David Singer: Obama’s Islamic State Policy Uncorks Shiite Genie in Iraq

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Obama’s decision 14 days ago to approve Iraqi and Peshmerga forces undertaking the liberation of Mosul has well and truly blown up in his face with the news that the Iran funded Shiite Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have now joined in the attack.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter certainly did not anticipate this development when announcing Obama’s decision:

“The United States and the rest of the international coalition stand ready to support Iraqi Security Forces, Peshmerga fighters and the people of Iraq in the difficult fight ahead.” 

Neither did Operation Inherent Resolve Commander Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend who stated:

"But to be clear, the thousands of ground combat forces who will liberate Mosul are all Iraqis" 

The involvement of 15000 Shiite PMU militiamen – designated by the Iraqi Government as “an independent military formation” – could aggravate already existing sectarian divisions in Iraq.

This could eventually lead to a Shiite land grab of territory liberated by the PMU.

The retention of land conquered by the Peshmerga forces is also a realistic possibility.

Iraq as a distinct and separate territorial unit could be in real danger of being carved up.

Obama must be reeling after further reading on that:

“Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for the Iraq-sanctioned paramilitary known as Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), said on Saturday that they will fight alongside Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces in Syria after finishing their battle against ISIS in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, Al Arabiya News Channel reported"

Obama’s inability to remove Assad from power in Syria during the last five years has been a spectacular presidential policy failure.

His justified hatred of Assad – propped up by Russia and Iran – has seen him refuse to accept Russia’s invitation to jointly seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution to first take military action against Islamic State in Syria and then try to resolve Syria’s future after Islamic State has been defeated there.

Obama could not fail to be also very worried about Al-Arabiya’s further report:

“… Jaafar al-Husseini, a spokesman for the Hezbollah Brigades, said they launched an offensive Saturday along with other large militias toward the town of Tel Afar, which had a Shiite majority before it fell to ISIS [Islamic State] in 2014. Iranian forces are advising the fighters and Iraqi aircraft are providing airstrikes” 

Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan said on 30 October that Ankara – which already has a military presence in Iraq – would act if forces from the PMU abuse civilians in their fight for the town of Tal Afar.

"Tal Afar is a very sensitive issue for us. We definitely do not regard it [Shia militia involvement] positively in Tal Afar and Sinjar"

Tal Afar is a totally Turkmen city, with half Shia and half Sunni Muslims. We do not judge people by their religious affiliation, we regard them all as Muslims.

But if Hashid Shaabi [PMU] terrorises the region, our response would be different."

In other parts of Iraq retaken from Islamic State – such as Fallujah and Ramadi – there have been allegations of Shia fighters mistreating Sunni civilians.

Iraq is fast becoming a tinderbox containing different elements and interests that could set Iraq ablaze – should Islamic State eventually be defeated in Mosul.

Obama’s decision to commence the attack on Mosul appears to have been made without any real thought to the possible involvement of the PMU and Turkey.

Why Obama thought it that urgent to commence the battle for Mosul at this late stage of his Presidency is a question that will be increasingly asked over the coming week – especially by Clinton and Trump.

David Singer: Obama's Islamic State Policy Threatens Clinton Election Victory

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Obama’s decision to agree to Iraqi and Peshmerga forces attacking Mosul to degrade and destroy Islamic State just three weeks before the US elections sounds alarm bells for the prospects of Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump on 8 November.

 Secretary of Defence Ash Carter confirmed Obama’s decision on 17 October.

The timing of the attack is very concerning. Obama’s decision accords with his policy enunciated as far back as 10 September 2014:

“But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region. “ 

Obama had then further elaborated:

“…we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground…

… As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission – we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment.”

The same day that Carter issued his statement, General Stephen Townsend, Combined Joint Task Force, Operation Inherent Resolve, reportedly acknowledged the presence of “forward air controllers” amongst the US “advisory” contributions to the battle.

Those American “advisory” contributions now appear to have included an explosive ordnance disposal technician – Jason Finan – working with a Navy SEAL team near Mosul who was killed by an Islamic State bomb on October 20. 

Both Carter and Townsend were meeting together in Irbil on 23 October when Townsend stated:

“Our investigation is still underway, but as I understand the event right now, they had moved to a position on the battlefield behind the Iraqi front lines with a headquarters element….

…These guys said you know what, we probably need to move back a terrain and gain a little bit more stand-off. And they were in the process of that when they struck an IED.”

