Iraqi forces surround Fallujah, continue efforts to push ISIS from Anbar Province.

Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have surrounded ISIS elements in Fallujah, taking the northern suburbs and clearing ISIS from the Baghdad area.   ISF have also punished ISIS forces further, retaking territory around Hit and giving some relief to hard-pressed Habaniyah.  Over the past few months, Iraqi forces, aided by elements of the Popular Mobilization Units (Iranian supported Shi'a militia) and air support from coalition forces, have broken the back of ISIS in Anbar Province and central Iraq.  In order to put pressure on the Iraqi government and hopefully encourage the recall of Iraqi troops to the capital, ISIS stepped up suicide bomb attacks against Shi'a targets, inflicting large number of fatalities and injuries.  Shi'a leaders did put pressure on the government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, but Abadi has managed to keep control of the government and focus on the efforts to remove ISIS from Iraq altogether.  If the military situation doesn't improve for ISIS, the terrorist organization will have to reconsider its intentions in Iraq.  No doubt Fallujah will fall, and as the ISF continues to retake territory once occupied by ISIS, it will become impossible for ISIS to not only continue suicide and vehicular explosive attacks, but to keep its units supplied and reinforced.

With the encouraging advances the ISF has made in Samarra and Baiji, and the advances made by the Kurds in the north, ISIS will be hard-pressed to regain the initiative on any of the Iraqi fronts.  Mosul is also in the sights of the ISF, with word that except for a small contingent of die-hard operatives, ISIS has basically already abandoned the city.  That remains to be seen, but there can ge no doubt that the ISF appears to be in the last stages of defeating ISIS in Iraq.  This development has already started to impact the political environment in Baghdad.  For some time, Shi'a politicians and religious leaders have been engaging in efforts to discredit and destabilize the Ababi Administration.  No doubt Iran, who continues to interfere in internal Iraqi affairs, has been behind the effort to see Abadi replaced.  The dynamics of this situation can be very confusing to anyone who has not been following Iraqi politics. losels.  When Abadi took office as Iraq's second Shi'a Prime Minister, the Sunni community was convinced that we would act in Iran's interest foremost, and the Sunni community would suffer.  In fact, Abadi has not taken one side over the other.  He has proven to be a true statesman and leader, and he truly deserves tremendous credit for the optimistic military situation.

Iraq: U.S. compromises with Iran have not influenced the Iranians to abandon the policy of undermining United States initiatives.

Links: A. Turkey unilaterally invades Iraq to launch attacks against Kurdish PKK militants.
           B.  Iraq claims to have retaken 60% of Ramadi City.

In a move that will no doubt escalate already dangerously high tensions in the area, Turkey deployed military units into northeastern Iraq, just outside of Mosul, in order to more effectively launch attacks against militants from the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK).  If Turkish President Erdogan was looking for the quickest way to unite the Kurds, and at the same time, bring the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities closer together, they found it.  Turkey's actions are almost inexplicable, unless Erdogan is determine to make things difficult for Barack Obama as he tries to leave office gracefully.  At the same time, the Pentagon is preparing to deploy roughly 200 U.S. Army Special Forces elements into Iraq, to act as a mobile "hit squad" to take out ISIS leaders, if you will.  This policy seems to fly in the face of Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which prohibits any Agent or Representative of the United States Government from involvement in assassinations.  I may be nit-picking here, especially since we already are aware of this Administration's perception of the Constitution and the laws of this nation.  Either way, the arrival of this American Special Forces Unit has already come under heavy criticism in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Abadi is doing everything he can to keep the ship of state from sinking altogether.  Abadi is under particular pressure from the Shi'a elements in the Council of Representatives, who are angling to bring a vote of no confidence against the Iraqi Prime Minister.  Also, Iranians in Baghdad are as thick as fleas on a mongrel's back, and they are also putting pressure on the government, both to oppose the deployment of more U.S. troops, and to take action against the Turkish incursion northeast of Mosul.  Abadi has been under fire before, but this time his administration may not survive.

