Crippled in Syria, Turkey goes for a ‘Sunnistan’ in Iraq “Divide and Rule”

December 9, 2015 By administrator

By Pepe Escobar,

Turkey’s “incursion” into Iraq is a cold, calculated move. And once again, the name of the game is – what else? – Divide and Rule.

Turkey sent to Iraqi Kurdistan – which is part of the state of Iraq – no less than a 400-strong battalion supported by 25 M-60A3 tanks. Now the Turkish boots on the ground at Bashiqa camp, northeast of Mosul, have reportedly reached a total of around 600.

The short breakdown: this is not a “training camp”– as Ankara is spinning. It’s a full-blown, perhaps permanent, military base.

The dodgy deal was struck between the ultra-corrupt Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and then-Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu in Erbil last month.

Torrents of Turkish spin swear this is only about “training” Peshmergas to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

Absolute nonsense. The crucial fact is that Ankara is terrified of the “4+1” alliance fighting Islamic State, which unites Iran, Iraqi Shiites and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), as well as Hezbollah, with Russia.

In Syria, Ankara is virtually paralyzed, after the “stab in the back” downing of the Su-24; the Russian revelations of complicity between Turkey’s first family and stolen Syrian oil (Bilal Erdogan, a.k.a. Erdogan ‘Mini Me’, denies everything); and the Russian Air Force relentless pounding of Turkey’s fifth column Turkmen. Not to mention the deployment of S-400s and even a third-generation submarine complete with Kalibr cruise missiles.

So Ankara now switches the attention to Iraq with a “counter-alliance”, made up of Turkey; the KRG (which – illegally – sells oil to Turkey); and Sunnis in northern Iraq under the supposed leadership of the sprawling Nuceyfi tribe in Mosul.

This is textbook neo-Ottomanism in action. We should never forget that for the AKP in power in Ankara, northern Syria and northern Iraq are nothing but former Ottoman Empire provinces, an eastward extension of Turkey’s Hatay province. ‘Sultan’ Erdogan’s (unstated) wet dream is to annex the whole lot.

Meanwhile, Daesh still controls Mosul. But Iraqi Sunnis – as well as the Iraqi Army – are slowly setting up an offensive.

So what Ankara wants with this military base close to Mosul is to be part of the game, coupled with two “invisible” agendas; protect their fifth-column Turkmen, wherever they are, and having more boots on the ground to fight – what else – PKK Kurds taking refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan.

‘Sultan’ Erdogan’s whole rationale is that Baghdad does not rule northern Iraq anymore (he’s got a point). But the problem, for Ankara, is that the real powers in the region may turn out to be Shiites and the PKK (that’s far-fetched; but that’s Erdogan thinking.)

‘Sultan’ Erdogan has extremely close business deals with the KRG’s ‘Mobster-in-Chief’, Massoud Barzani – as in the oil exporting deal which, illegally, bypasses Baghdad. Barzani, predictably, has no problems with Turkish military designs; after all “his” oil is paid for by the Turks.

As for the clincher, follow geopolitical ace Mick Jagger: it’s a gas, gas, gas.

Ankara’s move plays straight into the ultimate ‘Pipelineistan’ war; the clash between two competing gas pipelines, Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Jordan-Syria-Turkey, or Iran-Iraq-Syria, at the heart of the Syrian tragedy.

Erdogan’s paranoia that Russia may cut off gas supplies to Turkey after the downing of the Su-24 – something that Gazprom simply won’t do – has led Ankara, in desperation, to force Baghdad, mob-style, to “accept” a Qatar gas pipeline crossing Iraqi, not Syrian territory.

Needless to add this far-fetched scheme is an absolute no-go for Baghdad, which is part of the “4+1” alliance. Moreover, expect Iran – and Russia – to go no holds barred exploiting divisions among the notoriously divisive Kurds to bomb Erdogan’s elaborate plans.

Erdogan’s bottom line is quite something; he is aiming for no less than an Iraqi ‘Sunnistan’ – jointly managed by the ultra-corrupt KRG and assorted Sunnis, but under Turkish security arrangements. As if Washington and Tel-Aviv would let him get away with that.

