Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category

Turkish military says kills 13 Kurdish militants in northern Iraq | Reuters – Reuters

ANKARA Turkey's military killed 13 members of the militant Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in air strikes in northern Iraq on Sunday, the military said in a statement.

The warplanes struck seven PKK targets in the Avasin-Basyan region of northern Iraq, and killed militants believed to be preparing for an attack, the military said.

In a separate air strike in Turkey's southeastern province of Van late on Saturday, the military said warplanes had killed another 10 PKK militants.

The PKK, which has carried out a three-decade insurgency in southeast Turkey, has camps in the mountains of northern Iraq, near the Turkish border. It is considered a terrorist group by Turkey, the United States and the European Union.

(Reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu; Editing by Susan Fenton)

MANCHESTER, England Members of Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi's network are still potentially at large, British interior minister Amber Rudd said on Sunday, after the terrorism threat level was lowered due to significant progress in the investigation.

BERLIN Germany, whose relations with Turkey have been strained by a series of rows, will decide within two weeks whether to withdraw troops deployed at Turkey's Incirlik air force base, a German Foreign Ministry official said on Sunday.

MILAN Former prime minister Matteo Renzi suggested on Sunday that Italy's next election be held at the same time as Germany's, saying this made sense "from a European perspective".

Here is the original post:
Turkish military says kills 13 Kurdish militants in northern Iraq | Reuters - Reuters

Donald Trump Should Not Treat Iraq As An AfterthoughtWe Need Each Other – Newsweek

Looking at the current U.S. engagement in the Middle East, one comes to an inescapable realization of the clear contrast between the strong rhetoric of the new Trump administration and the quiet echoes of the Obama administration. It is positive that the Trump administration is paying attention to the Middle East.

But President Trump's decision to visit Saudi Arabia and not Iraq has sent the wrong signals to the Iraqi side about his priorities in region. If Americas number one priority in the region is to defeat Daesh (ISIS) then his visit to Iraq should have been a priority. No country in the world has sacrificed more than Iraq in fighting and pushing back Daesh.

Even from a military perspective, Iraqi forces are by far the most experienced and capable to defeat themno other regional country can compare.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

The Iraqi security forces havent lost a battle against Daesh in two years. Any genuine international commitment to defeating the global threat of international terrorism must include a determined focus on rooting out remnants of Daesh in Iraq and Syria, while ensuring that security in Iraq is robust and lasting.

Here, the U.S., with detailed consultation with the Iraqi government, needs to make a firm decision about the extent of its future political and military engagement in Iraq. It needs to send a clear message to its Iraqi counterparts about that commitment.

As President Trump was feted in Saudi Arabia and Israel, Iraq and its challenges and sacrifices, appeared to be an afterthought. It is not just that President Trump did not make the almost customary surprise visit to the country during his trip to the region but that his message from Riyadhwhich cast violence in Iraq and the region in sectarian termsappeared to ignore the fundamental causes of Iraq's suffering, which is not Iranian expansionism but violent jihadist Salafism.

Whether consciously or not, President Trump appeared to reinforce the Saudi narrative that the region is in the midst of a sectarian struggle of good Sunnis versus evil Shia. Yet Iraq's Shiawho make up a majority of both the country's armed forces and its volunteer Popular Mobilization Forceshave fought valiantly against Daesh. No one should doubt their commitment or their loyalty to the Iraqi state they are defending.

The Iraqi government, which is led by Shia Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, has been an important ally for the United States and for Iran in fighting a war in which both countries have the same goal: dislodging and eradicating Daesh and defeating international jihadist Salafism.

Read more: U.S. lawmakers urge Trump to support 'rebuilding' in Iraq

Let us not forget here that the Saudis are not a neutral party, and neither are the Israelis. Both are engaged in a regional power struggle, along with Turkey and Iran. Washington's greatest contribution to peace would be encouraging dialogue among all parties and laying the seeds for a regional security framework that can manage the conflict, not fuel it.

