Operation Featherweight: Month 32, Week 1, Day 1.

On October 17th 2016 (17/10/16) an operation was launched to liberate the northern Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Mosul has functioned as ISIL's de facto capital in Iraq since the summer of 2014.

This operation is a combined one between the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) who are a loose coalition of militias that serve as part of the ISF. The operation is being backed by the US-led coalition Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR).

The initial plan was to surround Mosul on the three sides; the North, the East and the South.

The eastern front was always the most advanced. By October 31st 2016 (31/10/16) the ISF had succeeded in reaching the Gogjali area which sits right on the outskirts of Mosul itself. On the northern front the Peshmerga succeeded in liberating the towns of Bashiqa & Barzani by November 16th 2016 (16/11/16). This marked the end of their advance with responsibility for advancing further into Mosul being handed to the ISF.

On the southern or Qarrayah front the ISF succeeded in liberating the town of Haman al-Alil on November 7th 2016 (7/11/16). The ISF then proceeded to liberate all the villages and areas between Haman al-Alil and the village of Bhakira some 23km (14 miles) to the west. As of November 24th 2016 (24/11/16) this meant that the ISF had established a line of control just 7km (4 miles) to the south of Mosul.

On October 29th 2016 (29/10/16) the PMF acting almost independently of the ISF opened up a western front. They did this by pushing up from the town of  Ayn Nasr on the Qarrayah front all the way to the town of Tel Afar which sits around 100km (80 miles) west of Mosul along the H47 Highway.

On November 16th 2016 (16/11/16) the PMF liberated Tel Afar airport. Although this stopped short of giving them control of the town itself it put the PMF in control of the H47 Highway cutting off ISIL's route to and from Syria.

On November 1st 2016 (1/11/16) the ISF launched their assault on Mosul proper from the east. On January 25th 2017 (25/1/17) the ISF succeeded in fully liberating the entire eastern side of Mosul up to the Tigris River which runs through the centre of the city. Since then the operation has been in pause to allow the ISF to prepare for an assault on the western side of Mosul.

That operation to liberate the west of Mosul began yesterday (19/2/17). Obviously the first phase of the operation is to advance from the forward positions on Mosul itself.

At dawn the Federal Police branch of the ISF began an advance from the Qarrayah line. At the same time the PMF began an advance from Ash Sahaji to the west long the Mosul to Ash Sahaji road.The Iraqi Army branch of the ISF also began an advance between the PMF and Federal Police advances.

So combined PMF and ISF forces now appear to be advancing on the entire south-west quarter of Mosul from the Mosul to Ash Sahaji road to the Tigris River.

Amid light resistance from ISIL by yesterday evening (19/2/17) the Federal Police branch of the ISF had succeeded in liberating 10 villages and the Lazakah Power Plant. This sits around 8km (5 miles) south of the Abu Saif village/neighbourhood and supplies power to all of Mosul.

Today the Federal Police branch are said to be within 2km (1.2 miles) of Mosul Airport and on the verge of liberating Abu Saif. The Army branch are said to be on the outskirts of the Ghazlani military base.

Obviously at the very early stages of this new phase of the operation there is not much for me to say. I suspect though that will change in the days and weeks to come.

In the meantime on January 28th (28/1/17) US President Donald Trump issued a memorandum to 12 US Government departments. This gave them 30 days to report back to help draw up a new strategy to defeat ISIL and associated groups.

Last Wednesday (15/2/17) one of those departments - the Department of Defence - made public that it was contemplating deploying conventional US ground troops to Syria. This is certainly something that has to be considered in drawing up a new strategy. However it strikes me as an extremely bad idea and one that should never be put into motion.

Unlike defeated 2016 US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton I do not invite the fathers of ISIL terrorists to my campaign rallies. Nor do I pass sensitive information to ISIL cells in Bangladesh.

Unlike former US President Barack Obama I do not rely on Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan for all my information and opinions about Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Muslim world.

As a result I know that the violence and butchery of ISIL and their associates is very far from a mainstream Muslim point of view. In fact there are many who would say that ISIL and their associates are not Muslims at all.

