US-led coalition doubles down on IS group strategy

[webfact]

US-led coalition doubles down on IS group strategy
By LORI HINNANT and JAMEY KEATEN

PARIS (AP) — The U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State is doubling down on its strategy to fight the extremists, insisting on staying the course it set last year despite the radical group's recent conquests on both sides of the border between Iraq and Syria.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi pressed his case Tuesday for more support from the 25 countries in the coalition at a one-day Paris conference on fighting the militant group, organized within weeks of the fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the Syrian city of Palmyra.

The coalition has mustered a mix of airstrikes, intelligence sharing and assistance for Iraqi ground operations against the extremists. Al-Abadi said more was needed - his country reeling after troops pulled out of Ramadi without a fight and abandoned U.S.-supplied tanks and weapons.

"We will redouble our efforts," said Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who was leading the delegation after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry broke his leg in a cycling accident in eastern France over the weekend. IS, Blinken said, "stands for nothing and depends on people who will fall for anything."

But Tuesday's conference offered no strategy beyond that which has yet to bear fruit, and none had been expected. A member of the main Western-backed Syrian Coalition, Hadi al-Bahra, criticized the plan, saying the U.S. was avoiding targeting the Assad government and making it easier for Islamic State's takeover.

Blinken, who like the others focused primarily on Iraq on Tuesday, said the U.S. would make it easier for Iraq to obtain new weapons, after al-Abadi said the sanctions-hit countries of Iran and Russia were potentially important arms suppliers.

"Armament and ammunition, we haven't seen much. Almost none. We're relying on ourselves, but fighting is very hard this way," al-Abadi said before the conference.

Later Tuesday, the Pentagon said that 2,000 AT-4 rockets for use against armored suicide truck bombs arrived in Iraq over the weekend. A spokesman, Col. Steve Warren, said 1,000 went directly to the Iraqi for use against IS and 1,000 are intended for use in training Iraqi security forces. The Pentagon has said for some time that it also will provide the Iraqis with a variety of other unspecified anti-tank weaponry as well as capabilities to counter IS homemade bombs.

Iran and Russia are not part of the U.S.-led coalition and they did not attend Tuesday's conference, nor was there a representative from Syria. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Iraq's problems wouldn't end until Syria's government changes.

"Stabilization of Iraq cannot be achieved if there is not a political transition in Syria," he said. Just as important is political reconciliation within Iraq, notably between the Shiite-dominated government and disaffected Sunnis, who may not sympathize with IS but who have little love for the country's leadership.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the coalition is "under no illusion that a victory by military means will be easy and also we know that winning peace will be difficult."

"That's why we talked today not just about the necessary military means, but also about what's needed to bring stability to the areas that have been freed from ISIS troops," he said, using another acronym for IS.

Al-Abadi said his government was making progress, although a measure to increase the Sunni presence in Iraq's security forces has stalled in the legislature.

Acknowledging the loss of Ramadi, al-Abadi said Iraq's military needs more intelligence and more action from international allies. Within a week of the Iraqi city's fall to IS, the extremists captured the historic Syrian city of Palmyra.

More than 4,100 airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition have failed to stem the gains by IS radicals.

Al-Abadi said the flow of foreign fighters across the border into Iraq hasn't slowed, and the majority of the radical Sunni group is now foreign. Less than a year ago, he said, it was 60 percent Iraqi.

"They have brought hundreds of new fighters, foreign fighters, well trained, well-armed," al-Abadi told a small group of journalists before the meeting. "This is a transnational organization. We need all the support of the world, the intelligence of the world, and we are not getting it."

Officials in many Western countries who are part of the coalition have struggled to stop the flow of jihadi fighters from their territories to IS-controlled areas. Separately on Tuesday, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls tweeted that authorities have detected fewer than half of jihadis who left France for Syria before departure.

"As we know, our coalition has been together now for a little less than nine months. In that time, the progress we have made should give us confidence, but we have much too far to go to relax our sense of urgency," Kerry said in a call to the conference, according to excerpts released by the State Department.