U.S. President Donald Trump (C) makes his way to board Air Force One in Riyadh as he head with the First Lady to Israel on May 22, 2017. The president decided against visiting Iraq in his first trip to the region. Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty

A stable Iraq is in the interest of U.S. national security for many reasons, not least Iraq's geopolitical significance due to its location. Regional superpowers like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to compete in order to assert their positions in the Middle East and establish spheres of influence and Iraq's stance in regard to these rivalries can tip the balance.

Iraq's natural resources and ongoing oil export capabilities also allow it to be an important stabilizing factor in the flow of petroleum to various international markets.

On the security cooperation side, Iraq is at the forefront of the struggle against terrorism conducted by non-state actors, in particular Daesh and the threat it continues to present to international security.

Daesh is not only a threat to the countries of the region; as the bombing in Manchester illustrated, it is a threat to the world. Iraqis are intimately familiar with the threat of violent extremism, we have suffered hundreds of Manchester-type attacks over the past 14 years, which have cost the lives of thousands, including women and children.

Another key factor that puts Iraq in a unique position, one that the West does not focus on, is the important influence of the city of Najafcurrently the preeminent Shia school of jurisprudencewithin the Shia world. As Najaf continues to compete for religious influence in the Middle East, Iraq increasingly has the ability to influence the future of Shia Muslim religious authority across the globe.

Finally let us also not forget that, demographically, Iraq is a young nation where the average age is below 20 years old. Youth empowerment is currently not receiving enough attention from the Iraqi government and international programs aimed at empowering the youth will ensure the battle of ideas against Daesh ideology will continue with the aim of a stable Iraq in which young people play a positive role.

A stable, strong Iraq is a key foundation for a stable Middle East so let us all work towards a democratic Iraq that represents all of our common interests.

If Washington seeks a long term security, economical and political partnership with Iraq, as it should, President Trump should have visited our country. Optics mean everything in the Middle East. This was a missed opportunity.

Lukman Faily was the Iraqi Ambassador to the United States between 2013 and 2016. He also served as Iraqs Ambassador to Japan from 2010 to 2013.

See more here:
Donald Trump Should Not Treat Iraq As An AfterthoughtWe Need Each Other - Newsweek

Iraq and Afghanistan: The $6 trillion bill for America’s longest war is unpaid – Salon

On Memorial Day, we pay respects to the fallen from past wars including the more than one million American soldiers killed in the Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam.

Yet the nations longest and most expensive war is the one that is still going on. In addition to nearly 7,000 troops killed, the 16-year conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost an estimated US$6 trillion due to its prolonged length, rapidly increasing veterans health care and disability costs and interest on war borrowing. On this Memorial Day, we should begin to confront the staggering cost and the challenge of paying for this war.

The enormous figure reflects not just the cost of fighting like guns, trucks and fuel but also the long-term cost of providing medical care and disability compensation for decades beyond the end of the conflict. Consider the fact that benefits for World War I veterans didnt peak until 1969. For World War II veterans, the peak came in 1986. Payments for Vietnam-era vets are still climbing.

The high rates of injuries and increased survival rates in Iraq and Afghanistan mean that over half the 2.5 million who served there suffered some degree of disability. Their health care and disability benefits alone will easily cost $1 trillion in coming decades.

But instead of facing up to these huge costs, we have charged them to the national credit card. This means that our children will be forced to pay the bill for the wars started by our generation. Unless we set aside money today, it is likely that young people now fighting in Afghanistan will be shortchanged in the future just when they most need medical care and benefits.

A forgotten war

While most Americans are keen to support our troops, we arent currently shouldering the financial or the physical burden of our nations warfare. Except for a short period between the two world wars, the percentage of the general population now serving in the U.S. armed forces is at its lowest level ever.

Whats more, the war in Afghanistan barely features on our front pages. During the past two years it has not even made it into the top 10 news stories.

