Mediaboss Marketing

By Alex Hollings 05.11.2017#Foreign Policy Email Share Tweet

In a joint press conference conducted with Denmarks Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen, American Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced that the coalition will begin accelerating its campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

We will further accelerate this fight to free people from ISIS crushing occupation and [the] enemys terror threat to Europe and beyond, Mattis announced in Copenhagen, Denmark.

or Log In

Filed Under: Foreign Policy, Military News, Politics, World News Tagged With: Denmark, Headline, Iraq, ISIS, Islamic State, James Mattis, NATO, Raqqa, SECDEF, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Syria

If you liked this article, tell someone about it

Alex Hollings Alex Hollings served as an active duty Marine for six and a half years before being medically retired. A college rugby player, Marine Corps football player, and avid shooter, he has competed in multiple mixed martial arts tournaments, raced exotic cars across the country and wrestled alligators in pursuit of a story to tell. His novel, "A Secondhand Hero" is currently seeking publication.

Visit link:
James Mattis announces US will 'accelerate the fight' against ISIS in Iraq and Syria - SOFREP (press release) (subscription)

When you spend enough time in Iraq and Afghanistan, the scenery starts to overlap, and you can forget which theater youre currently in. Especially when the Danger Rangers all start to look the same. That was the feeling freelance reporter Courtney Body got Wednesday, when she spotted something in Iraq that didnt want quite belong.

Body was stopped at an Iraqi checkpoint traveling toward Mosul on May 10, when a Ford Ranger in a passing convoy caught her attention: The insignia on the pickup truck wasnt for Iraqi security forces but for the Afghan National Army.

Its so familiar to me after all those years in Afghanistan to see the ANA Ford Ranger, and because I was intently looking at the MRAPs, I just caught it, Body told Task & Purpose. It was definitely a moment where I had to remind myself where I was, and question how in the world that vehicle ended up outside of Mosul in Iraq.

Body spent six and a half years in Afghanistan covering the war and recognized the green, red, and black emblem immediately. Its plastered all over Afghan army posters, equipment, vehicles, and soldiers around the country. Here it is up close:

The truck was passing through the checkpoint along with two MRAPs, according to Body. It pulled over and she was able to snap a photo of its passengers, who were donning Iraqi army uniforms. There was also a woman in the backseat. Other than the Afghan army sticker on the truck, Body said the convoy had no identifying markings, so theres no confirmation that it was an official vehicle of Iraqi security forces.

So, how the hell did it get there? And why? Body was unsure, but has heard rumors of Afghan army trucks spotted elsewhere in Iraq. For those of you who never have had the pleasure of traversing this part of world, heres a map pinpointing Mosul in relation to Afghanistan. Theres pretty much only one way to get there: via Iran.

The Ford Ranger pickups are routinely used by the Afghan security forces to truck police and soldiers around Afghanistan. According to a U.S. Army press release, 31,000 light pickup trucks, acquired through an authorized dealer of Ford called Global Fleet Sales, were fielded to the Afghan army and police in 2011. An additional 10,000 were scheduled to be fielded by 2012.

Heres a photo of ANA Ford Ranger in its normal setting.

Task & Purpose sought a comment from Program Executive Office Combat Support and Combat Service Support, the U.S. Army office that equipped the Afghan security forces with the Ford Rangers, but they could not provide any information at the time of publication.

If youve spent time in Iraq and have seen Afghan National Army or police trucks there or have any info on how they got there shoot us an email at editor@taskandpurpose.com.

View post:
What The Hell Are Afghan Army Pickup Trucks Doing In Iraq? - Task & Purpose

The hard left Labour leader will declare the ongoing fight against terror has failed

JEREMY Corbyn will today signal he will withdraw British troops from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan if he becomes PM.

In explosive remarks, the hard left Labour leader will declare the ongoing fight against terror has failed.

SWNS:South West News Service

And persisting with operations against ISIS, al Qaeda and the Taliban is a recipe for increasing not reducing threats, he will argue.

Mr Corbyns intervention comes as he delivers his first major foreign and defence policy speech in almost two years as Labour leader.

His anti-war stand is sure to reignite his own partys civil war over the long running operations.

Getty Images

It is also high risk with voters to criticise troops deployments while they are still at risk.

But despite his anti-war stand, Mr Corbyn he will also try to sure up his weak security credentials by insisting: I am not a pacifist.

The 67-year-old will lay out his security vision to the prestigious Chatham House think tank this morning.

The Labour boss will say: This is the fourth general election in a row to be held while Britain is at war and our armed forces are in action in the Middle East and beyond.