Blinken said the IS controls 25 percent less territory in Iraq since the coalition work began; but the group has made enormous gains in Syria, where by some estimates it now controls half the territory.

As for the fight on the ground, both American and other officials insisted the alternatives are limited and that Iraqi forces must themselves step up.

Al-Abadi said he is investigating why commanders in Ramadi ordered troops to pull back without fighting IS extremists.

Iraqi forces outnumbered their opposition but fled the city without fighting, leaving behind large numbers of U.S.-supplied vehicles, including several tanks. This repeats a pattern in which defeated Iraq security forces have, over the past year, left behind U.S.-supplied military equipment, prompting the U.S. to destroy them in subsequent airstrikes against IS forces.

"The Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight," was the blunt assessment from U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Sunday.

Al-Abadi disagreed, saying Iraqi soldiers seemed unaware of what they were up against, suggesting that a lack of intelligence from the coalition played a role in losing the city.

"Iraqi forces are prepared to fight," he said. "If you don't have enough intelligence, if you don't have enough from airplanes seeing what's happening in advance, how can you react?"
___

Associated Press writers Patrick Quinn in Cairo, and Sylvie Corbet in Paris, contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-03

[vogie]

"Iraqi forces are prepared to fight," he said. "If you don't have enough intelligence, if you don't have enough from airplanes seeing what's happening in advance, how can you react?"

IS seems to be managing without intel and planes.

[arjunadawn]

If this is the best 25 countries can do they should begin buying their populations prayer mats now!

Total BS! "We will redouble our efforts..." this is the kind of thing people say when they are lying, and buying time.

Implicit in such a statement is the Freudian concession they are doing nothing useful to actually win a war.

What the strategy really is can be inferred from the actions on the ground, not the drivel of politicians. If this is the best the

US and others can do just stop the pretense and openly convert, or buy long steak knives now. A moron could wage a better war.

[AlQaholic]

"Armament and ammunition, we haven't seen much. Almost none. We're relying on ourselves, but fighting is very hard this way," al-Abadi said before the conference.

Well if you hadn't given away all the arms (like for example more than a 1,000 humvies) to IS and fled in panic in the first place, maybe you would have had some hardware to fight with now.

Edited June 3, 2015 by AlQaholic

[arjunadawn]

"Armament and ammunition, we haven't seen much. Almost none. We're relying on ourselves, but fighting is very hard this way," al-Abadi said before the conference.

Well if you hadn't given away all the arms (like for example more than a 1,000 humvies) to IS and fled in panic in the first place, maybe you would have had some hardware to fight with now.

You are 100% correct. I would add nearly all the remainder of DAESH's equipment was supplied directly by the US, and indirectly from the arms depo overthrown by the US in Libya, and channeled through central asia and turkey. Basically, a total Frankenstein of the west.

I have seen these soldiers. I have trained these soldiers. I have witnessed these soldiers in combat. These soldiers were always going to lose... to nearly any opponent. The only possibility of a win for them can come from civil war, and that's because they would be fighting themselves. However, the Kurds could be identified from far away as they nearly always excelled from simple to complex military tasks. Night and day, IMO.

[Steely Dan]

Kerry falling off his bicycle is a good metaphor as to the stability of the situation or indeed the coordination displayed in efforts to defeat ISIS.Whilst Obama seems to be desperate to press for a two state solution it is obvious he is trying to run the clock down on the ISIS problem. I shudder to imagine the chaos we will have by 2017.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Asiantravel]

"Armament and ammunition, we haven't seen much. Almost none. We're relying on ourselves, but fighting is very hard this way," al-Abadi said before the conference.

Well if you hadn't given away all the arms (like for example more than a 1,000 humvies) to IS and fled in panic in the first place, maybe you would have had some hardware to fight with now.

try double that amount.............................

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102722232

[simple1]

"Armament and ammunition, we haven't seen much. Almost none. We're relying on ourselves, but fighting is very hard this way," al-Abadi said before the conference.