There is not much pain in our pocketbooks either. In past wars, taxpayers were forced to cover some of the extra spending. During Vietnam, marginal tax rates for the top 1 percent of earners were hiked to 77 percent. President Harry Truman raised tax rates as high as 92 percent during the Korean War, telling the country that this is a contribution to our national security that every one of us should stand ready to make. In fact, taxes were raised during every American conflict since the Revolutionary War, especially for the wealthy.

This time around we have borrowed the money instead. Thanks to the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, nearly all Americans now pay lower taxes than before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. And unlike previous wars, Congress has paid for the post 9/11 conflicts using so-called emergency and overseas contingency operations spending bills, which bypass Congress own budget caps. This has allowed the government to avoid any uncomfortable national discussion on how to balance war spending against other domestic priorities.

A bipartisan effort

We cannot simply undo the trillions of dollars that have already been added to the national debt as a result of these wars, but there is an important step we can take to commemorate those who have given their lives or their health to this 16-year-long quagmire. We owe it to them to ensure that there is sufficient money set aside to pay for the benefits we have promised to them and their families.

The solution is to set up a Veterans Trust Fund. Trust funds are an established mechanism for the federal government to fund long-term commitments. We already have more than 200 of them, including the best-known, Social Security. While trust funds do not force the government to set aside money, the federal government would be required to prepare an accounting of how much money is owed to veterans and take steps to provide funding to pay claims as they come due.

This process has already been adopted for the Military Retirement Trust Fund, which pays pensions to career service members who retire after 20 years service. Since Congress established the fund in 1984, it has been amortizing the retirement benefits that are already due and transferring an annual amount into the fund to cover them. We need to adopt a similar approach for todays all-volunteer veterans who fight multiple, lengthy tours of duty but usually leave the military before 20 years are up.

Four members of Congress, Beto ORourke, D-Texas, Seth Moulton, D-Mass., Don Young, R-Ark., and Walter Jones, R-N.C., recently introduced a bipartisan Veterans Health Care Trust Fund Act. This proposal would establish a fund for veterans benefits, paid for in part by a small income tax surcharge. Those serving in the military and their families would be exempt from paying.

Such a fund cannot solve all the problems of todays veterans. But on this Memorial Day, lets not forget to provide for the men and women who have borne the brunt of the nations longest and most expensive war.

Linda J. Bilmes, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and Public Finance, Harvard University

Read the original:
Iraq and Afghanistan: The $6 trillion bill for America's longest war is unpaid - Salon

A path forward in Syria and Iraq, post-Islamic State – NorthJersey.com

David Ignatius 6:00 a.m. ET May 28, 2017

In this May 11, file photo Iraqi special forces advance to their next position in the Islah al-Zarai area in Mosul, Iraq. U.S.-backed Iraqi forces were moving to surround Mosul's Old City after launching a fresh push to drive Islamic State militants from areas they still hold.(Photo: Maya Alleruzzo/AP)

The Manchester terror attack by an alleged Islamic State soldier will accelerate the push by the U.S. and its allies to capture the terror groups strongholds in Mosul and Raqqah. But it should also focus some urgent discussions about a post-ISIS strategy for stabilizing Iraq and Syria.

For all President Trumps bombast about obliterating the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, the Raqqah campaign has been delayed for months while U.S. policymakers debated the wisdom of relying on a Syrian Kurdish militia known as the YPG that Turkey regards as a terrorist group. That group and allied Sunni fighters have been poised less than 10 miles from Raqqah, waiting for a decision.

All the while, the clock has been ticking on terror plots hatched by ISIS and directed from Raqqah. European allies have been urging the U.S. to finish the job in Raqqah as soon as possible.

The horrific Manchester bombing is a reminder of the difficulty of containing the plots hatched in ISIS and the cost of waiting to strike the final blows. ISIS is battered and in retreat, and its caliphate is nearly destroyed on the ground. But a virtual caliphate survives in the network that spawned Salman Abedi, the alleged Manchester bomber, and others who seek to avenge the groups slow eradication.

