2014-08-22 By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird

A neglected aspect of the ISIS assault is in the domain of information warfare.

IW is even more central to US capability than is cybersecurity.

Yet IW remains in the fallow ground, while US and Western competitors hone their skills.

Is ISIS winning or losing?

ISIS is doing everything they can through twitter and other means to project an inevitability about “their” victory; indeed, who is the “they”?

ISIS is projecting themselves as a state actor not a non-state actor. Accepting this assertion is tantamount to accepting them as a legitimate force, which they clearly are not.

The ISIS are playing the game of trying to position themselves as an inevitable force, something akin to a rock rolling down the mountain. We see regular “press” releases from ISIS forces via the social media, but a key element of the ability to dominate the battlespace and to defeat ISIS is in the world of ideas.

ISIS is a brutal force which asserts that only themselves have the right to rule in the Middle East and beyond. We can call them extremist; but that is not enough. We need to engage in the battle of ideas as well for it is Western secularism and tolerance which is the enemy, not “Jews” or “Christians,” Shiites or Sunni; it is about power dominance via exploiting ideological purity and mobilization of the “faithful” to achieve the purity of rule desired by the ISIS leadership and followers.

Clearly, a number of stakeholders in Western values get this.

The Dutch have outlawed the ISIS flag.

The Australians are working the problem as a fundamental challenge to their values.

According to the former head of the army, Peter Leahy, told The Weekend Australian:

The country was ill-prepared for the high cost of fighting a war that would be paid in “blood and treasure” and would require pre-emptive as well as reactive action.

“Australia is involved in the early stages of a war which is likely to last for the rest of the century,” he said. “We must be ready to protect ourselves and, where necessary, act pre-emptively to neutralise the evident threat. Get ready for a long war….”

Professor Leahy said politicians needed to “develop an honest and frank dialogue” with the Australian public.

“They should advance a narrative that explains that radical Islam­ism and the terrorism it breeds at home and abroad will remain a significant threat for the long term, it will require considerable effort, the expenditure of blood and treasure and it will, of necessity, restrict our rights and liberties,” he said.

Professor Leahy is the director of Canberra University’s National Security Institute and part of the Abbott government’s team carrying out a comprehensive review of Defence.

He said radical Islamists intent on a new world order were already a threat to the survival of nations in the Middle East and Africa.

If the declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq survived, bases would be established there for attacks on the West and that would embolden “home grown” radicals to attempt attacks in Australia. Military action would be needed to eliminate the threat.

Radicals saw the West as “the far enemy” and they were undoubtedly planning more attacks in Australia. Senior intelligence believes the view that the threat posed by radical Islam would pass was “optimistic….”

Professor Leahy said the threat was likely to worsen as radicals returned from overseas and the internet dumped Islamist propaganda into Australian
living rooms.

Some efforts at deradicalisation had begun but a much greater effort must be made to engage Muslim clerics and Islamic thought leaders to debunk radical ideologies being offered to young Australians.

“Dual nationality must be reviewed and, where appropriate, terrorists and their sympathisers either expelled from Australia or denied re-entry,” he said.

Professor Leahy said Australia must support moderate nations with radical Islamist problems, such as Indonesia and The Philippines.

Another way to fight the ISIS-type propaganda is to shape solidarity among those forces being threatened with extinction by ISIS-type radicalism.

As noted earlier on the SLD Forum:

Information War is now being engaged in by US and freedom loving people against ISIS.

We did an interview with Joseph Kassab and he described to us that  there  are many very decent and well intentioned individuals representing religions that are paying a terrible price by the murderous intent of ISIS.

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-iraq-dynamic-working-with-kurds-to-save-iraqi-christians/

Mr. Kassab just notified us of this conference, we are bringing it to our readers attention:

http://www.idcsummit.org/

And with Secretary Hagel’s warning about ISIS attacking America every US talking head on TV defending Islam as the Religion of Peace or commenting on moral parity between Hamas –Vs  Israel- should first denounce ISIS  before they start any of their talking points.

Denouncing ISIS over and over really will begin to change the narrative for the good of our safety.

Recently, Pope Francis weighed in on the importance of dealing with the threat posed by an extremist force such as ISIS.

Pope Francis, deliberately avoiding kinetic war, understands and has spoken out forcefully on the need for moral Information War against ISIS.

The world is crafting a powerful message about stopping those who kill innocents in the name of Islam.

