Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 4, Day 2.

The US and the Gulf States shambolic bombing of Syria has continued into a seventh day. Perhaps indicating how badly the operation is going the US now no longer seems happy to provide details of how many strikes have taken place, where they've taken place and what has been targeted. Instead they are simply providing a total of the number of strikes that have taken place since the operation began eight weeks ago.

However from sources on the ground it appears that overnight unidentified targets were struck close to Al-Hasaka which is around 160km (96miles) north-east of Raqqa which is the self-declared capital of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Another main target appears to have been the Kuniko natural gas processing facility which is less then 100km (60miles) to the east of the city of Homs.

This is important because the city of Homs is very much under the control of the Syrian government. As such the attack seems to have been carried out in order to send the message that the coalition is getting ever closer to disregarding United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2170 (2014) which gives it authority to attack ISIL and Al Nusra Front (ANF) and simply start launching attacks against the Syrian government in support of ISIL and ANF. The destruction of the Kuniko facility itself seems to be a clear effort to prevent the Syrian government from regaining control of the facility in order to starve Homs of fuel.

The night's bombing has also brought about the first big disaster of the campaign with the destruction of a grain storage facility in Manbij which is around 45km (27miles) north-east of the city of Aleppo. What appears to have happened is that coalition aircraft thought that they were attacking an "oil refinery" - seemingly the blanket term for any fuel storage facility - controlled by ANF. However what the coalition thought were fuel storage tanks were in fact grain silos meaning that the attack killed civilians rather then terrorists and destroyed a substantial part of the civilian food supply which is hardly likely to endear to the coalition to Syrian civilians.

This mistake was entirely a result of the coalition's failure to draw up a proper strategic plan to defeat ISIL. As they haven't carried out a proper assessment of how ISIL functions in order to find out where it is weak they also haven't carried out proper reconnaissance in order to find out what their proposed targets actually are before deciding to bomb them.

In fact the main priority for striking something, anything in Manbij seems to be that it is so close to Aleppo. The city of Aleppo is largely under the complete control of the Syrian government after they expelled ANF from most of the city back in August 2014. As such the coalition again seems to be indicating that it is on the verge of attacking Syrian forces rather then ISIL or ANF. No doubt they will attempt to claim that the first such attack was a 'mistake.'

The decision to start attacking ANF positions seems to be a foolish one in itself. Prior to the passing of resolution 2170 (2014) ANF and ISIL were very much sworn enemies spending much of their time attacking each other. Although the coalition is tasked with fighting both ISIL and ANF the rivalry between the two very much worked to the coalition's advantage because it meant that not only was the coalition working to weaken ISIL and ANF but ISIL and ANF were also working to weaken each other. Since the coalition has started attacking ANF targets - including the base of the Khorasan Group - ANF and ISIL have more or less stopped fighting each other and seem to be working to form an alliance to fight against the coalition. As a result the coalition has gone from fighting two small opponents to fighting one big enemy.

All of this bombing seems to have had absolutely no effect on stopping ISIL from advancing into fresh territory. Their two week advance on the strategically important town of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab which is around 1km (0.6miles) from the border with Turkey has continued unabated. The city now seems to have been completely encircled with ISIL less then 5km (3 miles) from the city gates. This has triggered another humanitarian crisis as its Kurdish residents see their supplies of food and water dwindle. If the city does fall to ISIL not only does it spell near certain death for its residents it will also put ISIL in touching distance of Turkey making it much easier for them to smuggle oil out and weapons and fighters into Syria.

There have also been significant setbacks in Iraq. Two weeks ago the Iraqi army stretched themselves out in an effort to re-take both the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi which are 50km (30miles) and 100km (60miles) west of the capital Baghdad respectively. The expectation being that the US would be conducting air-strikes in support of that offensive allowing the Iraqis to secure a big victory by liberating the cities from ISIL. However since then the US seems to have completely forgotten about operations in Iraq in favour of large but largely ineffective strikes in Syria. As a result the offensive appears to have ground to a halt and ISIL have been able to take advantage of the Iraqi army's strained resources to make small gains close to the capital. In some places they are said to be just 10km (6miles) from Baghdad but don't seem to have the strength to actually mount an assault on the capital.

This of course all contributes to a growing sense - albeit entirely false - that ISIL have the upper hand and that there is nothing the coalition can do to stop them. That obviously hands the momentum to ISIL allowing them to grow in strength.

15:50 on 29/9/14 (UK date).

Operation Feathweight: Month 2, Week 4, Day 1.

Over the past 24 to 48 hours the US and the Gulf States seemingly random bombing of Iraq and Syria has continued albeit at a slightly reduced rate.

On Friday (26/9/14) through to Saturday (27/9/14) the US struck 7 targets in Iraq with 5 strikes taking place in the vicinity of Kurdish Peshmerga forces close to Kirkuk, 1 taking place in the vicinity of Iraqi forces close to Baghdad and 1 taking place close to Al Qaim which is right on the border with Syria around 200km (120m) south-east of the Syrian city of Dayr az Zawr.

The strikes close to Kirkuk destroyed 3 Humvees and one supply truck belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). They also damaged 2 ISIL armed "technical" trucks and damaged 1 ISIL Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP). The strike close to Baghdad destroyed an ISIL bunker, guard post and a technical. The strike close to Al Qaim destroyed 4 technicals, a checkpoint and what is being termed a "command and control node" which presumably means some type of radio transmitter.

Despite the majority of these strikes taking place close to Kurdish Peshmerga forces who are operating on the ground close to Kirkuk and Iraqi forces who are operating on the ground close to Baghdad there seems to have been absolutely no attempt to co-ordinate these air-strikes with those ground forces in order to allow those ground forces to take advantage of the strikes to liberate territory from ISIL. In fact the Peshmerga have been complaining that they are being given so little information about when and where air-strikes are going to take place that there is a constant risk of them being caught up in so-called friendly fire.

Within Syria the US alongside Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have carried out an undisclosed number of air-strikes against undisclosed targets close to the Kurdish city of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab which is around 1km (0.6miles) from the border with Turkey. The secrecy around this strikes may be intended to give the impression that they have been carried out to stop ISIL's advance into Kurdish territory. However it appears that rather then being attempts to attack ISIL forces these strikes have instead been targeting buildings which the US has been happy to let people believe are ISIL oil refineries. According to people on the ground though these buildings are actually just fuel stores which are used by civilians living in the local area - gas stations essentially.

As there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether these fuel stores are even under ISIL control these strikes again raise the problems I highlighted on Thursday (25/9/14). As there has been no attempt to engage ISIL forces with these strikes it almost goes without saying that there has been absolutely no attempt to co-ordinate the air-strikes with ground forces operating in the area.

The most peculiar of the weekend's strikes though took place in Syria's Homs province east of the city of Palmyra. The first thing that is strikingly odd about these strikes is that ISIL are almost exclusively located north of the Euphrates River. These strikes have taken place some 130km (78miles) south of Raqqa and 150km (90miles) south-west of Dayr az Zawr which are both on the river putting the strikes well outside of ISIL controlled territory. The other very strange thing about these strikes is that it is far from clear who controls that area because largely being desert there isn't actually much there to control.

The main purpose of the strikes therefore seems to be a hope that people would mistake Homs Province with Homs City which is the provincial capital but is around 160km (96miles) to the west. Homs City is very firmly under the control of the Syrian government so along with the announcement that camps belonging to "other terrorist groups" who aren't covered by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2170 (2014) these strikes seem to have been the Saudis sending the very clear message that they intend to do whatever they like in Syria including bombing government forces

Despite these fresh air-strikes and Saudi Arabia's pretty vocal threats there still doesn't seem to be any indication that any of these bombings are going to be brought together in a coherent strategy to defeat ISIL anytime soon. Of the 12 nations who have contributed military assets to the coalition 5 of them have yet to conduct any air-strikes whatsoever for the simple reason that they still don't have an airbase to operate from. The Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has indicated that he is very keen to send Turkish ground forces into northern Syria. However as he is still refusing to allow the coalition to use Incirlik airbase which was used as the base for "Operation Provide Comfort" (1991-1996) and "Operation Northern Watch" (1997-2003) I suspect that this is simply Erdogan looking for an excuse to use Turkish troops to further occupy Kurdish territory.

The coalition is still lacking a central command cell and a supreme commander of forces. If such as structure were to be established the commanders first task would be to take US President Obama's super vague objective of "degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL" and turning it into a series of concrete military objectives.

The first of these would likely be to prevent ISIL from advancing further into fresh territory. This would be achieved by flying armed patrols along the borders of the territory ISIL currently controls. If the aircrews flying those missions were to identify any offensive ISIL targets - e.g a firing position - they would then immediately engage that target in an attempt to destroy it. The next objective would likely be to force ISIL out of the territory they currently occupy. This would be achieved firstly by weakening ISIL's forward positions by conducting strategic bombings raids against the networks directly supplying those forward positions and secondly by providing close air-support to ground forces in order to punch a hole in that forward line allowing the ground forces to move in and clear the area. While this is taking place the coalition is also likely to carry out strategic bombing of ISIL's rear echelon positions to weaken the organisation overall.

Unless the coalition does put together a strategic plan to defeat ISIL I am going to have to start questioning whether this ad-hoc bombing is doing more harm then good by increasing the threat that ISIL pose to the nations in the coalition. By attacking ISIL the coalition is very obviously provoking the organisation and its supporters to attack members of the coalition in retaliation. By failing to show that the coalition is capable of quickly defeating ISIL it is further encouraging ISIL to stand and make a fight of it by giving them the impression that they can win. So unless a plan comes together soon I am beginning to wonder if I can recommend that the US Congress supports this operation in its current form.