I know this because I have spent nearly two and a half years working with Muslim to defeat ISIL and their associates.

When I talk about the ISF I am talking about a group of people who are almost all Muslims. When I talk about the PMF I am talking about people almost all of whom are Muslims. When I talk about the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) or the wider Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) I am again talking about people who are almost all Muslims.

In fact when I talk about the fight against ISIL and their associates the only times I am not talking about Muslims I will tell you by referring to people as Assyrian Christians or Yezidis.

Therefore I know that there is absolutely no lack of will within the Islamic world to defeat ISIL and their associates. The problem - particularly in Syria and Iraq - is simply a lack of resources.

Prior to the US invasion in 2003 the Iraqi military had suffered for years following lost wars in 1988 and 1991 and the deserved sanctions that followed. In 2003 the US disbanded the Iraqi military entirely. Since then the Iraqi military has been to rebuild itself from scratch. This is something the US has hardly helped with delaying the delivery of F-16 fighter aircraft to the Iraqi airforce even while the battle against ISIL has been raging on.

When it comes to militias like the YPG nobody is getting paid. In Iraq some of the Assyrian Christian militias and the Yezidi Sinjar Resistance Units (YBS) are not only not getting paid they actually have to pay for the privilege of fighting ISIL by buying their own weapons, ammunition and equipment. Added to that many of these militias have had to teach themselves how to be soldiers despite having no experience. After all how prepared would you be if one day you suddenly had to fight a war?

Deploying conventional US ground troops to Syria is also an extremely bad idea because although the overwhelming majority of their violence is directed against other Muslims ISIL and their associates like to claim that they are protecting Muslims from Christian Crusaders.

Almost all of ISIL's propaganda and murder videos refer to either; "The Nations of the Cross" or; "The Soldiers of the Cross." They are also obsessed with the Sykes-Picot Agreement which drew the border between Syria and Iraq following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Therefore deploying large numbers of US troops - the Soldiers of the Cross - to Syria would delegitimise the conflict as the Muslim war against ISIL that it is. Instead it would legitimise ISIL's claim that they are the true Muslims battling the crusaders while running a very high risk of the US getting bogged down in Syria just as it did in Iraq and continues to be in Afghanistan.

Instead the solution is to support the local Muslim and non-Muslim forces that want to defeat ISIL in doing just that. That does not mean supporting groups that are prepared to ally themselves with ISIL in order to fight the secular Syrian government or any of the minority religious and ethnic groups it protects.

The problem is that ISIL and its associates do have some supporters and those supporters are very opposed to the US increasing its support for those who wish to fight and defeat ISIL. Chief amongst these supporters is of course Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Back in August 2016 Erdogan sent Turkish forces to illegally invade northern Syria specifically to prevent the SDF from liberating more territory from ISIL. Erdogan is currently lobbying the US for his forces to participate in any operation against ISIL's de facto Syrian capital Raqqa. The proposal that Erdogan is most keen on would see Turkish troops invade Syria via the border town of Tel Abyad. This would immediately split the SDF's de facto safe-zone in half significantly weakening the fight against ISIL.

Within Iraq militias like the YBS have recently been absorbed into the PMF structure. This means they've been getting paid and have access to equipment and training. However under pressure from Erdogan who has been bombing Iraq since the summer of 2015 the Iraqi government on February 13th (13/2/17) were forced to exclude the YBS from the PMF structure.

So if the US were to increase its support for local forces fighting to defeat ISIL it would likely put it on a collision course with Erdogan. Experience tells us that Erdogan will respond to not getting his own way by dispatching terrorists disguised as refugees/migrants to carry out terror attacks against, in this case, the US.

In preparation for this looming confrontation with Erdogan while he was issuing his memo on strategy President Trump also issued a series of Executive Orders temporarily restricting travel from seven nations to the US. Particularly Syrian refugees from camps in Turkey where ISIL are known to operate and Al Qaeda appear to be in charge of security vetting. After all as the June 12th 2016 (12/6/16) Orlando terror attack showed it only takes one person to slip through the net.

Unfortunately Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson on behalf of both his state and Minnesota State sought an obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from Judge James Robart blocking this sensible precaution.

