Britain, Government, Islamic State, Society, Terrorism, United States

The U.S. will host 68-Nation symposium on fight against IS

UNITED STATES

Rex Tillerson

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will host President Trump’s anti-terror alliance summit in Washington on March 22-23.

Intro: The State Department said it would be the first meeting of the full coalition since December 2014, shortly after it was founded.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will host a 68-nation meeting in Washington this month to discuss the next moves by a coalition fighting Islamic State, the State Department has said.

The March 22-23 meeting of coalition foreign ministers is aimed ‘to accelerate international efforts to defeat ISIS in the remaining areas it holds in Iraq and Syria and maximize pressure on its branches, affiliates, and networks.’

The State Department said it would be the first meeting of the full coalition since December 2014, shortly after it was founded.

This is an opportunity for Secretary Tillerson to lay out the challenges that are facing the coalition moving forward.

A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said: ‘We all recognise that we have seen progress in defeating ISIS on the ground … how do we leverage that success? How do we build on that success?’

Islamic State has declared a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. It has been losing ground in both countries, with three separate forces, backed by the United States, Turkey and Russia, advancing on its Syrian stronghold of Raqqa.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 28 requesting the Pentagon, joint chiefs of staff and other agencies to submit a preliminary plan in 30 days for defeating Islamic State.

Details of that plan are still classified, but the upcoming meeting would look at how ‘to augment existing capabilities and processes on the ground.’

Iraqi forces have advanced deeper into west Mosul, facing stiff resistance from Islamic State militants who have used suicide car bombs and snipers to defend their last major stronghold in Iraq.

The Iraqi operation to retake the eastern bank of the city, launched in mid-October with support from the U.S.-led coalition, took more than three months. The offensive to recapture west Mosul began less than three weeks ago.

Mosul is the largest city which Islamic State has held. The group has lost most of the cities it captured in northern and western Iraq in 2014 and 2015.

There is little doubt Iraqi forces will eventually prevail over the militants, who are outnumbered and overpowered, but even if it loses Mosul, Islamic State is expected to revert to their insurgent tactics of old.

Standard
Britain, Islamic State, Syria, United States

US have advanced plans for taking back Raqqa

SYRIA

raqqa-map

Raqqa, a city in Syria located on the northeast bank of the Euphrates River, is about 160 kilometres east of Aleppo.

Intro: Pentagon plan to seize Raqqa calls for significant increase in U.S. participation.

A PENTAGON PLAN for the coming assault on Raqqa, the Islamic State capital in Syria, calls for significant U.S. military participation, including increased Special Operations forces, attack helicopters and artillery, and arms supplies to the main Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighting force on the ground, according to U.S. officials.

The military’s favoured option among several variations currently under White House review, the proposal would ease a number of restrictions on U.S. activities imposed during the Obama administration.

Officials involved in the planning have proposed lifting a cap on the size of the U.S. military contingent in Syria, currently numbering about 500 Special Operations trainers and advisers to the combined Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF. While the Americans would not be directly involved in ground combat, the proposal would allow them to work closer to the front line and would delegate more decision-making authority down the military line from Washington.

President Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to expand the fight against the militants in Syria, Iraq and beyond, received the plan last Monday after giving the Pentagon 30 days to prepare it.

But in a conflict where nothing has been as simple as anticipated, the Raqqa offensive has already sparked new alliances. In just the past two days, U.S. forces intended for the Raqqa battle have had to detour to a town in northern Syria to head off a confrontation between two American allied forces — Turkish and Syrian Kurdish fighters. There, they have found themselves effectively side by side with Russian and Syrian government forces with the same apparent objective.

****

Approval of the Raqqa plan would effectively shut the door on Turkey’s demands that Syrian Kurds, considered terrorists by Ankara, be denied U.S. equipment and kept out of the upcoming offensive. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that arming and including the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG, in the operation is unacceptable and has vowed to move his own troops and Turkish-allied Syrian rebel forces toward Raqqa.

U.S. officials, some of whom have spoken on the condition of anonymity about the still-secret planning, believe Erdogan’s tough talk is motivated primarily by domestic politics, specifically a desire to bolster prospects for an April 16 nationwide referendum that would transform Turkey’s governing system to give more power to the presidency.

Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, the Baghdad-based U.S. commander of the anti-Islamic State coalition, has said that there was “zero evidence” that the YPG was a threat to Turkey. With some apparent exasperation, Townsend called on all anti-Islamic State forces in northern Syria to stop fighting among themselves and concentrate on the best way to beat the militants.

U.S. talks with Turkey, a NATO ally and coalition member, are ongoing. But events over the past several days in and around the town of Manbij have injected a new element in the conflict that could either help the Americans avoid a direct clash with Ankara, or set the many forces now converging on the town on the path toward a new confrontation.