Following the UK Parliament giving them permission to join the coalition on Friday (26/9/14) the UK's Royal Air Force (RAF) have flown several armed patrols consisting of 2 Tornado GR4's operating in pairs over northern Iraq much as they did during Operations Provide Comfort and Northern Watch. However the RAF have yet to identify any ground targets to strike. Although I'm sure they're far to well disciplined to say it outright this strikes me as the RAF contributing to the coalition by pointing out that they are there to successfully achieve a series of military objectives.

They are not there to randomly bomb things in the hope that the electorate will get off their backs.  

15:30 on 28/9/14 (UK date).

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 3, Day 6.

Today the UK Parliament is debating and is expected to vote on a motion authorising the use of  the British military in Iraq in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The text of that motion can be read here; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmagenda/ob140926.htm

The majority of the motion is rather self-explanatory and uncontroversial. It simply establishes that Iraq has come under invasion by a foreign group (ISIL) and the Iraqi government has requested British help (air-strikes) in repelling that incursion. The crucial element of the motion though is that it "does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament." meaning that if the UK wishes to become involved in Syria it will require further Parliamentary discussion and a vote to do so. Also the motion does not allow for the UK to deploy ground forces into combat in Iraq.

The motion is supported by the UK government's legal position on the issue that can be read here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/military-action-in-iraq-against-isil-government-legal-position/summary-of-the-government-legal-position-on-military-action-in-iraq-against-isil

Unlike the legal position published last year proposing air-strikes in support of ISIL the UK government have actually got it right this time. ISIL have invaded or partially invaded the sovereign territory of Iraq which is an illegal act under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The Iraqi government has requested that the UK assist them in repelling that incursion which is a lawful request under Article 51 of United Nations Charter. If the Iraqi government had not made such a request then the threat to regional security and the high crimes against humanity committed by ISIL would give the UK authority to act under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2170(2014) which was passed under Article 42 (Chapter 7) of the United Nations Charter.

The moral case for military action couldn't be more clear; To quote Abu Qatada who hardly has a reputation as a moderate ISIL are simply a "killing machine." Their entire purpose is to force themselves into a territory and then exterminate any man, woman and child who disagrees with them be they Christians, Yazidis, Shia Muslims or even Sunni Muslims who have simply read and understood the Qu'ran. This type to wanton destruction quite clearly constitutes a crime against humanity and has not been seen on this scale since Nazi Germany rampaged across much of Europe causing the World to define crimes against humanity.

With the legal and moral tests having been more then passed along with a very real chance that military action will defeat ISIL if done properly and a clear limitation being placed on that action to prevent mission creep I have absolutely no problem supporting this motion. I hope the UK Parliament does the same.

11:55 on 26/9/14 (UK date).

Edited at around 16:40 on 26/9/14 (UK date) to add;

The UK Parliament has voted overwhelmingly in support of the motion by a margin of 524 votes in favour to 43 votes against. This gives permission for 6 Royal Air Force (RAF) GR4 Tornado jets to join the undisclosed number of French Rafele jets, the 8 Australian F/A-18 jets, the 6 Dutch F-16 jets, the 6 Belgian F-16 jets and the 7 Danish F-16 jets that have been dispatched to take action in Iraq.

Although the British can operate from an RAF base in Cyprus the first task these nations face is to get permission from the US to operate from an airbase in Iraq or from the Incirlik base in Turkey. Their second task will be to help the US draw up a strategic plan to fight ISIL because right now operations have been utterly chaotic.

In the past 24 hours the US has bombed ISIL vehicles close to Kurdish Peshmerga positions around Kirkuk and ISIL vehicles close to Iraqi army positions near Baghdad. However in neither instance does there seem to have been any co-ordination between the air forces and the ground forces to allow the ground forces to take advantage of these strikes by seizing territory from ISIL. In Syria the situation is even more disorganised. The US has destroyed 4 ISIL tanks close to Dayr az Zawr where they didn't seem to be posing a direct threat to anyone. An undisclosed member of the coalition (likely Saudi Arabia) has continued to attack ISIL controlled oil refineries around Dayr az Zawr. There have also been unconfirmed reports of air-strikes (most likely by the UAE) being carried out in ISIL positions close to Kobane/Ayn al-Arab where they may have had some small effect in slowing ISIL's advance into Kurdish territory.

None of these air-strikes seem to be in any way connected to each other and certainly don't seem to be part of any strategic plan. Instead they seem to be simply isolated incidents of random violence which serve little purpose in defeating ISIL.

If this was a purely North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) operation what would have already have happened by now is that a central command would have been assembled with a single, designated supreme commander of operations. That commander would then draw up a battle plan to defeat ISIL and identify the targets that need to be destroyed in order for that battle plan to succeed. Those targets would then be assigned to the forces in the coalition capable of dealing with them on almost taxi rank like basis.

As such I think everyone in the coalition should stop bombing until such a time as this central command and control structure has been set up and judging by the problems at the air traffic command and control centre in Chicago, US I'm not alone in thinking that. After all without a strategic plan to defeat ISIL this is simply a lot of people wasting a lot of time and money - a self-inflicted wound if you will.

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 3, Day 5.

On Wednesday (24/9/14) the US-led coalition continued it's strategic bombing campaign Syria. In total they carried out 15 separate air-strikes. Three of these strikes took place in the area surrounding Dayr az Zawr which sits on the Euphrates River and is around 175km (105miles) from the border with Iraq. Each one of those strikes destroyed or partially destroyed a single armed "technical" truck belonging the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The majority of the air-strikes (13 in total) though were against Al Hasakah which is around 250km (150 miles) north of Dayr az Zawr and Al Mayadin and Abu Kamal which are respectively around 50km (30 miles) and 130km (78miles) to the south-east of Dayr az Zawr along the Euphrates River towards the Iraq border. All of these 13 strikes were targeted against what are termed "modular oil refineries." These are small, partially pre-fabricated oil refineries that are intended to be used close to oil fields mainly to produce fuel to operate the oil field. Although they are in construction terms easy to disassemble, transport and reassemble I wouldn't go so far as to describe them as "mobile."

The reason given from selecting these targets for attack is that they were being used by ISIL to refine oil from fields they hold in Iraq into petrol that they were selling on the black market for an estimated USD2million per day although I suspect the black market price would have been around 40% lower. Therefore the refineries were destroyed in order to starve ISIL of this revenue stream. I however think that it was an unwise target to strike at this time. As these strikes have not closed off the smuggling routes across Turkey that ISIL used to sell its refined gasoline they will simply switch to selling crude oil instead although admittedly that will reduce their potential customer pool and the price per barrel they can charge.

Secondly I think the main purpose of these refineries was not to produce a product for export but to simply provide fuel to people living in areas under ISIL control. Obviously disrupting that supply will have some impact on ISIL's ability to fight but it is likely that they will respond by introducing rationing meaning that the people who will be hit the hardest by these strikes are civilians such as the taxi driver who needs fuel to run his business, the motorcyclists who needs fuel to get to his job or the meat seller who needs fuel to run a generator to power his fridges. A disruption to the fuel supply is going to make those people very angry. In the short term that anger will likely be directed against ISIL which would be very useful if ground forces were in position ready to overthrow ISIL. However as it is likely to be several months before ISIL areas in Syria are liberated it is likely that any anger will be controlled and steadily built up against the people who are doing the bombing strengthening support for ISIL and making the areas harder to liberate when ground forces eventually arrive.

As such I think a much better idea would have been to focus strategic bombing efforts on Iraq where ground forces are in position. That way the Iraqi oil fields which supplied to oil to the Syrian refineries would be more easily recaptured preventing ISIL from selling any oil products. Plus by stopping the supply to the refineries you would be able to choke of the supply of gasoline but because no-one would see any bombing they would associate any shortages with ISIL rather then with the people doing the bombing. Also once big Iraqi cities such as Mosul, Ramadi and Fallujah start being liberated it creates this wave of inevitability that ISIL are going to be overthrown which will make it much harder for them to attract new support and consolidate the support they already have in areas under their control.

The telling thing about yesterday's strikes is that the majority of them were carried out not by the US but by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and primarily Saudi Arabia. This seems to indicate that the US is now nothing more then a high paying passenger on an operation that is being driven by the Gulf States.

Despite the large scale expansion of operations into Syria it seems that the US has not completely forgotten about Iraq where it continues some small scale, pin-prick strikes. On Monday (22/9/14) the US carried out four strikes which destroyed two unarmed ISIL vehicles, an ISIL tank and damaged an ISIL Humvee in the vicinity of Kirkuk which is around 125km (75miles) south of Arbil and 200km (120miles) south-east of Mosul. On Tuesday (23/9/14) the US carried out a single strike that destroyed a single ISIL technical just north of Baghdad. There is of course no indication that these strikes were undertaken either in support of the Iraqi army's attempts to retake Ramadi and Fallujah or that they were part of a strategic campaign intended to seriously disrupt ISIL's operations in the country.

Today it has been announced that France has carried out air-strikes in Iraq on Wednesday night/Thursday morning. As is common with the French they have yet to announce precise details about the aircraft used and the type of targets struck but as they are still being forced to operate from bases in the UAE it is likely to be similar to the strike on September 19th when Rafele jets destroyed an ISIL logistics depot in northern Iraq. That was an example of strategic bombing.