Such direct involvement of American troops on the ground – leading to the death of an American soldier – seems a distinct departure from Obama’s 2014 policy.

Entrusting Iraqi and Peshmerga troops to defeat Islamic State – declared a threat to world peace and security by the United Nations Security Council – was always a high risk Obama policy.

Now that attack has started Hillary Clinton has been effectively lumbered with Obama’s policy if she becomes America’s next President.

Any suggestion of abandoning Obama’s policy now would send a bad signal to American voters.

Clinton’s situation has been further complicated by Carter indicating at the same press conference:

“… we want to see isolation operations begin, oriented at Raqqa as soon as possible. We're working with our partners there to do that. And so there will be some simultaneity to these two operations. We've long anticipated that.” 

 This contradicts what Clinton said in the third presidential debate:

“The goal here is to take back Mosul. It's going to be a hard fight. I've got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.”

The IBD/TIPP poll finds widespread dissatisfaction with America’s direction – 62 per cent of the public saying it's headed in the wrong direction.

Obama’s decision could not have come at a worse time for Clinton.

British statesman Joseph Chamberlain said in 1886:

“In politics, there is no use in looking beyond the next fortnight.”

Pollsters beware.

Pictures of body bags returning dead American soldiers, never-ending TV reports of murdered and injured civilians and people fleeing Mosul could certainly cause a huge voter backlash.

David Singer: Islamic State and al-Nusrah Survive Whilst America and Russia Crash Dive (sequel to previous post)

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It is a sequel to the one posted yesterday, in view of further developments.

Writes David Singer:

Botched airstrikes by American, Australian and British warplanes in Syria have accidentally killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers and wounded more than 100 – leading Russia to making the accusation that the “White House is defending Islamic State”.

The boot was however on the other foot when America blamed Russia for an airstrike a few days later that killed 20 Syrian Red Crescent aid workers and truck drivers delivering humanitarian aid relief to 78000 civilians trapped in Aleppo province.

A very angry American Secretary of State – John Kerry – addressed the UN Security Council on 21 September:

“For weeks over the summer, experts from my government worked with our counterparts from Russia in good efforts to develop a plan that would take into account the lessons learned from the original cessation, and the key elements of that plan launched in Geneva two weeks ago include the renewal of a cessation of hostilities, excluding only Daesh [Islamic State – ed] and al-Nusrah.

Importantly, it included arrangements for the unfettered delivery – unfettered delivery – of humanitarian aid to people in Aleppo and elsewhere in the country, and it envisioned the possibility – providing humanitarian assistance was unimpeded and sustained, and provided there were at least seven days of consecutive adherence to the cessation – that the United States and Russia would begin to coordinate their efforts against Daesh [Islamic State] and al-Nusrah. And I want to make it clear, under President Obama’s orders, all preparations were being made in order to achieve that cooperation in terms of our military and intelligence community and the work we would do. So we’re committed to that."

America and Russia had again put the cart before the horse – and these two tragic events have happened as a result.

Russia, America and their respective cohorts now need to get on with the job of first destroying their commonly agreed enemies - Islamic State and al- Nusrah – but only after first obtaining a UN mandated Security Council Resolution - rather than acting independently of the UN by pursuing some joint co-ordinated action of their own.

President Putin warned in his speech at the UN just one year ago of the perils of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.”

Obama and Putin should urgently co-sponsor a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

Such a Resolution would enable the UN to take action by air, sea, or land forces to defeat and remove Islamic State and al-Nusrah as a threat to international peace and security. All UN Members would be obliged to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage.

Only a UN-mandated military force led by a single commander-in-chief can ever hope to defeat Islamic State and al-Nusrah.

America seems unable to understand that resolving this world threat to international peace and security in Syria must first happen before it becomes possible to start resolving the 5 year old civil war in Syria.

Meantime Islamic State and al-Nusrah survive – and the inhumane suffering in Syria continues.
Russia and America must use the United Nations Security Council for the purpose it was created – not as a debating forum to play the blame game.

David Singer: Islamic State Crows as Russia and America Trade Blows

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  (Update: There is a sequel here)

He writes:

Islamic State combatants were no doubt jumping with joy following botched airstrikes against them by American, Australian and British warplanes in Syria that accidentally killed at least 60 Syrian soldiers and wounded more than 100.

