Mediaboss Marketing

What will this reorganization of tasks in Iraq mean?

The ministers decided that the NATO mission will expand, mainly in the form of taking over training missions. NATO is currently training Iraqi soldiers and advising security and defense ministry structures. These mandates will be revisited to determine what else NATO could take over that would fit inside its current mandate.

Strictly training?

Yes, strictly just training, an advisory role. All of it should reinforce Iraq's ability to ensure its own security.

It still seems like just a flag change. Why is it necessary? U.S. President Donald Trump wanted NATO to play a bigger role. Is that the reason? Or perhaps it's tied to Iraq's reactions following events in January, the drone strike?

It has been said for a while that the U.S.-led mission should change because the fight against Daesh (ISIS) is constantly changing. Such plans have existed for some time. I believe that it was simply found now that NATO should do a little more. NATO ministers agreed and also found that threats emanating from the south are considerable and should be addressed to a greater degree.

To what extent could the wish of the U.S. president have been a factor?

I believe it was definitely a factor. USA clearly wants to reshape these things a little, its participation in various operations, missions. It might not mean they want to do less. I believe they just want to reshape things to have a more sensible system.

Is it true the NATO mission is only possible because of the U.S. mission that ensures the safety of all these advisers?

Yes, that's just how it is. The American-led mission that goes well beyond the scope of the NATO mission ensures security, with the Iraqi security forces also contributing, and NATO cannot remain there alone, nor has it been discussed. Whenever we've talked to Iraq, it has always been clear that the U.S. coalition must remain together with the NATO coalition they are either together in Iraq or they leave together. NATO could not handle it alone as its role is that of training and advise, not combat activity.

During the defense ministerial, it was also said that we will remain in Iraq only for as long as they want us there. At the same time, the Iraqi parliament has voted and sought the departure of the U.S.-led coalition. How welcome are the coalition and NATO in Iraq really?

The secretary general [of NATO] has spoken to the Iraqi PM on a couple of occasions and the Iraqi side has said very clearly that they want NATO to remain in Iraq and continue training because they realize that they can never ensure their own security otherwise. Today, we have confirmation that NATO is very welcome.

What does all of this hold for Estonia, both in the broader sense and for our Defense Forces members participating in these missions?

Estonia is participating in both Iraq missions the U.S.-led Inherent Resolve and the NATO training mission. It has been said that we will be continuing in both missions this year. But time will tell. It is impossible to say today which functions will be transferred and how. It might affect us, while it also might not.

But I think we are not an exception here. All other allies are in more or less the same situation today. We must simply wait for the military analysis by local defense forces. NATO structures are also analyzing would be feasible and what not. We must exhibit some patience and see.

Do we have any idea when NATO will be able to continue its mission the one that is currently on hold?

We also don't know that for the time being. // Everyone agreed to temporarily pulling out from there, while everyone is also saying it's temporary. But when exactly will the commanders there be certain everyone can return, that it's safer now even though the situation is always unstable there we cannot say today.

--

Download the ERR News app for Android and iOS now and never miss an update!

Follow this link:
Estonian ambassador to NATO: Alliance in Iraq not feasible without USA - ERR News

AS the world has been celebrating the fall of ISIS, the terror group is reported to be making a comeback.

Recent reports reveal the Islamic State has more fighters than it did when it founded its caliphate in 2014, as well as millions of dollars at its disposal.

5

5

The prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan, Masrour Barzani, believes ISIS is "still very much intact".

Speaking to the Atlantic, he said: "Yes, they have lost much of their leadership. They have lost many of their capable men.

"But they've also managed to gain more experience and to recruit more people around them. So they should not be taken lightly."

The Kurdish leader believes ISIS has about 20,000 fighters across Iraq and Syria - double the number than in 2014 when the terror group took over territories in the region.

A recent UN report indicated ISIS still has $100 million in reserves.

In March last year the world celebrated the defeat of ISIS in Syria after it was announced the bloodthirsty terror group's final stronghold had been liberated.