Another significant flaw in the coalition's current plan is the absence of air-strikes in northern Syria close to Kobane/Ayn al-Arab where ISIL are continuing their advance against Kurdish areas. Pin-prick strikes of the type currently being used in Iraq would be highly effective here in stopping the ISIL advance which would both reduce the amount of territory held by ISIL and the number of Kurdish civilians under threat of extermination by them.

On Friday (16/9/14) the British Parliament is being recalled to discuss and vote on a motion allowing UK forces to join in air-strikes. Obviously I will need to read the exact text of the motion before commenting fully. However if as has been indicated it will only allow for strikes in Iraq with a separate vote being required for strikes in Syria I would be inclined to support it because with both the permission of the Iraqi government and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2170 (2014) there is no question over the legality of these strikes. Plus it is clear that a lot of experienced heads are going to be needed to nudge US President Obama into conducting this operation properly in order to stop it turning into a disaster.

Finally Obama chaired a special session of the UNSC yesterday that unanimously passed resolution 2178 (2014) which is intended to tackle foreign fighters attempting to join ISIL. The UK quickly responded to by arresting well known MI5 asset Anjem Choudary on unrelated charges to show that the UK is complying with the resolution and offering suggestions of how other nations could discreetly act to dismantle the pipelines they've built up to supply ISIL with fighters.

What is really interesting about this UNSC session though is that Obama had originally intended for it to be used to pass a resolution authorising broad military action in Syria. However I gather that in pre-negotiations so many nations indicated that they would not be supporting a plan that seems so poorly thought through Obama was unable to bring it to the table for formal discussion.

17:00 on 25/9/14 (UK date).

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 3, Day 4.

On Monday (22/9/14) night into Tuesday (23/9/14) morning the United States along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Jordan carried out air-strikes for the first time in Syria. The targets of these strikes were the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and a little known jihadist group who have been named the Khorasan Group.

The strikes against ISIL were on a huge scale involving both a range of ground attack aircraft including the B-1 Lancer strategic bomber and the new F-22 Raptor stealth multi-role fighter alongside 47 Tomahawk Cruise missiles. They focused on the ISIL strongholds of Ar Raqqah, Dayr az Zawr, Al Hasakah in north-east Syria and Abu Kamal which is on the border with Iraq along Euphrates River. The strikes were focused on barracks, training centres, command and control centres and logistics and storage facilities including what is being termed a finance centre. This was full scale strategic bombing intended to cripple the enemy by destroying its core structure. It also appears to have been highly successful with every identified target being either partially or fully destroyed. Apparently the operation was so successful that Qatari aircraft who were tasked with carrying out a second wave of attacks didn't need to drop their bombs because the first wave of strikes had already destroyed the targets.

This intensity of air-strike is what is needed to defeat ISIL rather then simply containing the threat it presents. They were also completely legal having being authorised by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) through resolution 2170 (2014) which as a Chapter 7 resolution authorises nations to do everything in their power up to and including military force. As such I only have one complaint about these strikes but it is a very serious complaint. Essentially the strikes have taken place at the wrong time in the wrong location. Although they are a very large terrorist group in conventional military terms ISIL are absolutely tiny. As such if air-strikes were to continue at this intensity I very much doubt that ISIL would last a month. However once ISIL has collapsed under aerial bombing you need ground troops to go into the area to tidy up after them by collecting up any fighters and weapons that are left over.

Due to US President Obama's rather bizarre insistence on training Arab insurgents groups in Syria to perform this task rather then working with the Kurds those ground troops aren't going to be available until January 2015 at the earliest. In neighbouring Iraq where ISIL are also operating the situation couldn't be more different with the Kurdish Peshmerga currently poised almost at the gates of Mosul ready to liberate it while the Iraqi military are already conducting an operation to liberate Ramadi and Fallujah. Therefore unless Obama is prepared to work with the Kurds in Syria it makes a lot more sense for the US-led coalition to carry out the type of strategic bombing that is currently taking place in Syria in Iraq instead while the type of pin-prick, highly targeted close air-support type strikes that are currently taking place in Iraq are used to contain ISIL in Syria until a ground force becomes available.

In short Obama has got this operation ass backwards making it much more difficult to control the outcome.

The attacks against the Khorasan Group which took place in north-west Syria close to the city of Aleppo are an entirely different story. Although the US is trying to portray the Khorasan Group as a stand alone terrorist group they actually function much more as special forces trainers that Al Qaeda have sent to Syria to help make other terrorist groups such as Al Nusra Front (ANF) better able to fight ISIL. This means that militarily the US-led coalition would want to keep them going for as long as possible because they will make life even harder for ISIL. As such the decision to target the Khorasan Group seems to be an entirely political one.

The main thing that is politically important about the Khorasan Group is that they are not covered by UNSC resolution 2170 (2014) meaning that there is no legal basis for them to be attacked. The US has been attempting to argue that because they are linked to Al Qaeda it has the authority to attack them under the 2001 Authorisation of Military Force Against Terrorists. However this is a hugely controversial position because as a piece of internal US legislation the 2001 Authorisation has little bearing on international law meaning that the US operation in Afghanistan was actually authorised under UNSC resolution 1363 (2001) which is Chapter 7 resolution passed back in July 2001. The 2001 Authorisation of Military Force Against Terrorists also formed the basis for the US' 2002 Iraq resolution which was rejected by the UNSC in the run up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

We are currently at the start of the two week opening session of the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Obama has made it quite clear that he intends to use this period to press for a resolution to authorise military force in Syria that goes far beyond resolution 2170 (2014). The attack on the Khorasan Group raises all sorts of questions about how far any military action will go in terms of the scope of the groups that can be attacked and whether a group needs to be specifically listed in order for it to be legally attacked. By tangling this discussion up in the old arguments about the 2003 invasion of Iraq and by showing that it is prepared to act beyonds the bounds of resolution 2170 (2014) the US seems to be trying to bully the UNSC into passing a very broad resolution which will allow it and its coalition partners to do pretty much what they like in Syria. I on the other hand think that any resolution needs to specify that any attacks on the Syrian government - even instances of self defence - will have to be authorised by a separate UNSC resolution and that there will be consequences for anyone violating those terms.

The ways in which a resolution authorising military force in Syria could be abused are touched on by the name given to the Khorasan Group. "Khorasan" is a Persian word meaning "the place where the sun rises" and up until 2004 was the name of a large province in north-eastern Iran which has since been divided into several smaller provinces. The decision by US and most likely Saudi intelligence to assign the name Khorasan to this group seems like an attempt to strengthen ISIL by portraying anyone who fights them as puppets to the majority Shia Iran. In this specific instance they seem to be being used as a metaphor for Syria's majority Shia government which Saudi Arabia has long considered to be "terrorist" because they simply won't bow to Saudi dominance of the entire region. As such the attack on Khorasan Groups seems to be quite a clear signal that any resolution authorising military force in Syria will be abused by the coalition to carry out attacks against the Syrian government rather then ISIL.

The talk of an imminent threat of an attack by the Khorasan Group on western targets using advanced explosives also leaps straight into the murky world of support for terrorism in the middle-east. If there was actually a plot rather then simply false intelligence claiming that there was a plot is would have been led by  Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri - a Saudi based in Yemen who is believed to be responsible for a number of questionable plots such as the 2009 Christmas Day underpants bomb plot and the 2010 cargo plane bomb plot.

As with its immediate neighbour Saudi Arabia Yemen is a nation with high levels of poverty and income inequality and a sizable Shia minority being ruled over by the Sunni majority - often highly unfairly. As such Saudi Arabia has long been terrified that the Shia and tribal uprising that began in Yemen in 2011 would spread to Saudi Arabia leading to the overthrow of the Saudi Monarchy. So in response Saudi Arabia has systematically been building up Al Qaeda in Yemen in order to get the US to conduct anti-terror operations - particularly drone strikes - which actually force the US to act as the protector of the Saudi Monarchy. From Yemen Saudi Arabia has gone on to export terrorists to Somalia, Syria, Libya and even possibly Nigeria. This is obviously a hugely controversial topic for conversation because given the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia for not well supported allegations of interference in Ukraine then Saudi Arabia should long ago have been expelled from the UN and invaded for presenting a very serious threat to global peace, security and stability.

The air-strikes in Syria also overshadowed a special meeting on the UNGA on climate change. It has long been well established that the oil rich states led by Saudi Arabia are totally opposed to any action to tackle climate change and are prepared to use their vast wealth to bribe and bully nations into not taking action. By pulling Saudi Arabia's questionable methods in sharp focus through these air-strikes it would have helped them to identify which nations support them in climate change negotiations and which nations need to be singled out for extra attention. Given the way that the US and the UNSC has repeatedly bent to Saudi Arabia's will at the expense of international law and global security over recent years this type of discussion is also likely to intimidate developing nations by making them worry that if they support action on climate change they'll suddenly end up with an ISIL or a Boko Haram of their own to deal with.

16:10 on 24/9/14 (UK date).

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 3, Day 3.

Overnight the US along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Jordan and Bahrain have launched a large air campaign in northern Syria. This campaign has used dozens of attack aircraft alongside Cruise missiles and according to some reports is still ongoing. As a result it is quite difficult to assess what exactly has happened meaning that this post should be considered a work in progress.