One of the most appalling and embarrassing developments in the region has been the continued intransigence from the Iranians with regards to any U.S. diplomatic or military initiatives.  I assume that following the nuclear treaty negotiations, the Obama Administration (the President, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Kerry in particular) expected the Iranian government to lighten the anti-U.S. rhetoric and to be less aggressive in opposing every U.S. action in the region.  I knew better, and you knew better, but for some reason, the three men with the greatest access to intelligence on this planet, didn't see this coming.  Or did they, and it just didn't matter?  At the moment, events in Iraq and Syria need to be stabilized, before the Iraqi's end up at war with Turkey, or the Turks decide that the time is right to "ethnic-cleanse" northern Iraq of Kurds once and for all.  The action ordered by the President and taken by the Pentagon to deploy Special Forces is way too little and way too late, and will cause more harm than good, especially if Abadi falls from power.  It has been suggested (whispered more like) in DC that the Obama Administration is hesitant to take stronger military action against ISIS, because increased U.S. presence in the region will infuriate Iran, and put Obama's "legacy treaty" with Iran in jeopardy.

What we can expect is the Administration attempting to steer the media away from connecting the recent terror attack in San Bernardino to the ongoing conflict in Syria.  Obama is bound and determined to avoid getting drawn into a full-scale war in Syria/Iraq.  I'm not so reactionary that I don't see the ideological motivation; the United States has a tempestuous relationship with most of the governments in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and lets not forget that we invaded Iraq twice in the last thirty years.  Our historical tradition of supporting unpopular governments in Egypt and Iran and our long-term, close relationship with Israel, have not endeared the U.S. to the people of the region, that's for sure.  But the clock is ticking (excuse the cliché); ISIL/ISIS/Daesh or whatever you want to call them, have not been really impacted by the Russian intervention in Syria (probably because most of the Russian bombs were dropped on anti-government Syrian groups as opposed to ISIS).  ISIS is increasing its activities in Africa and in the Far East, and I expect we will soon see a more regular pattern to domestic terror events (God forbid).  Still today, on December 9, 2015, the United States is military capable of destroying ISIS on our own.  But a serious effort at building a military coalition, to include our European allies and Russia (who should be told, bluntly, to "get on board or get out of the way"), would a tremendous advantage in eliminating this scourge once and for all.  Why now?  Because if ISIS continues to raise money and recruit, I have no idea how improved their conventional army will become (with modern weapons, tanks, artillery, and possibly and Air element), nor can we accurately gauge how complicated and dangerous the situation will be in the urban and residential areas of Europe and the United States.  Some crusty old General once said, that when you go to war, you must use everything at your disposal, every weapon, no matter how heinous, and you must fight with the utmost aggression and determination.  This is the formula for ending a war quickly, which will save countless lives on both sides, especially when compared to wars that drag on and on and on......

Iraqi parliament blames loss of Mosul to ISIS on Maliki; ISF making slow progress in its operations to retake Ramadi.

Links: A. Maliki to blame for loss of Mosul to ISIS.
           B. Operation to retake Ramadi continues.

On Monday, an Iraqi Parliamentary panel recommended that former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki face trial regarding his actions during the ISIS operation to take Mosul last year.  In particular, the panel pointed out that Maliki fanned sectarian tensions, which encouraged many Iraqi Sunnis in Mosul to welcome ISIS.  The panel's recommendation comes on the heels of another administrative shake-up in the government, as Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi eliminated eleven ministerial posts, reducing the size of the cabinet by a third.  Last week, Abadi proposed the elimination of the offices of Deputy Prime Minister and Vice President, currently held my Maliki.  Abadi's efforts to slim-down the Iraqi government are an effort to eliminate redundancy and corruption, as the country continues to experience protests in all the major cities.  Instead of attacking one political party or the other, these protests are focused on changing the mindset of Iraqi politics, and ending the tradition of patronage, bribery, nepotism, and other forms of corruption that have long been part of all levels of government.  The focus isn't singularly on the cabinet level positions, as calls are made for changes in provincial and local governmental structure as well.  Abadi is prudent to respond with examples of real reform, as up to now the proposed changes will only strengthen the position of President.  The Iraqi political system has complicated government efforts to recruit, train and deploy troops, as each separate province looks to redefine its own authority.