The 15-member United Nations (UN) Security Council met on 17 September after Russia demanded an emergency session to discuss the American-led airstrike fiasco.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, chastised Russia for the move:

"Russia really needs to stop the cheap point scoring and the grandstanding and the stunts and focus on what matters, which is implementation of something we negotiated in good faith with them"  

Russia made no bones about its feelings:

"We are reaching a really terrifying conclusion for the whole world: That the White House is defending Islamic State. Now there can be no doubts about that," the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying.”

The boot was however on the other foot with America blaming Russia for an airstrike a few days later that killed 20 Syrian Red Crescent aid workers and truck drivers delivering humanitarian aid relief to 78000 civilians trapped in Aleppo province.

Islamic State no doubt relishes these recriminations and counter recriminations that will guarantee the end of the current tenuous ceasefire.

This disastrous state of affairs could have been avoided had Russia, America and their respective cohorts agreed to concentrate on jointly destroying their common agreed enemy –  Islamic State – under a UN mandated Security Council Resolution, rather than acting independently of each other.

President Obama’s decision to intrude uninvited upon Syrian sovereign territory in September 2014 without the backing of a Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution has seen America behind the eight ball ever since.

President Putin warned in his speech at the UN just one year ago of the perils of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.”

The chickens are now coming home to roost for America as the consequences of its by-passing the UN unfolded this past week.

Obama and Putin now need to urgently sponsor a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

Such a Resolution would enable the UN to take action by air, sea, or land forces as might be necessary to defeat and remove Islamic State as a threat to international peace and security.

All UN Members would be obliged to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of defeating Islamic State.

Only a UN-mandated military force led by a single commander-in-chief can ever hope to defeat Islamic State and end the threat to world peace that this evil organisation represents.

How many more horrendous incidents like these latest two have to occur before Russia and America agree to jointly initiate action in the Security Council to confront and eliminate Islamic State?

Resolving Syria’s horrific five year civil war cannot be achieved until Islamic State is comprehensively routed and driven out of Syria.

The name-calling and blame games being traded between Russia and America serve no purpose other than to prolong Islamic State’s existence and Syria’s suffering.

Wake up Russia and America.

David Singer: UN Security Council Must Take Military Action Against Islamic State

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer. 

He writes:

President Obama’s continuing refusal to co-sponsor a Security Council Resolution with Russia authorising the use of military force against Islamic State ensures that the horrendous murders in Orlando and Manganville this past week will be repeated with ever increasing frequency anywhere and at any time.

Speaking after a meeting with his National Security Council following the Orlando massacres President Obama stated:

“As we know all too well, terrorist groups like ISIL have called on people around the world and here in the United States to attack innocent civilians. Their propaganda, their videos, their postings are pervasive and more easily accessible than we want.

This individual appears to have absorbed some of that, and during his killing spree, the shooter in Orlando pledged allegiance to ISIL.

As I've said before, these lone actors or small cells of terrorists are very hard to detect and very hard to prevent.

But across our government at every level -- federal, state and local, military and civilian -- we are doing everything in our power to stop these kinds of attacks.”

President Obama was in complete denial so far as his Presidential options were concerned.

Despite a raft of resolutions passed by the Security Council under Article 41 of the UN Charter requiring member States to take a melange of actions against Islamic State – a resolution calling for the use of military action by the United Nations under Article 42 of the UN Charter remains stymied because of America’s opposition to taking such action proposed by Russia.

Article 42 is quite clear in its terms:

“Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

 Passing such a resolution would oblige all 193 member States to comply with Article 43(1):

“All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.” 

 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued this warning on 18 November last:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”. 

 President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Independent and uncoordinated military actions to wipe out Islamic State taken by Russian-led and American-led coalitions have only had limited success.

A minority of UN member States are shouldering the burden of inflicting total defeat – whilst the rest just make pious condemnatory declarations and avert their gaze.

Islamic State’s radicalising of Muslim minds everywhere is endemic and growing and represents a world-wide problem demanding a world-wide response.

How many more San Bernardino and Orlando massacres will President Obama mourn and decry before he agrees to co-sponsor a Security Council resolution with Russia authorising military action against Islamic State?

David Singer: Syria and Islamic State – America Capitulates, UN Security Council Procrastinates

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:
 
President Obama has finally abandoned his 2011 policy calling for Syria’s President Assad to step aside and allow the future of Syria to be determined by its people –  opening the way to a UN-led process on the political future of Syria being undertaken without first removing Assad. Russia’s Foreign Minister – Sergey Lavrov – had criticised Obama’s stance as recently as 2 June 2015:

'The U.S.’s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick”

If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region…'

 Marie Harf, a US State Department spokeswoman, responded:

“We’re certainly not going to coordinate with a brutal dictator who’s massacred so many of his own citizens. That’s just an absurd proposition. That’s certainly not going to happen.”