The fact is that at least for the moment, while his game in Syria may be going down the drain, Erdogan has decided to change the subject and turbo-charge his strategy for breaking up Iraq.

The gift

And that brings up the question, once again, of how Daesh was able last year to conquer Mosul – the second city in Iraq – without a fight. And this after their notorious convoy of gleaming white Toyotas crossing the desert from Syria to Iraq managed to evade detection by the most sophisticated satellite surveillance system in the history of the Universe.

Regarding the mystery, persistent intel rumblings across the Middle East and among the “4+1” coalition are bound to turn into a volcano.

According to the rumblings, the official – Pentagon – narrative that the Iraqi Army supposed to fight Islamic State in Mosul last year got scared and simply ran away is a myth.

As we know, the Iraqi Army, trained by the Pentagon, left behind a wealth of tanks and heavy weapons duly captured by IS. And IS couldn’t be luckier in collecting this almighty ‘gift’.

The new narrative rules that the Pentagon deliberately “instructed” the Iraqi Army to run away, as a sort of tactical retreat, leaving behind all that fabulous hardware.

So what we have here is the Pentagon fully protected by plausible deniability.

And Islamic State duly weaponized as a proxy/regime change army in Syria. A perfect chaos-provoking tool aligned with the strategic objective of the ‘Empire of Chaos’ in Syria. Which, by the way, does include, in the absence of full regime change, the formation of a ‘Sunnistan’ in Syria as well.

Oh, but the Pentagon would never engage in such practices, would they?

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online. Born in Brazil, he’s been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Even before 9/11 he specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central and East Asia, with an emphasis on Big Power geopolitics and energy wars. He is the author of “Globalistan” (2007), “Red Zone Blues” (2007), “Obama does Globalistan” (2009) and “Empire of Chaos” (2014), all published by Nimble Books. His latest book is “2030”, also by Nimble Books, out in December 2015.

Turkey’s Iraq Incursion is Proof of “Agent Provocateur” Status

December 9, 2015 By administrator

Turkey’ actions in the Middle East are those of an agent provocateur, political scientist Araik Stepanyan told Radio Sputnik.

Turkey’s actions in Syria and Iraq are encouragement for conflict in the region, and its status as a NATO member adds more potential for conflict, political scientist Araik Stepanyan said on Wednesday.

“NATO leadership has warned that if any military steps are taken in relation to Turkey, then that will be considered aggression against NATO. But how do we consider the issue of Turkey carrying out an act of aggression – invading a sovereign state? Who has responsibility here, Ankara or NATO?”

“I see Turkey’s role as that of provocateur. That is a provocateur in the Middle East, which wants to provoke a conflict between east and west.”

“Turkey’s aggression into Iraqi territory which is under the control of Daesh shows that Ankara is really working with terrorists, financing and arming them. That’s why the UN Security Council must pass the resolution under discussion, which calls on Turkey to withdraw its troops, because this is provoking a war between NATO and Iraq,” said Stepanyan.

Moscow’s concern at the possibility of Turkey taking further reckless steps to destabilize the Middle East is well founded, said the expert.

“That recklessness has not just appeared today. Turkish politics in the Middle East have always been directed recklessly towards its own national interests. But it always hides behind the ostensible interests of NATO and the international community. How many years did they bomb Kurdish positions in Syria, and said they were bombing terrorists.”

On Tuesday Turkey’s incursion into Iraq was discussed at a closed meeting of the UN Security Council, held at Russia’s request to discuss Turkish military actions in Iraq and Syria.

“We hope that the unease which was expressed by the UN Secretary General and many members of the Security Council during the course of the meeting will cool down the hot heads in Ankara, so that they regulate the situation in Iraq according to the wishes of the Iraqi government,” said Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s permanent representative at the UN.

Churkin told RIA Novosti that Russia is expecting Turkey “not to take any kind of new reckless steps, including on the territory of Syria.”