There has been little news from Ramadi in recent days, as questions are raised about the probability of success in the operation.  The Iraqi Security Forces, which include the Army and the Police, have been careful to consolidate gains and search for booby traps before deciding to push forward.  In the past, initial successes have been followed up by a number of high-casualty incidents involving booby traps and other explosives.  The ISF and its allies in the Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) vastly outnumber the ISIS fighters in Ramadi and Fallujah.  Some estimates have the total number of ISIS personnel in Anbar Province to be less than 10,000.  ISIS multiplies its effectiveness through unconventional warfare, especially the use of SVBIEDS- suicide vehicular bombs/improvised explosive device.  Again, the effort to retake Ramadi and Fallujah, and also consolidate its position in Baiji, includes the methodical inspection of all vehicles, to prevent an SVBIED attack from succeeding.  The detailed, organized approach to this offensive may be an indication that the Iraqi leaders intend to push ISIS out of Anbar Province completely.  The events of the next week will be a strong indication of just how much progress has been made.  Keep in mind, ISIS continues to press home its attacks on Haditha, whose fall would be a serious blow to the Iraqi Sunni community, if not necessarily strategically important.

Who lost Iraq?

Link: Politico magazine's take on "Who Lost Iraq"?


(Update: Before tackling today's unwieldy subject matter, it's time for a quick update, for any of our readers who have an interest.  The book that actually spawned this blog, Mukhabarat, Baby!, has been available at all the usual places (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Booklocker, etc.) for roughly three months.  While the blog has proven to be quite popular and continues to grow in viewership, the book has not done well.  The reviews have been tremendous; in fact, we have yet to receive a negative review.  But at the end of the day, the success of a book is measured in how much it is appreciated by readers, especially readers of its particular genre.  Its safe to say that MB has been unsuccessful with every particular genre.  Since the book has received great reviews, and does provide insight into a world that many seem to hold in fascination, what seems to be the problem?  We even have a comedy out this week with Melissa McCarthy playing a spy.  I have to be honest; it does look funny, and she always seems to make me laugh.  As for MB, the problem is simple to diagnose.  I have been unable to gain traction with regards to exposure.  People aren't buying my book because they don't know it exists.  I haven't been reviewed in the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, or Washington Post, and I haven't been invited onto any news programs to discuss my career and the book.  If an author is fortunate enough to have a good agent and publisher, they run a strong likelihood of being successful, like the Housewives from Beverly Hills and the Duck Dynasty folks (both of whom are or were on the Non-Fiction Best Seller List), while self-published authors like me, even if they follow all of the good advice out there, end up with beautiful blogs and amazing internet book sites, and spend their week nights introducing their book to a virtually deserted VFW somewhere in the middle of the desert in Arizona.  But I won't throw in the towel.  I'm still out there, setting up speaking engagements and talking up my book.  Why not hop on to Amazon and buy it?  Better yet, hop on to Amazon and buy a copy for yourself and separate copies for your friends.  Cheers, friends.)

When someone forwarded me a link to the Politico article which attempts to address the question, "Who lost Iraq?", I had no idea what to expect.  Occasionally Politico will throw a curve, and this has been a rather popular subject in recent weeks.  I read the article through twice, and I can't say that they did a bad job.  Politico assembled a group of persons that it has decided are experts on Iraq, and asked them particular questions regarding the insurgency, the surge, the draw-down, and the current conflict involving ISIS.  After taking a look at the lineup assembled to give us our answers, I couldn't help but wonder, how did they decide which questions to ask what person?  And who chose the "experts" to begin with?  For the sake of the argument, lets give Politico the benefit of the doubt, and move on with the conversation.

Let's start with two basic facts.  First, in 2009, Iraq was making great strides in its recovery from three wars and almost five decades of Saddam Hussein.  The economy was growing, the refineries were functioning, the job market was growing, and construction projects were going on everywhere.  The school were open, including a number of new institutions that were built and paid for by the United States.  In fact, we paid for just about everything, including the infrastructure repair.  The roads and bridges were usable, traffic flowed with working signals and traffic cops were around to assist with accidents and back-ups.  International flights were landing at Baghdad International and, most importantly, the job market was growing. Iraq was on its feet and nearly ready to run its own show.  The past remaining piece of the puzzle?  Iraq was in serious need of a reliable police force and a dependable, well-trained and well-supplied army.  The U.S. military can be given all the credit for the positive changes in Iraq, and should have been left alone to complete the training of the Iraqi Security apparati (police, military, border control, customs, etc.) on their own schedule.