And in October the former leader of the terror group, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, blew himself up during a raid President Trump ordered.

However, a recent report from the US Defense Department's inspector general said that it's done little to deter the group.

Ongoing tensions between the US and Iran could further aid in the potential for the group's resurgence.

In January, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iran's top military leader, Qassem Soleimani, taking attention away from ISIS.

Following the strike, the US suspended anti-ISIS operations in the region.

Yes, they have lost much of their leadership. They have lost many of their capable men ... But they've also managed to gain more experience and to recruit more people around them.

Iraq's parliament subsequently voted to expel all US forces from the country and a protest against the US military's ongoing presence in Iraq ensued.

Barzani added:"This confrontation definitely will have a negative effect on the fight against terrorism and ISIS, which should be the priority for all of us".

Additionally, the same conditions that allowed ISIS to take hold continue to exist.

Chaos, corruption, poor governance, sectarianism, economic malaise, military destruction and antagonizing between much of the population still persist.

Terrorism analysts say ISIS is largely regional in nature and believe it isunlikely to be attacking the US homeland anytime soon.

David Sterman, a senior policy analyst for New America, told Business Insider: "ISIS continues to exist in Iraq and Syria, and its long history of resilience and resurgence after supposed defeats including the much-heralded 'surge' suggests that it could well given the right circumstances pose an even greater threat in Iraq and Syria, particularly if tensions with Iran prevent coordinated international efforts to suppress it.

"However, it is essential to acknowledge that even when the United States began its counter-ISIS war, and at ISIS' peak territorial holdings, the group did not demonstrate a clear capability to strike the United States homeland."

UK'S HARDEST OAPMoment pensioner, 77, heroically fights off would-be mugger at cashpoint

'PATHETIC'Cop spends 7 hours at death of a baby - and finds angry '100 fine' note on car

FINE MESSMum makes messy kids sign cleaning contract & fines them 5 for every broken rule

BRUTAL ATTACKBaby girl dies being 'raped by her 30-year-old cousin' at an Indian wedding

HARD LUCKDad stuck with permanent erection after op when 1.5 tons of glass fell on lap

'KILLER' DADDad 'who shook baby to death' claims he accidentally dropped her down stairs

The new leader of ISIS was revealed as Amir Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Mawli al-Salbi - an Iraqi extremist nicknamed "the Professor."

Two intelligence services said Salbi seized control of the death cult following the death of former boss Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

5

5

5

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us attips@the-sun.co.ukor call 0207 782 4368.

Continued here:
ISIS is BIGGER now than when it took over Iraq and Syria and its making a COMEBACK - The Sun

Iraq War, also called Second Persian Gulf War, (200311), conflict in Iraq that consisted of two phases. The first of these was a brief, conventionally fought war in MarchApril 2003, in which a combined force of troops from the United States and Great Britain (with smaller contingents from several other countries) invaded Iraq and rapidly defeated Iraqi military and paramilitary forces. It was followed by a longer second phase in which a U.S.-led occupation of Iraq was opposed by an insurgency. After violence began to decline in 2007, the United States gradually reduced its military presence in Iraq, formally completing its withdrawal in December 2011.

Iraqs invasion of Kuwait in 1990 ended in Iraqs defeat by a U.S.-led coalition in the Persian Gulf War (199091). However, the Iraqi branch of the Bath Party, headed by addm ussein, managed to retain power by harshly suppressing uprisings of the countrys minority Kurds and its majority Shite Arabs. To stem the exodus of Kurds from Iraq, the allies established a safe haven in northern Iraqs predominantly Kurdish regions, and allied warplanes patrolled no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq that were off-limits to Iraqi aircraft. Moreover, to restrain future Iraqi aggression, the United Nations (UN) implemented economic sanctions against Iraq in order to, among other things, hinder the progress of its most lethal arms programs, including those for the development of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. (See weapon of mass destruction.) UN inspections during the mid-1990s uncovered a variety of proscribed weapons and prohibited technology throughout Iraq. That countrys continued flouting of the UN weapons ban and its repeated interference with the inspections frustrated the international community and led U.S. Pres. Bill Clinton in 1998 to order the bombing of several Iraqi military installations (code-named Operation Desert Fox). After the bombing, however, Iraq refused to allow inspectors to reenter the country, and during the next several years the economic sanctions slowly began to erode as neighbouring countries sought to reopen trade with Iraq.