What is immediately obvious though it despite their claim that these strikes have been carried out against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) they have actually been focused on another group known as the Khorasan Group who are a declared enemy of ISIL. The Khorasan Group are also not members of Al Nusra Front (ANF) and as such are not covered by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution  2170 (2014). As such there appears to be absolutely no legal basis for this action. The involvement of Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have been engaged in a completely illegal war against Syria for the past three and a half years is also deeply problematic.

We are currently at the start of the opening of the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). US President Obama has already made it perfectly clear that he intends to use this two week meeting to produce another UNSC resolution on the use of force on Syria that goes far beyond 2170. As such the primary purpose of these strikes appears to be to bully the UNSC into passing a resolution that will allow Saudi Arabia and Qatar to bomb Syria at will.

You will of course note that the US is still refusing to use this level of force against ISIL within Iraq. Therefore the intention appears to be to force ISIL into a safe haven on the Syria/Iraq border from where they can be used as an excuse to attack Syria whilst still destabilising Iraq.

As such unless any proposed resolution strictly defines the groups that can be attacked in Syria and excludes Saudi Arabia and Qatar from any attacks I think I can hear Russia and China's veto pencils being sharpened as I write.


10:35 on 23/9/14 (UK date).

Edited at around 12:15 on 23/9/14 (UK date) to add; 

Very little is known about the Khorasan Group because they are so new that US intelligence only acknowledged their existence five days ago on September 18th (18/9/14). However it seems that the Khorasan Group aren't in fact a terrorist group in their own right. Instead they appear to be a number of almost special forces trainers that Al Qaeda have sent to Syria to strengthen groups fighting ISIL. As such attacking them obviously strengthens ISIL.

To say that attacking the Khorasan Group is a legal grey area is a massive understatement. They are most certainly not covered by UNSC 2170(2014) meaning that the Arab states involved in the operation have no legal basis to do so. The US however will attempt to argue that because they are associated with Al Qaeda (ANF are a separate, allied group) it has the authority to attack them under its 2001 Authorisation of Military Force Against Terrorists. As that formed the basis for the 2002 Iraq resolution which was rejected by the UNSC this pretty much puts international law back to the arguments that were being had at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The name "Khorasan Group" also seems an extremely strange one for a predominately Sunni group like Al Qaeda to be using because it actually a Persian word meaning; "The place where the sun rises." As the main Persian speaking country is Iran Khorasan is also the name of several provinces in north-eastern Iran which until 2004 were known simply as "Khorasan Province." As such the name appears to have been assigned to the terror group by US or more likely Gulf intelligence in an effort to strengthen ISIL by portraying them as the true Sunnis and anyone fighting against them as Shia infidels because the majority of Persians are Shia. By attacking them Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular seem to be attempting to use them as a metaphor for Syria's Shia dominated government which it has long considered "Terrorists" because they simply refuse to bow to Saudi Arabia or Qatar's dominance of the region.

Also I should point out that today's strikes have in no way been carried out in response to ISIL's recent offensive against Syria Kurds. If that was the case the attacks would have focused on frontline positions such as artillery positions and armed columns. While this attack on ISIL's rear echelon command and control structures is going to disrupt their operations it is unlikely that effect will be felt on the frontlines for days if not weeks.

Finally I have to say that what I wanted to be doing now was talking about the Climate 2014 meeting on Climate Change that is taking place today as part of the UNGA. I think it is fair to say that the attacks by the oil producing nations on Syria are likely to disrupt this meeting somewhat to the point that Obama may actually use them as an excuse not to turn up to a meeting which he is supposed to be headlining. 

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 3, Day 2.

On Saturday (20/9/14) 49 Turkish hostages who had been held by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) since June were released by their captors. Although it seems unlikely that a ransom was paid Turkey's extremely close relationship with ISIL has led to fears that it may have entered into some sort of agreement with the group that would see the hostages released in return for Turkey refusing to allow coalition aircraft to use its airbases in the fight against ISIL or continuing to allow the flow of ISIL fighters and oil across its territory.

Although I don't have any particular trust for the Turkish government and President Erdogan in particular this suspicion does overlook one simple fact - taking hostages is a lot more complicated then it sounds. Once a group has taken people hostage it then has to feed them, house them, guard them and generally keep them hidden in case they become the targets of a rescue mission. This obviously takes up manpower and resources and the larger the group the more resources it takes. This group would have been particularly challenging because it included young children who tend to what they like anyway and special forces soldiers who require a lot of security to control. So once ISIL realised that they weren't going be paid a ransom or win any other sort of concession for their hostages they were probably quite happy to get rid of them. A similar thing actually happened in the Golan Heights in southern Syria where Al Nusra Front (ANF) took 45 Fijian soldiers attached to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Forces (UNDOF) hostage only to release them two weeks later. Fijian soldiers have a reputation for being big men who require a lot of feeding.

One possible agreement the Turkish government may have reached with ISIL is over the fate of the Kurds which Turkey has fought a civil war against for 30 years. The Kurdish Peshmerga are currently humiliating ISIL on the battlefields of Iraq and this has prompted ISIL to take revenge by attacking Kurdish villages in northern Syria around the city of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab (pop 45,000). This has prompted some 130,000 Syrian Kurds to try and flee into Turkey in recent days while some 300 Kurdish fighters have headed in the opposite direction to try and halt ISIL's advance. This has prompted Turkey to suddenly discover that it can control it's border with Syria and over the weekend it has deployed police and troops to violently stop the flow of Kurds into and out of Syria. Therefore it is possible that Turkey has secured the release of its hostages by doing a deal with ISIL that will see it stop the Kurds fleeing in order to allow ISIL to exterminate their mutual enemy.

This of course further highlights the stupidity of US President Obama's plan to train and arm Arab insurgents in Syria to fight ISIL at the expense of the Kurds. As we can all see the Kurds are currently fighting ISIL in northern Syria while Arab insurgent groups like the Islamic Front (IF) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are not and aren't really in a position to do so. So if the US were to provide weapons and training to the Kurds rather then the Arab groups it would speed up the defeat of ISIL bringing the entire operation to a rapid conclusion. Also if the US declines to help the Kurds then there is a risk that they may lose the battle against ISIL in northern Syria. This will end up making the operation all the more difficult by increasing the amount of territory that ISIL holds while reducing the number of enemies it has has to fight against. Also we should all now be well aware of the type of horrors such as rape, torture and extermination that ISIL bring with them as they advance.

Within Iraq itself government forces are continuing to make steady progress to liberate the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah which are both in Anbar province and are around 100km (60miles) and 50km (30miles) west of the capital Baghdad respectively. On Sunday (21/9/14) the Iraq military succeeded in pushing back ISIL forces who had laid siege to a military base on the northern outskirts of the city. Now the battalion there has been relieved the base can be used by the Iraqi military to co-ordinate their efforts to liberate the city itself.

One interesting thing is that the US has stopped giving out details of the air-strikes it is carrying out. So for example we know from local sources that the US did act in support of Iraqi forces in the re-taking of the army base on Sunday but we can't confirm what level of support was provided. We also know from local sources that the US did carry out a substantial air-strike against an ISIL logistics depot close to Mosul on Saturday but again we can't tell what type of ordinance was used and how much damage was done although the ISIL death-toll is said to be in the hundreds.

I think that primarily this new found silence from the US is simply them being difficult in an effort to annoy people like me. However if they have moved towards more intense strikes against ISIL it would highlight how suspiciously ineffective their operations have been up until now because a large strike that kills hundreds makes a small strike against the odd truck look almost harmless. Also the US and other coalition aircraft have been flying reconnaissance missions over Iraq for more then a month now which means that they should have a very good picture of where all of ISIL's bases and logistics depots are.

Once you have that level on intelligence what you would normally do is then try and destroy as many of those key targets as quickly as possible in order to cripple ISIL making it easier for ground forces to defeat them. The fact that the US is declining to do that provides further indication that rather then trying to defeat them the US is in fact trying to keep ISIL as a viable fighting force for as long as possible. That is a very strange way to treat a supposed enemy.

14:55 on 22/9/14 (UK date).

These Summits Can be Murder.

Recently the UK hosted the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Summit. Being the UK they couldn't resist having some big, spectacular stories such as the Ashya King case to accompany the event. As with the Olympic ceremonies these stories were supposed function much like an psychologist's Rorschach/ink blot test. That is to say that there was no purpose to them other then to test out how people react to them by seeing what element they focus on.

One such of these stories has been the disappearance of Alice Gross, 14 from London on August 28th (28/8/14). Alice is said to suffer from anorexia and eating disorders that my family has a great deal of awareness off. "Alice" is also the name of a girl I used to know back in my old life in Brighton. That Alice didn't so much stop returning my phone calls as disappeared from the face to the earth witness protection style. With little proof that she ever existed that Alice has become something of a legend in entertainment circles. When I was discussing her as part of the 2012 para-Olympic closing ceremony I described her as being part of a long line of women who have stormed off from me thinking they can do better only to discover that they can't. Due to her appearance in the 2012 para-Olympic closing ceremony I think it is fair to now include Rihanna on that list and I don't seem to be alone in that thought.

Amid seemingly compulsory references to the July 7th 2005 (7/7/05) Al Qaeda bombings in London, UK it has emerged that the police are searching for a 41 year old Latvian man who had previously served 7 years in a Latvian prison for murdering his first wife. This obviously brings in all the issues surrounding crime and punishment - the issue of sentencing in particular - but for certain sections of the UK public and a growing number of founder members of the European Union (EU) its all about immigration from the new EU member states. However for NATO purposes the link to Rihanna meant that it attempted to invoke memories of the 2014 Eurovision Song Concert.