The second point that we can all agree on is that Iraq is now in a state of war with the "Islamic State for the creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", or ISIS, as it is commonly known.  ISIS is a terrorist organization that has developed a powerful, mobile, well-armed conventional army, and it is determined to gain effective control of both Syria and Iraq (and eventually the rest of the Levant).  In 2012 and 2013, ISIS, which until then had been content to raise hell with Bashir al-Assad and his forces in Syria, decided to expand its religious war into northern Iraq.  Mosul fell, and Kirkuk and Arbil were threatened.  The Kurds were put on the defensive and had to military repel ISIS with very little assistance from the outside.  Each new bit of territory that ISIS occupied brought with it new victims; Christians or the wrong kind of Muslims, who were lined up and executed by the hundreds.  At present, ISIS controls much of northwest Iraq, including the border crossings into Syria.  ISIS also controls parts of Anbar Province, including both Ramadi and Fallujah.  Although Tikrit was recently retaken by the Iraqi Security Forces, ISIS continues to put pressure on Baiji and its valuable oil refinery, and recently has stepped up suicide attacks in Diyala Province to the east of Baghdad.  Control of Anbar and Diyala Provinces will allow ISIS to pay siege to Baghdad itself.

So given those two points, what happened to turn situation number one into situation number two?  I will save everyone a little time and answer this myself, because its really not very complicated.  The U.S. military had a timetable for all operations dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan.  Because of the success of the surge and the positive involvement of the Sunni community in defeating Al-Qaeda in Iraq, it was imperative that the United States not lose that goodwill by abandoning the Iraqi people before their government and its functions were in place to work effectively.  This is exactly the action that was taken by President Obama.  Ignoring the advice of the Pentagon, Obama ordered an increase in the U.S. military departure schedule.  President Obama was bound and determined that our troops would be out of Iraq by such-and-such date.  Soldiers, including Generals, will only object for so long before they will just shut-up and carry out their orders.  We left Iraq before any of their Security forces were prepared.  In fact, we left before the police were prepared to issue speeding tickets, let alone stand up to ISIS.  In response to the growing alarm in the civilian community, the Iraqi government ordered its army to confront ISIS on the battlefield outside Tikrit.  I don't have to remind everyone about the mass desertions, the equipment left on the battlefield for ISIS to steal, and the prisoners captured for more video of mass executions.  Iraq has fallen to shit because we left before our military had sufficiently trained the Iraqis to successfully defend their country in what is obviously an evolving and very dangerous environment.  Why?  Where was the fire, as my grandma used to say?  Why was it so damn necessary to leave Iraq so quickly, instead of a few years down the road when the Iraqis were in a better position to stand up to ISIS?  Our policy not only let down the Iraqi people, it also played into the hands of Iran, who is now seen as the hero in this unfolding nightmare, because the Shi'a militias they train and advise have come to the aid of the Iraqi Security Forces, and with some success.

Let me leave you with the biggest irony of all: how is the Obama Administration dealing with the collapse of the Iraqi Security Forces?  Why, we are sending in Army trainers and instructors....the same folks who should have been left to do their jobs in the first place.  Que loco.

The Sunnis of Iraq..what does the future hold? (Part II)

In 2009 and 2010, the future was really looking brighter for the people of Iraq.  The country now boasted of three international airports at Baghdad, Basra and Mosul, and the ex-pat community which was spread out all over the globe, began to make its way back home, with an eye to investing in the new Iraq.  Schools were overflowing and Iraq was refining oil again.  The Iraqi people, Shi'a Kurd and Sunni, celebrated the success of Iraq's international sports teams, and that all-necessary middle class began to make an appearance.  No doubt, a smoother political transition would have been welcome, but it seemed par for the course in this part of the world.  The Shi'a/Sunni political split should have been seen as a hugely negative but predictable development.  In hindsight, the CIA should have created and financially supported a political party that included both well-known and respected Shi'a and Sunni.  But no one was really complaining because Iraq was on the move in the right direction.  So what happened?  Its 2015, and the country is under siege, and the nascent economy that had begun to grow is now in tatters.  The oil refining capability of Iraq, which is its lifeline, is in shambles.  And all this happened because of our rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Is it unfair for me to lay all the blame at the feet of the Administration?  Lets take a look at the evidence:

How can I blame the Administration for ISIS, a terrorist group that originated in Syria?  Wrong -  ISIS originated in Iraq.  After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the "Great Awakening" (the Sunni movement to oppose Zarqawi and the insurgency), his organization went into hibernation. It eventually found its way into Syria, and took advantage of that conflict to rebuild and rebrand.  This was the creation of ISIS.  No doubt that there aren't many left over from the Zarqawi days, but can it be only a coincidence that the leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-BAGHDADI?  Regardless, ISIS found the perfect environment for reconstituting itself and created a new, sexier manifesto.  Since the bad guy in Syria wasn't the United States, a more flexible statement of motivation was necessary.  ISIS identified itself with an effort to unite various nations in the Levant under the flag of a Sunni extremist Caliphate (with Baghdadi as the first Caliph, I assume).  This declaration allowed ISIS to claim all sorts of enemies (the U.S., Europe, Israel, moderate Arab States, etc.), and at the same time, all sorts of support, including money and volunteers.  By the time the United States had just about completed its military departure from Iraq, ISIS was healthy and in a prime position to extend its operations outside of Syria.  Iraq, with all of its internal squabbles and still trying to train and equip a legitimate national army, was a juicy target.  And I'm sure the irony was not lost in the minds of Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, post-Bin Laden leader of Al-Qaeda.  The American people can provide Iraq with freedom at the cost of thousands of young U.S. soldiers lives, and everything can be turned to shit with one selfish, stupid, political decision.  We understand that a promise was made during the election to remove U.S. military from Iraq, but why didn't the Administration follow the recommended plan put forth by the Pentagon?  The greatest flaw of this Administration has been its determination to fill every high-level USG job with a political appointee, regardless of experience or qualification.  When you choose this course of action, then it should be no surprise that people with the wrong background are making bad military decisions.  What sense does it make to put Bill Clinton's former Chief of State and a career numbers guy, in charge of the CIA?  Wouldn't you think that the person chosen would have at least a smidgeon of experience with the intelligence community?  Not according to President Obama.  This problem, which will take years to correct, has manifested itself everywhere, especially at the State Department, where under first Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry, Foggy Bottom has now become reactive to world events as opposed to proactive.  We seem to always be about five minutes behind.  It sucks when you arrive on the scene even after Portugal, for goodness sake.

My biggest concern regarding the Sunni of Iraq, is the continued presence of the Shi'a militias and their Iranian advisors.  The Sunni no longer see the U.S. military, unless they just happen to have some business at al-Asad Air Base out in the middle of nowhere, Anbar Province.  Its true that a number of U.S. non-military personnel continue to function in Iraq in support of the central government (and the U.S. government as well, of course), but to the Sunni in Anbar and Salah ad-Din Provinces, this means nothing.  Those Sunni tribal leaders who were so instrumental in 2007 and 2008, well, they are still around, and they are keeping a close eye which way the wind is blowing. Fortunately, His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Ali-al-Sistani is still alive, and seems as determined as ever to thwart any Iranian attempt to use the Iraqi Shi'a to deliver their own country into the hands of Tehran.  The Shi'a of Iraq listen to Sistani, as do the Sunni; as long as he continues to preach a moderate message of peace and unity, I believe that the Sunni will stay loyal to the government in Baghdad.  But once Sistani dies, and reactionary Shi'a cleric Muqtadah al-Sadr becomes the titular head of Iraq's Shi'a, then all bets are off.  Sadr is poised to take over after Sistani (there really is no one else), and he has been cultivating the poor, young and angry Shi'a for years.  Most importantly, Sadr is in the front AND back pocket of the Iranian Ayatollahs in Qom, and this fact is no secret.  If Sistani were to expire, we would have to seriously consider the possibility that the Sunni tribal leaders abandon the Shi'a dominated Iraqi government in Baghdad and throw in with ISIS.  For them, it may be a matter of survival.

The Sunnis of Iraq..what does the future hold? (Part I)

Link: The Sunni of Iraq - caught in the middle again.


