Mediaboss Marketing

In The National Interests latest Facebook Live interview,HarryKazianis, Director of Defense studies at the Center for the National Interest, sat down with Lt. Col.Daniel L. Davis(Ret.), a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, to discuss what is next for Iraq.

Daniel Davis recently visited Iraq and interviewed residents of Mosul. An excerptof the articlecan be found below:

I am currently in Iraq exploring the region in and around Mosul, assessing the current state of the city following Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadisdeclarationon July 9 that ISIS had been driven from Mosul. Last Thursday I interviewed a number of Mosul residents living in a camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs) outside of Erbil to get their views. What I discovered was a curious combination of hope, numbness and fear for the future. If the Iraqi government isnt careful, the end of the war against ISIS in Mosul may simply herald a transition to thenext phaseof conflict.

Just outside of the Kurdish city of Erbil sits Camp Baharka, set up by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to host IDPs from Mosul and environs. I met with camp manager Meva S. Akrey who shared a bit of the camps history and stories from current residents. The camp was established in 2014 as a temporary measure, but has since been upgraded to serve as a long term facility. Currently there are roughly 12,000 people living in the camp, with a total of 250,000 IDPs living throughout the KRG region.

The camp is filled with a combination of Shia and Sunni Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, and other smaller religious subgroups. There has been no problem at the camp with the sectarian conflict or violence that has afflictedother partsof Iraq. Akrey said they have a formal training program that all new families must complete as soon as they arrive. We emphasize how everyone has to live together, in tolerance. Life here is not about the political or religious issues of the past, he continued, but about how theyre going to live in the present and future. For two years it has worked in the camp. Whether that tolerance remains in effect once IDPs return to their homes, however, remains to be seen.

Akrey said the camps population was generally relieved that ISIS has been cleared from the city, but are discouraged by destruction wrought on the city and realization that most wont be returning to home any time soon.

Interestingly, for the most part, the people dont blame anyone for their fate. It simply is. Whole sections of Mosul have been utterly destroyed in the process offreeingit from ISIS control. The destruction was caused by ISIS, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) as they cleared the city section by section, and coalition air attacks, artillery bombardment and drone strikes. Many have become numb and say it doesnt matter who was responsible: they just want to rebuild and have a chance for a normal life. They do, however, have concerns about what comes next.

Some of the displaced people at Camp Baharka dont want to go back right away because they want to find out how Mosul is going to be administered first. Many are afraid there will be a civil war, Akrey admitted. They are afraid that if Baghdad comes back in and rules like it did before (the perception of being unfair to the Sunnis, primarily), the people may fight against each other. There is also the concern about conflicts that might arise between families who fled immediately and those who remained behind.

One elderly camp resident (who wouldnt give her name because she was still afraid that ISIS might find her) told me there was a commonly held belief that those who didnt like ISIS left right away, while those that stayed behind did so because they supported ISIS. I was able to leave, she explained. They could have left as well. Why do you think they stayed behind? A man who lived several blocks over, however, had a different view.

Many people who escaped had money or cars or knew people outside who could help them. But many did not, he explained. Why accuse them of helping ISIS just because they werent able to leave? These diverging views expose some of the dangers looming for post-ISIS Mosuleven aside from how the city is governed.

Many of the people in this camp who fled Mosul say they know who supported ISIS and who didnt in the areas where they lived, Akrey explained. When they get back I am afraid many will carry out revenge attacks against their neighbors in vigilante, extrajudicial ways. Shia firebrand clericMoqtada al-Sadrsaid he has similar fears.

This article originally appeared atThe National Interest.

More articles from The National Interest:

WATCH MORE:

Read the original:
After Mosul, Rebuilding Iraq Will Be Just as Painful This Time Around - Task & Purpose

OVERVIEW

In the first six months of 2017, 133 humanitarian partners reached 4.8 million people in 273 geographical locations across Iraq, representing 77 per cent of the targeted population. The bulk of assistance was focused in Ninewa Governorate, as the humanitarian community worked to address the crises in Mosul city where the cumulative number of displaced reached almost 1 million. As the number of displaced people surpassed the worst-case scenario, clusters including CCCM and RRM surpassed targets. Given the long-period of aid and Iraqs diverse weather conditions, partners provided winterization and summarization assistance to people in camps, out-of-camp settings, returnees and vulnerable communities in newly accessible areas. Protection concerns in Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)-held areas were at the core of the humanitarian response. With increasing numbers of people fleeing ISIL-held western Anbar and Hawiga, partners are providing assistance in Anbar, Salah al-Din and Kirkuk governorates. At mid-point in 2017, US$442 million of the $985 million requested in the 2017 Humanitarian Response Plan was received, representing 45 per cent of the total funds required.