The Raqqah assault should move ahead quickly, now that the Trump administration has rejected Turkish protests and opted to back the YPG as the backbone of a broader coalition known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. These are committed, well-led fighters, as I saw during a visit to a special forces training camp in northern Syria a year ago.

The Trump administration listened patiently to Turkish arguments for an alternative force backed by Ankara. But the Pentagon concluded that this force didnt have any real battlefield presence, and that the real choice was either relying on the Kurdish-led coalition to clear Raqqah or sending in thousands of U.S. troops to do the job.

The White House rightly opted for the first approach several weeks ago. To ease Ankaras worries, the U.S. is offering assurances that the Kurdish military presence will be contained, and that newly recruited Sunni tribal forces will help manage security in Raqqah and nearby Deir el-Zour.

The endgame is near in Mosul, too. Commanders say that only about 6 percent of the city remains to be captured, with 500 to 700 ISIS fighters hunkered down in the old city west of the Tigris River.

Once Raqqah and Mosul are cleared, the challenge will be rebuilding the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq with real governance and security so that follow-on extremist groups dont quickly emerge. This idea of preparing for the day after ISIS has gotten lip service from U.S. policymakers for three years, but very little serious planning or funding. It should be an urgent priority for the U.S. and its key Sunni partners, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Intelligence services from several key allies are said to have met in recent weeks with Sunni leaders from Iraq to form a core leadership that can take the initiative. But so far, this effort is said to have produced more internal bickering than clear strategy.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo told me and several other journalists in an interview Tuesday that he plans to move the agency to a more aggressive, risk-taking stance. Heres a place to start.

The Kurds are the wild cards in both Iraq and Syria. The Syrian Kurds are already governing the ethnic enclave they call Rojava. That should be an incentive for Syrias Sunnis to develop similar strong government in their liberated areas. Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurds have told U.S. officials they plan to hold a referendum on Kurdish independence soon, perhaps as early as September.

U.S. officials feel a deep gratitude toward Iraqi Kurds, who have been reliable allies since the early 1990s. But the independence referendum is a potential flashpoint, and U.S. officials may try to defer the Kurdish question until well after Iraqi provincial elections scheduled in September.

Iraq and Syria need to be reimagined as looser, better governed, more inclusive confederal states that give minorities room to breathe. The trick for policymakers is to make the post-ISIS transition a pathway toward progress, rather than a continuation of the sectarian catastrophe that has befallen both nations.

David Ignatius is columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2s3q8xf

Visit link:
A path forward in Syria and Iraq, post-Islamic State - NorthJersey.com

The US Is Helping Allies Hide Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria – Foreign Policy (blog)

The United States coalition partners in the war against the Islamic State are responsible for at least 80 confirmed civilian deaths from airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, according to U.S. military officials. Yet none of their 12 allies will publicly concede any role in those casualties.

These dozen partner nations have launched more than 4,000 airstrikes combined, the vast majority of which were undertaken by the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Belgium, and the Netherlands. However, they have so far claimed a perfect record in avoiding civilian casualties. An Airwars investigation for Foreign Policy has now uncovered evidence that disproves that assertion.

These confirmed deaths caused by non-U.S. airstrikes came to light in the most recent coalition civilian casualty report, released April 30. The report quietly referred to 80 new deaths referenced only as attributable to coalition strikes to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria from August 2014 to present [that] had not been previously announced.

Three U.S. Central Command officials confirmed to Airwars and Foreign Policy that the 80 deaths occurred in incidents that U.S. investigators concluded were the responsibility of partner nations. But allies pressured the United States and the coalition against releasing details of the strikes in question.

In reference to the 80, said one Centcom official, those do reference non-U.S. strikes.

Coalition spokesman Col. Joseph Scrocca said that Centcom officials had arrived at the tally of 80 civilian deaths prior to handing over investigations to the alliance in late 2016.*

For over a year, some senior U.S. officials have been frustrated that their allies have not stepped forward to admit their own errors. U.S. forces first admitted their own civilian casualties in May 2015, and have so far confirmed their responsibility for 377civilian deaths including 105 killed in a single incident in Mosul in March.