As such this statement by the Department of Defence does seem more aimed at AG Ferguson than anybody else. It seems to be asking him that now he's siding with Erdogan and by extension ISIL against the US how many US troops he would like to see killed as an alternative?


At around 17:40 on 20/2/17 (UK date) I'll have to pick this up after dinner.

Edited around 19:35 on 20/2/17 (UK date) to add;

In bringing this legal challenge AG Ferguson et al is forcing the US government to make public some extremely sensitive intelligence on the situation in and around Iraq and Syria. In writing about this last Tuesday (14/2/17) I said that this was so sensitive I wasn't happy even acknowledging that intelligence may exist.

On Wednesday (15/2/17) ISIL proved my point. They took 13 civilians in Mosul who they accused of being spies, locked them in metal cages and then drowned them in the Tigris River. This not only highlights the brutality of ISIL but also their paranoia. If they even suspect a group of people of being spies they will often kill them all. Even talking about spies that the US may have within ISIL will likely trigger even more of these mass killings.

As I also mentioned last Tuesday (14/2/17) on Monday (13/2/17) AG Ferguson's challenge - rather than the TRO - reached the Courts for the first time. There Judge Robart denied the US government's request to have the proceedings delayed indefinitely. However he upheld Ferguson's request to have the proceedings delayed indefinitely.

The issue here is the possibility of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals holding an "En Banc" hearing on the matter. En Banc is merely French for; "In Bench." Essentially I think there are 25 Judges currently sitting on the 9th Circuit. However only three of them have supported the TRO. This seems to have prompted the other 22 Judges to call for an opportunity to take a very close look at the behaviour of the three.

Obviously getting 25 Judges who live all across the US together in the same place for an en banc hearing is an extremely time consuming process that could take weeks if not months. The problem is that we simply don't have weeks let alone months for this matter to be resolved.

Last Thursday (16/2/17) Erdogan declared that the Syrian town of al-Bab had been fully captured. Erdogan went on to declare that his forces would now attack the SDF - including embedded US Special Operations Forces (SOF) - at Manbij.

Erdogan's claim that al-Bab had been liberated has since been contradicted. However his forces continue to operate inside al-Bab controlling at least 40% of the town meaning that it could be fully captured any day now opening the way for an assault on US troops at Manbij.

With the US being bound by AG Ferguson it has fallen to Russia to control the situation. On Tuesday (14/2/17) it was announced that Russia had brokered a so-called "Security Line" between Erdogan's forces and Syria forces at al-Bab. With Syrian forces being in control of all positions south of al-Bab this should prevent Erdogan's forces from advancing further south.

However Erdogan has likened this security line to the "Green Line" that separates Turkish occupation forces and Cypriot forces in Cyprus. The European Union (EU) is currently heavily invested in reuniting Cyprus removing the Green Line. The fact Erdogan seems more interested in Cyprus suggests he's not taking the al-Bab line too seriously.

Also while I've been writing this it has been reported that a Turkish F-16 struck a Russian military convoy close to the city of Homs killing four Russian soldiers. If confirmed that would suggest Erdogan is already testing out what sort of opposition he may receive from Russia if he were to violate the al-Bab line.

So with AG Ferguson refusing to stand on the merits of his argument and time running out it has fallen to President Trump to be the bigger man.

On Thursday (16/2/17) the US government informed the 9th Circuit of its intention to issue new Executive Orders on the matter. This doesn't automatically end the case but the existing TRO will not be applicable to the new orders rendering the case rather moot.

Obviously I do not have advance copies of these new Executive Orders. However in the US all laws and Executive Orders are issued under the Constitution. Therefore you don't normally have to actually write on them that they must be carried out in accordance with the Constitution. It's implied.

Therefore I suspect that these new Executive Orders will be almost exactly the same as the original ones. However they will explicitly state things like that they can't be used to deny US citizens entry to the US.

It will then fall back to AG Ferguson to decide whether to challenge the new Executive Orders on the grounds they're covered by the existing TRO, mount a fresh challenge against them or simply learn not to put his own ego ahead of complex matters of foreign policy.  

20:20 on 20/2/17 (UK date).