Russia intends to bring up Ankara’s invasion of northern Iraq at the UN Security Council on Tuesday.

December 8, 2015 By administrator

“The issue will be raised at a closed-door meeting,” TASS cited a diplomatic source within the organization as saying. The source also dismissed earlier reports that Moscow was going to call a separate UNSC meeting.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has expressed grave concern over reports of the US-led coalition’s missile airstrike on the Syrian Army base near Ayyash in the Deir ez-Zor province, which killed three Syrian soldiers, as well as an airstrike in Al-Hasakah Governorate that resulted in multiple civilian casualties.

“Generally, these facts serve proof that the situation on the frontline with Islamic State is heating up,” the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department acknowledged.

“An additional and extremely dangerous factor promoting international tensions is the unlawful presence of the Turkish armed forces on Iraqi territory near the city of Mosul, which arrived there without a request and approval of the legitimate government of Iraq,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“We consider this [military] presence unacceptable,” the statement says, adding that violation of international law principles, such as respect towards other states’ sovereignty is “at the core of the emerging problems.”

According to Iraqi media, Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi has put the Iraqi Air Force on high alert and the ruling National Iraqi Alliance has given the prime minister the go-ahead to take “any measures” to ensure territorial integrity and protect its borders, including addressing the UN and the Arab League.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday that the country is suspending further deployment of troops to Iraq, but refuses to withdraw servicemen and hardware already on Iraqi soil.

Baghdad was informed of Ankara’s decision in a phone conversation between the Turkish and Iraqi foreign ministers late on Monday.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu reiterated Ankara’s respect for Iraq’s territorial integrity, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic told reporters.

In a separate statement, Turkish PM Davutoglu expressed readiness to visit Baghdad as soon as possible to discuss the current troop deployment crisis between Ankara and Baghdad.

Iraqi media reported earlier that on December 4 Iraq’s PM said: “Turkish troops numbering around one regiment armored with tanks and artillery entered Iraqi territory,” labeling the incident as a “serious breach of Iraqi sovereignty.” He added that the move “does not conform with good neighborly relations,” and called on to Ankara to “withdraw immediately from Iraqi territory.”

Iraq calls on NATO to force withdrawal of Turkish forces

December 8, 2015 By administrator

Haider al-Abadi. Photo: AFP.

By Rudaw,

ERBIL, Kurdistan – NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg vowed Tuesday to preserve the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq, after Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called on the organization to use its authority to force a withdrawal of Turkish forces from Iraq.

“In a phone call with Jens Stoltenberg, Haider al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, said that Turkey deployed its troops in Iraq without Baghdad’s consent and that we refuse the present of Turkish forces from the land of Iraq,” Abadi’s office said in an announcement Tuesday.

“Before the ending of a 48 hour ultimatum to withdraw forces, Iraq will through diplomatic channels call on Turkey to abide by Baghdad’s decree to withdraw its forces immediately, because they have explicitly violated the sovereignty of Iraq,” Abadi had said.

He called on NATO to “use its authority against Turkey to withdraw its troops from Iraq.”

Stoltenberg assured Abadi that the issue would be discussed inside NATO, and stressed that the issue can only be resolved through diplomatic negotiations,

On Saturday, Turkey revealed it had been training Peshmerga forces in four provinces in Iraq, after Baghdad disclosed that fresh forces had been sent into Iraq without consultations with the central government.

A new force of some 150 trainers was relieving the previous team, it said.

On Sunday, Baghdad gave Turkey 48 hours to withdraw the forces.

ISIS GodFather Davutoglu: Turkey will not withdraw troops from Mosul

December 8, 2015 By administrator

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region- Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Monday that Turkey refuses to withdraw troops after Baghdad has reportedly given them 48 hours to leave.

The announcement came during a Turkish security council meeting regarding the presence of Turkish troops near the Islamic State stronghold Mosul in northern Iraq.

On Sunday, Baghdad reportedly gave Turkish troops 48 hours to leave Iraq, following a late night meeting by Iraq’s National Security Council.

