Maybe instead of giving weapons and ammo and money to the Iraqi army so they can abandon it on the field to ISIS (now calling themselves the Islamic State), the US should be supplying the Kurds, who will actually fight.
Just a thought.
As for Iraq, the government policy of trying to fiscally strangle the Kurds is coming back to bite them,hard. If they’d let the Kurds sell some oil, the Kurds might be holding ground.
I’m sure the supply situation will change. Once it does, there’ll be a real test of the Kurds ability to defeat ISIS. They’ve taken two towns back with American air support, but they will have to do far more to defeat ISIS.
I suspect part of the problem here is that others who could help, like Iran, Syria, and Turkey are not doing so, since they all have Kurdish minorities and rather like the idea of Kurdistan being defeated and Kurds being slaughtered.
That’s a big mistake. The Islamic State is far more dangerous to them than the Kurds ever were.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
stirling
I thought there was only 10,000! ( that’s true son)
( also Ian should look at twitter)
JustPlainDave
It doesn’t make sense to me that the Kurds would *really* be black on small arms ammunition after only a few days of fighting. Localized supply, now that’s another matter.
I note that there is reporting as of Friday indicating the Iraqi government had shipped a C-130’s worth of small arms ammunition up to Irbil. I also note that the USG is described as co-ordinating with the Iraqi government (i.e., working through it, not unilaterally) to ensure supply.
John Measor
Ian, the KRG forces (they are not all peshmerga) are light infantry, now spread alone a ~1300km front against the Islamic State. Its a line that is not part of the terrain where the Kurdish militias and peshmerga have historically held their ground – it is not mountainous, it is open to the sweeping attacks of mobile equipment, and it is populated by a diverse array of localalized peoples who are not Kurdish or aligned with the Kurds. Its not surprising that they cannot always successfully hold such a line with the forces they possess on that physical and human terrain.
IS is the opposite, not dependent on the local population(s), highly mobile (thanks to the kit provided by the U.S. taxpayer to the Iraqi army), and highly skilled at using these tools to attack where they desire. The goal is not to capture Erbil or defeat the Kurds … its to remove the opportunity of U.S. ‘advisors’ and forward deployments to be used against the Islamic State itself.
The Islamic State doesn’t need to conquer the KRG and the KRG certainly needn’t conquer the IS.
Your thesis is correct however, the wihtholding of constitutionally mandated revenues by Baghdad and the inane effort to prop up the ‘federal’ unitary state by the U.S. is isolating and injuring the KRG and Kurdish nationalism greatly … forcing it to act on its own.
Perhaps Maliki’s coup this morning will open some American eyes.
Ian Welsh
They vastly outnumber IS by every account I’ve seen. If they are unable to hold ground because of thin lines, then they should be attacking, taking the initiative, and forcing the IS on the defensive. Sweep past some key IS positions, pocket them, and then annihalate them.
Bill H
Note that the towns were retaken “in the wake of U.S. airstrikes on the towns.” This is the classic American policy of “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” which so endears us to the indigineous population.
The US air strikes consist of pairs of FA-18s flying off of a carrier in the gulf. This means limited numbers of sorties, very short time on target, and limited payloads. The attacks are pretty much pinpricks and will not halt armored columns which are on the move. To be effective the air cover will have to operate from closer and larger bases, such as Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
Bill H
Ian, according to accounts I’m reading, IS forces do not hold static positions, but are highly mobile and constantly on the move. They coopt local militias and police forces to hold the villages and tows they occupy, and their main attacking forces are spread out and constantly moving.
Ghostwheel
Ian, considering the Yinon plan to breakup the mideast, and GCC funding and western training for Syrian jihadists, just how much of what ISIS is now doing is the desired fulfillment of western elite planning?
It seems to me that if USG/NATO wanted to stop ISIS they could 1) support Assad in the retaking of Syria, 2) have Turkey close its borders to jihadists, and 3) halt GCC funding of jihadism worldwide. (You could also add arming the Kurdish militias if you want an independent Kurdistan.)
That would close borders on them and cut off foreign funding and recruits. It seems to me that that’s just basic strategy preparatory to eliminating them. And sending troops to fight them without doing these things first is just the dog chasing its own tail.