U.S. officials efforts to release information about casualties caused by their partner nations, however, came at a cost. As the result of a deal struck among the coalition partners, civilian casualty incidents included in monthly reporting will not be tied to specific countries. That means the United States will in the futureno longer confirm its own responsibility for specific civilian casualty incidents either a move toward greater secrecy that could deprive victims families of any avenue to seek justice or compensation for these deaths.

Deny, Deny, Deny

Yet even when confronted with this confirmed evidence of civilian deaths, no coalition partner would publicly admit any responsibility.

Airwarsand FPreached out to all 12 non-U.S. members of the coalition to ask which were responsible for the 80 deaths. The responses ranged from outright denials of involvement (Australia, Canada, Denmark, and Britain); to no response (Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates); to several ambiguously worded statements.

Despite these statements, Airwars and FPconfirmed that every coalition member identified as responsible for any of the 80 deaths were informed by U.S. officials of their assessed involvement. The allies have known for months if not longer of these findings, according to U.S. officials but those nations responsible chose not to admit it when questioned by Airwars and FP.

Britain is the most active member of the coalition after the United States, having carried out more than 1,300 airstrikes since October 2014. The British government has boasted of zero civilian casualties, despite the high tempo of the campaign and the fact that most strikes now take place on Iraqi and Syrian cities and towns.

For 2016 alone, Airwars flagged 120 incidents to the British Ministry of Defense where Royal Air Force aircraft might have been involved in civilian casualty events in Iraq and Syria. Nearly all of these cases were investigated and dismissed, according to the Defense Ministry. For 11 incidents, however, a senior British official noted that we cannot make any definitive assessment of possible UK presence from the evidence provided, but I can confirm that there was no indication of any civilian casualties in our own detailed assessments of the impact of each of our strikes over the period concerned.

Asked whether Britain had been responsible for any of the 80 non-U.S. deaths reported by the coalition, a spokesman pointed to a March 25 Defense Ministry statement asserting, we have not seen evidence that we have been responsible for civilian casualties so far.

Other partner nations were not so willing to give a straight answer. Asked whether its own forces had caused civilian casualties, France twice evaded the question, noting only that no comment is made on the 80 additional cases recognized by the Coalition.

The Netherlands which claims it is still investigating one possible civilian casualty event that occurred in 2014, and a second unknown case failed to respond to 11 queries on the 80 civilian deaths from Airwars and FP, including a May 9 letter sent to Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert.

Belgiums ministry of defense, responsible for several hundred airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, informed Airwars and FPthat it would only share the information about our operations in the appropriate [closed session] parliamentary committee. The Belgians directed further inquiries to Centcom, which in turn said it would not officially identify any partner nations.

Without mentioning details, I can say that [Belgian defense officials] have looked at the list of incidents in the Coalition report and that they have come to the conclusion that there is still no reason to believe that Belgium has caused civilians casualties, one Belgian political official told Airwars and FP. Though they do admit that it was close a few times, not by negligence or carelessness by the Belgian army, but just by bad luck.

Hiding Behind the Alliance

The coalition campaign against the Islamic State, now nearing the end of its third year, has produced reams of firing and targeting data. The number of munitions used and targets attacked are all publicly available. But that has not translated into transparency from many individual members. Though aggregate data is publicly available for overall coalition strikes, the alliance does not confirm which countries carry out specific raids.

This is just the unfortunate evolution of the dynamic of coalition operations, said Christopher Jenks, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University who served in the U.S. military for two decades. Because of coalition dynamics you cant get into the real substantive details of the core issues: whether we believe that an air strike was piloted by a Canadian or French pilot.

From the start of coalition operations through May 22, the coalition says that 4,011 airstrikes in Iraq and 404 in Syria were performed by non-U.S. forces. France and Britain accounted for more than half of these attacks, while partners such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and Australia made up the bulk of the remaining non-U.S. actions. Additional countries like Germany provide aerial reconnaissance, but do not conduct airstrikes.