Less than five months later that “absurd proposition” has come to fruition.

The International Syria Support Group (ISSG) meeting in Vienna on 14 November – attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry – agreed

“on the need to convene Syrian government and opposition representatives in formal negotiations under UN auspices, as soon as possible, with a target date of January 1“ 

Lavrov elaborated at a joint press conference with Kerry beside him:

“We have reiterated that Syrian future will be decided by Syrian people alone. This regards also the destiny of Mr. Assad and any other politician in this country.”

Lavrov stated that UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura would get the opposition and government together by 1 January for political negotiations – and continued:

“The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic has already informed Mr. de Mistura on the composition of their delegation. And today, Mr. de Mistura has the task to find the composition of the Syrian opposition delegation, which should be representative and reflect the whole spectrum of political forces.”

It will be nothing short of a miracle if Mr De Mistura can pull this rabbit out of the hat by 1 January.

Nevertheless it does at last signify an international will and consensus on the way forward to ending a conflict that has claimed 300000 lives and created a flood of 7 million externally and internally displaced refugees during the last four years.

The ISSG further reiterated that Islamic State, Nusra and other terrorist groups as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the ISSG participants and endorsed by the UN Security Council, must be defeated.

Jordan was appointed to develop a commonly agreed list of terrorist organisations by 1 January.

This foot-dragging takes the heat off any unified military action to target Islamic State following the recent Russian airliner explosion and the Paris atrocities this week.

Nevertheless, Lavrov was predicting that following his meetings with some unnamed ISSG members:

“I have a feeling that there was a growing understanding that there is a terrible need for efficient, comprehensive, international coalition to fight ISIS and other terrorists, as President Putin has said. And there are no prerequisites in this regard.”

Any international coalition to fight Islamic State can only be achieved through a UN Security Council Resolution.

Since the five Permanent Members of the Security Council are also members of the ISSG – such a Resolution cannot come quickly enough.

Note from Daphne: this video is not part of David's article:

David Singer: Security Council Permanent Members Herald Armed Action Against Islamic State

Photo of Assyrians in Teheran: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and internaional affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

An international conference in Vienna on 30 October – attended by all five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council – America, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom – has made an important breakthrough towards defeating Islamic State and ending the conflict in Syria and Iraq.
Together with Egypt, the EU, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United Nations – the Permanent Members reached a mutual understanding that

“Da'esh (Islamic State), and other terrorist groups, as designated by the U.N. Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants, must be defeated."

This is the first time the five Permanent Members have reached such a consensus – acknowledging that prior measures not involving the use of armed force under Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178 have failed to defeat Islamic State and other designated terrorist groups – a prerequisite before there can be any hope of restoring stability and reaching lasting political solutions in Syria and Iraq.

International co-operation to defeat Islamic State through a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of armed force had previously risked being vetoed by either Russia or America in the face of earlier American objections against co-operating with any armed force which included President Assad’s troops. Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, had declared as recently as 29 September. 

“We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurds militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

However, speaking at a joint press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry after the historic Vienna meeting,  Lavrov made an important concession to America’s stance of non-co-operation with Assad – opening the way for the passage of a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of armed force under article 42 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter: of Chapter VII of the UN Charter:

“Russia is committed to fighting terrorism based on the solid basis of international law, whether we’re talking about the military interventions from air or the ground operations. These need to be conducted in agreement with the [Assad] government or with the UN Security Council.” 

Lavrov signalled an early end to the current separate American-led coalition and Russian-Iranian interventions in Syria aimed at defeating Islamic State: 

“I believe that neither the U.S. nor Russia want to go back to the so-called proxy war, but the fact that this situation makes the cooperation between the militaries ever more important is very apparent to me. We have a common enemy and we need to make sure that this enemy does not come to power in Syria or in any other country.” 

Agreement by the five Permanent Security Council Members calling for armed action by air, sea and land forces against Islamic State and other designated terrorist groups has now become a distinct possibility – meeting President Obama’s preferred position as expressed by him on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.” 

The Vienna participants reconvene within the next ten days to continue their crucial discussions.

