Mediaboss Marketing

In total, 484 people have died up to the end of April as a result of Operation Inherent Resolve, which began in August 2014. Photograph: Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty Images

Civilian casualties have increased sharply in the US-led military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, with nearly 60% of the officially acknowledged deaths from the three-year war being reported in the first three months of the Trump administration.

US Central Command (Centcom) admitted to 484 civilian deaths up to the end of April as a result of coalition strikes as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, which began in August 2014. That compares with a cumulative total of 199 announced at the beginning of February.

The tallies are limited to those incidents that the US military has been able to investigate and confirm. The true death toll is likely to be much higher, as the battle to wrest control of densely populated west Mosul in Iraq from Isis continues, and the battle gets started for the Isis stronghold in Syria, in Raqqa.

Airwars, a UK-based watchdog group, estimates the civilian death toll from coalition airstrikes at over 3,800.

A Centcom spokesman said that the dramatic spike was largely caused by a single strike on 17 March when the bombing of a building in Mosul aimed at killing two Isis snipers called a building to collapse, killing 105 civilians. The spokesman also said that 80 previously undisclosed civilians deaths from earlier incidents had been added to the cumulative total in April.

However, human rights groups and other observers point to an array of other factors that suggest that civilian deaths from the counter-Isis campaign are likely to remain high and probably climb.

One of that factors is a legacy of the last weeks of the Obama administration, when targeting procedures were changed, removing the requirement for each sortie to be approved by a central strike cell in Baghdad.

That has meant that Iraqi forces fighting on the ground have been able to call in an air strike from a coalition member with planes in the area. It does not have be approved by the coalition as a whole.

The coalition also includes the UK, Netherlands, France, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Jordan. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates also take part in air strikes in Syria.

The procedural changes in December, said Belkis Wille, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) researcher in Baghdad, allowed for a quicker response time, but that also makes for more mistakes.

HRW is calling for the old procedures or new equally rigorous guidelines, to be reinstated.

Another factor is the growing intensity of the fight for Mosul, where Iraqi forces supported by coalition air power are taking on Isis militants bottled up in the west of the city, home to 200,000 civilians whom Isis is using increasingly as human shields. But even as Isis fighters blend in with Mosul residents, the coalition is using bigger bombs and less accurate means of delivering them.

From an analysis 380 of bomb craters in west Mosul from fighting in March and April, HRW estimates that the coalition was now routinely dropping 500- and 1000lb bombs, much bigger warheads that the more precise ones used earlier in the campaign. Meanwhile, more mortars are being used by ground forces, and highly inaccurate improvised rockets are being fired by some Iraqi units.

A Central Command investigation into the 17 March airstrike that killed 105 civilians in Mosul was caused when a coalition bomb detonated an Isis arms cache and destroyed the whole building where many local residents were sheltering. However, observers pointed out that the bomb dropped on the building, a 500lb GBU-38 was far greater than necessary to kill two snipers.

The US defence secretary, James Mattis, has denied there has been any change to the rules of engagement used in the campaign against Isis. But Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said there is evidence that air strikes can now be called in by a colonel, rather than a one-star general, as was the case until this year.

Those closer to the fight are more likely to call in lethal force and are less likely to follow a value-based approach, Zenko said. He said that rhetoric coming from the leadership in Washington could also be having an effect.

A change in the rules of engagement does not have to be a change in doctrine, he said. It can just be a change in tone and command climate. Mattis has again and again talked about an annihilation campaign, and that can an influence lower down.

Read more here:
Civilian deaths from US-led strikes on Isis surge under Trump administration - The Guardian

Men in the Iraqi Army in Habbaniyah, Iraq gather together. Although the Iraq War officially ended in 2011, U.S. troops are still deployed there, according to J. Kael Weston, who spent seven years as a State Department representative with the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. (J. Kael Weston)

J. Kael Weston spent seven years as a State Department representative with the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and wrote the bookThe Mirror Test: America at War in Iraq and Afghanistan.Although Weston said he does not believe the Iraq War was justified, he said he believes the U.S. needed to do its best to make sure the Iraqi government is stable before pulling out.