Well if you hadn't given away all the arms (like for example more than a 1,000 humvies) to IS and fled in panic in the first place, maybe you would have had some hardware to fight with now.

You are 100% correct. I would add nearly all the remainder of DAESH's equipment was supplied directly by the US, and indirectly from the arms depo overthrown by the US in Libya, and channeled through central asia and turkey. Basically, a total Frankenstein of the west.

I have seen these soldiers. I have trained these soldiers. I have witnessed these soldiers in combat. These soldiers were always going to lose... to nearly any opponent. The only possibility of a win for them can come from civil war, and that's because they would be fighting themselves. However, the Kurds could be identified from far away as they nearly always excelled from simple to complex military tasks. Night and day, IMO.

I have read that DAESH war fighting strategy and tactics are primarily owned by ex Iraqi intelligence and military officers. Begs the question why the current Iraqi military are so challenged in countering DAESH - thoughts?

[arjunadawn]

"Armament and ammunition, we haven't seen much. Almost none. We're relying on ourselves, but fighting is very hard this way," al-Abadi said before the conference.

Well if you hadn't given away all the arms (like for example more than a 1,000 humvies) to IS and fled in panic in the first place, maybe you would have had some hardware to fight with now.

You are 100% correct. I would add nearly all the remainder of DAESH's equipment was supplied directly by the US, and indirectly from the arms depo overthrown by the US in Libya, and channeled through central asia and turkey. Basically, a total Frankenstein of the west.

I have seen these soldiers. I have trained these soldiers. I have witnessed these soldiers in combat. These soldiers were always going to lose... to nearly any opponent. The only possibility of a win for them can come from civil war, and that's because they would be fighting themselves. However, the Kurds could be identified from far away as they nearly always excelled from simple to complex military tasks. Night and day, IMO.

I have read that DAESH war fighting strategy and tactics are primarily owned by ex Iraqi intelligence and military officers. Begs the question why the current Iraqi military are so challenged in countering DAESH - thoughts?

It has been a staple of US war-fighting for a very long time, with particular regard to insurgency and guerrilla warfare- not to disband such things as the military, etc. The reasoning is to use their institutional knowledge, keep them employed, and make them part of the solution. US civilians would have had to over ride existing military doctrine to send these generals scattering to the winds, wanted in their own country.

The reason the Iraqi military is so ineffective is because the Iraqi military is so... ineffective. Remember "the mother of all battles?" Well, its really that inept. From the beginning of their training, whether it was Emergency Response Unit (Counter Terror) or High Threat Protection or basic military operations, the aim was to enable them to be an effective fighting force on their own. However, that plan jumped the tracks immediately and "advisers" were required on nearly all operations. This reality was concealed behind the notion that the accompanying 'advisers' were able to call in air support, liaise, etc. But in reality they were needed to direct all but the most simple of tasks.

But this does not explain resolve or the effectiveness of DAESH. It must first be considered, in any event, if IS is effective or if only appearing so relative to the environment they operate- Iraqis, Syrians, etc? Remember, minimaly few Kurds armed with negligible equipment repeatedly repulsed DAESH. Yet relative to Iraqis IS is effective both because they believe in something and they employ considerable non arabs in executing various strategic and tactial goals. The Iraqis, on the other hand, variously loathe their leaders, and with good reason. The country is basically run by Iranians/shia, and the last war with Iran is still part of the public memory; this has got to be disturbing. Since gaining power various pogroms of sorts have left the sunnis feeling less than loved. In a number of ways, DAESH is the lesser of two evils; at least they are arguably sunni. The military is also aware they they are effectively battling their own generals.

One last piece of the puzzle that is perhaps the most vital is the role of an Iraqi fighting man in society. Few people in the West take this into consideration but it is the governing fabric of life in the middle east:

Islam is superimposed on the State but penetrates/ controls everywhere.

The state is superimposed on regions, and islam penetrates/controls here.

The regions are superimposed on tribes, and islam penetrates/controls here.