The bomb first, talk later approach to security has failed.

To persist with it, as the Conservative Government has made clear it is determined to do, is a recipe for increasing not reducing threats and insecurity.

EPA

Senior Labour sources last night told The Sun that Mr Corbyn has never hidden his opposition to the RAFs bombing mission in Syria.

The party boss voted against it in December 2015, while 66 Labour MPs defied him to vote with then-PM David Cameron to authorise the new intervention.

But figures close to Mr Corbyn said pulling the close to 1,000 British troops on training missions out of Iraq and Afghanistan would more gradual.

Instead, the Labour boss sees their withdrawal as part of a negotiated settlement with ISIS and the Taliban.

On his own personal views about war, Mr Corbyn will tell the Chatham House audience that he is not completely opposed to ever conducting it as the nations leader.

He will argue: I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary.

If elected Prime Minister, I will do everything necessary to protect the safety and security of our people and our country.

But he will also say: The best defence for Britain is a government actively engaged in seeking peaceful solutions to the worlds problems.

Mr Corbyns refusal to accept he is a pacifist comes despite him infamously declaring he could never envisage a situation where he would ever send British troops to war during the Labour leadership contest in 2015.

EPA

The Defence Secretary said yesterday that Mr Corbyn is essentially a pacifist and would be very dangerous as leader of our country.

Senior Tory Sir Michael Fallon added: If you have armed forces, youve got to be prepared to use them.

The Labour boss will also attack Theresa May for cosying up to the new US president by declaring under him, there will be no more hand-holding with Donald Trump.

And he will vow to distance Britain from the traditional special relationship with the US, saying: Waiting to see which way the wind blows in Washington isnt strong leadership.

A Labour government will conduct a robust and independent foreign policy made in London.

Read this article:
Jeremy Corbyn to signal he would withdraw troops from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan if he becomes Prime Minister - The Sun

American Sniper, a movie I loved, tried to do everything. It explored the hell of war and the essence of brotherhood. It followed the book by the Texas super sniper Chris Kyle, told a love story, and drew attention to the veterans we are neglecting.

It succeeded. Some critics had trouble appreciating the film too patriotic? but Sniper made more than half a billion dollars, half of it in the United States; the highest grossing film by Clint Eastwood. Its powerful story about heroism and the commitment to country and family spoke to millions, especially in the middle of America. They were the people fighting and supporting the wars that many all too comfortable others were protesting.

The Wall tries to do just one thing. A tense battle scene unfolds more or less in real time. This film features snipers too a couple of Americans (John Cena and Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and an unseen Iraqi (Laith Nakli) holding them hostage from afar with his long rifle.

Exhausted and dehydrated, the U.S. Rangers walk into a trap when they examine a horrific scene in the Absolute Middle of Nowhere, Iraq. Amidst the dead bodies of American soldiers and security forces they become victims too of the invisible shooter who has killed everyone they came to rescue.

Cenas character, Matthews, is soon shot and wounded. This gives Golden Globe winner Taylor-Johnson a chance to shine, just as he did brilliantly in Nocturnal Animals. As Isaac, he is dirty, thirsty, frightened and occasionally creatively courageous while he hides behind a crumbling wall.

At some point the Iraqi sniper played by the British actor Nakli manages to get on his radio frequency. As the two talk, Isaac tries to stay alive and take out his nemesis. The Iraqi just wants to chat when he isnt shooting. With sarcasm and anger in his voice he lists the wrongs of the Americans active in Iraq and other Muslim-majority countries. An intelligent way to give a voice to the rationale behind the deadly insurgent campaign against the occupation; the campaign that eventually grew into ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Is this an anti-war film? Hardly. It does lack the overt heroism and patriotism of American Sniper. But like Eastwood, director Doug Liman and writer Dwain Worrell seem to have an objective more important than rehashing the old Iraq War argument. Instead they attempt to get into the worlds, into the minds of these forgotten fighters.

A former Ranger named Nicholas Irving nickname: The Reaper served as an advisor on the film. He must be good at his former and current jobs. The dialogue and action feel real, lean, even claustrophobic. That quality makes The Wall was both hard and thrilling to watch. Of course, Limans films are always thrilling. Just think of The Bourne Identity, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and Edge of Tomorrow.

The compact intensity of this film reminded me of Fury. While that was a tale about the biggest topic imaginable World War II Fury also stayed small by getting into the heads of a bunch of fighters led by Brad Pitts character. The brotherhood inside that tank battalion was as tangible as the bond between Matthews and Isaac in The Wall.

