The Islamic State Has Chemical Weapons OH NOOOOO!!!!

In the past few days there have been a multitude of articles reporting that insurgents with the Islamic State have acquired and probably used chemical weapons, primarily against the Kurdish militia YPG in Syria. Many analysts and writers are claiming that ISIS must have gotten the chemical weapons (most likely artillery rounds) from leftover Saddam-era Iraqi stockpiles. There are now many bloggers and pundits getting on their soap boxes stating the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration was the correct course of action because it's now obvious that these chemical weapons are a clear indicator that Saddam had and was hiding a WMD program.

People need to calm the fuck down.

ISIS having and using chemical munitions does not mean Saddam Hussein had a chemical weapons program after 1991. Syria has had a chemical weapons program for some time now and only in the past year have they allowed those weapons to be destroyed. ISIS cells could have acquired Syrian munitions prior to those munitions being collected and destroyed.

However, there's an even more likely explanation, one I've made off handed comments about in the past. See the third paragraph in this post from February 2011. If you don't want to click, here's the statement:

During a short stretch of 2007 patrols in northern Baghdad were being hit by IEDs made from artillery shells containing chemical agents. Those artillery shells were believed to have come from a bunker complex that had once housed chemical rounds that had not yet been destroyed by inspectors; it was unlikely the insurgents making the IEDs had any idea the rounds were chemical munitions.

Or check out this post from August 2011 where I'm griping about stupid questions I got during my various times as a battalion intelligence officer. Check out #7 from that post:

7. *Battalion update brief some time in 2007 in Baghdad after one of the brigade Stryker patrols had been hit with an IED which consisted of a chemical weapon artillery shell.* "Why isn't the media reporting on the chemical weapon attacks? Doesn't this prove Saddam had WMD?!" -BSB command sergeant major 
- This was just part of the rant the CSM launched at me after I briefed this particular attack. The artillery shell likely came from a stockpile of chemical weapons that the old Iraqi Army had but hadn't destroyed yet, or forgot about. These stockpiles were known to the UN and the US and were not part of the WMD reasoning when Iraq was invaded/liberated. The insurgents who used this round likely didn't even know the shell had chemical weapons in it. 

If my statements are not convincing enough here's a CIA assessment of the Al Muthanna Chemical Weapons Complex, the facility where Saddam's chemical weapons were stored. Three paragraphs stood out to me (ISG is the Iraq Survey Group, the guys looking for WMD):

ISG conducted multiple exploitations of the Al Muthanna site to determine whether old chemical weapons, equipment, or toxic chemicals had been looted or tampered with since the last UN visit to the site. ISG is unable to unambiguously determine the complete fate of old munitions, materials, and chemicals produced and stored there.The matter is further complicated by the looting and razing done by the Iraqis. 

An exploitation of the facility reconfirmed previous imagery analysis that the site remained inoperable from bombings and UNSCOM compliance, including destruction of equipment and resources, and no significant production capabilities existed. Facilities and bunkers revealed no evidence of production since UNSCOM departed. 

Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers. Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed. These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers. 

So even the CIA states that chemical weapon manufacturing was not being conducted and Iraq was complying with UN demands regarding previous chemical weapons sites. But what about the rounds that were stored there that had not yet been destroyed? Well, as I mentioned above, insurgent groups managed to get a few of those rounds and used them against US forces. Whether the IED cells knew they were chemical weapons or not can be debated but my analysis is the insurgents were unaware, or at the very least did not know how to properly use them.

However, why weren't these cases of chemical munitions use reported? Probably multiple reasons. US forces likely didn't want the information getting out that there were all these chemical rounds that were found and not yet destroyed...that just looks bad; not to mention the egg of the face of insurgents getting weapons that were supposedly secured . Also, higher echelons probably didn't want to spread panic among the troops that insurgents possibly had chemical weapons. Lets not even discuss the fact that these were rounds the US allowed Saddam to have and the 1980s when using chemical weapons was OK as long as it was against Iran.

Except then Wikileaks happened and all those reports of chemical munitions being used as IEDs were released to media...and reported. But nobody cared because it was 2010 and people didn't want to think about Iraq anymore. Which brings us to today and some insurgent bastards have those chemical munitions again. Suddenly, people care again and are claiming Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were correct all along.

Those people haven't been paying attention.

Turkey On Board

As you are likely well aware, this whole Iraq/Syria/ISIS/ISIL thing is a tad complicated. ISIS is gaining ground in Syria near the Turkish border and in the Anbar Province of Iraq. However, they are losing ground to Iraqi and Kurdish forces in the Iraqi provinces of Ninewa and Diyala. The province of Salah al-Din appears to be in a stalemate, especially in and around Tikrit. US airstrikes are helping Iraqi and Kurdish forces, but only in those areas where those forces are going on the offensive.

Some more good (?) news may be on the way. Turkey's Parliament voted to allow the Turkish military to conduct operations in Iraq and Syria. I'm glad they are finally on board, but what was the catalyst for pushing Turkey into this fight?