You may remember that here the Baltic states - such as Latvia with their song "Cake to Bake" - were focused very heavily on Rihanna and basically got mocked for it by their peers for following the previous years trends.

The Baltic states along with Poland are new members of  both the EU and  NATO. It has been this little grouping along with America that has been pushing both the EU and NATO for more provocative action against Russia which is severely straining EU/Russian relations not least because it damages both of their economies. As such the question was sort of being raised as to whether, in their quest to join the west, these nations would be happier joining the USA rather then the EU?

The US' main effort for the NATO summit was of course the Ray Rice/NFL domestic violence saga. If you somehow failed to make the connection between this, Rihanna and her relationship with Chris Brown CBS - who broadcast the NFL in the US - brought in Rihanna to help promote the start of the new season. However Rihanna was dropped at the last minute specifically because of her personal connection to the domestic violence issue. As Eurovision showed it has been a very long while since anyone in Europe has had any interest in what Rihanna does so this was always bound to fail.

The US obviously didn't like the UK stealing its thunder so it responded by aggressively trying to match the Alice Gross disappearance with the disappearance of Hannah Graham an 18 year old student at the University of Virginia who went missing from the Downtown (Abbey) Mall on September 13th (13/9/14). Chris Brown of course comes from the state of West Virginia which is, erm well, just west of Virginia. The name "Hannah" is used to represent a composite character of people working within UK intelligence. She's white, aged in her late 20's/early 30's, graduated from university (but not one of the better ones) and is gay. Every disaster by British intelligence - particularly MI5 - automatically gets blamed on this Hannah character because there seems to be a general consensus that she's not particularly good at her job.

As such the US seems to be expressing its general displeasure at the UK while trying to get the attention back on them. For example Hannah Graham is white but was last seen in the company of an unidentified black man. That obviously raises the issue of race - in particular interracial relationship - which the US has long been trying to convince us is a major issue in US politics.

This all seemed a bit much for Thailand who are trying to get their post-coup junta/'government' accepted by the international community. So they went out and murdered a Hannah of their own. Hannah Witheridge, 23 and David Miller, 24 were found semi-nude on a beach on the Thai island of Koh Tao. They had both been beaten to death with a hoe - as in the gardening implement rather then the woman from all the rap songs.It has since emerged that shortly prior to her death Ms Witheridge had engaged in sexual activity with multiple men who were not Mr Miller. This element of the story which is rather euphemistically being described as "DNA samples" has helped rule out several British men who were originally declared to be suspects and prompted lots of discussion about sexual promiscuity and tourists flouting of local Thai modest standards. It also provides us with a pretty accurate description of who the attackers are although from the speed at which the locals closed down the tourist ferries I'm pretty sure they all know exactly which locals committed the crime but are too afraid of the police to identify them.

The Witheridge/Miller Story obviously attempts to put Thailand in the middle of the discussion between the US and UK but also puts it in direct contact with the UK which suggests that after their Rihanna 'gift' last year they still really don't trust the US' judgement.

18:15 on 21/9/14 (UK date).

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 2, Day 6.

Yesterday the US Senate approved President Barack Obama's bill to arm and train 'moderate' insurgents in Syria on the pretext of fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) by 78 votes to 22. As the President is unlikely to veto a bill he himself introduced it will now pass into law and that arming and training will begin shortly.

Although I remain very opposed to this I have to say that I really consider it non-news. As it seems unlikely the US will able to find any insurgents in Syria who don't have ties with terrorist groups such as ISIL, Al Qaeda or the Islamic Front (IF) and want to build a secular democracy rather then simply oust a majority Shia government they will probably end up strengthing extremist groups who will simply side with ISIL. That will simply have the effect of prolonging the conflict because the insurgent groups have already demonstrated that they cannot win and will only be weakened by US air-power. If the US does stick to its fantasy of resurrecting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) then basic training for the US military takes around 6 months. If the US is going to cut that time in half to 3 months it's still going to be January 2015 before the FSA are in a position to start their long and arduous advance north to where ISIL are located.

Due to the underhand and downright illegal way that the US has conducted itself thus far in its undeclared war against Syria there is a strong suspicion that the US trained insurgents will have no intention of fighting ISIL and will instead move to overthrow the Syrian government. The US should be deeply afraid of this because as Libya showed it is when the government is overthrown that the infighting begins and the descent into chaos and carnage really starts to speed up. The Syrian government is obviously going to be opposed to being overthrown so is likely now to start concentrating its efforts on eradicating the FSA from its final pockets of resistance in the suburbs of Homs and the capital Damascus. As a result when the US backed insurgents are ready to be deployed there will be nowhere to deploy them to leaving the US with little more then 3000 fighters to try and take on ISIL and all the other insurgent groups in Syria.

So as far as I'm concerned this element of Obama's strategy is just a waste of time, money, effort and lives. What I did find particularly nasty though was the way that rather then submitting a bill on this strategy to be discussed and voted on in detail Obama instead tacked it onto a federal government spending bill. That left Congress a choice between approving the bill or forcing another unpopular shutdown of the federal government right before the mid-term election. That is probably the most forceful thing a President can do to shut down dissent or even simple political discourse over a policy that he himself cannot justify.

Aside from the internal politics the US military really stepped up the intensity of their operations against ISIL. Up until now the US has only engaged in small, pin-prick strikes that have destroyed an anti-aircraft gun here and an Humvee there. This strategy has been described as inoculating ISIL against attack making them stronger by allowing them to adjust to operating whilst under aeriel attack. 

On Wednesday (17/9/14) the US stepped things up a gear by striking an ISIL ammunition store south-east of Baghdad. This single strike destroyed a large amount of ammunition that ISIL had been hoping to use to repel the Iraqi army's attempts to liberate Ramadi and Fallujah. On Thursday (18/9/14) the US carried out a single air-strike against an ISIL base near south-east of Mosul. This strike destroyed an armed "technical" truck and two buildings used to house ISIL fighters. It is being reported that in excess of 300 ISIL fighters were killed in this strike. That is 300 volunteers that now won't be able to pick up a rifle and try and kill members of the Kurdish Peshmerga if and when they move in to liberate Mosul.

Sadly rather then being the result of the US suddenly realising what is required to defeat ISIL this intensification seems to have occurred in response to increasing pressure from the other 39 nations in the coalition. Today France carried out it's first air-strike against ISIL. This involved an undisclosed number of Rafale attack aircraft flying from their base in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to north-eastern Iraq which is a distance of around 1,500km (900miles) each way. Their target was an ISIL logistics depot containing fuel, ammunition and other supplies. It was completely destroyed in the attack.

Obviously if France, Australia and the UK were to continue carrying out strikes like this while the US insists on refusing to allow them to operate from bases within Iraq and itself sticking to small, pin-prick strikes it would really highlight just how ineffective and borderline reckless Obama's strategy actually is.

16:20 on 19/9/14 (UK date).

Well That Was Disappointing.

Despite attempts by the Daily Telegraph newspaper to goose the ratings the people of Scotland have - to the surprise of absolutely no-one - voted to remain as part of the United Kingdom (UK) by 55.3% to 44.7% which is a winning margin of around 380,000 votes.

This of course was a done deal from the moment that a referendum was agreed. Essentially the Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond was offered something called "Devolution Max" which would have seen the ties between Scotland and the UK loosened to the point they could easily be broken in about 5-10 years. However Salmond turned this down in favour of allowing 16&17 year olds to vote in the hope that their naivety would ensure a straight independence vote despite him having no plan of what to do if that actually happened.

As a result the UK has had to go to great efforts to narrow the gap in order to give the independence campaign a veneer of credibility in the hope that everybody internationally would actually notice that the referendum was taking place So for example there was the poll commissioned and published by the Daily Telegraph newspaper on September 7th 2014 (7/9/14) that entirely falsely claimed that the independence campaign was in the lead giving it much needed momentum. Then figures like the UK Prime Minister David Cameron headed to Scotland knowing full well that his unpopularity would create a swing towards the independence campaign. Although I think the announcement of the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy was purely aimed at the MH17 crash investigation the questions over whether the Queen supported the union was intended to have the same effect. It also appears that the UK engineered the killing of Scottish born Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) hostage David Haines in a effort to tag the referendum onto what is currently the big global story while creating a bit of a backlash amongst Scottish voters.

If anything the UK did its job a little two well with what should have been a victory of 70% plus falling to just 55%. That's a shame because a defeat that resounding should have been enough to rid Scottish politics of Alex Salmond once and for all because not since Arthur Scargill and the miners strike has a British political campaign suffered so badly from such p*ss poor leadership.

Anyway it now seems that the UK is going to impose devolution max on Scotland anyway because now the oil is running out it seems everyone wants rid of the charity case. Salmond of course will consider it his achievement.

10:40 on 19/9/14 (UK date).

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 2, Day 5.

Following his trip to Saudi Arabia US Secretary of State John Kerry travelled on Monday (15/9/14) to Paris, France for a two day summit on the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This summit brought together members of the Arab League and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) alongside major World powers such as Russia, China and Japan who are not members of either body. At the meeting all parties reaffirmed the commitments they'd already made against ISIL and signed up to a further agreement which can be read here; http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/iraq-304/events-2526/article/international-conference-on-peace

That agreement reaffirmed their commitment to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2170 (2014) against ISIL while underlining the urgent need to take military action against ISIL positions in Iraq. The summit also brings the number of nations in the coalition against ISIL to 40.