“Turkey’s forces have entered Iraq without our consent and the Iraqi government has not been informed. We consider the act as a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and disrespecting a neighbor,” said the statement, following the meeting held by Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

“Baghdad has the right to use all means against Turkey including contacting the (UN) Security Council if Turkish forces do not leave the land in 48 hours,” the statement continued.

Davutoglu has reportedly reassured Iraq that Turkish troops would not be sent into the city of Mosul without Baghdad’s consent.

“There will be no deployment of forces to Bashika (Mosul city) until the sensitivities of Iraq are addressed,” Davutoglu said.

Terrorist State of Turkey Refuses to Withdraw Its Troops From Northern Iraq Despite Ultimatum

December 7, 2015 By administrator

In the face of fierce protests from the Iraqi government and the international community, Turkey is refusing to withdraw troops from northern Iraq.

Over the weekend, Ankara deployed approximately 600 additional troops to a camp in Iraq’s Ninevah province, close to the city of Mosul.

“It is our duty to provide security for our soldiers providing training there,” Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, told Kanal 24. “Everybody is present in Iraq…The goal of all of them is clear. Train-and-equip advisory support is being provided. Our presence there is not a secret.”

But the Iraqi government, viewing the move as a clear breach of sovereignty, condemned the action, and gave Turkey 48 hours to remove its troops.

But Turkey has refused to comply with the order, insisting it informed the Iraqi government of its actions, and that there was demand for Turkish support in the area.

“The military personnel for training will stay. Not because we them [there] particularly but because there is a demand from the Iraqi side,” a Turkish official told reporters, according to the Guardian. “The discussion with the central government still continues.”

Iraq had previously indicated that if Turkey failed to withdraw its troops, a complaint would be filed with the United Nations.

“In case we have not received any positive signs before the deadline we set for the Turkish side, then we maintain our legal right to file a complaint to the [UN] security council to stop this serious violation to Iraqi sovereignty,” said Iraqi government spokesman Saad al-Hadithi, according to the Guardian.

Turkey’s actions were also condemned by the Arab League, which described the troop buildup as “blatant intervention.” Nabil Elaraby, Secretary-General of the Arab League, released a statement saying that his organization would also support Iraq’s appeal to the UN Security Council.

Even the United States, one of Turkey’s key allies, has stressed that it does not support troop deployments on Iraqi territory without the consent of the central government.

While Turkey is ostensibly in Iraq to fight Daesh, also known as ISIL/The Islamic State, Ankara has, in actuality, been more focused on combating Kurdish militias. Russia has presented evidence that Turkey benefits directly from Daesh’s illegal oil trade, and thus has little interest in eliminating the terrorist group.

On Friday, Iran also said it has “irrefutable evidence” of Turkey’s involvement in illegal oil smuggling.

“Iranian military advisors in Syria have taken photos and filmed all the routes used by ISIL’s oil tankers to Turkey,” Iran’s Expediency Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaie told reporters.

“If the Turkish authorities are unaware of the Daesh oil sales in their country, then we can provide them with such intelligence.”

Ankara has faced intense criticism since the downing of a Russian bomber along Turkey’s Syrian border. An unprovoked attack, the incident left two dead.

Turkey Has 24 Hours to Withdraw Troops From Iraq – PM Abadi

December 7, 2015 By administrator

Turkey must withdraw its troops from Iraq within 24 hours to avoid the matter being reviewed by the UN Security Council, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi said Monday.

DUBAI (Sputnik) — On Friday, media reports emerged of up to 150 Turkish military personnel having been deployed in northern Iraq’s Nineveh province, allegedly to provide training to Kurdish Peshmerga fighters.

On Sunday, Baghdad said it would use all available options, including an address to the UN Security Council, if Turkey failed to withdraw its troops from northern Iraq within 48 hours.

“We demand from Turkey that it respect Iraq’s sovereignty, we gave them 48 hours to resolve the issue and now there are only 24 hours,” Abadi said, as quoted by his press office.