So if USG/NATO hasn’t done these three things, how serious are our elites about stopping them? Because if they helped nurture and create them, and they’re not serious about stopping them, then it kind of looks like our elite planners actually desire the present situation….
Ian Welsh
Whether they hold static positions or not, pushing past them, and encircling them, when you have superior numbers and air support would appear to me to be the correct strategy.
Assuming you have enough gasoline and ammunition, of course.
(And hell, maybe I’m wrong. I’m not a military strategist.)
Formerly T-Bear
What is absolutely mind-blowing is at this point in time there remains a general assumption that the USG is an honest broker. That assumption was on wobbly legs after Eisenhower denied knowledge of Francis Gary Powers flight over the USSR and has ever since diminished to the vanishing point. But that is the same phenomenon as believing the veracity of the USG still exists or for that matter, that the US constitution still is in effect (other than for cosmetic affect). [hope I got that correct for the pin-head grammar nazis amongst we readers of this site – see how easily diversion is accomplished?].
Another observation re IS. The reports of IS atrocities upon both captive persons and populations serve three purposes: first is to eliminate opposition; second is to create reputation as generators of terror and thirdly to liquidate witnesses to their personnel, their activities and/or procedures. The US airstrikes against IS have simply targeted captured heavy weapons and serves as kabuki theatre for the wurlitzer enthralled audience that matters are being attended to. It remains a curiosity the origins of military planning that is obviously present in the current advances of a group that was forestalled by Assad’s military – it does look like war-games are being played out in this offensive breakout. Would that be to gain military supply from inept neighbour military where normal weapon supply isn’t available?
Certainly interesting times are afoot as the economic house of cards begins coming apart. Keep your eyes on all rings of this carnival.
Syd
The fact that these front-line units ran out of ammo — after 2 hours?!! — seems to indicate enormous corruption on the part of the Kurdish gov’t. The Kurds looted many of Saddam’s military bases in 2003. They looted a large military base at Kirkuk just a few months ago. They had 10 years of relative quiet to build up their stockpiles. Even a mere week’s supply of ammo for any front line forces seems inexcusable. It’s not as if ISIS is using human wave attacks.
JustPlainDave
And then for an encore, USG/NATO could then hold their collective breaths and fly to the moon without a spacesuit. Conceptualizing this solely as a lack of political will is a fundamental analytical mistake. It’s a multilateral world where local powers have increasingly cheap, increasingly high effectiveness options while distant powers have only increasingly expensive, increasingly low effectiveness options – welcome to their Carlsberg years.
One thing to keep in mind is that IS are not exclusively high mobility forces – they do need to concentrate to achieve objectives and they do have something of a fondness for standoff systems when they hit a hard point they can’t overwhelm. More broadly, this isn’t something that should be viewed simplistically – the Kurds are going to be asking what they get if they take the risks associated with doing some heavy lifting for the central government, rather than simply seeking to strengthen and consolidate their lines.
madisolation
Please read Justin Raimondo at antiwar:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/08/10/iraq-why-bomb-now/
Excerpt:
‘…for all intents and purposes Kurdistan has functioned as an independent state.
“One measure of their de facto independence has been their growing ties to Israel: the vaunted pershmerga, as their fighting force is called, have been trained by the Israelis, and no doubt arms have been flowing into the Kurdish arsenal via Tel Aviv. After the Kurdish seizure of Kirkuk the first oil shipment from the KRG to a foreign market made a beeline to Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently declared that Kurdish independence is ‘inevitable.’
“In gaining their one and only ally in the region, and – by the way – securing a reliable energy source on good terms – Israel is claiming the spoils of war. It is also realizing, in the breakup of Iraq, one of its longstanding goals: the humbling of an historical enemy and the extension of Israeli power into the very heart of the Middle East. “
JustPlainDave
And the quid pro quo arrives: http://www.thejournal.ie/united-states-arms-kuds-iraqi-crisis-1614500-Aug2014/
Tom
The Peshmerga did not run out of ammo, they quite simply got outmaneuvered and outfought. The Peshmerga were always overrated to begin with, consisting of PUK and KDP aligned groups that do not coordinate well.