Of those nations several have also begun to move military assets into position to take action in Iraq. Australia is in the process to moving 8 F/A18 attack aircraft, a E-7A surveillance aircraft and a KC-30A tanker aircraft along with around 600 support troops to an airbase in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Although they are being typically vague about the exact type of aircraft being used France started making surveillance flights over Iraq on Monday. These add to the RC-135 and Tornado GR4 aircraft that the UK has been flying over Iraq for a number of weeks. Essentially all these allied nations are waiting for is for the US to designate an airbase to be used as a centre for operations and draw up an operational plan so they can join in with combat operations against ISIL.

With the Paris Summit ending on Tuesday (16/9/14) and diplomacy taking something of a back seat the forces on the ground in Iraq were finally able to get on with some fighting. On Tuesday itself the Kurdish Peshmerga launched an operation that successfully cleared ISIL forces from the mainly Christian villages of Hassan al-Sham, Syudan, Bahra and Jisr al-Khadhr which lie between Arbil and the Great Zab River. At dawn on Wednesday (17/9/14) the Peshmerga launched another offensive to liberate the villages between the Great Zab River and ISIL's stronghold of Mosul. What made this operation so impressive was that in an effort to defend Mosul ISIL had destroyed the only bridge over the river at the town of Kalak. As a result the Peshmerga were forced to march some 16km (9.6miles) north before marching 12km (7.2miles) west followed by a further 6km (3.5miles) south before even joining the battle. Despite effectively having to run a marathon before they even arrived the Peshmerga rapidly won that battle and by the end of the day were in control of the towns of Bartella, Karemlesh and Bakhdida leaving them right on the outskirts of Mosul itself.

The Iraqi army also sprang into action on Wednesday launching a massive offensive to liberate the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah which are 100km (60miles) and 50km (30miles) west of the capital Baghdad respectively. The Iraqi army is also trying to force ISIL from the city of Haditha which is 115km (69miles) south west of Tikrit and largely still under the control of the Iraqi army. Obviously an offensive of this size is going to take a few days to complete and operations in Fallujah still seem to be at the softening up phase with Iraqi air-strikes and shelling taking place. It seems to be a similar story in Ramadi with Iraq's 8th Army division attacking ISIL positions with artillery, mortar and rocket fire. However it appears that ISIL have started to crumble in Ramadi with them blowing up Albu Faraj bridge over the Euphrates river to the north of the city in an effort to slow the Iraqi advance and cover their retreat.

Despite their Rules of Engagement (RoE) being changed to allow them to act in support of these ground advances the actual level of support being provided by the US continues to hover somewhere between little and none. On Monday the US carried out its first air-strike under the new RoE against an ISIL fighting position/trench complex in Sadr al-Yusufiya which is just 25km (15miles) south-west of Baghdad. However with the US Embassy and its compliment of over 1000 US citizens and countless other international contractors located in Baghdad this air-strike would have been well covered by the old RoE that allowed for the protection of US citizens.

On Sunday the US carried out an air-strike which destroyed a convoy of six ISIL vehicles in Sinjar. On Monday and Tuesday things intensified slightly with the US carrying out 5 air-strikes. Two of these took place to the north-west of Arbil and destroyed an armed "Technical" truck and an ISIL fighting position. The further three strikes occurred south-west of Baghdad and damaged an ISILsupply truck and destroyed an ISIL anti-aircraft gun, a small ISIL infantry unit and two small boats that may have been re-supplying ISIL forces in Fallujah. There was also a slight intensification on Tuesday and Wednesday with 7 US strikes. Two of these took destroyed two technicals close of Arbil, one destroyed a technical north-west of the Haditha dam and four destroyed several ISIL infantry units and a small boat on the Euphrates all just south-west of Baghdad. These last four strikes in particular were very clearly carried out in support of the Iraqi army's offensives against Ramadi and Fallujah however compared with the intensity of strikes the Iraqis themselves are carrying out they are nominal at best.

On the political front on Wednesday the US House of Representatives narrowly supported US President Obama's plan to train and equip 'moderate' insurgents in Syria by 273 votes to 156. Next the bill goes to the Democrat controlled Senate where it is likely to gain even stronger support. I personally consider this to be very much a step in the wrong direction. With these 'moderates' being selected by and trained in Saudi Arabia the worst case scenario is that they either directly join forces with ISIL or simply replace them. The best case scenario is that this support goes only to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) who hold no significant territory in Syria and continue to be ousted from their little pockets on the outskirts of Homs and Damascus. If increased US support can somehow reverse the FSA's fortunes they will still have to travel across most of Syria defeating the Syrian military, the Islamic Front (IF) and Al-Nusra Front (ANF) before even coming in contact with ISIL. As a result they are likely to have no impact whatsoever against ISIL and the time it takes for Obama to realise that would be better spent aiding the Kurdish Peshmerga to defeat ISIL first in Iraq then in Syria.

The other worrying development has been reports that Obama intends to keep signing off on each air-strike in Iraq individually. This has the immediate effect of preventing any of the other 39 nations in the coalition from conducting air-strikes themselves. Also through his role in the initial withdrawal from Iraq, the proposed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the intervention in Libya, the intervention in Syria, the failure to intervene in Mali, the continuing delays in intervening in Iraq and his reaction to the recent Israel/Gaza war it has become increasingly apparent that Obama really does not understand military matters.

Further evidence of this was provided on Tuesday through Obama's decision to send nearly twice as many US servicemen into danger to fight the Ebola virus in west-Africa then he is sending to fight ISIL in Iraq. I think on one level this is the US trying to find a metaphor to have coded discussions about ISIL that it can control which is in itself risky. Also Ebola is most certainly the smaller threat having only affected 12,000 people compared to the 60,000 people who were trapped on Mount Sinjar and can be stopped through simple hygiene methods such as hand washing and not licking the dead.

It is most certainly though not a problem that can be solved through bullets air-strikes indicating that Obama does not understand that the military is not a humanitarian organisation and combat operations need to be aggressive and they need to be violent.

15:55 on 18/9/14 (UK date).

I Gave Stonehenge a Miss.

Now my mothers are back from their two week holiday I finally relented and went to visit them for a few days in Salisbury. The purpose of going down for a couple of days was to fit into the routine rather then do anything special. As a result I spent the time doing pretty much what I would have done anyway only with a dog constantly slumped on my lap.

For example rather then going to the pub for dinner onTuesday evening I went to the pub on Tuesday afternoon for lunch after taking the dog for a stupidly long walk in the forest. I also took a look at where my mother's new house is going to be. I'm not sure if I mentioned it or whether it got drowned out by the last Gaza war but my mother has sold her apartment in Croydon and brought a house in Salisbury. The advantage of this is that the price difference between Croydon and Salisbury is that she could buy a bigger property which commands higher rents cancelling out the difference. As a result I didn't really have enough of an opinion to warrant mentioning it at the time

Obviously I didn't say I was leaving on Monday due to security concerns. However I was rapidly provided with an example of one of the other main differences between Croydon and Salisbury when there was a small, low speed car crash in which bumpers were definitely scratched. Both drivers though decided that they needed to report the collision to the police. If that wasn't shocking enough the police actually turned up presumably to say; "Yeah that'll buff straight out."

Anyway I'm back now.

17:45 on 17/9/14 (UK date).

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 2, Day 1.

Following US President Barack Obama's speech on Wednesday (10/9/14) US Secretary of State John Kerry embarked on a tour of the middle-east under the guise of building a coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) however I suspect his true purpose was to gauge reaction to that speech.

On Thursday (11/9/14) Kerry visited ISIL's main sponsor Saudi Arabia for a special meeting of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). This meeting was also attended by Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq in order to give Saudi Arabia a good look at the new Iraqi government alongside nations such as Jordan and Lebanon who are very opposed to the rise of ISIL. The meeting agreed to help support the Iraqi government, uphold United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 7804 (2014) against ISIL and to do their share in fighting ISIL by blocking the flow of fighters and finance and offering support to communities affected by ISIL. Saudi Arabia seem particularly pleased that they have been granted the right to supply and train the insurgents who will replace ISIL.

On Friday (12/9/14) Kerry visited Turkey which provides the main route for foreign fighters travelling to join ISIL. Following that meeting Turkey re-affirmed its commitment to fight ISIL that was made at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Summit last Friday (5/9/14).

On Saturday (13/9/14) Kerry travelled to Egypt which looks likely to be sucked into the fight against ISIL with Islamist militants in the Sinai peninsula beginning to pledge allegiance to ISIL and showing that allegiance by carrying out beheadings. Egypt called for the US' operation against ISIL to be intensified and expanded to include the north Africa region including Libya.

Amid all this delicate diplomacy no-one really wanted to unsettle things by doing any fighting. As a result there have been no significant gains or losses by either side on the ground in Iraq. The Iraqi government has though announced that it is going to cease using air-strikes and heavy artillery against civilian areas including ones that are under ISIL control. This seems to have been done in preparation for an expansion of coalition operations in the country because the NATO allied forces in particular have far more advanced weapons - such as Hellfire-type missiles - that are much better suited to attacking targets in heavily populated areas.

Sadly though there has been precious little indication that the US intends to expand its operations in the wake of Obama's speech. The only step they have taken so far is to announce that they intend to move their air operations from the USS George Bush aircraft carrier to an air field in Arbil province in Iraq. This has the advantage that it is a lot closer to ISIL positions in Iraq allowing aircraft to fly longer missions over their targets while reducing the need for mid-air re-fuelling. Depending on the size of the air-field it also means that the number of aircraft available to the operation can be increased by allowing nations such as the UK and Australia who cannot operate from an American aircraft carrier to join the fight.