Arab League condemns Turkish ‘intervention’ in N. Iraq

December 6, 2015 By administrator

The Arab League has condemned deployment of Turkish troops in northern Iraq, saying it amounts to “an intervention.” Iraq demands that Ankara withdraws its troops, saying it will go to the UN Security Council if they remain.

Nabil Elaraby, Secretary-General of the Arab league has condemned the deployment of Turkish troops in Northern Iraq calling it a “blatant intervention,” Al Youm El Sabea reports.

He said, however, that the Arab League members can do nothing but make a joint statement condemning the action.

Earlier this week, Turkey deployed over 100 troops equipped with tanks and artillery in the town of Bashiqa, 10 kilometers northeast of Mosul, which is a stronghold of the Islamic State terror group (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

The move is considered “a serious breach of sovereignty” by Iraqi authorities. Baghdad has been railing against the action and stepping up its rhetoric – on Sunday the country threatened to go to the UN Security Council unless Turkey withdraws its troop within 48 hours.

“Iraq has the right to use all available options, including resorting to the UN Security Council if these forces are not withdrawn within 48 hours,” Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said in a statement.

The same demand was made by Khaled al-Obeidi, the Iraqi defense minister, who said that Turkey had to coordinate its actions with Iraq irrespective of its purposes.

“No matter the size of the force entering Iraq, it is rejected. It was possible to undertake this sort of prior coordination without creating circumstances which contributed to a crisis between the two countries,” he said in a separate statement.

Iran has also criticized Turkey for the “intervention.” Deputy Foreign Minister Amir Abdallahaan said that it was a serious mistake on the part of the Turkish government to deploy Turkish troops in Iraq without the permission of its government, ISNA reports.

Responding to the criticism, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had first said that the military activity was just a routine troop rotation at a camp set up more than a year ago to train Kurdish militia.

However, on Sunday Davutoglu was reduced to saying that Turkey would cease further troop transfers to Bashiqa out of respect for Iraq’s sovereignty. It remains unclear whether the remaining Turkish “training” troops will be called back.

Ex-US Intelligence Chief on Islamic State’s Rise: ‘We Were Too Dumb’

December 6, 2015 By administrator

UNITED STATES – APRIL 18: Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) (CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

Interview Conducted By Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark SPIEGEL ONLINE

Without the Iraq war, Islamic State wouldn’t exist today, former US special forces chief Mike Flynn openly admits. In an interview, he explains IS’ rise to become a professional force and how the Americans allowed its future leader to slip out of their hands.

Michael Flynn, 56, served in the United States Army for more than 30 years, most recently as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he was the nation’s highest-ranking military intelligence officer. Previously, he served as assistant director of national intelligence inside the Obama administration. From 2004 to 2007, he was stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, where, as commander of the US special forces, he hunted top al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the predecessors to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who today heads the Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. After Flynn’s team located Zarqawi’s whereabouts, the US killed the terrorist in an air strike in June 2006.

In an interview, Flynn explains the rise of the Islamic State and how the blinding emotions of 9/11 led the United States in the wrong direction strategically.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In recent weeks, Islamic State not only conducted the attacks in Paris, but also in Lebanon and against a Russian airplane over the Sinai Peninsula. What has caused the organization to shift its tactics and to now operate internationally?

Flynn: There were all kinds of strategic and tactical warnings and lots of reporting. And even the guys in the Islamic State said that they were going to attack overseas. I just don’t think people took them seriously. When I first heard about the recent attacks in Paris, I was like, “Oh, my God, these guys are at it again, and we’re not paying attention.” The change that I think we need to be more aware of is that, in Europe, there is a leadership structure. And there’s likely a leader or a leadership structure in each country in Europe. The same is probably similar for the United States, but just not obvious yet.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You mean something like an emir or regional leadership?

Flynn: Exactly. In Osama bin Laden’s writings, he elaborated about being disperse, becoming more diffuse and operating in small elements, because it’s harder to detect and it’s easier to act. In Paris, there were eight guys. In Mali, there were 10. Next time, maybe one or two guys will be enough.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Can an attack of that scope even take place without being coordinated and authorized by the IS leadership in Syria?