In 2002 the new U.S. president, George W. Bush, argued that the vulnerability of the United States following the September 11 attacks of 2001, combined with Iraqs alleged continued possession and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction (an accusation that was later proved erroneous) and its support for terrorist groupswhich, according to the Bush administration, included al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the September 11 attacksmade disarming Iraq a renewed priority. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, 2002, demanded that Iraq readmit inspectors and that it comply with all previous resolutions. Iraq appeared to comply with the resolution, but in early 2003 President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that Iraq was actually continuing to hinder UN inspections and that it still retained proscribed weapons. Other world leaders, such as French Pres. Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schrder, citing what they believed to be increased Iraqi cooperation, sought to extend inspections and give Iraq more time to comply with them. However, on March 17, seeking no further UN resolutions and deeming further diplomatic efforts by the Security Council futile, Bush declared an end to diplomacy and issued an ultimatum to addm, giving the Iraqi president 48 hours to leave Iraq. The leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and other countries objected to this buildup toward war.

When addm refused to leave Iraq, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on the morning of March 20; it began when U.S. aircraft dropped several precision-guided bombs on a bunker complex in which the Iraqi president was believed to be meeting with senior staff. This was followed by a series of air strikes directed against government and military installations, and within days U.S. forces had invaded Iraq from Kuwait in the south (U.S. Special Forces had previously been deployed to Kurdish-controlled areas in the north). Despite fears that Iraqi forces would engage in a scorched-earth policydestroying bridges and dams and setting fire to Iraqs southern oil wellslittle damage was done by retreating Iraqi forces; in fact, large numbers of Iraqi troops simply chose not to resist the advance of coalition forces. In southern Iraq the greatest resistance to U.S. forces as they advanced northward was from irregular groups of Bath Party supporters, known as addms Fedayeen. British forceswhich had deployed around the southern city of Al-Barahfaced similar resistance from paramilitary and irregular fighters.

In central Iraq units of the Republican Guarda heavily armed paramilitary group connected with the ruling partywere deployed to defend the capital of Baghdad. As U.S. Army and Marine forces advanced northwestward up the Tigris-Euphrates river valley, they bypassed many populated areas where Fedayeen resistance was strongest and were slowed only on March 25 when inclement weather and an extended supply line briefly forced them to halt their advance within 60 miles (95 km) of Baghdad. During the pause, U.S. aircraft inflicted heavy damage on Republican Guard units around the capital. U.S. forces resumed their advance within a week, and on April 4 they took control of Baghdads international airport. Iraqi resistance, though at times vigorous, was highly disorganized, and over the next several days army and Marine Corps units staged raids into the heart of the city. On April 9 resistance in Baghdad collapsed, and U.S. soldiers took control of the city.

On that same day Al-Barah was finally secured by British forces, which had entered the city several days earlier. In the north, however, plans to open up another major front had been frustrated when the Turkish government refused to allow mechanized and armoured U.S. Army units to pass through Turkey to deploy in northern Iraq. Regardless, a regiment of American paratroopers did drop into the area, and U.S. Special Forces soldiers joined with Kurdish peshmerga fighters to seize the northern cities of Kirkuk on April 10 and Mosul on April 11. addms hometown of Tikrt, the last major stronghold of the regime, fell with little resistance on April 13. Isolated groups of regime loyalists continued to fight on subsequent days, but the U.S. president declared an end to major combat on May 1. Iraqi leaders fled into hiding and were the object of an intense search by U.S. forces. addm ussein was captured on December 13, 2003, and was turned over to Iraqi authorities in June 2004 to stand trial for various crimes; he was subsequently convicted of crimes against humanity and was executed on December 30, 2006.