The ideal solution would be for Turkey to fulfil its commitment to NATO by allowing the operation against ISIL to be run from Incirlik. This massive airbase on Turkey's southern border is actually shared between Turkey who use it as the base for its 10th Air Wing and 2nd Air Force Command and the US who has its 39th Air Base Wing made up of some 5000 men stationed there. However Turkey is so far refusing to allow Incirlik to be used for combat operations against ISIL despite it being very keen for it to be used for combat operations against the Syrian government.

Far from exerting pressure on Turkey to uphold both its commitment to NATO in general and its specific commitment to join the fight against ISIL the US seems more interested in focusing on the challenges of an operation against ISIL. On Friday two US Navy F-18 jets of the type being used in Iraq crashed over the west Pacific ocean. One of the pilots was quickly rescued while the search for the second has been called off now that they are presumed dead. Both aircraft were operating from the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier which was featured in the 2001 film "Behind Enemy Lines." The purpose of this is quite clearly to highlight the question of what would happen if any coalition aircraft were shot down or as is more likely crashed due to mechanical failure.

When coalition forces are operating over a friendly nation such as Iraq this isn't much of an issue because it is standard practise for search and rescue helicopters to shadow the fighter jets allowing them to arrive at the scene of any crash within minutes to recover the aircrew. However things become a lot more complicated when the coalition start operating over a hostile nation such as Syria. That is because if Syrian air defences are capable of bringing down a high flying fast jet they are most certainly capable of bringing down a slow moving helicopter flying at low altitude. The obvious solution of course would be for the coalition to focus their efforts on a high intensity operation against ISIL in Iraq. Then once a substantially weakened ISIL have been forced back into Syria a plan can be drawn up of how to operate in Syria if indeed there was even a need to operate in Syria at that point.

Sadly though despite the change in their Rules of Engagement (RoE) the US still seems utterly committed to keeping attacks against ISIL in Iraq at the lowest intensity possible. Since Monday (8/9/14) they have carried out just two air-strikes. Both of these occurred on Friday in the area of the Mosul Dam and they succeeded in destroying just one ISIL mortar position and one ISIL armed "Technical" truck.

On Saturday (13/9/14) night ISIL released a video on the Internet entitled "A Message to America's Allies." Very much following the format of the videos of the killing of James Foley and the killing of Steven Sotloff it showed a masked ISIL fighter with a British accent who has become known as "Jihadi John" standing behind a hostage dressed in an orange jumpsuit. That hostage was British aid worker David Haines who ISIL had threatened to kill in the video in which Steven Sotloff was beheaded. Jihadi John condemned the UK for its support for the US operation against ISIL and in particular their decision to supply arms and ammunition to the Kurdish Peshmerga who have been doing so much damage to ISIL in recent weeks. He then proceeded to behead Haines as "punishment" before threatening to kill another British aid worker - Alan Henning - unless Britain and America ended their operations.

I think the important thing to remember about ISIL is that their primary ideology is one of nihilism. This means that they view violence as an end in itself rather then a method to achieve an objective. As such it is easy to read too much into their reasons for committing violent acts. For example they may have killed David Haines simply because he was the person they'd promised to kill next.

However on Friday the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) issued a statement on behalf of the Haines family through the media urging ISIL to get in contact with them. The main message of this statement was that direct communication between ISIL and the Haines family had been taking place behind the scenes but ISIL had not been in contact for a few days. With discreet, direct communication already taking place this decision to publicly confront ISIL through the media was likely to be interpreted by ISIL as a provocation and therefore not something that a professional hostage negotiator would normally do. It seemed particularly risky because at the time ISIL had not responded to Obama's speech and were therefore already under pressure to do something violent to show that they had not been intimidated and were still committed to the fight. As such it strikes me as a very strange thing for the FCO to do.

ISIL may also have carried out the killing in an attempt to drive a wedge between the US and the UK. On Thursday - in response to a journalist's question - the UK Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond said that the UK would not be joining the US in air-strikes in Syria because the issue had already been discussed and rejected by the UK Parliament. He was quickly corrected by the UK Prime Minister's office. I should point out then that if there is any difference of opinion between the US and the UK it is most certainly not because the UK is afraid of fighting ISIL. Instead it comes from a concern that Obama has no real intention of fighting ISIL in Iraq and is instead using them as an excuse to attack and overthrow the Syrian government.

In short Obama is currently seen as being one of ISIL's main allies by granting them a safe haven in Iraq.

16:55 on 14/9/14 (UK date).

A Quick Memo to Meet the Press.

"Meet the Press" is US network NBC's flagship Sunday morning political discussion show. It involves senior political figures being invited to meet a panel made up of, erm, the press to discuss the big political stories of the week. Despite this scintillating premise the show has suffered in recent years from low ratings leading to the host David Gregory being sacked in August to be replaced by Chuck Todd - NBC's senior White House correspondent.

The White House was clearly keen for Todd to do well in his new role so provided Meet the Press with an exclusive interview with President Obama for Todd's first show last Sunday (7/9/14). That interview focused very heavily on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and what, if anything, the US' response was going to be. Once the first part of that recorded interview had been broadcast the first topic discussed by the panel was why Obama kept referring to "ISIL" while the US press continued to refer to "ISIS?"

The panel concluded that the President was wrong and the press were right because the second "S" is ISIS stood for "Syria." The only problem is that the Arabic spelling of "Syria" is "Suriyah." Therefore if the second "S" in ISIS stood for "Syria" the groups Arabic name would be;

"al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Suriyah"

However it is in fact;


"al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham"

The word "Sham" or "Sharm" translates into English as "Levant" which is an almost mythical medieval nation made up of parts of modern Iraq, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon although its borders aren't exactly strictly defined. This distinction is highly important because in some of the wilder interpretations of Sunni Islam the Levant is where god's next prophet will appear on top of a white minaret signalling the start of the ultimate battle against Shia Muslims bringing about the end of the World. Of course in some of the wilder interpretations of Shia Islam the Levant is the place where the false army will be raised only to be defeated by true (Shia) Muslims in battle allowing the World to continue in peace and harmony.

Therefore it is very important that people get ISIL's name right because it reveals a lot about their nihilistic intent and the religious fault lines in the region that the group and its supporters hope to exploit.

Hopefully Meet the Press will stop to correct their mistake in tomorrow's show because I think it's going to be quite relevant when Obama starts trying to win permission from Congress to train and arm groups such as "Supporters of the Levant," "Falcons of the Levant" and "Islamic Movement of the Free Men of the Levant." 


21:30 on 13/9/14 (UK date). 

Finally an Oscar Pistorious Verdict.

At the start of 2013 the US launched its big Rihanna operation. A main focus of this was intended to be west African nations such as Nigeria who had been drafted in to fight Islamist insurgents in Mali. As a result South Africa fully embraced the US' operation both by arranging for two Rihanna concerts in the country in October 2013 and by arranging for Olympic and Para-Olympic runner Oscar Pistorious to shoot and kill his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in February 2013. After all a man killing his girlfriend in their home is pretty much the dictionary definition of domestic violence - an issue that has plagued Rihanna throughout her life.

From the start I thought this was a very risky undertaking for South Africa because they were never in control of the Rihanna operation and as it developed it was quite clear that the US intended for it to be as complicated as possible with its focus going far beyond Mali.

For example the European leg attempted to focus both on the UK's role within the European Union (EU) as well as the EU's expansion eastwards and the effect that had on the relationship with Russia. That issue of course exploded towards the end of 2013 with the Ukraine crisis.

The Asian leg of the tour of which the South Africa concerts were part focused both on the US's relationship with Asian Pacific nations such as China and Thailand where a coup rapidly followed Rihanna's visit and the US relationship with Muslim nations and the Gulf Arab states in particular which have become critical now that the US has been forced to return to Iraq.

This was all being done against the backdrop of global efforts to combat climate change which are extremely complicated and in which South Africa has an important role. As such the Rihanna operation was intended to be more then anybody could cope with meaning that it was intended to do more harm to South Africa then any advantage it would provide.

As it turns out the Rihanna operation was actually a complete failure with west African nations refusing to join in the efforts in Mali and EU nations pretty much ignoring the thing entirely. As a result the main drama of the operation such as the coup in Thailand, the crisis in Ukraine and the war in Iraq are the consequences of the US' failures rather then their successes. By so heavily committing to the operation though South Africa gave itself an extra problem because it still had to put Oscar Pistorious on trial throughout 2014 long after the Rihanna operation it had supposed to have been part of had lost all meaning.

This weakness forced South Africa to rely on support from the UK in order to help manage the international spectacle of the Pistorious trial. As a result the focus of the trial largely became attempts to annoy me. For example the very heavy coverage it received in the UK meant that pretty much every time I turned on the news to find out what was going on in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Israel or Palestine I was instead swamped with details of a trail that dealt exclusively with the killing of one woman by one man.

The content of the trial was also scripted to cause confusion. For example during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) June meeting Pistorious' testimony was supposed to resemble a Court case that I was involved in during the UNFCCC's COP Summit in November 2013. The fact that I wasn't required to give evidence in that trial gives you an idea of just how inaccurate the metaphor was. The issue of Pistorious negligently discharging a firearm in a restaurant sounded very similar to the circumstances of the shooting of Mark Duggan leading up to the UK's August 2011 riots. However the actual inquest into that shooting somehow managed to completely ignore that issue.