Flynn: Absolutely. There’s not some line-and-block chart and a guy at the top like we have in our own systems. That’s the mirror imaging that we have to, in many ways, eliminate from our thinking. I can imagine a 30-year-old guy with some training and some discussion who receives the task from the top: “Go forth and do good on behalf of our ideology.” And then he picks the targets by himself, organizes his attackers and executes his mission.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Islamic State’s leader is the self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. What kind of leader is he?

Flynn: It’s really important to differentiate between the way Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri represent themselves when they come out in public and how al-Baghdadi represented himself when he declared the caliphate. Bin Laden and Zawahiri sit in their videos, legs crossed, flag behind them, and they’ve got an AK-47 in their laps. They are presenting themselves as warriors. Baghdadi brought himself to a mosque in Mosul and spoke from the balcony, like the pope, dressed in appropriate black garb. He stood there as a holy cleric and proclaimed the Islamic caliphate. That was a very, very symbolic act. It elevated the fight from this sort of military, tactical and localized conflict to that of a religious and global war.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What would change if al-Baghdadi were killed?

Flynn: We used to say, “We’ll just keep killing the leaders, and the next guy up is not going to be as good.” That didn’t work out that way because al-Baghdadi is better than Zarqawi, and Zarqawi was actually better than bin Laden.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi wouldn’t change much?

Flynn: Not at all. He could be dead today, you haven’t seen him lately. I would have much preferred to have captured bin Laden and Zarqawi because as soon as you kill them, you are actually doing them and their movement a favor by making them martyrs. Zarqawi was a vicious animal. I would have preferred to see him live in a cell for the rest of his life. Their logic is still hard to understand for us in the West.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What differentiates al-Baghdadi from Zarqawi, who led al-Qaida in Iraq between 2003 and 2006?

Flynn: Zarqawi tried to bring in foreign fighters, but not in the way that al-Baghdadi has been able to do. At the peak of Zarqawi’s days, they may have been bringing in 150 a month from a dozen countries. Al-Baghdadi is bringing in 1,500 fighters a month, from more than 100 nations. He’s using the modern weapons of the information age in fundamentally different ways to strengthen the attraction of their ideology. The other thing is how they target. Zarqawi was absolutely brutal — he randomly killed guys lining up for jobs in downtown Baghdad. Al-Baghdadi is much smarter and more precise in his target selection, but still very vicious.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Who is running the military wing of the Islamic State?

Flynn: I think that al-Baghdadi or the current leader of the Islamic State is very hands-on when it comes to parts of the military, but it’s a very flat, networked organization. Inside Syria and Iraq in the Levant area, my belief is that he has a couple of subordinates who are responsible for military operations, logistical, financial, etc.; they represent a combination of Egyptians, Saudis, Chechens or a Dagestanis, Americans and Europeans. We know from debriefings that they have actually broken Raqqa down into international zones because of language barriers. They have put interpreters in place in those international zones in order to communicate and get their messages around. For example, the Australians alone have about 200 people. There’s even an Australian sector in Raqqa, and they’re tied into the other English speakers because not everybody shows up speaking Arabic. This requires a military-like structure with military-like leadership.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How does IS treat people who volunteer?

Flynn: They document everything. These guys are terrific about it. In their recruiting and in interviews, they ask “What’s your background? Are you good with media? With weapons?” It’s this kind of well-structured capability they have that then evolves into a very, very unconventional force.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How should the West fight this enemy?

Flynn: The sad fact is that we have to put troops on the ground. We won’t succeed against this enemy with air strikes alone. But a military solution is not the end all, be all. The overall strategy must be to take away Islamic State’s territory, then bring security and stability to facilitate the return of the refugees. This won’t be possible quickly. First, we need to hunt down and eliminate the complete leadership of IS, break apart their networks, stop their financing operations and stay until a sense of normality has been established. It’s certainly not a question of months — it will take years. Just look back at the mission we created in the Balkans as a model. We started there in the early 1990s to create some stability and we are still there today.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is the Balkans mission a model for the current war?

