Operation Featherweight: Week 3, Day 2

On Tuesday (19/8/14) the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) executed US photo-journalist James Foley in response to US air-strikes against them. Normally what you want to do in response to something like this is absolutely nothing. That sends the message that this type of tactic will not influence what you are doing in any way, shape or form.

Obviously though this incident was so high profile it was impossible for the US not to react so on Wednesday (20/8/14) US President Obama was forced to issue a statement. Under these circumstances the next best thing to do would have been for the US to strike back hard in order to send the message that this type of tactic is only going to strengthen their resolve. Sadly though despite Obama's somewhat strongly worded statement the US seems intent on doing the exact opposite.

The first thing they did was to announce a criminal investigation into the killing and launch a manhunt for the killer seen in the video who has been dubbed by UK tabloids as "Jihadi John." This of course raises the possibility of daring special forces raids to bring Jihadi John to justice as happened with Osama bin Laden and Ahmed Abu Katallah who is currently awaiting trial in the US over the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The problem is that Jihadi John is at best a mid-level guy so if the US succeeds in killing or capturing him ISIL will simply replace him and carry on as before. As such although the US has considerable resources trying to chase down Jihadi John strikes me as a waste of those resources and seems to have been suggested as a way for the US to avoid taking action that will really hurt ISIL.

Next on Thursday (21/8/14) the US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel gave a press conference in which he described ISIL as like nothing the US had ever faced before. Although this may have gone someway to opening people's eyes as to the threat of ISIL it seemed intended to make the US public afraid of fighting them.

In a way the point about ISIL's size is true because ISIL are certainly much larger then any other terrorist group such as Al Qaeda. However ISIL are structured to act more as a conventional battlefield army then as a terrorist group. Although their "join us or die" ultimatum has proved to be something of an effective recruitment tool they essentially have a core force of 15,000 men. Those men are armed with light battlefield weapons such as mortars and Grad rocket launchers. Since advancing into Iraq ISIL had added to their armoury with more sophisticated weapons such as Scud missiles, armoured vehicles, tanks and anti-aircraft missiles although they don't seem to have learnt how to use those yet.

By contrast the US military has 1,300,000 men (and women) under arms and is equipped with tens of thousands of the best tanks, artillery and aircraft that money can buy. It is designed to do battle with the Soviet army that had 5,300,000 million men under arms and was equipped with 210 tank divisions along with vast artillery divisions and a huge air-force. The US military is also capable of matching the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army which has 2,285,000 (and women) under arms and has vast tank and artillery divisions, three naval fleets and a seven air-forces along with some 400 nuclear missiles.

So in short ISIL is absolutely no match more the US military and is actually unlikely to prove much of a match for the single aircraft carrier group that the US already has in position to fight them.

Finally on Friday (22/8/14) the US announced that it would not respect the border between Iraq and Syria and would fight ISIL inside Syria if need be. This is a strategy that has been lifted entirely from this week's edition of "The Economist" magazine. Although it sounds like tough talk it seems intended to erect yet another barrier to the US fighting ISIL. While I doubt much of the general public really care one way or the other in diplomatic circles it would be hugely embarrassing for the US to have to take action against ISIL in Syria.

ISIL is simply an army that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have raised with the support of western governments to overthrow the elected, secular government of Syria. This notion of population uprising against the Syrian government is simply a fantasy that people like Obama tell themselves to avoid feeling guilty over the 190,000 some people that have been killed in the process. So for the US to go and fight ISIL in Syria they would have to admit that they've been lying for the past three and half years and the Syrian government has been right all along. This would be utterly humiliating for the US not least because they have overthrown the Ukrainian government in the process and are still trying to impose sanctions against Russia for supporting the Syrian government against the insurgency.

Fortunately though it is not a step the US needs to take. Once the Syrian government realised that the international community through bodies such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was only criticising its tactics against ISIL in order to give ISIL a battlefield advantage they have made quick work in routing ISIL. As a result the Syrian military have forced ISIL back to a small area essentially north of the Euphrates river where they are having to hide behind groups like al-Nusra Front (ANF) to avoid the Syrian military. This is the main reason why ISIL launched their offensive into Iraq to steal fresh equipment and find softer targets to attack.

So if the US were to push back ISIL from Iraq and crucially cut their supply lines to prevent them retreating into Syria the Syrian military is more then capable of finishing them off. This is especially true if the international community led by the US simply acknowledged that the Syrian government has a right to fight ISIL and allows nations such as Russia to support them in that fight without fear of further sanctions.

In terms of actual US military action in Iraq it has been as light as all this political gamesmanship would indicate. On Thursday the US carried out six air-strikes close to the Mosul Dam. The targets attacked were three ISIL armoured Humvees and a single ISIL "Technical" armed truck. The majority of the strikes though were against ISIL minefields. With Kurdish forces in control of the dam those minefields are pretty meaningless targets and could even help ISIL by removing part of the dam's defences should they attempt to re-take the dam. On Friday the US carried out just three air-strikes against two ISIL Technicals and a machine gun emplacement all located around the Mosul dam. By contrast in Gaza the Israelis are carrying out roughly one air-strike every 45 minutes.

Meanwhile the Kurdish Peshmerga backed by Iraqi forces are have been retaking villages on the outskirts of the town of Jalawla which is 115km (70 miles) north-east of Baghdad and some 425km (255miles) south-east of Mosul Dam in preparation of an effort to liberate the town. ISIL though are still making advances particularly on the town of Armeli some 325km (195miles) south-east of Mosul Dam where the United Nations (UN) is warning of an impending massacre and ethnic cleansing. At neither location is the US offering any support against ISIL.

Finally I should help clear up some of the confusion over whether it is "ISIL" or ISIS." Although it is clearly marketed to a western audience the groups Arabic name is "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham" (DASH) which translates into English as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL). Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" (ISIS) is basically a mash-up of the two with "al-Sham/Sharm" being the Arabic word for "Levant." The Levant is a nation from the middle-ages made up of bits of modern Turkey, modern Iraq, modern Syria and modern Jordan. It is next to another medieval nation known as the Fertile Crescent which is made up of bits of modern Turkey, all of modern Lebanon and all of modern Israel/Palestine and bits of modern Egypt. These are both parts of the medieval Islamic Caliphate (state) that stretches from Europe and across north Africa and the middle-east. This is the area that the group wishes to conquer.

However the term ISIS is purely a creation of the western media intended to soften the groups image when we were trying to pretend they were a humanitarian group bravely protecting civilians from the brutal Syrian government. The idea being that most people would simply mistake the second "S" as meaning "Syria." Sadly even today normally respectable publications such as The Economist are still trying to perpetuate this lie.

So in summary the correct acronyms are DASH in Arabic or ISIL in English. I can think of at least one person on my Twitter list who really, really wants you to use "ISIL."


16:15 on 23/8/14 (UK date).

Edited at around 23:10 on 23/8/14 (UK date) add;

On Friday up to 70 Sunnis were massacred when gunmen opened fired inside the Musab bin Omar Mosque during Friday prayers. In response Sunni politicians have quit discussions to form a new government on the assumption that it was Shias that carried out the attack.

However before they leap to conclusions I should point out that from their activities in Syria we know that ISIL are the masters of the false flag attack. That is to say they will carry out of a massacre of this type in the hope that it will be blamed on the government. We also know that Obama has made a poorly defined "inclusive government" as a pre-condition for helping Iraq fight ISIL. Therefore I think it is extremely likely that ISIL carried out this attack to stop Iraqis forming and new government in order to further discourage the US from taking military action against them. After all ISIL aren't exactly keen on mainstream Sunnis either.