“In these cases, where there is an unjust aggression, I can only say that it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor,” Pope Francis told journalists.

“I underscore the verb ‘stop.’ I’m not saying ‘bomb’ or ‘make war,’ just ‘stop.’ And the means that can be used to stop them must be evaluated.”

Pope Francis also went out of his way to deal with the unspeakable acts of ISIS with regard to beheading a journalist.

Moved by the grisly images of James Foley’s murder, Pope Francis expressed his condolences to the slain journalist’s parents in a heartfelt phone call.

And to be clear, IW is not simply a foreign policy contest; it is about security at home as well.

According to a story on CBS Colorado published on August 21, 2014:

The director of the FBI visited Colorado this week and detailed how the terror organization ISIS is recruiting Americans to take up their cause.

It’s not just the recruitment of Americans that’s concerning to the FBI, it’s the method of recruitment — the Internet.

FBI Director James Comey said how they are recruiting new members is getting the attention of the U.S. government.

“We have seen an emergence since I was last in government of the people we call home grown violent extremists,” said Comey on Wednesday.

The most recent case in Colorado is Shannon Conley from Arvada, also known as Halima Conley, who became radicalized via the Internet.

Conley has been charged with aiding the foreign terrorist organization Isis, or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Court documents claim Conley joined the Army Explorers to be trained in U.S. military tactics and firearms, and that she told the FBI she wanted to wage Jihad and to go overseas and fight.

The FBI tried on numerous occasions to talk her out of going through with her plans to provide support to ISIS to no avail.

“These are the people who are directed by Al Qaeda, may not even personally know somebody in Al Qaeda but the Internet makes that irrelevant,” said Comey.

Also see:

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/2014-is-not-2003-information-war-informed-combat-capability/

For more ISIS IW photos see the following:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/06/isis_photos_show_con.php

2014-08-13 By Robbin Laird

The George W. Bush Administration did not have a rush of allies wishing to join in the invasion of Iraq.

And today, there are few who would like to join in the effort to manage all of Iraq and work with the “new” government in Baghdad.

But what is different is that the emergence of Kurdistan and the ISIS threat to the Kurds, the Christians and throughout the region has put an option on the table not so clear in 2003: shape an independent Kurdistan as a focal point for the region.

Here there are allies who see the need, in large part because of the ISIS threat, to back the Kurds and help them to defend themselves.

The Turks and the Kurds

First, there is the dramatic difference between 2003 and 2014 with regard to the Turks and the Kurds.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal assessment:

Turkey’s relations with Kurds were once one of the region’s most toxic relationships, as Ankara fought a three-decade war against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party that left more than 40,000 people dead.

But since the U.S. invasion of Iraq more than a decade ago, Turkey has built close ties to the Kurdish government in its regional capital of Erbil, expanding bilateral trade and coordinating on vital policy issues, including the Syrian conflict.

Security analysts said Iraqi Kurdistan is not only an ally, but is also forming an important security buffer for Turkey that is helping to shield its borders from an influx of refugees and insulating it against the Islamic State militants in Iraq.

Turkish companies have invested heavily in Erbil’s booming oil-rich economy, and Turkish brands dominate the Kurdish region’s consumer market.

Turkish exports to the Kurdish government, or KRG, make up the bulk of its total trade with Iraq, which surged to a record $12 billion last year, ranking second only to Germany.

A symbol of the change is that a Kurd is even running a very visible campaign to become the President of Turkey.

Unthinkable just a few years ago, Selahattin Demirtas’ bid for Turkey’s highest office underscores how Kurdish politics has entered the mainstream even as Kurds in neighboring Syria and Iraq push for more autonomy.

Peace talks between Turkey and Kurdish rebels, overseen by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to try to end a three-decade war, have brought two years of calm and paved the way for Demirtas to run as Turkey’s first openly Kurdish presidential candidate.

“My candidacy is merely the most visible aspect of how much Turkey has changed as racism and extreme nationalist sentiment weaken,” Demirtas, 41, said in an interview.

Though other Kurds have figured prominently in Turkish political history, some supporters liken his candidacy to Barack Obama’s run to become the first African-American U.S. president.

A big difference is that Demirtas is unlikely to win…..

Witty and with a toothy grin, Demirtas’ handsome image appears widely with his schoolteacher wife and two daughters, adjusting the image of Kurdish politicians among Turks with long memories of PKK violence.