It may be a little known Turkish enclave (technically an exclave, but who the hell cares) in Syria.

The enclave is the tomb of Suleyman Shah, who was the grandfather of Osman I, founder of the Ottoman Empire. In 1921 a treaty was signed between France and Turkey, the tomb and some surrounding land was allowed to remain Turkish territory and Turkey is allowed to raise the Turkish flag and have troops guarding the shrine. Turkish commanders have stated they will defend the enclave and come to the aid of the guards there should ISIS attack.

I read about this enclave a few months ago when Turkey was concerned about an ISIS threat to the shrine, but the story never gained much traction. However, wherever ISIS goes they tend to destroy shrines, tombs, and anything else of cultural value; and now ISIS is just a few miles to the north, in Kobani. Will we see a Turkish invasion of Syria in the coming weeks/months? My gut instinct says not...maybe some airstrikes, but no ground troops. Unless ISIS takes the shrine. Then all bets are off.

Edit: I originally stated that Suleyman Shah was the father of Osman I. He is actually the grandfather.

How Many GBUs Does It Take To Stop An ISIS Assault?

Iraq is...well...a complete clusterfuck mess right now. My initial thoughts on the rapid offensive by ISIS were of tentative optimism. I saw the collapse of Iraqi security forces in the Sunni regions along with ISIS territory gains in Syria as a potential catalyst for redrawing the borders in the Middle East. Perhaps that's a bit of a pipe dream.

My current thoughts are more along the lines of, "holy hell, can anybody step in and stop these jackasses?!"

The Kurds have lost their initial gains that they acquired after ISIS captured Mosul and the Iraqi Army fled Ninewa Province. The Peshmerga are regrouping around Dahuk but any kind of counter offensive seems unlikely in the near term. This retreat has caused a bit of a humanitarian crisis amongst the population in the area, specifically with the minority Yazidi. I liked the Yazidi and found their religion to be unique and interesting, even if they worshipped a peacock who may or may not be Satan.

The Peshmerga aren't exactly doing all that hot at the other end of the disputed zone either. At the same time that Iraqi security forces were leaving Ninewa, they were also leaving northeast Diyala Province...the area I was deployed to with 1-14 Cav back in '09-10. Kurds moved into the towns of Jalula and As Sadiya but have been forced out of As Sadiyah and due to lack of ammunition and funds, are forced to be on the defensive in Jalula. While there is a significant Kurdish minority in that area, many of the Sunni tribes are extremely hostile towards the Kurds which makes controlling that area all the more difficult.

It appeared that an ISIS assault against Irbil was likely very soon as well which would have really put a wrench in the Peshmerga defensive lines. Luckily for the Kurds, Uncle Sam flew in to prevent, or at least delay, this attack.

Just Because You Announce Something, Doesn't Mean It's True

As I mentioned in my last post, ISIS/ISIL announced it has formed a caliphate in Iraq and Syria under the leadership of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. They've also rebranded and changed their name (again!). The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham/Syria/the Levant is now just The Islamic State (IS). Much easier to write out. My future carpal tunnel appreciates this.

Just for fun, let's list out the former names of this organization:

- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi forms al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in the 1990s and brings the organization into Iraq just prior to the US invasion in 2003.

- Zarqawi pledges allegiance to Osama Bin Laden and joins al Qaida in 2004. Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad becomes Al Qaida in Iraq.

- Zarqawi is killed in 2006. His successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, renames AQI to the Mujahadeen Shura Council.

- Short time later, MSC, is rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq...although many cells still called themselves Al Qaida.

- Shit goes down in Syria and ISI joins the fun and names itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham/Syria and/or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant...depends on your translation.

- June 2014, the Caliphate is announced and now we just have the Islamic State.

But here's my question: how legitimate is the Islamic State and the announcement of a caliphate in the view of other Islamic groups and leaders in the region? Not legit at all. And those organizations ISIL was fighting with in Syria, they reject the Caliphate as well.

Essentially, al Baghdadi announcing the Caliphate has about as much authority as me declaring the Grand Duchy of Central Virginia. I demand you call me duke or lord or something.

Duke Warhorse, Lord and Viceroy of the Grand Duchy of Central Virginia. I like it.

Interesting Links On Iraq

My professional crush Emma Sky recently authored an article asking the question, "who lost Iraq?" Spoiler: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is primarily to blame.

Are the Kurdish Peshmerga any good? Yes...when they are fighting in the mountains and defending their fellow Kurds. On the plains in among the Arabs...not so much. As my old squadron XO used to say, "even a Girl Scout troop can defend the mountains of Kurdistan."

Remember that Caliphate thingy that ISIS is claiming it is fighting to create? They just formally announced it. What does this mean? Probably nothing.

The hardest part of all of this is watching everything I spent my 20s fighting for falling apart as I sit here incapable of doing anything about it.