See original here:
Iraq War | Summary, Causes, Combatants, & Facts | Britannica

While much of Washingtoncelebrates the deathof Iranian generalQassem Soleimani, there is a growing movement by various anti-American groups in the Middle East to threaten revenge attacks against our troops. Because we have a solemn duty to safeguard American livesand to avoid unnecessary warwe must withdraw from Iraq and Syria before one more service member is needlessly killed.

The general consensus in the United States has been that Soleimani deserved to die for the many atrocities he has committed in the past., Americans aresharply divided,largely along partisan lines, over whether taking him out at this time was wise or not.

Regardless of where one comes down on the decision to kill Soleimani, every American should support the twin goals of ensuring American national security and preserving of our service members lives. The first goal is already assured because of our global and unrivaled ability to project power. What many dont realize, however, is that the second faces an increasingand unnecessaryrisk.

By taking out such a high-ranking figure, Americas killing of Soleimani created the risk that Iran might retaliate by killing American troops in the region. Trump had been outspoken in his determination to launch apunishing barrageagainst Tehran if they killed any Americans in response.

Thankfully, Iran appears to have blinked by firing largely face-saving strikes againstempty buildingson two American bases in Iraq. The danger to American troops, however, is far from over as numerous groups and militias in the region are vowing to strike U.S. targets in the weeks and months ahead.

Earlier this month, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallahtold mournersat a Soleimani memorial service in Lebanon that, the U.S. bases, the U.S. warships, every American soldier and officer in the Middle East was a legitimate target and that his forces had no choice but to enter a conflict with the United States. More worrisome, however, is the evolving strategy of a constellation of Shia militia joining forces to resist Americas presence in the region

At the request of Iranian leaders, Nasrallah met on Monday in the Iranian city of Qom with multiple key pro-Iranian armed factions, including Kataib Hezbollah, which the U.S. bombed on 29 December, killing 25 members. Nasrallahs purpose was to unify the otherwise fractious militias and ask them to set aside differences so they could focus on forming a unified front to challenge U.S. forces.

One of the Shia militia leaderstold regional mediaoutletMiddle East Eyethat while Iran tries to recover from the leadership vacuum created by Soleimanis killing, Tehran may allow the militias to practice their hobbies from time to time by striking a blow here or there against the American forces, but that all the warring parties will adopt a policy of exchanging slaps for the next two or three months.

After this two or three month period ends, the Shia militias in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran will have replaced the lost leaders and decided on a unified course of action. Attacks on American troops could become more regular, sophisticatedand lethal. Adding to this threat, Iranian President Hassan Rouhanisaid on Wednesdaythat, today, the American soldier is in danger, tomorrow the European soldier could be in danger."

Dismissing these many and increasing threats as bluster is effectively playing Russian roulette with the lives of our troops. It is also entirely possible that some of the still-active ISIS cells in either Iraq or Syria could stage attacks against American troops in the hopes of blaming it on Shia militias or Iran, which could prompt Trumpregardless of who actually did itto launch a punishing reprisal against Iran.

We dodged a bullet with the Iranian response on 8 January that didnt kill any Americans. The next time we may not be so lucky and the results could spark the all-out war we have thus far avoided.

We should not wait for the Shia militias to recover from their losses and make good on their threats to kill American troops. We should immediately, withdraw our troops from the region on our terms and on our timelines.

Doing so preserves our ability to defend American interests throughout the regionwithout the daily risk to our troops. American ability to project power worldwide is unrivaled. We dont need a handful of troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria to defend our interests anywhere in the region.

Denying easy access for Iran and its proxies to U.S targets should be the guiding principle. Trump was elected in 2016 by promising no more stupid wars. Thats a promise he would be wise to keep..