The United States, Turkey and the EU list the PKK as a terror group, and most precursors to Demirtas’ People’s Democracy Party (HDP) have been outlawed for PKK links.

“That we have an outwardly Kurdish candidate from a Kurdish nationalist party is an incredible change,” said Aliza Marcus, author of “Blood and Belief,” a book about the PKK.

And often forgotten in the Washington debate about the next moves in Iraq is that Turkey is an Article V member of NATO.

The ISIS threat is not just about “global terrorism” in the abstract; we now face a pinching action from Russia on Ukraine and ISIS on Turkey, Syria and beyond and both are very close to impacting on Article V obligations. 

From Freedom Fries to French Fries

And remember “Freedom Fries?”

Well things have changed.

The French have expressed concern about the deteriorating situation facing the Christians in Iraq and that of the Kurds in various ways.

In early August, French Bishops visited Iraqi Christians to demonstrate their support.

According to the Vatican in a piece released on August 5, 2014:

Last week, Cardinal Barbarin and two other French bishops visited Christian communities affected by the ongoing conflict and unrest in Iraq, reported Vatican Radio.

During their four-day trip which included stops in Karakosh, Alqosh, Kirkuk and Erbil, they met numerous Christians who fled Mosul last month because of the threats from Islamic extremists to either convert to Islam, pay a tax or be killed.

Upon his return to France on Friday, Cardinal Barbarin told Vatican Radio that he was moved by the joyful welcome of these communities, despite the difficulties they have lived and everything they have lost.

Despite Iraqi Christians being persecuted for centuries, their witness to faith is noteworthy, he said.

While there, the bishops met with 50 people in a school, about 200 people in a chapel and more than 1,000 people in a cathedral.

They also met with other Iraqi Christians, several times per day, in various centers in each of these cities.Saying he was strengthened by their witness as he listened to their stories, he noted the Iraqi Christians were likewise encouraged by the visit of the French bishops.

Adding to this positive sentiment, he added that the war-torn nations’ Christians said the demonstrations organized in France showing support for Iraqi Christians comforted them.

Prior to this, he said, they felt they had been forgotten.

An example of support from French Catholics was their organizing a special collection for refugees who fled from Mosul.

Now adding to the support, the French government is seeking to help the Kurds answer the ISIS militant’s plea: Don’t just send Drones to kill us!

According to a New York Times story published on August 13, 2014:

Breaking ranks with other European countries, France announced on Wednesday that it would send arms to the embattled Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq threatened by Sunni militants who have also encircled refugees on a remote mountaintop.

“In order to respond to the urgent needs expressed by the Kurdistan regional authorities, the president has decided, in agreement with Baghdad, to deliver arms in the coming hours,” said a statement from the office of President François Hollande.

The presidential statement said that the population of Iraqi Kurdistan was facing a “catastrophic situation” and that arms deliveries would be coordinated with government officials in Baghdad.

Mr. Hollande noted his support for Iraq’s designated new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, and called for the quick establishment of a unity government capable of repelling advances by militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

The announcement came a day after the European Union failed to establish a common policy among its 28 members but agreed that individual states could, in agreement with Baghdad, send weapons to the Kurdish peshmerga forces.

Finally, in a story published by Andrew Rettman in the European Observer:

Ambassadors at a meeting of the bloc’s Political and Security Committee in Brussels on Tuesday (12 August) agreed that individual member states are free to send weapons, but stopped short of launching an EU-level effort to support the Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga.

The envoys’ joint statement “noted the urgent request by the Kurdish regional authorities to certain member states for military support and underlined the need to consider this request in close co-ordination with the Iraqi authorities”.

In contrast to the deep EU divisions which marked the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, they “welcomed the efforts by the US … to stop the IS advance”.

The US began air strikes against the Islamist fighters last week, with the State Department on Tuesday saying US ground forces might also be used to help break an IS siege on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq, where tens of thousands of refugees from the Yazidi minority are facing extermination.

The EU also activated its Emergency Response Co-ordination Centre – a mechanism for pooling humanitarian aid from the 28 member states.

Meanwhile, the European Commission the same day earmarked another €5 million for humanitarian assistance after an IS surge displaced more than 200,000 people in the Sinjar region in recent weeks.

France has led the call for EU arms to Iraqi Kurds after its foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, visited the Kurdish capital, Erbil, on Sunday.