Here is the original post:
Iraq: Humanitarian Dashboard (June 2017) - Reliefweb

The part that is sensible would transition Americas immigration system from favoring family reunification to favoring a skills-based test for entry. That is the model that Canada uses and it has worked very well in boosting that countrys population and economy. As Jonathan Tepperman, the managing editor of Foreign Affairs (and a Canadian expatriate), pointedout, while immigrants are a boost to America, they are an even bigger boost to Canada. About half of all Canadian immigrants arrive with a college degree, while the figure in the United States is just 27 percent, he wrote. Immigrant children in Canadian schools read at thesame levelas the native born, while the gap is huge in the United States. Canadian immigrants are almost 20 percent more likely to own their own homes and 7 percent less likely to live in poverty than their American equivalents.

If all that the Cotton-Purdue bill did was to adopt the Canadian model for the U.S., it would be a cause for celebration. But along with this sensible revision of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, it also includes a plan to reduce overall immigration by half within a decade. It would stop 85 percent of family-based arrivals while keeping constant, at roughly 140,000 per year, the number of immigrants allowed in based on job skills.

This makes no sense. As James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute argued, the U.S. economy would benefit from more, not less, immigration, as long as its skills-based. Younger, harder-working immigrants are, in fact, essential to prevent a demographic implosion, similar to those now occurring in Europe, China, Japan, South Korea and other countries, where an ever-shrinking workforce cannot support an ever-growing number of Baby Boomer retirees.

A survey of economists found that 89 percent agree or strongly agree that the average US citizen would be better off if a larger number of highly educated foreign workers were legally allowed to immigrate to the US each year. As Pethokoukis noted, immigrant scientists and entrepreneurs play a disproportionate role in driving the technological advances that power productivity growth in the United States. He writes that roughly half of U.S.-based unicornstechnology start-ups worth at least $1 billionwere founded by immigrants, with India the top nation of origin.

What about claims that more immigration hurts lower-income Americans? That was the case advanced at the White House by Stephen Miller, a nativist who previously worked for then-Senator Jeff Sessions and now for President Trump. Miller was one of the driving forces behind the ill-conceived ban on arrivals from seven Muslim nations that caused chaos at the nations airports in January. Now he is pushing for a massive, 50 percent reduction in immigration. When pressed by Glenn Thrush of the New York Times to cite evidence in support of his contention that immigration hurts the working class, African-Americans and Latinos in particular, Miller fell back on discredited studies claiming that newcomers exacerbate income inequality.

In fact, as Philip Bump observedin the Washington Post, the effects of immigration on income inequality are modest. A recent study by theNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that immigrants arent taking American jobs, save for those held by teenagers who dont finish high school. By contrast, this comprehensive study found that high-skill immigrants spur innovation and boost the overall economy.

There is, in short, plenty of justification for moving to a skills-based immigration model, while not completely closing the door to family reunification on grounds of humanity. There is, however, no justification for cutting legal immigration by 50 percent. The fact that the Trump White House is so eager to push this plan exposes the real agenda of anti-immigration activists. They claim to be opposing illegal immigration only, but it is clear they want to vastly reduce legal immigration, too.

And while justifying these cutbacks on economic grounds, its hard not to suspect that their agenda is actually cultural and ethnic. There are some in Stephen Millers camp who are eager to reverse what they see as dangerous demographic trends. They should expound their xenophobic agenda more honestly rather than hiding behind specious economic claims.

The hypocrisy is all the more astounding, given that President Trump is once again bringing in foreign guest-workers to staff Mar-a-Lago and Jared Kushners family company is being investigated for selling visas to wealthy Chinese. The White House message seems to be that foreign workers are good for the Trump familys businessbut not for the country as a whole.

Originally posted here:
Smart Moves on Iraq's Economy - Commentary Magazine

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region A spokesperson for Iraq's Shiite Hashd al-Shaabi rejected a call by firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadron Saturdaywho said that the Hashd forces must come under state control and be incorporated into the regular army.

The Hashd al-Shaabi should function under the command of the state, Sadr said in a video address to demonstrators who had gathered at Baghdads Tahrir Square at the clerics call. And weapons should be in the hands of the state too.

In response to Sadr's call, Ahmed al-Assadi, spokesperson of the Shiite paramilitary said the Hashd will not be dismantled as it is a main part of the Iraqi armed forces.

Last December, Iraqs president signed into law a bill that was passed by the parliament recognizing the Shiite paramilitary as an official force with similar rights as the regular army.