Manbij, located near the Turkish border about 85 miles northwest of Raqqa, was captured by the Islamic State three years ago and retaken last August by the YPG, backed by U.S. airstrikes and military advisers. The town now forms the western edge of a militant-cleared border strip extending to neighbouring Iraq.

The United States had promised the Turks that Kurdish control would not extend to the west beyond the nearby Euphrates River, and Manbij was turned over to the Manbij Military Council, Arab fighters within the SDF. Kurdish police are in charge of local security, but the Americans have insisted that YPG fighters have largely left the scene.

Turkey disagrees and has long threatened to forcibly eject the Kurds, who it says are affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, a designated terrorist organisation in both Turkey and the United States that is waging an insurgency inside Turkey for greater autonomy. After Turkish troops and their Syrian rebel allies took the nearby Syrian town of Al-Bab from the Islamic State on Feb. 23, the Turkish-led force began advancing toward Manbij and has captured at least two villages.

****

Last Thursday, as Turkish shells reached the outskirts of the town, the Manbij Military Council announced it had invited the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to take over several nearby villages as part of a deal brokered by Russia to avoid conflict with the Turks.

Then on Friday, Moscow announced that Russian and Syrian “humanitarian” convoys were heading toward Manbij. Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis briefed that the convoys also included “some armoured equipment.”

Davis said that the U.S. government had been “informed” of the movements by Russia but that “it’s nothing that we’re party to.”

Meanwhile, photographs posted on social media showed U.S. military vehicles headed into Manbij from the east.

On Saturday, the U.S. military confirmed that it had “increased force presence in and around Manbij to deter hostile acts, enhance governance and ensure there’s no persistent YPG presence,” effectively inserting U.S. forces to keep two coalition members — Turkey and the Syrian Kurds — from fighting.

In postings on his Twitter account, coalition spokesman Col. John L. Dorrian said the coalition “has taken this deliberate action to reassure Coalition [members] & partner forces, deter aggression and keep focus on defeating ISIS,” an acronym for the Islamic State.

The United States and Russia have managed to avoid confrontation in Syria’s separate civil war, where they are on opposing sides. Trump has said repeatedly that the two powers should cooperate against the Islamic State, and he has indicated that the future of Russia-backed Assad is of less concern to him.

The Pentagon disapproves of possible U.S.-Russia cooperation, although U.S. officials are not unhappy at the buffer Russia and Syria now appear to be creating between Turkey and the Kurds, or the prospect of the Syrian government moving into Manbij. A positive result, officials said, would not only prevent Turkish forces and their Syrian allies — many of whom are on the jihadist side of the anti-Assad rebel coalition — from moving into the town, but it would also potentially push any remaining YPF forces to the eastern side of the Euphrates.

While Turkey has supported rebel forces fighting against Assad, it has never come into direct conflict with the Syrian military, and U.S. officials believe it would far rather have the Syrian government in charge of Manbij than the Kurds. There are hopes that Moscow, which has been simultaneously working to improve relations with Turkey, can help persuade Erdogan to back off.

****

What the Americans manifestly do not want to see happen is the creation of a new military front and potential conflagration around Manbij that would drain both attention and resources away from plans for Raqqa. With the city believed to be the centre of Islamic State planning for overseas attacks, the offensive is seen as urgent and has already been delayed from original plans to begin in February.

In his final days in office, former president Barack Obama approved plans to send two or three Apache attack helicopters to the Syrian theatre but deferred approval of arming the Kurds as part of the SDF. Rather than moving immediately on the plan already in place, Trump at the end of January ordered the Pentagon to draw up new options by the end of February.

With the only real alternative being to use U.S. ground troops against Raqqa, Defence Secretary Jim Mattis has stuck with the basic outline of the plan drawn up under Obama, officials said. The combined Syrian Arab-Kurdish force, now numbering more than 50,000, has moved steadily to within less than six miles of the outskirts of Raqqa in an isolation phase that is expected to be completed in the coming weeks.

Even if Turkey does direct its forces south toward Raqqa, the hope is that the difficult terrain they would have to travel would prevent them from reaching there until after the offensive is well underway.

Rather than a wholesale revision, the new proposal calls for increased U.S. participation, with more personnel and equipment and less-restrictive rules. As they have in support of the Iraqi military in Mosul, U.S. fixed-wing aircraft and attack helicopters would actively back the ground force. U.S. owned and operated artillery would be moved into Syria to pound the militants from afar, while more Special Operations troops would move closer to the front lines — requiring more U.S. military assets to protect them.

The SDF — both Kurds and Arabs — would be supplied with weaponry along with vehicles and equipment to travel through and disarm what are expected to be extensive minefields and other improvised explosive devices along the way.