He told French radio on Tuesday that: “There is an evident imbalance between this horrible group [IS] which has sophisticated weapons and the Kurdish peshmergas, who are courageous but don’t have these weapons”.

The German foreign ministry has also said it is considering shipments of armoured vehicles, mine-detection equipment, helmets, body armor and medical supplies.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: Prematurely Funding and Arming the Baghdad Government

To be clear: this change is not about Iraq: it is about the Kurdish role within Iraq and under direct threat from ISIS becoming a regional force.

Embracing a regime in Baghdad which has demonstrated NO capacity to lead the country can quickly throw this opportunity away.

We argued earlier:

Buying strategic maneuver space for the immediate period ahead, and pulverizing ISISs military capabilities – trucks, cars, artillery pieces, etc. — are the crucial objectives and is an airpower strike mission.

And by so doing sorting out the evolving relationship with the Kurds and thereby influencing the evolution of the rest of Iraq is good enough for now.

We do not have to own Iraq and build it in our image; we simply have to protect our interests and to have ways to shape the way ahead.

Unlike 2003, we actually have allies who would support such an approach.

2014-08-13 The French have expressed concern about the deteriorating situation facing the Christians in Iraq and that of the Kurds in various ways.

In early August, French Bishops visited Iraqi Christians to demonstrate their support.

According to the Vatican in a piece released on August 5, 2014:

Last week, Cardinal Barbarin and two other French bishops visited Christian communities affected by the ongoing conflict and unrest in Iraq, reported Vatican Radio.

During their four-day trip which included stops in Karakosh, Alqosh, Kirkuk and Erbil, they met numerous Christians who fled Mosul last month because of the threats from Islamic extremists to either convert to Islam, pay a tax or be killed.

Upon his return to France on Friday, Cardinal Barbarin told Vatican Radio that he was moved by the joyful welcome of these communities, despite the difficulties they have lived and everything they have lost.

Despite Iraqi Christians being persecuted for centuries, their witness to faith is noteworthy, he said.

While there, the bishops met with 50 people in a school, about 200 people in a chapel and more than 1,000 people in a cathedral.

They also met with other Iraqi Christians, several times per day, in various centers in each of these cities.Saying he was strengthened by their witness as he listened to their stories, he noted the Iraqi Christians were likewise encouraged by the visit of the French bishops.

Adding to this positive sentiment, he added that the war-torn nations’ Christians said the demonstrations organized in France showing support for Iraqi Christians comforted them.

Prior to this, he said, they felt they had been forgotten.An example of support from French Catholics was their organizing a special collection for refugees who fled from Mosul.

Now adding to the support, the French government is seeking to help the Kurds answer the ISIS militant’s plea: Don’t just send Drones to kill us!

According to a New York Times story published on August 13, 2014:

Breaking ranks with other European countries, France announced on Wednesday that it would send arms to the embattled Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq threatened by Sunni militants who have also encircled refugees on a remote mountaintop.

“In order to respond to the urgent needs expressed by the Kurdistan regional authorities, the president has decided, in agreement with Baghdad, to deliver arms in the coming hours,” said a statement from the office of President François Hollande.

The presidential statement said that the population of Iraqi Kurdistan was facing a “catastrophic situation” and that arms deliveries would be coordinated with government officials in Baghdad.

Mr. Hollande noted his support for Iraq’s designated new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, and called for the quick establishment of a unity government capable of repelling advances by militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

The announcement came a day after the European Union failed to establish a common policy among its 28 members but agreed that individual states could, in agreement with Baghdad, send weapons to the Kurdish peshmerga forces.

Finally, in a story published by Andrew Rettman in the European Observer:

Ambassadors at a meeting of the bloc’s Political and Security Committee in Brussels on Tuesday (12 August) agreed that individual member states are free to send weapons, but stopped short of launching an EU-level effort to support the Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga.

2014-08-13  When the Obama Administration sought to shape a status of forces agreement with the Baghdad government it failed to do so.

This meant as well that the Administration left without a plan ever to return to the aide of Iraq.

As Secretary Gates described the situation during his last year as SecDef:

By mid-April, the president asked Austin to explore the feasibility and risks of having 8,000 to 10,000 troops remain in Iraq.

There was some grumbling in Defense over the low number; I thought we could make that work.

But the thumb twiddling continued in both Baghdad and Washington, and in June, as I prepared to leave, the number of troops that might stay on as well as the size of our embassy post-December were totally up in the air.