Hopefully they will agree on pursuing the long-awaited and elusive Security Council Resolution authorising armed action  – with the long-suffering Syrian people being its ultimate beneficiaries after five horrific years of war, 250,000 deaths and millions being internally displaced and externally dispersed.

Obama’s Failure to Test Putin’s Sincerity Could Seriously Compromise America’s ME Policy, warns David Singer

Photo credt: Reuters/E.Munoz

Earlier this week I posted Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's spotlight on Abu Mazen's UN-bedazzling economy with the truth (it's proving a popular read, so please have a look if you've missed it).

And now, here's David's latest article, entitled  "Iraq Exacerbates America-Russia Standoff on Destroying Islamic State".

He writes:

America and its 62 nation coalition is becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant as Russia maintains its airstrikes in Syria and has now commenced firing cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea 1500 kilometres away.

Russia is presently contemplating entering Iraq if requested by Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi [pictured above, addressing the UN on 30 September]  – who had reportedly indicated last week that he would welcome a Russian bombing campaign to destroy Islamic State’s presence in Iraq.

Abadi then said Russian strikes were a “possibility” but had not been discussed.

Russia’s Foreign Minister – Sergei Lavrov – made Russia’s position clear on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly:

“We are polite people. We don’t come if not invited.”

Lavrov’s comment was clearly critical of the American coalition’s air strikes in Syria having being undertaken without any invitation from President Assad – dubiously being justified by America as legal to defend Iraq’s territorial sovereignty against further incursions by Islamic State from Syria.

Now just one week later Abadi has upped the ante - reportedly saying he would welcome Russian airstrikes in Iraq if they were coordinated with the American-led coalition and that he sought to maintain cordial relations with both America and Russia.

He called the American-led coalition “a small help”– adding:

“This doesn’t mean that I reject the small help. Even the one single bomb would be helpful to me”

President Obama would not have been very impressed with Abadi’s mean-spirited disparaging comment.

The American-led coalition has been bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq for more than a year – but Iraqi officials have repeatedly complained that their efforts are insufficient to decisively turn back Islamic State. The United States has spent more than $25 billion training and equipping Iraq’s military.

Valentina Matviyenko – head of Russia’s Federation Council – the upper house of parliament – said this week:

“In case of an official address from Iraq to the Russian Federation, the leaders of our country would study the political and military expediency of our Air Force’s participation in an air operation. Presently we have not received such an address”

Iraq’s concern at destroying Islamic State has been heightened following Islamic State claiming responsibility for a series of bombings that killed more than 50 people throughout Iraq on 5 October.
Abadi’s wish for Russian intervention to be co-ordinated with the American-led coalition has offered Obama probably the last opportunity to come to an agreement with Russia on forming a legally
constituted armed military force authorized pursuant to a Security Council Resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter.

Obama’s past insistence that any America-Russia co-operation be conditioned upon President Assad’s removal has stymied any possible earlier attempt.

Abadi’s timely lifeline should be grabbed by Obama before Syria and Iraq slide into an escalating conflict of indescribable carnage. Abadi could invite Russia to come to its assistance without American co-ordination if Obama continues to delay seeking Russia’s co-sponsoring of such a Resolution. Obama should heed President Putin’s advice expressed in his New York Times op-ed on 11 September 2013:

“We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression."

Obama’s failure to test Putin’s sincerity could risk America’s Middle East policy being seriously compromised.

David Singer: Syrian Sinkhole Swallowing Obama and Putin’s Credibility and Political Judgement

From today's London Times

The last of my September posts concerns Jeremy Corbyn's curiously Israelrein address to the Labour Friends of Israel (shame on the sycophants who applauded and cheered him, and well done Michael Foster!); the first of my October posts concerns the wider Middle East, and is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

Writes David Singer:

President Obama’s continuing focus on removing Syria’s President Assad to secure America’s co-operation with Russia to destroy Islamic State – whilst President Putin has now independently commenced Russian air strikes in Syria – supposedly on Islamic State forces – exposes both leaders lack of credibility and political judgement.

Obama addressing the United Nations General Assembly on 28 September asserted:

“The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo…

… Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild."

Obama’s acceptance of Russia and Iran as acceptable partners – but not Syria – makes no sense. Russia and Iran have propped up Assad’s hold on power in Syria for the last five years enabling the bloodshed and carnage in Syria to continue unabated.

Putin however argues for co-operation with Syria’s armed forces:

“We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and Kurds militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com

Putin’s undisguised contempt for the American-led coalition’s efforts to degrade and destroy Islamic State is a harsh – and arguably unfair – indictment.