Assadi also explained that only the Iraqi parliament is allowed to incorporate the Hashd into the Iraqi army or issue any decress about the group.

Many Sunni MPs and leaders have opposed the existence of the armed group and complained that it is replacing the Iraqi army and has conducted abuses against Sunni civilians in Anbar and Salahaddin.

The estimated 100,000-strong Hashd al-Shaabi participated in the Mosul offensive, clearing ISIS from a large swathe of territory west of the city, including some areas of Shingal, reaching the Syrian border.

The Hashd al-Shaabi was formed upon a call by Iraqs grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in the summer of 2014 when ISIS captured several Iraqi provinces and he urged civilians to take up arms and fight.

Last week, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who is also commander of the armed forces, announced that the force will take part in the offensive to retake the largely Turkmen town of Tal Afar.

Abadi had earlier said the Hashd is a neutral institution and will stay within the framework of the Iraqi state.

Originally posted here:
Iraq's Hashd forces reject call to come under state control - Rudaw

The U.S.-led coalition and its allies have wrestled almost a third of territory from the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) because of changes implemented by President Trump and his administration, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.

Brett McGurk, the special presidential envoy for the global coalition to defeat ISIS, in a briefing with reporters said that Trumps strategy in the battle against the jihadist group in Iraq and Syria had dramatically accelerated progress in the campaign.

Nearly 30 percent of all the territory that has been retaken from ISISabout 20,000 square kilometershas actually happened in the last six months, he said.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Iraqi forces battling ISIS in northern Iraq last month declared victory in the northern city of Mosul after a nine-month slog in the intense and right urban landscape of Iraqs second city. Now, a Kurdish-Arab coalition known as the Syrian Democratic Forces has liberated almost half of the eastern Syrian city of Raqqa, the stronghold that acted as the groups de facto capital for more than three years and served as the site of the filmed executions of U.S. journalists James Foley and Stephen Sotloff.

As you know, the campaign against Mosul is now finished and in Raqqa, which Ill talk to in more detail, about 45 percent of Raqqa is now cleared, he continued. This is due to some key changes that were put in place very early onthree changesinitiatives from President Trump.

Listing them, the envoy said that the key factors were the Trump administrations delegation of key decision-making to battlefield commanders, the tactic of annihilation in which the ground forces surround the group in its stronghold so foreign fighters cannot escape, and drumming up support for burden-sharing among 73 members69 countries and four international organizationsof the broad anti-ISIS coalition.

The campaign under Trump has witnessed the near fall of ISISs territorial hold. The Obama administration laid the groundwork for both campaigns in Mosul and Raqqa but McGurks assessment is that his successors strategy is pushing the battle across the line.

A picture taken on July 9 shows smoke billowing following an airstrike by the U.S.-led international coalition forces targeting the Islamic State (ISIS) group in Mosul, Iraq. Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty

There is some way to go, however, with ISIS moving much of its assets to the Euphrates River Valley in eastern Syria, according to U.S. intelligence, and the borderlands that split Iraq and Syria. The group remains in control ofthe majorityof Deir Ezzor province, as well asthe Syrian cities of Deir Ezzor and Mayadin. Thousands of the groups fighters and, some of its key leaders like self-declared caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, are believed to be alive and active in the region.

But, despite the success under Trump, rights groups have criticized the new strategy as having a deadlier impact on civilian life in ISIS-held territory. They have accused the coalition of using munitions loaded with white phosphorus in densely-populated areas and have criticized its strikes in areas where civilians are prominent.

One case in particular was a March 17 strike in western Mosul that killed more than 100 civilians. The coalition investigated the incident and concluded that ISIS had placed booby traps in the building that maximized the damage on impact.

In June, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based monitoring group, said that U.S.-led coalition strikes had killed 472 civilians within a month in two Syrian provinces. It said the total was the highest for a single month since the bombing campaign began in 2014. The coalition does not specify which of its members air forces conduct the strikes.

In spite of the criticism, McGurk reiterated the coalition defense that ISIS is using civilians as human shields and endangering their lives in a bid to deter the coalition and hold on to their key assets for a longer period of time.

Whats really happening in Raqqasimilar to what we saw in Mosul but on a smaller scalethe ISIS fighters on the ground are using these civilians as their own shields, as their own hostages, he said.

They are using snipers to kill civilians who are trying to escape. Theyre trying to put suicide bombers in columns of displaced people as they try to get outthe similar tactics weve seen from this barbaric terrorist organization.

See the original post:
Trump's War On ISIS 'Dramatically Accelerated' Coalition Gains in Iraq And Syria - Newsweek