Although plenty of Iraqi Shi'a and Kurds would disagree with me, I'm beginning to develop a real sense of sympathy for the Sunni of Iraq.  For half of century, they had one of their own running the show in Baghdad, but Saddam Hussein showed just as much disdain for his fellow Sunni as he did for the Shi'a, Kurds, Christians, Jews and Assyrians in his country.  Sadly, though, the non-Sunni Iraqis will forever associate Saddam Hussein and his rule with the Sunni community.  Its the name of the game in Mesopotamia this century.  While Europeans and Americans many times are never even aware of the particular religious affiliation of their neighbors, in this part of the world, it means everything.  Although the Sunni suffered under Saddam Hussein, it is true that a semblance of a middle class developed in Iraq.....and it was mostly Sunni.  Those who were lucky enough to belong to this small middle class had the opportunity to attend university in Baghdad, and following graduation, join the ranks of physicians, architects, engineers, teachers, and businessmen who kept the country from following any further into chaos.  It was no surprise that by the arrival of the U.S. Army in 2003, the Sunni reputation as being the educated and "established" demographic in Iraq, was well established.  It was an easy assumption to make; the Shi'a seemed to prefer living in the south, and engaging in small-scale agriculture for sustenance (with the exception of the half-million or so living in the squalid slums of Sadr City, in northeast Baghdad).  As for the Kurds, well, they preferred to keep to themselves in the north of the country.  In fact, a large percentage of northern Iraq actually functioned for some time as a separate political entity, run by and representing the Kurdish people.  With a "de-facto" capital city at Sulimaniyah, a functioning economic system and large urban centers in Erbil and Mosul, the Kurds were able to demonstrate to the world, just how ready they were an independent state.  But Turkey absolutely refused to sign-off on the idea, as they always had and probably always will.

The Sunni are spread out in Iraq, as are all the different ethnicities.  There is a substantial Sunni community in Basra in the south and in Mosul in the far north.  But the Sunnis are the dominant ethnic group in central Iraq, west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, and just north of Baghdad in Salah al-Din Province, including the cities of Samarrah and Tikrit.  With the end of the Ba'ath Party, a great deal of influence was returned to the Sunni tribal leaders and the "Shaykh" system of authority.  The United States was well aware of this development following the ouster of Saddam and the emergence of the Sunni insurgency.  The United States military and CIA (and to a lesser extent, Dept. of State) were able to co-opt the Sunni tribal leaders and bring the Sunni community onto the side of the good guys.  It took a great deal of influence and suggestion (read: money), but in the end, the Sunni rose up against Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and helped bring peace and stability to their nation.  But for a few years following the U.S. entry into Baghdad, the Sunni were connected to the violence caused by Zarqawi just because of their shared religious affiliation.  And Zarqawi played this to the hilt by sending suicide bombers into Shi'a religious gatherings, and then repeating the heinous act at the funeral for the victims.  For a time, the U.S. had to be concerned that open hostilities were going to break put between the Sunni and the Shi'a.  And all the while, the U.S. is trying to help Iraq stand back up on its feet, by rebuilding the transportation network, repairing the electrical grid, refurbishing the international airport, building schools, repairing refineries, and most important, organizing national elections.  These efforts were confounded by Zarqawi because of his daily use of suicide vehicles.  But Zarqawi went to far.  He was killing just as many Sunni as he was anyone else, and the Sunni were tired of the destabilization and the bloodshed.  This fact was a large factor in convincing the Sunni tribes to support the U.S. effort and defeat the insurgency for good.
 

  

Tikrit Falls To The ISF

Link: A. Iraqi Forces Retake Saddam's Home Of Tikrit

On Wednesday, March 11, units of the Iraqi Army had taken control of most of Tikrit, raising the Iraqi flag over many landmarks in the birthplace of former President Saddam Hussein.  A Shi'a Militia fought alongside the Iraqi Army, which was also advised by roughly one hundred Iranian military officers.  While Iraqi soldiers celebrated their apparent victory, news from Ramadi indicates that the Islamic State (IS) forces have launched another focused attack on this strategic Sunni city. But the campaign to oust the IS from Tikrit can only be considered a victory for the Iraqi government.  The intention to conduct a full-scale operation to recover Tikrit had been leaked to the press days before the operation was to begin.  Once the operation commenced, it was apparent that a great deal of planning was involved in the pre-engagement efforts.  The Iraqi forces moved deliberately, never losing the initiative or the advantage to the IS forces.  The IS for their part, did not appear to consider Tikrit worth too much sacrifice, as the defenders appeared to give up ground without much of a struggle.  It is anticipated that the ISF will consolidate its position and resupply before commencing its next operation.