Flynn: We can learn some lessons from the Balkans. Strategically, I envision a breakup of the Middle East crisis area into sectors in the way we did back then, with certain nations taking responsibility for these sectors. In addition, we would need a coalition military command structure and, on a political level, the United Nations must be involved. The United States could take one sector, Russia as well and the Europeans another one. The Arabs must be involved in that sort of military operation, as well, and must be part of every sector. With this model, you would have opportunities — Russia, for example, must use its influence on Iran to have Tehran back out of Syria and other proxy efforts in the region.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: For that to happen, the West would have to cooperate fully with the Russians.

Flynn: We have to work constructively with Russia. Whether we like it or not, Russia made a decision to be there (in Syria) and to act militarily. They are there, and this has dramatically changed the dynamic. So you can’t say Russia is bad, they have to go home. It’s not going to happen. Get real. Look at what happened in the past few days: The president of France asked the US for help militarily (after the Paris attacks). That’s really weird to me, as an American. We should have been there first and offered support. Now he is flying to Moscow and asking Putin for help.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: A Western military intervention runs the risk of being seen as a new attempt to invade the region.

Flynn: That’s why we need the Arabs as partners, they must be the face of the mission — but, today, they are neither capable of conducting nor leading this type of operation, only the United States can do this. And we don’t want to invade or even own Syria. Our message must be that we want to help and that we will leave once the problems have been solved. The Arab nations must be on our side. And if we catch them financing, if they funnel money to IS, that’s when sanctions and other actions have to kick in.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In February 2004, you already had Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in your hands — he was imprisoned in in a military camp, but got cleared later as harmless by a US military commission. How could that fatal mistake happen?

Flynn: We were too dumb. We didn’t understand who we had there at that moment. When 9/11 occurred, all the emotions took over, and our response was, “Where did those bastards come from? Let’s go kill them. Let’s go get them.” Instead of asking why they attacked us, we asked where they came from. Then we strategically marched in the wrong direction.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The US invaded Iraq even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Flynn: First we went to Afghanistan, where al-Qaida was based. Then we went into Iraq. Instead of asking ourselves why the phenomenon of terror occurred, we were looking for locations. This is a major lesson we must learn in order not to make the same mistakes again.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Islamic State wouldn’t be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad. Do you regret … Flynn: … yes, absolutely …

SPIEGEL ONLINE: … the Iraq war?

Flynn: It was huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision.

Iraqi defense minister asks Terrorist State of Turkey to withdraw troops from “Christian Town Bashiqa”

December 6, 2015 By administrator

Iraqi Defense Minister Khaled al-Obeidi (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

Iraq‘s defense minister said on Sunday he had told his Turkish counterpart that hundreds of Turkish forces deployed inside Iraq near the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)-held city of Mosul had been sent without informing or coordinating with Baghdad, and should be withdrawn.

Khaled al-Obeidi said in a statement the Turkish defense minister had explained the deployment as necessary to protect Turkish military advisers training Iraqi forces in preparation for a campaign to retake Mosul.

But Obeidi said the Turkish force was too large for such a purpose.

“No matter the size of the force entering Iraq, it is rejected,” the statement said. “It was possible to undertake this sort of prior coordination without creating circumstances which contributed to a crisis between the two countries.”

Iraq’s president, prime minister and foreign ministry have all objected to the Turkish deployment in recent days, calling it a hostile act and a violation of international law. Baghdad also summoned the Turkish ambassador to issue a formal protest.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said on Saturday that it was a routine troop rotation and that Turkish forces had set up a camp some 30 kilometers (19 miles) northeast of Mosul at the Mosul governor’s request, and in coordination with the Iraqi Defense Ministry.

A small number of Turkish trainers were already at the camp before the latest deployment to train the Hashid Watani (national mobilization), a force made up of mainly Sunni Arab former Iraqi police and volunteers from Mosul, which ISIL militants seized in June 2014.