Despite these UK led efforts to manage the Pistorious trial it actually became very much a metaphor for discussion about South Africa's decision to involve itself in the Rihanna and therefore the sort of leadership provided by the South African government as a whole. So after much criticism including my recommendation that people vote for the opposition Democratic Alliance Party during South Africa's election the women's league of the governing African National Congress (ANC) Party started picketing the trial trying to claim that Pistorious' alleged crimes were crimes against all of Africa.

On Friday (12/9/14) Pistorious was acquitted of two counts of murder but was convicted on one count of culpable homicide which is a very broad offence covering everything from what is known as manslaughter in the UK right down to reckless endangerment. The reason for the verdict was that Pistorious was found to have acted both negligently and recklessly in the killing of Steenkamp. As such I think this was the right verdict given the circumstances. After all the alternative is the South African government admitting that no crime had been committed because it had given Pistorious permission to kill Steenkamp in much the same way that it is considered a solder in war's national duty to kill.

Therefore in terms of sentencing I don't think anyone should be too surprised if Pistorious only receives a large fine and a suspended prison sentence.


15:05 on 13/9/14 (UK date).

Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 1, Day 5.

On the ground in Iraq government forces have been continuing to make small gains against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). They appear to have broken the siege of Dhuluiya which is around 70km (42miles) north of Baghdad in Anbar province where the Sunni residents have been fighting alongside their Shia neighbours for the past 9 months to resist ISIL.

Fighting continues over the main highway between Samarra and Tikrit but I gather the road is under government control with ISIL launching raids in an effort to seize control of the road. This seems remarkably similar to attempts by supporters of Micheal Brown to seize control of Interstate 70 (I-70) near St Louis, USA last night.

The situation in Iraq though has been subdued in recent days while everyone waited for US President Barack Obama to make his big speech last night laying out his strategy to combat ISIL. We now know that strategy has four main elements;

The first element is to continue humanitarian aid to those in Iraq displaced by ISIL and fighting in general. This really requires no further discussion by me. However I feel I should point out that this isn't really an effort to combat ISIL as an attempt to mitigate the damage they continue to cause.

The second element of the strategy is to change the US Rules of Engagement (RoE) in Iraq. US forces are now no longer limited to only acting against ISIL in circumstances where US citizens are under threat. This allows them to directly attack ISIL forces in Iraq without having to jump through political hoops by say having to argue that ISIL control of a dam presents a threat to Americans because destroying the dam would create a tsunami type wave that can be used as a weapon. The only worrying aspect of this element is that due to Obama's conduct so far there is no guarantee that changing the RoE will actually lead to an increase in the intensity of military action against ISIL.

The third element is to allow US forces to attack ISIL within Syria which is much more controversial. In legal terms the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has passed a Chapter 7 resolution against ISIL and Al Nusra Front (ANF) which allows them to be attacked anywhere regardless of international borders. In practical terms though Syria has advanced air-defence systems. So if the US wants to operate within Syria it will either have to come to an arrangement with the secular Syrian government which the US has spent the last 3 years trying to overthrow or declare war on the Syrian government by attacking its air-defence systems before it attacks ISIL. That second option may well be in violation of international law and will certainly have the immediate effect of strengthening ISIL.

The fourth element of the plan is to fund and train insurgents already operating in Syria in the hope they will fight ISIL. Although no military force can be defeated by air-strikes alone the premise for this element of the plan is deeply flawed. The situation with ISIL in Syria is simply not the same as the situation in Afghanistan where the Taliban - Afghanistan's de facto government - tolerated Al Qaeda and allowed them to operate freely. By contrast ISIL are simply not welcome in Syria and over the past three years have been fought by many groups who are trying to destroy them.

The most effective of these groups has been the Syrian military itself. Therefore the obvious solution would be for the US to co-ordinate with the Syrian government in defeating ISIL. However I think it is as unlikely that the Syrian government would be prepared to work with the US as the US would be prepared to work with the Syrians. It should though be quite easy to create a sort of unspoken compromise whereby the US carries out air-strikes that significantly weaken ISIL. Then with no direct co-ordination between the two the Syrian military would be able to easily defeat a weakened ISIL. After all the main reason why ISIL decided to branch out into Iraq was because they were already very close to defeat at the hands of the Syrian government.

If Obama's apparent desire to micro-manage the situation makes this unspoken compromise unacceptable the next logical option would be to support the Kurds in fighting ISIL. Time and time again the Kurds have proved themselves to be highly motivated, highly effective and highly disciplined fighters and reliable allies. Kurds are made up of a number of religions including Muslims, Christians and Yazidis. They are also aggressively secular in ideology meaning that there is little to no risk that they will suddenly turn on their sponsors to pursue an Islamist agenda. What's more the very small sliver of territory that ISIL currently hold in Syria is either Kurdish territory or directly adjacent. As such it wouldn't take much to allow the Kurds to move against ISIL with US air-support. If the US was prepared to be very aggressive against ISIL in Iraq it would even be quite quickly possible for some of the Kurdish Peshmerga forces who have been so successful in fighting ISIL in Iraq to take that fight to ISIL in Syria.

Perhaps under pressure for Saudi Arabia Obama though seems more focused on providing support to the Arab groups within Syria of which there are many to chose from;

• Al-Nusra Front (ANF) - The largest insurgent group in Syria after ISIL ANF are directly linked to Al Qaeda. As such their objective in Syria is the same as their objective in Afghanistan - to create a failed state in which they are free to operate. As such it is morally indefensible for the US to support them and to do so would violate at least one UNSC resolution that the US has voted for along with a host of US domestic federal laws.

• The Islamic Front (IF) - This is an umbrella organisation made up of at least seven different groups. It is already directly funded by Saudi Arabia although many believe it is simply a proxy to allow the Saudis to support ISIL without officially supporting ISIL. Three of its seven groups; "Islamic Movement of the Levant," "Falcons of the Levant"  and "Supporters of the Levant" are very open about the fact that they share the ideology of ISIL while others such as "Army of Islam" have a thinly disguised but very aggressive Islamist agenda. As such building up any of these groups to fight ISIL would not so much be an attempt to defeat them as to change their name.

• The Free Syrian Army (FSA) - This is the group that the Obama hopes everyone will think he means when he talks of arming "moderates." The problem is that the FSA have never really existed as a fighting force. Instead their main purpose is to provide an acceptable face for the Syria conflict by giving western politicians like John Kerry and John McCain someone to have their photograph taken with. They've been defeated in pretty much every battle they've fought in losing most of their equipment to the aforementioned groups who have also massacred large numbers of their fighters. As a result saying that you're going to supply the FSA is pretty much the same thing as saying you are going to supply ISIL, ANF or IF. In practical terms the FSA number only a few thousand and they hold no real territory in Syria having been recently ousted from their positions in the Golan Heights by ANF. As such if they were to attempt to re-establish themselves in Syria with US support they would first have to fight their way through ANF, then the Syrian army in order to head north where they would have to defeat IF before even coming into contact with ISIL.

Due to the very high risk of creating another group just as large and as nasty as ISIL while weakening proven allies who are better placed to act against ISIL I think that the US Congress has no option other then to reject this funding plan as it represents a clear threat to US national security. I suppose though that Congress should simply be grateful that they have been given a say over this issue. After all Obama seems intent on denying them a say in the other elements of the strategy despite the fact it quite clearly exceeds his authority to do so.

As a nation the US was created at a time when mainly European Monarchs would frequently engage in wars of adventure and conquest. Having itself escaped from this colonialism the US Constitution was specifically designed to make it very difficult for the US to go to war by requiring that Congress and Congress alone could declare war. This is laid out in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. However it does allow for the President to unilaterally act in defence of the nation if the delay of calling a Congressional vote would threaten the nations ability to defend itself (presumably from invasion).

Due to the abuse of this power by President Nixon in the Vietnam war the situation was clarified further by the passing of the War Powers Resolution (50 USC, 1541-15-48). This limits the maximum amount of time that the President can act unilaterally to 60 days with a 30 day extension to withdraw troops without having to seek the approval of Congress. The US operation in Iraq has currently been going on for 35 days. Also in last night's speech Obama has made it clear that the operation is not solely in defence of the US meaning that he no longer has the option to act unilaterally regardless of how long the operation has gone on for.

In his quest to avoid consulting Congress Obama is rumoured to be attempting to use the 2001 Authorisation of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) which is still on the books 13 years later. The problem is that AUMF only covers military force "against those responsible for the recent (11/9/01) attacks launched against the United States." ISIL were in no way involved in the Sept 11th attacks nor are they even allied with Al Qaeda who were responsible for the attacks. In fact ISIL and Al Qaeda are declared enemies with ISIL's most recent offensive in Syria being against ANF who are allied with Al Qaeda. Therefore AUMF most certainly does not cover US military action against ISIL and it may even forbid it because ISIL are considered an enemy of Al Qaeda.

It appears that the reason why Obama is so keen to deny Congress a vote on military action is because he has focused his entire political agenda on trying to win Democrat control of Congress in the mid-term elections by making it appear as though Congress is incapable of doing its job. As such Obama is desperate to avoid showing that Congress can in fact be highly bipartisan and efficient when the President is behaving reasonably and responsibly. After all it seems that the only way authorisation for action against ISIL is going to be blocked is if Democrat Senators rebel against because they do not want to admit that Obama did not end the war in Iraq in 2012. Instead he simply ran away from it.


16:40 on 11/9/14 (UK date).