Last year after occupying Tikrit, forces from the IS were accused of massacring 1,700 mostly young men from the local area.  There has been some concern that Iraqi forces make seek retribution over any IS members that have been detained during the current operation, although Iraqi government officials stress that steps have been taken to ensure that all human rights are respected and that no "revenge killings" will occur.  If the Iraqi Army can strengthen its hold on Tikrit, it will provide an opportunity to resupply beleaguered Iraqi government forces in the north, and possibly consolidate the tenuous Iraqi control over the Baiji oil refinery and the town of Baiji itself.  While occupying
Tikrit, the IS was in an ideal position to threaten any attempt to relieve or resupply Iraqi forces in the areas around Baiji, Erbil, Kirkuk and Mosul.  There can be no doubt that the Iranian military has stepped up its "advisory" efforts, and are having a much more profound impact than the oddly nebulous "allied air campaign" is having on the ground game in Iraq.  Events in Iraq are hitting close to home in Tehran, as the government continues its diplomatic discourse with the United States over its nuclear program, and IS guerillas are within a days march of Iranian territory.  Given the success of the Tikrit operation, expect to see the Iranian presence increase over the next few weeks, and if the result is continued victories over the IS, there will be no reason to question Iranian involvement. 

The current Iraqi government is considered sympathetic to the Shi'a cause, which has facilitated Iranian military assistance to the ISF.  Normally, the Iranian advisors would be found embedded with the Shi'a militia, but during the Tikrit campaign, the Iranians were much more conspicuous in their direct advisement to the Iraqi Army.  The deepening crisis in Ramadi and Fallujah, along with an IS presence in Diyala province, led many analysts to expect direct military Iranian intervention.  The resurgence of the ISF (albeit aided by Shi'a militia and Iranian advisors) has given the Iranian government some breathing room.  The last thing that Tehran needs at the moment, is a full-scale military mobilization into a foreign country.  It would certainly confuse the impending negotiations with the Obama Administration over the Nuclear issue.  If the ISF can follow up their success by consolidating their positions in Baiji, Erbil and other strategic points in the north, and react swiftly to any new IS operations in Ramadi and Fallujah, then the momentum may be changing sides. 

A True Christmas Story

Link: History of The Assyrian People


For those of you who eventually read my book, you will find a longer, more spiritual version of this story.  Given that Christmas is upon us, and this is a true story, I chose to share it with everyone.  Sometimes when you least expect it, and in the most unlikely places, a little miracle with sneak up on you.  Rejoice!

Medieval icon depicting
Ephrem the Syrian

It was December, 2003, and Mike and I were going about our daily routine of ops meetings and paperwork.  I had been in Baghdad for roughly eight months, and Mike had been in country for five.  Mike and I lived in the Green Zone, within the Agency compound, and we worked together on a daily basis.  It was not normal for two case officers to work together as a team, but we gravitated to each other from the start, and modesty notwithstanding, we were as productive as three officers.  Otherwise, I can guarantee you, the arrangement would have come to an end.  Why did we work so well together?  If was a combination of Mike's amazing sense of direction, intelligence, his work ethic, and his patience, mixed with my experience.  We had separate cases and met with our own list of contacts, and we always managed to not let it get complicated.  Unfortunately, both Mike and I were missing one important skill: neither of us spoke Arabic.  We always seemed to have a shortage of linguists in Baghdad, but we managed.  The entire compound was lucky to have a family of brothers, all older gentlemen, travel out to Baghdad and share their Arabic skills.  The three Hanani Brothers, Lucas, Luther, and Nicholas, were all American citizens and all over the age of sixty-five (Lucas being the oldest at seventy-eight).  The Hanani's were ethnic Assyrians, with Lucas having been born in Baghdad.  The large Hanani family were successful merchants in Baghdad, but the unstable political situation following the second world war convinced Hanani Sr. (the father of Lucas, Luther, and Nicholas, who is still around) to move to the United States.  Over the Years, hard-work and sacrifice led to tremendous success in business, and the Hanani's were proud to call themselves Americans.  The family in the United States did its best to keep in contact with family in the relatively large Assyrian community in Baghdad, but communication was never consistent.  While the American Hanani's enjoyed the opportunities and freedoms of the United States, life became more and more difficult for Assyrians living in Iraq.