Trump’s executive order also directed the Pentagon to recommend changes to Obama administration restrictions on military rules of engagement that went beyond those required by international law. Principal among them is an Obama executive order, signed last summer, imposing strict rules to avoid civilian casualties. It is not known whether the new military proposal would lift those restrictions.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Islamic State, Military, Politics, Terrorism

RAF drone strikes on IS Britons

MILITARY

reaper

Reaper: An RAF UAV killed two Islamic State terrorists in Syria back in August

Intro: Ministers must be more open and transparent about drones.

DEFENCE officials have been urged to come clean and reveal the full details about covert RAF drone strikes against British jihadists.

It came as a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan claimed it was “cowardly” not to publish information about UK jihadists killed while fighting overseas for Islamic State.

Colonel Richard Kemp said: ‘British citizens who have gone out there have become the enemy. Their death is something Parliament should be informed about unless there are security reasons.’

See also: Drones and the unproven efficacy of these weapons…

He argued there were a ‘number of benefits’ of informing Parliament, adding: ‘It shows IS are not supermen. It could well, in some cases, act as a deterrent because British forces will know that if they go there is a very good chance of us killing them.’

There is now a mounting backlash after it was revealed that drone pilots at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire and others flying jets had killed British jihadists in the Middle East but neither Parliament nor the public were informed.

A cross-party group of MPs and peers, including former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald, wrote to the Prime Minister urging the Government to publish the identity of Britons killed in RAF strikes.

The co-chairman of the group, Kirsten Oswald MP (SNP), said recent revelations that the RAF was ticking off a ‘kill list’ that included UK jihadists were ‘deeply concerning’.

Commons leader David Lidington faced calls to allow an urgent parliamentary debate on the existence of the list, which includes high-value British targets.

Defending the Government, he told MPs Britons tempted to join militant groups must know they risk losing their lives.

Miss Oswald, the SNP’s armed forces spokesperson, urged the Government to reveal how many UK citizens have been targeted.

She later added that there were ‘many questions unanswered’.

‘If the UK Government is conducting an operation designed to “take out” UK citizens without parliamentary scrutiny or public awareness, that is clearly unacceptable,’ she said.

Mr Lidington replied in the Commons: ‘The Defence Secretary has been very clear that we and the coalition against Daesh (IS) will pursue people who are a threat to our security and to the safety of British citizens wherever those people may come from.

‘We act, as always in our military operations, within the law, but the message to anybody tempted to join Daesh must be that they do so at great risk to themselves.’

David Cameron stunned MPs 18 months ago when he disclosed that a British drone had killed a jihadist in Syria who was plotting an atrocity in the UK. Shortly afterwards, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said Britain would not hesitate to carry out more drone strikes against jihadists plotting ‘armed attacks on our streets’.

That December, MPs voted in favour of the UK joining a coalition of nations carrying out airstrikes on IS targets in Syria.

Since then the RAF has been tasked with taking out UK jihadists plotting attacks in Britain and other high-value targets. Parliament has not been informed of the British deaths.

Labour MP John Woodcock, formerly a member of the defence select committee, said the British jihadists were a ‘legitimate target of our armed forces’, but added: ‘The Government needs to be upfront about what is happening.’

Members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones, including Lord Macdonald, has now written a letter to Theresa May demanding details of UK jihadists bombed by RAF fighter jets.

Admiral Lord West, former head of the Royal Navy, said: ‘If someone from Britain breaks the law, if they get killed, then so be it. They are dead men walking.

‘If there is a policy of extrajudicial killings, that does need to be talked about. If we happen to kill them because we are targeting infrastructure, that is different.’

However, Sir Michael Graydon, a former head of the RAF, said releasing details of Britons killed would be a ‘golden opportunity’ for claims by ‘crooked liberal lawyers’.

The Ministry of Defence said: ‘The UK is committed to the defeat of Daesh and publishes regular updates on airstrikes conducted by the RAF.’

OPINION

We should have no sympathy at all with Britons who joined Islamic State in Syria or Iraq who find themselves on the end of a deadly drone attack.

Anyone who allies themselves with this barbaric group is a traitor, an enemy to our way of life and a threat to this country. They deserve everything they get.

Nor should we join in the hand-wringing at the very idea of using remote-controlled planes operated from thousands of miles away. Is a drone strike really more barbaric than any other weapon of war?

No, our principal concern, following the revelation that the military is using targeted assassinations against jihadis on a ‘kill list’, is the distinct lack of transparency with which it is being operated.

Yes, David Cameron told Parliament in 2015 that two Britons had been killed in a drone strike. But since then the programme has been carried on in secret.

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon would lose nothing by encouraging more openness about this new form of warfare.

Standard