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

Go here to see the original:
Retired U.S. Army Officer: America Needs to Leave Iraq (Now) - The National Interest Online

Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials from both countries told Middle East Eye.

The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties attempts to expel American troops from their country.

Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Partys presidential candidate.

'The creation of a Sunni region has always been an option for the US. The Iranians cannot be allowed to reach the Mediterranean Sea or benefit from the land bridge connecting them to Hezbollah'

- Former US official

It was hoped that the scheme could tighten US control over Iraq and provide protection for Sunnis during the 2006-08 sectarian civil conflict, in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis from both the Sunni and Shia communities were slaughtered.

But opposition to Iraq being divided along sectarian and ethnic lines, as well as Americans insistence on keeping the country united, has postponed attempts at its implementation.

Now efforts to expel US troops have breathed new life into the project, and the creation of a Sunni region is just one of the options being considered by Washington to counter Iranian pressure, a top Iraqi Shia official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told MEE.

Iraqi unity is no longer a priority now for the US, the Shia official said.

If the Americans reach a dead-end in terms of the presence of their forces in Iraq, they will work to implement this project vigorously.

A former US official familiar with the project confirmed that the Americans have worked on "taking this project out of the drawer and putting it on the table".

The creation of a Sunni region has always been an option for the US. The Iranians cannot be allowed to reach the Mediterranean Sea or benefit from the land bridge connecting them to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the former US official told MEE.

"The project is American, not Sunni. The presence of the American forces has been the guarantor for the Sunnis and the Kurds, so if the US has to leave Iraq, then establishing a Sunni region in western Iraq is its plan to curb Iran and its arms in the Middle East, he added.

We are talking about establishing a country, not an administrative region.

Since the 2003 US invasion, Iraq has been one of the largest arenas of conflict between Washington and Tehran.

But tension between the two enemies climaxed on 3 January, when a US drone strike in Baghdad killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of Iraqs Hashd al-Shaabi paramilitary.

The assassination of Soleimani, who was in charge of Iranian field operations in the Middle East, and Muhandis, who established most of his countrys Shia armed factions and acted as a kind of spiritual father to the fighters, sent shockwaves through Iraq.

It forced Iraqi Shia politicians and a number of their allies to respond to pressure from the armed factions by heading to parliament and voting to end the 17-year US military presence in the country.

Tracked, targeted, killed: Qassem Soleimani's final hours

Though it was non-binding, the 5 January vote to expel foreign forces sent a powerful message.

The absence of Sunni and Kurdish MPs in parliament highlighted the fragile relationship between Sunni leaders and their Iran-backed Shia allies. Most abstaining MPs left Baghdad toward either Erbil in northern Iraq or Jordans Amman for fear of retaliation.

The latest developments in Iraq have prompted them to search for other options, foremost among which was an autonomous Sunni region, Sunni lawmakers told MEE.

As soon as some Sunni politicians arrived in Erbil and Amman, they met US officials there to "discuss options for both sides, sources said.

In the early hours of 8 January, Iran targeted two Iraqi military bases hosting US forces, one in western Iraq and the other in the north, with ballistic missiles that left no casualties.

Less than 24 hours later, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker flew to Erbil, without going through Baghdad, to meet key US ally and former president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Masoud Barzani, in addition to a number of other Kurdish officials.

Although statements later issued by the US did not mention any meetings that took place with Sunni leaders in Erbil, many sources confirmed that both the assistant secretary of state and Stephen Fagin, the US consul in Erbil, met a number of Sunni politicians to discuss the implications of the parliaments decision, the threats that Sunnis face and options for facing the two issues.

On the same day, Schenker flew to the UAE. There, he later said, he met "by chance" with the speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Muhammad al-Halbousi, who happened to be there.

After meeting with Schenker, Halbousi held a series of meetings in the UAE on 9 and 10 January with several prominent Sunni leaders.

