ISIS and Boko Haram Now BFFs

Well I certainly didn't see Nigeria's Boko Haram declaring allegiance with The Islamic State©, although I probably should have seen it as a possibility. Overall this doesn't exactly change anything but the announcement, which apparently is legit, does show a shifting in power from the global jihadist dominance of Al Qaeda to the upstart ISIS/ISIL/IS. Due to my lack of knowledge in the nuances of African and Nigerian Islamic insurgency I would have assumed Boko Haram would have aligned itself with AQIM over ISIS, but apparently an offshoot of Boko Haram, Ansaru, has already done that. Boko Haram's brutal tactics are more similar to ISIS' than AQ's anyway.

ISIS is really building up that street cred.

To add to the fun, ISIS has apparently gotten a foothold in Afghanistan. An Afghan army general is claiming there are ISIS elements recruiting in some of the southern provinces, which is very interesting since the southern Afghan provinces are the Taliban's home turf. Could this be a sign that the Afghan population is turning against the Taliban and that the Taliban don't have the control that they claim? Possibly, but it concerns me that instead of fighting the Taliban with the government, or at least not supporting the Taliban, there are individuals who choose to join ISIS instead. At least the Taliban was the legit (sort of and not really in any internationally acknowledged way) government of Afghanistan at one point.

Where will ISIS pop up next?

ISIS Threats, Italy Mocks

Back in November I wrote a post mentioning ISIS had (sort of) expanded into Libya. Since then, the organization, or at least those individuals claiming allegiance to ISIS, has captured some towns and a little bit of territory in the country. That's not particularly noteworthy; Libya is a bloody mess right now and I'm pretty sure I could get on a flight to north Africa, recruit twenty people, and capture my own little corner of Libya.

I'd call it Bani Warhorse or بني حصان الحرب. Somebody design me a flag.

Anyway...those little ISIS-alligned rapscallions like to use Twitter, and after the group captured the town of Sirte some ISIS-linked accounts threatened to conquer Rome. Good initiative there buddy, but maybe you should keep your focus on Tripoli or Benghazi before taking on a European capital. As for a response from Italy? Italians showed a bit of their humor and warned ISIS of Rome's horrible traffic and public transportation issues.

Good for them. Now I feel like a cannoli.

UPDATE: Nigeria, ISIS, and AQAP

Ugh, Nigeria continues to be a hot mess thanks to Boko Haram and that group's apparent desire to be blood thirsty assholes, although I'm quite convinced the government of Nigeria has its share of the blame for the chaos.

On Saturday a suicide bomber struck a market killing 16 and wounding more than 20. The bomber? A 10 year old girl. The explosives were likely detonated remotely. It would not surprise me at all if this girl was one of the 300 or so school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram last April.

Boko Haram is also continuing offensive operations and recently attacked the town of Baga near the border with Chad. Amnesty International claims 2000 people were killed in that attack. However, the Nigerian government states the death toll was more like 150. I don't know who to believe on this one. Amnesty International is likely getting their reports second hand, which may be exaggerated by locals, but Nigerian authorities are probably trying to downplay the death toll to prevent the government from looking incompetent and keep panic from spreading. Like I said, a hot mess.

Moving on to Islamic State news...because they are such fun group of lovable scamps. Oh look, the Da'ish-bags are using children to conduct their executions. The Islamic State really is doing every thing they can to get as many people as possible to hate them. I've been appalled by AQI/ISI/ISIS tactics since 2005 so nothing they do really comes as a shock to me anymore.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed responsibility for the Paris attack. I wonder what took them so long. I also wonder if France is going to get involved with the civil war in Yemen in order to defeat AQAP. The government of Yemen along with their Houthi puppet masters probably wouldn't allow that, but if France is angry enough that may not matter.

UPDATE: Amnesty International has issued (provided may be a better term?) satellite imagery of the area. Their death toll numbers are likely more correct than government of Nigeria's numbers.

So much ugly news. Here's a puppy to cheer everyone up:

He probably poops on the carpet though...

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.

Iraq Is Like A Really Messed Up Soap Opera

It's been about 2 weeks since The Islamic State (aka IS, aka ISIS, aka ISIL, aka ISI, aka AQI, aka I'm done here) announced their name change and the formation of The Caliphate. As you'll recall from my last post there were quite a few important and influential folks who rejected this announcement and spoke out against it. So how are things working out for our newly minted Islamic State and Iraq as a whole since this announcement?

Just for honesty's sake, these links are all from the Long War Journal. I love those guys.

An Iraqi military convoy was ambushed in between Fallujah and Ramadi in Anbar Province. Among the vehicles abandoned (and maybe non-operational?) were M113 armored personnel carriers and M1 Abrams tanks. So much for American military equipment being invincible no matter who uses them. If the Islamic State...and that's a big fucking giant IF...makes some kind of massive assault on Baghdad, I'm going to laugh my ass off if the head of the column is an Abrams. And then I'll cry myself to sleep a little bit.

It gets worse, much worse. The Iraqi military attempted to re-capture Tikrit. How did that go? Not so well. Iraqi troops were forced to withdraw from the city. Mortar fire and snipers will do that. Military commanders are blaming Prime Minister Maliki for being a micro managing jerk face.

ISIS...sorry...sorry...IS hasn't forgotten its bread and butter though. An IS suicide bomber blew himself up at a Shia shrine in Baghdad. My favorite part? The suicide bomber was Australian going by the name of Abu Bakr al Australi.

Not going so well for Iraq. But things aren't all peachy for the Islamic State either. Nobody wants to play along with their caliphate idea. Not Al Qaida. Not the Al Nusrah Front (well there's a shocker). And not even the AQ franchise AQIM is on board.

So hard to start a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy these days.

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.