Also the collapse did not come out of the blue. Islamic State Army(ISA) had been skirmishing with them for a few months, screening them while they tackled ISF and the much more dangerous YPG, FSA/Nusrah, and SAA forces in Northern Syria.
Prior to the collapse, ISA took Badush Dam, temporarily turned Qaraqosh into a Ghost town, Seized Bayshir on the Kirkuk Front, wrecked the Peshmerga’s attempt to relieve Amirli in coordination with ISF on the Tuz Khurmatu Front then expanded its ring outward to the very doorstep of Tuz Khurmatu, and won a series of skirmishes along the Tigris. ISA also fought hard in Jalula and repelled Peshmerga assaults on Hawija.
The Kurds did their best to hide their losses, but they were losing heavily.
A week before Sinjar was hit, ISA launched a series of VBIEDs and SVEST assaults in the area then hit hard. The Peshmerga were routed, stripped off their uniform, were captured, and executed. ISA then turned the fight fluid and ripped the Peshmerga to shreds.
Now YPG has withdrawn needed fighters from Hasakah to fight in Iraq which allowed ISA to take several villages in Hasakah.
ISA is run by a strategist who uses the playbook of Genghis Khan and everyone is dancing to his tune. Also it should be pointed out Gwer despite airstrikes took 4 hours for the Peshmerga to reclaim as a single sniper held them up and ISA withdrew in good order.
ISA is toying with the Peshmerga, when they are good and ready, IE they get Haditha Dam and clean up their rear in Syria’s Raqqah, Deir Ezzor, and Hasakah province they’ll go after KRG. As things stand they have Mosul Dam, which gives them needed electricity for Mosul and control of the Tigris River Valley, plus a WMD if they decide to use it.
Ian Welsh
Thanks for the detailed information Tom. If they were held up by one sniper… Reminds me of Americans, honestly.
I have read, also, that the current Peshmerga are not those of 10 years ago, even. Not nearly as tough as the old guerrillas.
If the Kurds fall, I think everyone in the neighbourhood is going to regret it, even leaving aside the slaughter which will ensue.
Practically speaking, this suggests that the Iranians are the only people likely to stand up to them. I’m reasonably confident Hezbollah is more than capable of fighting them, but they won’t fight that far from their territory.
Common sense would also suggest kissing and making up with Assad, arming him and having him and Hezbollah attack ISA’s Syrian holdings.
JustPlainDave
The thing I’d give a buck to know is exactly how many of these places are ones the Kurds expanded into with the collapse of ISF. Much of this didn’t happen terribly quickly (e.g., there’s reporting indicating they were manning lines at Tuz Khurmatu in mid-June) and some of it was at least being packaged as “strategic” withdrawals. As with everything Kurdish, internal politics seems to loom large…
lowfiron
I thought Turkey was good with the Kurds now. Erdogan is making nice with them. I think they are arming the Iraqi Kurds.
They are getting plenty of small arms and ammo, they want some mortars and artillery.
Bill Smith
“The Peshmerga did not run out of ammo, they quite simply got outmaneuvered and outfought.”
A number of local units did run out of ammo. They where also outmaneuvered and then out fought.
About a dozen where captured, stripped off their uniform,, and executed.
There have been a series of VBIEDs and SVEST assaults but not that many. How that played out in morale is another question. Also morale is some low as they have been ‘starved’ for funds and uncertain about US support which they expect will get turned off at the US’s choice not theirs.
Poul
The Peshmerga is overrated. It has been a long time since they have fought for real.
The good fighting units among the Kurds are the Syrian YPG. They opened the roads.
https://news.vice.com/article/how-kurdish-militias-have-successfully-fought-off-the-islamic-state
They have been fighting the IS for months in Syria and have giving and taken blows. Meaning they are not fair-weather fighters but a disciplined army. Unfortunately the YPG is the Syrian branch of the PKK which is fighting for Kurdish independence in Turkey and is classified as an terrorist organization. Expect little help from Turkey for that reason.
Also air power is not a game changer. The IS is used to air strike from fighting in Syria. They will adapt.
http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/general-iraq-airstrikes-have-limited-temporary-effect-1.297794