A vacuum is probably the worst outcome because then we really dont have an influence, not only militarily, but we also dont havean influence on the politics in that country, Weston said in an interview on the BYU campus as the White House announced Iraqs emergency status is being extended past May 22, 2017, for one year.

The U.S. is reportedly considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, according to a press release by Sen. MikeLee, R-Utah.

The White House statement says the emergency status would continue becausethe obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq; the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country and the development of political, administrative and economic institutions in Iraq continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Weston said a general asked for an additional 45,000 troops, and he predicted the general would get that at a minimum.

Weston said he has always believed the U.S. should have as few troops as possible in Afghanistan for as long as necessary, but he did not know how many troops that would be. He said approving the troop increase was better than not approving it.

I do think its too risky to abandon the longest war in American history, Weston said. The instability, I think, could create a situation where terrorists who do have designs to attack us could have a safe haven.

The War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War began in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Both are considered part of the War on Terror. Weston saidan interesting difference between these two wars and past wars is how disconnected the American home front is from the wars being fought.

Wars, in a way, are easier to fight when the people are disconnected from the wars because the pain is not felt in the communities; the pain is not felt in a more shared sense, Weston said. Its felt by a very narrow part of our community, particularly the military.

Weston said he wrote his bookto give a voice to the Afghans and Iraqis, as well as the troops who have experienced the wars.He said there is power in providing them a voice from the grave.

We owe it, I think, to the Iraqis and the Afghans because our war front is their home front, Weston said. They never get to redeploy to a safe place. The wars just still going on in their neighborhoods and in their villages.

University of Utah student John Snook spent 18 months in Afghanistan and 20 months in Iraq while serving in the U.S. Army from 1998 to 2004. He said its important for Americans to understand how many people in those countries want to remove the terrorists as well, not to be labeled with them.

Were not fighting everyone, Snook said. Were fighting a few select.

Ted Ellsworth, a BYU alumnus with a bachelors degree in Middle East Studies and Arabic, was president of the Middle East Studies Arabic Students club. Ellsworth said people need to remember those in Afghanistan and Iraq are trying to deal with the conflict, as well.

We tend to kind of distance ourselves from it rather than viewing the human aspect of it, which is that these are numerous people, many of whom are suffering as a result of the conflicts within their country, who dont feel passionate about any particular group, who just want peace, Ellsworth said.

Ellsworth said he also wished people would stay up-to-date with the current events around these issues. He said while the complexities of the wars can be intimidating, people need to study them because America has entangled itself in these countries and our actions have consequences.

Yes, there are ways to simplify the conflict, but dont oversimplify it for the sake of ease, Ellsworth said.

Weston said these wars have showed the U.S. some important lessons not only about others, but also about itself.

Finally Ill say that these wars have taught me for seven years that we have limits, Weston said. The United States has limits, and thats not a bad thing to know. It took us a long time, I think, to acknowledge that.

Kelsey is a News Media major minoring in Women's Studies at BYU. She loves reading the news, especially world news and politics, and spending time outside. She currently serves as staff writer for the Metro Desk.

See the original post:
US still needed in Iraq, former State Dept. representative says - Universe.byu.edu

SOUTHWEST ASIA, June 5, 2017 U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria yesterday, conducting 23 strikes consisting of 70 engagements, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of the latest strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Strikes in Syria

In Syria, coalition military forces conducted 20 strikes consisting of 38 engagements against ISIS targets:

-- Near Abu Kamal, two strikes destroyed an ISIS wellhead and an ISIS oil manifold.

-- Near Dayr Az Zawr, six strikes destroyed 90 ISIS oil barrels, 10 ISIS oil refinery stills, five vehicles, four ISIS oil separation tanks and three ISIS wellheads.

-- Near Raqqa, 11 strikes engaged nine ISIS tactical units and destroyed four fighting positions and five vehicles.

-- Near Tanf, a strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed two tactical vehicles and two ISIS vehicles.

Strikes in Iraq

In Iraq, coalition military forces conducted three strikes consisting of 32 engagements against ISIS targets:

-- Near Mosul, three strikes engaged two ISIS tactical units; destroyed 15 fighting positions, two rocket-propelled-grenade systems, two medium machine guns, an ISIS tactical vehicle and an ISIS staging area; damaged six fighting positions and a vehicle-borne bomb; and suppressed an ISIS tactical unit.