The coalitions regional partners Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Turkey have been responsible for an estimated 150 strikes among them, or less than 1 percent of all actions. None of those countries responded to questions on the 80 confirmed deaths put to their NATO missions or to their embassies in Washington.

Less Sunlight in the War Against the Islamic State

One consequence of the new coalition protocol for admitting civilian casualties is that U.S. transparency in the war against the Islamic State may now be jeopardized.

U.S. officials had wanted to release the information about the 80 additional civilians deaths for many months. That finally occurred on April 30 but it came at a cost. Neither the coalition nor Centcom would provide a breakdown of the events that led to those deaths, such as when or where they occurred or how many civilians had died in each incident. These facts had always been provided in the monthly reports when they referred only to U.S. civilian casualties but not this time.

U.S. officials said the inclusion of the 80 civilian deaths was the product of a compromise among coalition members they could be released, but only attributed as coalition strikes.

Going forward, a total tally of coalition strikes that resulted in civilian casualties will always be included in reports. However, the United States will no longer identify the strikes that were carried out by its own forces. This is due to a concern that allies responsible for civilian deaths could be identified by a process of elimination.

We will just say Coalition, and we wont say if it was U.S. or not, confirmed Centcom Director of Public Affairs Col. John Thomas.

Thomas described the change as an effort to decrease the number of open cases of alleged civilian casualties. By not specifying which national was flying at the time of an incident well be able to more quickly say when a case is adjudicated under our methods and closed, he said.

The move, however, will also set a precedent for more opacity in coalition operations. There are also serious concerns for victims families: If they do not know which country is responsible for a casualty event, it will be impossible for them to pursue solatia, or compensation payments, from individual nations, and exceedingly difficult to request information about the incidents in question from national governments. (In the United States, this would include Freedom of Information Act requests.)

This would be exactly the wrong move on the part of the United States, which is already not doing enough to provide transparency about civilians killed, said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Unions national security project. Generally, in the last decade there has been more transparency about strikes in the context of recognized armed conflict than lethal strikes outside of it, and this seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

Though the coalitions under-resourced civilian casualty unit has over time increased the number of cases it considers and investigates, the obfuscation over the countries that launched the strikes follows a pattern that began early in the campaign. In October 2014, under pressure from European allies, Centcom ceased identifying the coalition members that took part in particular strikes.

At the end of the day, implicit in the way the U.S. and CENTCOM is handling this is placing the coalition dynamic ahead of accountability and transparency, said Jenks.

Rising toll

The coalition has so far admitted to killing 352 civilians since 2014, including the 80 or more non-combatants slain by U.S. allies. However, this may just by the tip of the iceberg: That figure is still roughly 10 times lower than Airwarss own minimum estimate of 3,500 civilian fatalities in the air campaign. That tally is the result of monitoring carried out by our team of researchers, and does not include incidents that are contested or are currently backed by weak evidence.

Recent months have seen record civilian death tolls from airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria. In April alone, Airwars researchers assessed that between 283 and 366 civilians were likely killed by the coalition. Yet despite the continuing bloody battle in Mosul, almost none of those deaths were included, as in most events there it remains unclear whether coalition or Iraqi ground or air actions, or Islamic State attacks, were responsible for casualties. High fatalities have also been reported for some months around Raqqa, despite little media coverage.

As the war against the Islamic State centers on the groups last remaining urban areas, there is little doubt that the fight is resulting in significant civilian casualties. Yet for families who have lost a loved one, their ability to know which country is bombing them or who might be liable is slowly going up in smoke.

Additional research by Eline Westra.

*Correction: This sentence initially said that Col. Scrocca had specified that these 80 deaths were caused by airstrikes not launched by the United States. He did not do so in this statement.

Photo credit:BARAA AL-HALABI/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Go here to read the rest:
The US Is Helping Allies Hide Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria - Foreign Policy (blog)