Assyrians originally come from Syria, and most have always been Orthodox Christian.  As has been the case with Armenians and Kurds, Assyrians have faced episodes of pogroms and ethnic cleansing related to both religion and culture.  During the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Assyrian community was heavily involved in trading, and close, trusting relationships were developed between the Ottoman authorities and Assyrian leaders.  In reality, the Assyrians were able to determine who to bribe and when, which made life so much easier for everybody.  But one morning, soldiers came and kicked in the doors and took everything of value.  This repeated occurrence over the years ended with Assyrian neighborhoods in Baghdad, Mosul, and Arbil becoming little more than slums.  Mike and I really enjoyed discussing the history of Iraq and the Assyrian community with the Hanani Brothers, who were usually posted to Baghdad at the same time (their request).  But when it came time for work, the Hanani's were first in line and ready to go.  I recall many times that an unscheduled meeting was triggered, and a Hanani Brother happily got out of bed in the wee hours of the morning to come translate a meeting.  During a conversation with Mike and I, the two older brothers, Lucas and Luther, announced that their father had ordered them to find their relatives in Baghdad while they were here on duty. If we had made a formal request to go cruising around the slums of Baghdad looking for Assyrians, no doubt we would have been denied.  But Mike and I were convinced that if we didn't get involved, these old farts were going to just walk out of the Green Zone and head for downtown Baghdad one afternoon.  Lucas told me that he spoke Arabic and had no fear of Muslims.  I needed more assurances that that.  Mike and I told the boys to sit tight, and went to work.  We reached out to our local contacts, and also hit the internet.  before long we had a good idea of the last known location of an Assyrian community.  That night Mike and I did a RECON, in order to confirm the existence of a church, a relatively safe place to park, and an open flow of traffic...no bottlenecks.  The next day, December 23, we told the three brothers that we had located an Assyrian Church and possibly the remnants of an Assyrian community in the Ad Dora neighborhood of Baghdad (south bank of the Tigris).  We informed them that on Christmas Eve, we would take them out to the Church at noon, and leave them long enough to enjoy a Mass; they could call us when they were ready for a pickup.  They were ecstatic; it may not have been the family reunion that their patriarch has requested, but at least it was something.  Mike and I also went in to talk to our Chief, whose response was, if something goes wrong, call, but I don't know a thing.  We will pull your ass out, only to hang it out to dry later.

The next morning at 1100 am, we picked up the three Hanani boys (age or no age, I can't help but think of them as boys, because together they were always laughing and playing jokes on each other), who were showered, combed, and dressed as nice as they could be (no one brings a suit to Baghdad).  We had no problems getting to Dora, but we were depending on parking relatively close to the Church.  This wasn't possible because of the number of cars already taking up all available space.  We had no choice but to park in front of this one large, nondescript house about five hundred yards from the Church, and two hundred yards from the end of the street.  The boys would not listen or wait; as soon as the car was parked in front of this house, they were on the street.  I hopped out quickly as well, and thank goodness for my speed because I was able to see the first glimpse of recognition.  Someone from inside the house had come outside to see what big, obviously not-local vehicle had parked in front of their house.  The old man and woman that came outside were the Hanani Brother's Aunt and Uncle.  By chance (and because of the traffic), we had parked directly in front of the Hanani-Baghdad home.  Once the shouting and hugging began, people started appearing from everywhere.  I was so amazed at how many of these people recognized each other, after fifty, maybe sixty years.  The commotion in the street soon moved into the house, and Mike and I were dragged inside virtually against our will.  When I complained to a younger, French-speaking Hanani that I had safety concerns, he laughed as said that the "truck" and its occupants were completely safe.  We had to meet everyone, and had to eat food...lots of food.  I don't particularly like food from this part of the world, but everything was sweet on that day. The tears never stopped.  After roughly an hour, the group prepared to leave for the first Christmas Mass.  Mike and I took the opportunity to say our goodbyes, and confirm our contact arrangements with the boys.  When they were ready for pickup, they would call, and we would be there.

They didn't call until the next morning, but we weren't concerned.  We could have called them, but we chose to leave them in peace.  Mike and I were petrified that a shortage of linguists would create a "where's the Hanani's?" contagion ,but it never happened.  After picking up the brothers on Christmas Day, they never included Mike and I in their family meeting arrangements again.  They knew that Mike and I had jeopardized our careers by taking three older U.S. citizens "off campus" and into the heart of Slumville, Baghdad. They made arrangements to meet their newly discovered family in the Green Zone, which was the safest option to begin with.  Its my understanding that our efforts were instrumental in reconnecting a family that had not spoken in decades, and all the newly discovered young members of the Hanani clan now had the opportunity to learn the entire history of their heritage. For the rest of my life, I will remember the look on Lucas' face when he recognized his Aunt...it was instantaneous, and it was beautiful, and a moment of pure love.  Who could ask for more from a Christmas miracle?