The tribes are superimposed on the family and extended family...

Lastly the individual, blood and oath bound to the foregoing ties, serves the state as a soldier...

(Note: it is not lost on Iraqis that the single greatest military in Iraq is actually now the shia militias. If you are sunni, this is profoundly disagreeable).

The allegiances/Bay'ah of the tribes change frequently. Association in the military with other men, from other tribes or regions, may be agreeable but just as equally not. Service is first to family and tribe and Al Lah. At the end of the long list is devotion to state, a recent and disputed creation of the West. It is in this framework the Iraqi soldier battles, or not. This is just my opinion. It can be tweaked but it is generally correct. This last part is the singular reason the West loses repeatedly in middle east interactions. Knowing these above things may not change outcomes but it can certainly better inform choices and consequences.

[simple1]

I have read that DAESH war fighting strategy and tactics are primarily owned by ex Iraqi intelligence and military officers. Begs the question why the current Iraqi military are so challenged in countering DAESH - thoughts?

It has been a staple of US war-fighting for a very long time, with particular regard to insurgency and guerrilla warfare- not to disband such things as the military, etc. The reasoning is to use their institutional knowledge, keep them employed, and make them part of the solution. US civilians would have had to over ride existing military doctrine to send these generals scattering to the winds, wanted in their own country.

The reason the Iraqi military is so ineffective is because the Iraqi military is so... ineffective. Remember "the mother of all battles?" Well, its really that inept. From the beginning of their training, whether it was Emergency Response Unit (Counter Terror) or High Threat Protection or basic military operations, the aim was to enable them to be an effective fighting force on their own. However, that plan jumped the tracks immediately and "advisers" were required on nearly all operations. This reality was concealed behind the notion that the accompanying 'advisers' were able to call in air support, liaise, etc. But in reality they were needed to direct all but the most simple of tasks.

But this does not explain resolve or the effectiveness of DAESH. It must first be considered, in any event, if IS is effective or if only appearing so relative to the environment they operate- Iraqis, Syrians, etc? Remember, minimaly few Kurds armed with negligible equipment repeatedly repulsed DAESH. Yet relative to Iraqis IS is effective both because they believe in something and they employ considerable non arabs in executing various strategic and tactial goals. The Iraqis, on the other hand, variously loathe their leaders, and with good reason. The country is basically run by Iranians/shia, and the last war with Iran is still part of the public memory; this has got to be disturbing. Since gaining power various pogroms of sorts have left the sunnis feeling less than loved. In a number of ways, DAESH is the lesser of two evils; at least they are arguably sunni. The military is also aware they they are effectively battling their own generals.

One last piece of the puzzle that is perhaps the most vital is the role of an Iraqi fighting man in society. Few people in the West take this into consideration but it is the governing fabric of life in the middle east:

Islam is superimposed on the State but penetrates/ controls everywhere.

The state is superimposed on regions, and islam penetrates/controls here.

The regions are superimposed on tribes, and islam penetrates/controls here.

The tribes are superimposed on the family and extended family...

Lastly the individual, blood and oath bound to the foregoing ties, serves the state as a soldier...

(Note: it is not lost on Iraqis that the single greatest military in Iraq is actually now the shia militias. If you are sunni, this is profoundly disagreeable).

The allegiances/Bay'ah of the tribes change frequently. Association in the military with other men, from other tribes or regions, may be agreeable but just as equally not. Service is first to family and tribe and Al Lah. At the end of the long list is devotion to state, a recent and disputed creation of the West. It is in this framework the Iraqi soldier battles, or not. This is just my opinion. It can be tweaked but it is generally correct. This last part is the singular reason the West loses repeatedly in middle east interactions. Knowing these above things may not change outcomes but it can certainly better inform choices and consequences.

OK, you have summarised my understanding. Currently the US & Oz commanders publicly state it will take 2/3 years to destroy DAESH militarily. I do not have a military background so in your opinion what is the necessary military strategy to address DAESH in Iraq and Syria?