'The talks on this topic are uninterrupted and increase in frequency over time'

-Abdullah al-Khirbeit,Sunni lawmaker

The idea of establishing a Sunni region came as a reaction to Shia forces attempts to make crucial decisions without the approval of Sunnis, a lawmaker who participated in the UAE meetings told MEE on condition of anonymity.

"Claims for our own region do not come on a sectarian basis, but on an administrative basis to develop our provinces, the lawmaker said.

The attendees agreed on the idea and said that they will present it to our audience at an appropriate time.

Halbousi, who is currently the strongest Sunni ally of the Iranian-backed al-Binnaa parliamentary alliance, and who secured his office thanks to this support, has denied that such a plan was even discussed, let alone agreed upon.

However, a number of leaders in Halbousis coalition have said they are subject to pressure from political partners keen to pursue the plan, and are presented with various temptations.

The talks on this topic are uninterrupted and increase in frequency over time, Abdullah al-Khirbeit, a prominent Sunni lawmaker and a close ally of Halbousi, told MEE.

When we say we want decentralisation in Iraq, this can be discussed. But federalism and confederation is not acceptable to us because it means dividing Iraq.

None of the Sunni and Shialeaders and officials spoken to by MEE have any clear idea of the projects details.

They all say that it is still just ideas and no clear information has been provided regarding the regions prospective borders, the number of provinces it would contain and mechanisms to solve the problems that it will face.

It is perfectly clear, however, that the project will be launched from Anbar province, to later include the provinces of Nineveh and Salah al-Din, and part of Diyala.

The proposed Sunni region will be created first in accordance with the articles of the Iraqi constitution, which allows for administrative regions to be established alongside Kurdistan.

Later, the region will be temporarily annexed to Kurdistan in a federal or confederal form, "to avoid the conflict between Sunnis and Kurds over Kirkuk and the disputed areas", according to a prominent Sunni leader.

The last step, MEE understands, will be to have this region recognised internationally.

The Arab Gulf states allied to US, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, support and finance this project, Sunni and Shia leaders and officials told MEE.

Funding is in place, international pressure is in place, and the necessary military strength is in place to create this region, a prominent Sunni leader familiar with the talks said.

'Neither Iran nor the Shia forces will be able to stand against the project because the US and Gulf states back it'

- Sunni leader

Neither Iran nor the Shia forces will be able to stand against the project because the US and Gulf states back it, the leader added.

A huge amount of money and investment offered by the Sunni states is at stake, and these will turn the Anbar desert into green oases and rebuild the destroyed areas in Mosul and Salah al-Din. Who will care about oil?

Since 1 October, Baghdad and nine predominantly Shia provinces have been rocked by anti-government demonstrations, which have demanded an end to corruption, the governments downfall and early elections based on a new electoral law that will limit Irans influence.

Iraqi security forces and some Iran-backed armed groups have led a bloody crackdown on demonstrators, activists and journalists in response, killing some 500 people.

The Sunni-dominated governorates have not participated in the demonstrations, however, fearing it could be used by Shia factions to justify violent repression.

'No to America, no to Iran': Thousands protest against foreign influence across Iraq

And while the majority of Sunni politicians have remained silent over the protests, in general Sunnis have shown sympathy for the Shia protesters cause.

Leaders familiar with the ongoing talks on partitioning Iraq said that Sunni politicians are seriously involved in the discussions and are waiting to see the demonstrations outcome before deciding on their path.

"The meetings are taking place in full swing, and all the Sunni leaders are attending. But they deny this publicly, waiting for the conditions that protect them, a prominent Sunni leader familiar with the talks told MEE.

If the protesters are able to force through a national government that takes care of all Iraqi communities, then the Sunnis will reject any planned autonomous area, the leader said.

Failure to achieve this, he warned, would see Sunnis supporting the partition project en masse.

"Sunnis do not want to be part of the Shia crescent, and refuse to submit to Iranian control. So they will offer the Americans permission to build military bases in their lands, in exchange for the necessary support to establish the desired region.

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

Read more:
US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes - Middle East Eye