UPDATE: ISIS Takes The North

Holy hell. I turn my back for a couple of days and Iraq's security forces completely break down. Six days ago the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (yeah, you know the acronym by now) began an assault on Mosul, Iraq's second largest city. Yesterday, the city fell after security forces fled, leaving not only the city for the insurgents, but massive amounts of weapons and ammunition.

Iraqi security forces have already been stretched thin dealing with ISIS in the Anbar Province. ISIS has taken over Fallujah, several towns, and nearly captured Ramadi as well. ISIS forces have apparently been operating in Abu Ghraib, just west of Baghdad.

But it gets worse, today ISIS fighters captured Tikrit, the capital of Salahaddin Province as well as the town of Bayji...which is the location of a massive oil refinery. On top of all that, ISIS is moving in on towns in the Kirkuk Province.

I suspect Samarra, a short drive south of Tikrit, will fall either tomorrow or the next day. From there ISIS can take Balad and the large airbase outside of that city. After that is the sizable military base Taji. Baghdad is a stones throw from there.

Prime Minister Maliki will likely shift forces from Anbar to prevent further ISIS movement south, but that will just allow an emboldened ISIS to move on Ramadi and the Sunni towns south of Baghdad. I give it three weeks before Baghdad is virtually surrounded...assuming no miracles occur.

But a miracle may occur...in the form of the Kurds. The Kurds will defend their territory tenaciously and any perception that that territory is under threat will bring Peshmerga reinforcements. Kirkuk is a disputed city and if ISIS attempts to take it the Kurds will most likely move in to prevent that from occuring. The whole situation is a win-win for the Kurds because with the Iraqi military collapsing, the Maliki government is likely going to ask for Kurdish assistance...and the Kurds will likely gain Kirkuk for helping defeat ISIS.

Hmm, I wonder if this was the Kurds' plan all along?

UPDATE: Kurdish Peshmerga forces have taken Kirkuk. ISIS/ISIL is threatening Samarra and the extremely holy Shia shrine there.

UPDATE 2: My old stomping grounds of Jalula and As Sadiya have fallen to ISIS/ISIL. Insurgents are now likely sleeping in my old room on the former FOB COBRA. This irks me.

Al Qaida Leadership Shuns An Affiliate

This post is the post I had intended to write yesterday but mid blog I determined I needed to attempt to dump some emotional baggage and decided this blog may be the best forum to do it.

The news of interest for me was the announcement by Al Qaida Senior Leadership and Ayman al Zawahiri that AQ was disowning the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) aka Al Qaida in Iraq (AQI) aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS) aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Holy hell, how many names does ISIS have? Anyway, this announcement has been a long time coming and I'm not shocked at all to see it. The ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, had attempted to merge ISIS and Al Nusrah Front (Al Qaida's franchise in Syria) and assume leadership of both organizations himself. Al Nusrah refused to merge and swore allegiance directly to Zawahiri.

The merger fiasco led to an open dispute between Zawahiri and ISIS which I suspect was an open wound that was created during the US occupation of Iraq. Forming in Iraq in 2004, ISIS originally called itself The Monotheism and Jihad but changed it shortly afterward to The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers (TQJBR...or as Coalition Forces called it, Al Qaida in Iraq). Merging with several other insurgent groups the name was changed yet again to Mujahideen Shura Council and then finally, Islamic State of Iraq. After the US left and the Syria civil war kicked off, ISI changed to ISIL.

I believe that Al Qaida Senior Leadership became increasingly frustrated with ISI starting in 2006 when the orgy of bloodshed and religious violence between Sunni and Shia escalated. AQ has never had much of a problem killing innocent people, even innocent Muslims, but to their credit, AQ never (not to my knowledge anyway) specifically targeted Muslims. Any Muslims killed in terrorist attacks were seen as martyrs to the cause and would go to Paradise. While the predominately Sunni AQ may have ideological issues with Shia Islam, the slaughter of thousands of Shia in Baghdad and all of Iraq most likely disgusted the leadership of Al Qaida.


No, I don't have any sources for this assessment and I'm too lazy to try to find any. I'm also not a Muslim scholar who can discuss the nuances of the differences between Shia and Sunni and why Al Qaida is primarily Sunni. I will use this quote though from one of my brigade intel officers, "just because someone is Shia, doesn't mean he can't be Al Qaida."


But what impact will Al Qaida's disavowing of ISIS have on the organization? I suspect non at all. During my time in Iraq AQI/ISI/whatever-they-were-calling-themselves seemed to be self sufficient and were able to recruit fighters and acquire weapons and funding without the support from any higher organization. This was more and more apparent as the war went on and ISI lost the support of (most of) the Sunni tribes and the government of Iraq became more capable. Had Al Qaida still supported ISI after the "Sunni Awakening", the organization likely would have still been a force to reckon with during my third Iraq deployment in 09-10; but by that time ISI was a shadow of its former self. Only the government of Iraq's refusal to conduct adequate counterinsurgency operations as well as the war in Syria has allowed ISIS to come back from the dead.