership in the Iraqi army right now," said retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Francona. "The people who are paying the price are the soldiers in the trenches."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/

When a Haaretz journalist was asked to leave a Palestinian university
An isolated incident snowballed into a wide debate whether Birzeit students' right to a safe space where Israelis are not allowed should apply to leftists, as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-us-underestimated-the-rise-of-the-islamic-state-ability-of-iraqi-army/2014/09/28/9417ab26-4737-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html

60 Minutes' Kroft should have gotten snarky after Obama noted that Director of National Intelligence (and former Bush admin. employee) Clapper admitted that they had understimated the rise of ISIS, and said "was Clapper too busy with spying on Senate staffers and Americans to pay attention to Iraq? Clapper had gotten WMD wrong while working for Bush, why is he still in charge?" But alas, it was a friendly interview for the most part.

on bended knee i presume.

Inventing the Khorasan "imminent threat," and playing the media like a cheap fiddle:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/

Director of Nat. Intell Clapper was the one who lied to Congress when he told Senator Wyden that the NSA doesn't collect data on millions of Americans.

my only problem w/ the Khorasan conspiracy is that obama has never needed an excuse to justify bombing a country before - why would this be any different?

A "new group" in a different country (Syria) that is only now suddenly about to imminently attack, versus Al Queda offshoot in Yemen or Afghanistan oh yeah whatev

but it's not like he needed to manufacture consensus. it's not a huge leap between bombing IS in iraq and doing so in syria, and that still seems to be where the majority of his effort is going. no one is demanding an explanation for moving the campaign to syria, and even if they were, this minor detour for khorasan wouldn't provide cover for the rest of the campaign.

then why say "an imminent attack was planned" when there is now no evidence?

(or anyone willing to say there was)

it seems like they had intelligence about an attack, but that 'imminent' might have been overselling it.

it could even be that they posed no threat and had no plan to attack the US but Obama directed the WH to oversell the menace to score some domestic points. even that seems iffy to me, but more likely than trying to build in an excuse for attacking syria. it just doesn't make sense to sell the syria attack based on this diversion since a) it doesn't justify the rest of the attack, and b) i've never seen them care that much about justifying an attack on IS to begin with. wasn't the attack already justified based on US stepping up war against IS in general?

in the UK much has been made of the difference between operating in Iraq at the behest of the maliki govt & going in to Syria unilaterally, not sure at what level this legal distinction operates and to what extent it would apply in the US. not that this shines any light on the motivations behind the khorasan biz.

yes, that's been an issue in the US too, but what kind of legal argument is it to make that bc Khorasan is a legitimate target, that legitimizes any targeting of IS in syria? even if it was legally okay to attack the former, that wouldn't be a sufficient legal argument for the latter. if anything, i feel like the argument Obama admin has been making is that choosing to open the war against IS in Syria opened up targeting of Khorasan, not vice-versa.

Khorosan doesn't make bombing of Syria any more legal. Bombing of Iraq is potentially legal within certain parameters with permission of Iraqi government. Legality has never been much of an issue for Obama though.

Idk, is the US using manned planes instead of drones this time? Could be preparation in case of US casualties.

it's not a huge leap between bombing IS in iraq and doing so in syria,

Sure it is. The US was in Iraq and Bush had gotten legal authorization (no matter how drummed up and fake it was) for being there. There is no such clearcut legal authorization for the Syria attacks. Yes, the White House is relying on alleged legal support for the current bombings, but many are hoping Congress will (after the elections at least) address it. Politically they realized they could do it now, and like you said score some domestic points.

As attenuated as it was, the attacks in Yemen were considered attacks against Al-Queda who were planning on attacking the US. This is a different entity.

This post-war poll was conducted one month after the end of the war in the Gaza Strip. This report highlights important changes in public perception compared to the findings we obtained in our previous poll which was conducted a month ago, immediately after the war end. Findings show a drop in satisfaction with the achievements of the war, probably due to the continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip. A drop was also found in the percentage of those who believed Hamas won the war, in the percentage of opposition to dissolving armed groups in the Gaza Strip, and in the popularity of Hamas and Ismail Haniyeh. Findings also show a rise in the popularity of Abbas and Fatah. Support for a third armed intifada went down in this poll as support for negotiations increased and a majority supported the two-state solution.

http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/496

Thought you'd be talking about that Abbas speech at the UN. Condemmed by many but praised by some--http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-Prize-laureate-Zach-backs-Abbas-claims-of-Gaza-genocide-376658

Plenty of blame to go around in US govt re ISIS

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/world/middleeast/obama-fault-is-shared-in-misjudging-of-isis-threat.html?_r=0

A reconstruction of the past year suggests a number of pivotal moments when both the White House and the intelligence community misjudged the Islamic State. Even after the group’s fighters stormed across the border into Iraq at the start of the year to capture the city of Falluja and parts of Ramadi, the White House considered it a problem that could be contained.

Intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the speed of the extremists’ subsequent advance across northern Iraq. And the government as a whole was largely focused on the group as a source of foreign fighters who might pose a terrorism threat when they returned home, not as a force intent on seizing territory.

hasbarists are all excited bc they're always arguing that abbas isn't the sensible moderate he's portrayed to be. for me, tho, grandstanding before the UN from anyone isn't really news...

also apparently he doesn't agree w/ the genocide language, he just understands it? or that it's no worse than other politicians? idk, that seems like a reasonable point to me.

When asked about Abbas’s use of the word “genocide” to describe Operation Protective Edge, Zach said: “Israeli politicians have said things that are even more awful, or no less awful, than what Abbas said about genocide.”

“To some extent, whenever someone is angry after having been strung along for over a year with fruitless negotiations, then one tends to use words that aren’t so effective,” he said. “For Abbas, that word was genocide, or a mini genocide.”

The Iraqi Air Force mistakenly dropped food, water and ammunition to militants from the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS), thinking they were their own soldiers, US television NBC reported Tuesday.

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/30092014

legit lol

impressive