June 3 Strikes

Additionally, five strikes were conducted in Syria and Iraq on June 3 that closed within the last 24 hours:

-- Near Raqqa, Syria, three strikes engaged six ISIS tactical units, destroyed 10 fighting positions and damaged an ISIS-held building.

-- Near Mosul, Iraq, two strikes engaged two ISIS tactical units; destroyed 14 fighting positions, a vehicle-borne bomb, a vehicle-borne-bomb staging area and a supply route; and suppressed a fighting position.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

These strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The destruction of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria also further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct external operations throughout the region and the rest of the world, task force officials said.

The list above contains all strikes conducted by fighter, attack, bomber, rotary-wing or remotely piloted aircraft; rocket-propelled artillery; and some ground-based tactical artillery when fired on planned targets, officials noted.

Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike, they added. A strike, as defined by the coalition, refers to one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single or cumulative effect.

For example, task force officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined, officials said.

The rest is here:
Strikes Continue Against ISIS Targets in Iraq, Syria - Department of Defense

Uber has delayed a previously-scheduled discussion with its employees about the workplace culture report it commissioned after allegations of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, Axios has learned from multiple sources.

The investigation had been led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and submitted last Wednesday to a subcommittee of Uber's board of directors. Many employees had been told to expect details during the company's weekly all-hands meeting on Tuesday (i.e., tomorrow), but word just came down that such information would not yet be forthcoming.

What happened? Uber PR declined to discuss the change in plans, but it's possible that the timing was affected by CEO Travis Kalanick's recent family tragedy.

Why it matters: Uber's aggressive reputation took a particularly ugly turn in February, when former site reliability engineer Susan Fowler published a detailed account of sexual harassment, discrimination, and Uber's refusal to address her complaints. Holder's report is expected to address these claims, plus broader issues of workplace inclusion and diversity. It also will be viewed in many quarters as a stand-in for Silicon Valley tech companies, as a whole.

See the article here:
ISIS surrenders another key town in Iraq - Axios

Larry Summers, the Harvard professor, former Treasury secretary, and National Economic Council director, has a piece in Mondays Washington Post that that makes a very big claim: The steady progress of human civilization could now stop and go into reverse.

In the last three-quarters of a century, the world has steadily become a safer, healthier, richer place, he writes.

But President Donald Trump may be a tipping point. In particular, his actions in the past two weeks failing, as Summers writes, to convincingly reaffirm traditional U.S. security commitments to NATO and abandoning participation in the Paris global climate agreement may inflict such severe economic consequences as to alter the course of human progress.

Pulling out of Paris is also such a failure of moral leadership, he writes, that it is probably our most consequential error since the Iraq War.

As I wrote last week, Trumps decision on Paris was cruel in the message it sends about how America values the environment, and how little it now cares about the risks climate change poses to the planet. Though the doomsayers like Summers could turn out to be wrong, many, many experts believe it is likely to prove incredibly damaging to Americas strategic position in the world, our militarys operations, and our standing in international negotiations.

The damage could unfold for years to come not just for US diplomacy but also for US companies that want to do business overseas. Our business partners in Europe, for instance, may decide to penalize US companies with tariffs for the scientific backwardness of our leader.

And national security experts today say they are worried about how the decision creates a strategic penalty that will damage US national security in a number of ways.

This strategic penalty will come in terms of strained cooperation with our partners and allies who are dismayed and insulted by the move, as well as in terms of our strategic strength vis--vis our competitors and adversaries in the world, said Francesco Femia, co-president of the Center for Climate and Security, a security think tank. These competitors and adversaries will likely seize on this decision to expand their influence at our expense, whether that's in the Asia-Pacific, the Arctic, the Middle East and North Africa, or anywhere else the US is engaged. It's a blow to our leadership, and that will take time and great effort to recover from.

These are not things that Trump is apparently worried about but they may very well affect people close to him, like Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in the near future. And more broadly, this move on Paris will be a stain on his presidency and could prevent his ability to do business and expand the Trump brand for years to come.

Read more:
Exiting Paris probably our most consequential error since the Iraq War, economist says - Vox