The debate about Iraq remains a touchstone in the debate about interventionism versus isolationism, about engagement by the indispensable nation (George W. Bush) versus leading from behind (Barack Obama), which meant the withdrawal of troops from Iraq just when the war seemed winnable. Im not sure Liman means it this way, but the guys in The Wall become the collateral damage of the poorly timed retreat. With no chance to win they are left to fend for themselves, unable to reach anyone for backup.

Through their despair we sense that this is a symbol for America turning its back on allies and its own soldiers, the forgotten men and women trying to stay alive, risking everything while their contemporaries worry about safe spaces.

We cant know what would have happened if the surge and the Iraqi uprising had been given a chance under Obama. Perhaps the characters in The Wall would not have ended up abandoned in the desert. Maybe the Iraqi sniper would have become a school teacher helping to rebuild his country.

But as moviegoers we would not have been able to enjoy The Wall.

We may not like the outcome of this film and what it says about American power in the Middle East. But as war movies go, this compact thriller deserves a spot up there with other strong, recent war films: Fury, Zero Dark Thirty, and American Sniper.

The rest is here:
Fear and Courage in Iraq, Mostly Fear - American Spectator

As Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dominated the news agenda, Mexico's drug wars claimed 23,000 lives during 2016 -- second only to Syria, where 50,000 people died as a result of the civil war.

"This is all the more surprising, considering that the conflict deaths [in Mexico] are nearly all attributable to small arms," said John Chipman, chief executive and director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which issued its annual survey of armed conflict on Tuesday.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed 17,000 and 16,000 lives respectively in 2016, although in lethality they were surpassed by conflicts in Mexico and Central America, which have received much less attention from the media and the international community," said Anastasia Voronkova, the editor of the survey.

In comparison, there were 17,000 conflict deaths in Mexico in 2015 and 15,000 in 2014 according to the IISS.

The Mexican government lashed out at the report's writers. In a statement posted to its website, the government criticizes the report's characterization of Mexico having a non-international armed conflict, saying the military's policing of criminal gangs does not equate to what goes on in other countries. It also disagreed with the report's methodology.

The statement, from Mexico's interior ministry and foreign ministry, questions the number of killings in the report.

"The total estimate of intentional homicides at the national level in 2016 has still not been published by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), so it's unknown where the figure used in the report came from," the ministries said, according to a CNN translation.

There are other reasons for killings besides connections to drug gangs, the government said.

"In this sense, the report starts from a base that is erroneous and lacking in technical rigor," the statement said, adding that when figures are adjusted for population, many other countries are more violent than Mexico.

Voronkova said the number of homicides rose in 22 of Mexico's 32 states during 2016 and the rivalries between cartels increased in violence.

"It is noteworthy that the largest rises in fatalities were registered in states that were key battlegrounds for control between competing, increasingly fragmented cartels," she said.

"The violence grew worse as the cartels expanded the territorial reach of their campaigns, seeking to 'cleanse' areas of rivals in their efforts to secure a monopoly on drug-trafficking routes and other criminal assets."

Rivalries between the cartels wreak havoc on the lives of civilians who have nothing to do with narcotics. Bystanders, people who refused to join cartels, migrants, journalists and government officials have all been killed.

Jacob Parakilas, assistant head of the US and the Americas Programme at London-based think tank Chatham House, said part of the reason for the relative lack of attention paid to Mexico in the international media is "it's not a war in the political sense of the word. The participants largely don't have a political objective. They're not trying to create a breakaway state. It doesn't come with the same visuals. There are no air strikes.

There have, however, been significant arrests in relation to the Mexican drug trade in recent times.

Damaso Lopez Nunez, a high-ranking leader of Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel, was arrested on May 2 in Mexico City and could face charges in the US, authorities said.

The number of conflict fatalities globally edged down last year, from 167,000 to 157,000, according to the IISS.

This was the second successive annual drop -- 180,000 people were killed in 2014.

The number of deaths in Syria fell from 55,000 in 2015. But there were 1,000 more deaths in Afghanistan last year than 2015 and 4,000 more in Iraq.

Voronkova from the IISS said: "Civilians caught amid conflict arguably suffered more than in the preceding years. Between January and August, 900,000 people were internally displaced in Syria alone."

The internal displacement figures were 234,000 for Iraq and 260,000 for Afghanistan.

CNN's Catherine E. Shoichet contributed to this report.

Originally posted here:
Report: Mexico was second deadliest country in 2016 - CNN