I don’t know how hard the Obama administration— or the president personally— pushed the Iraqis for an agreement that would have allowed a residual U.S. troop presence.

In the end, the Iraqi leadership did not try to get an agreement through their parliament that would have made possible a continued U.S. military presence after December 31.

Maliki was just too fearful of the political consequences.

Most Iraqis wanted us gone.

It was a regrettable turn of events for our future influence in Iraq and our strategic position in the region. And a win for Iran.[ref]Gates, Robert M (2014-01-14). Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War (Kindle Locations 10107-10114). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.[/ref]

One answer to stated intentions but not how hard was provided by the President’s campaign documents:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will responsibly end the war in Iraq so that we can renew our military strength, dedicate more resources to the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and invest in our economy at home. The Obama-Biden plan will help us succeed in Iraq by transitioning to Iraqi control of their country.

Judgment You Can Trust

In 2002, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” He and Joe Biden are fully committed to ending the war in Iraq.

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government.

Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month — which would remove all of them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

No Status of Forces agreement meant that the counter-terrorism mission for residual troops and the training mission went off the table.

Whose fault for failing to do is not really the point:

The question is as follows:

Have conditions changed fundamentally with the Baghdad government to put a fair and equitable bargain on the table for the US to play a role in the future of Iraq that makes any sense?

Even more fundamental a question is the following:

Can the Baghdad government play a serious role in reconciliation or is it simply about maintaining the power of the governing faction?

Without answering this question in the affirmative, it makes little sense for the US to commit financial and military resources to prop up this government and, of course, the Russians have reentered the stage in a potential role to do so as well.

We have yet to see George Washington in Iraq; we have seen on a regular basis Tony Soprano.

Enter 2014: how then would the US be able to work with the same government, but only with a new revolving head?

Or to put even more bluntly: if conditions are virtually the same with working with Baghdad in 2014 as when the President determined that no status of force agreement could be negotiated, why is it different now?

Clearly, an important issue is to determine whether the new Prime Minister is someone we can work with to shape a government of reconciliation. To do so means, you have to trust him with money and arms.

Can we trust Shiite politician, Haider al-Abadi, as the new Prime Minsiter?

In a piece which we published on the Second Line of Defense Forum, by Dr. John Shaw, the answer would be to be clearly note.

http://www.sldforum.com/2014/08/making-haider-al-abadi-new-prime-minister-iraq/

Some excerpts from the article highlight clear concerns over whether or not the past experience will not simply be repeated but no in the middle of a war and not at the conclusion of one.

The appointment of Haider al-Abadi as Iraqi prime minister is the culmination of a decade long political ascent that was unheralded but nonetheless remarkable.

Driven into exile by the murder of his father and two brothers by the Baath party, Abadi spent two decades in England acquiring an advanced degree in electrical engineering and becoming a consulting engineer for building elevators.

At the same time he became an active Dawa party organizer in the expatriate Iraqi community and the protégé of Ibrahim al-Jafari, who became a Dawa leader.

At the fall of Saddam Hussein he returned to Baghdad and was rewarded for his longtime Dawa support by being appointed Minister of Communications.

The legacy of the Coalition Provisional Authority is one of epic unchecked corruption.

Haider al-Abadi was not appointed as Communications Minister because of any telecommunication expertise, but because he would be decisive in assuring Dawa control of the projected cellular phone contracts for Iraq, and more important, the control of the $3 billion to be awarded with the contracts and the significant ongoing cash flow as Iraq built out a cell phone capability…..

By 2014, after eight years in power, the tides of corruption and dissention rose again to take out Maliki in his turn.

At this stage there appeared to be only two contenders to replace him:

Jafari and Chalabi, the failed candidates of yesteryear, themselves so tarnished that they dissuaded would be kingmakers from returning to them.

What was needed in a new prime minister was sufficient experience to suggest competence, sufficient Dawa credentials to assure core Shia support, and a profile low enough to limit detractors.

His corruption coefficient was sufficiently old that it was forgotten and its magnitude was lost in the shared participation in the telecom billions.

But he was a critical player in one of the biggest rip offs of the entire Iraqi reconstruction debacle, a scam that has been quietly covered up for a decade.

Haider al-Abadi thus became, in Iraqi terms, the new and honest political figure, the new face for the year 2014.

But what we have is only the old wine in a new bottle, the taste has not improved with age.

The French got it right: Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.