Nevertheless both Presidents differing viewpoints and responses are now on the public record - and need to be reconciled before any Security Council resolution creating a UN armed force to destroy Islamic State can emerge.

Obama’s preference for a Security Council Resolution can be gleaned from his comments made at a press conference in Russia on 6 September 2013 – shortly after chemical weapons had been used in Syria to gas 1400 people including 400 children. America took the view that Assad was the culprit – whilst Russia considered that the rebel forces battling Assad was the aggressor. President Obama reasoned:

“You know, there are number a of countries that just as a matter of principle believe that if military action is to be taken, it needs to go through the U.N. Security Council…

… It is my view … that given Security Council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through Security Council action.

And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done”

www.cable.com

Eight days later – after three days of negotiations between America and Russia – the Security Council in fact adopted a resolution – jointly sponsored by America and Russia - on destroying chemical weapons in Syria - contrary to Obama’s belief that such co-operation was not possible.

Concentrating on their commonly agreed problem – destroying chemical weapons – and not who fired them – averted any possible Security Council paralysis.

Similarly Russia and America need to concentrate on jointly destroying their common agreed enemy – Islamic State – under a UN mandated Security Council Resolution – rather than acting independently – and dangerously – of each other whilst arguing about Assad’s fate as President or Syria’s inclusion in any proposed UN force.

President Putin warned that the stakes of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution are high:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.

 We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.

Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.” 

President Obama also understands the risks of acting unilaterally:

“No matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand the United States cannot solve the world’s problems alone.”

With Russian airstrikes seriously escalating the conflict in Syria, Obama and Putin need to urgently sponsor that Security Council resolution before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider. 

"America’s Policy Mistakes Give Islamic State Big Breaks": David Singer's diagnosis and remedy

Once again, with a characteristically astute latest article, here's Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:
 
America’s ongoing insistence on wanting Syria’s President – Bashar al-Assad – removed from power – continues to hinder American policy on removing Islamic State as a threat to international peace and security.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly made it patently clear to America on 2 June 2015 that the issue of removing Assad as Syria’s President should not be confused with removal of Islamic State from the world scene:

“The U.S.’s “obsession” with [President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick.

If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region…”

America should have:

1. accepted Lavrov’s sage advice;

2. acknowledged the ineffectiveness of its coalition led air strikes in preventing Islamic State rapidly expanding its occupation into large areas of Syrian and Iraqi sovereign territory causing the horrific murder, brutal beheading and ethnic cleansing of its civilian populations

3. joined Russia in preparing an alternative agreed plan of action to defeat Islamic State

America missed this opportunity – enabling Islamic State to continue its policy of conquest and subjugation contributing to the current refugee crisis now threatening to sink the European Union’s capacity to meet the tide of human misery knocking on its door. Two earlier unanimous UN Security Council Resolutions – Resolutions 2170 and 2199 – had specified measures short of military action aimed at stopping Islamic State.

Both however have failed to halt Islamic State’s brutal advance.

Resolution 2170 – passed on 15 August 2014 – clearly enunciated the Security Council’s revulsion at Islamic State’s territorial grab and genocidal intentions following the self-declaration of Islamic State in June 2014 – stressing:

"that terrorism can only be defeated by a sustained and comprehensive approach involving the active participation and collaboration of all States, and international and regional organizations to impede, impair, isolate and incapacitate the terrorist threat”

Only a third Security Council resolution urging military action binding on “all States” can hope to meet this Security Council prescription.

American Secretary for State John Kerry has apparently learnt nothing from Lavrov’s June warning – declaring mantra-like on 19 September:

“We (America and Russia) share the same goals. We share the goal of ridding the region of Isil. They (Russia) allege that they also share the goal of a political transition that leads to a stable, whole, united secular Syria.”

Kerry continues to tie the fate of Islamic State to the fate of Assad – which will assuredly fall on deaf Russian ears.

America and Russia need to jointly sponsor the passage of that third Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Islamic State by a UN-commanded armed force under Article 42 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Negotiating that Resolution’s terms can be considerably expedited by understandings being reached with Russia that once that UN Mandated-force is constituted:

1. America and its coalition partners will only continue air strikes on Islamic State as part of any such UN force

2. Those American-backed rebel forces seeking Assad’s overthrow and those Russian-backed Assad forces defending Assad will be respectively withdrawn behind agreed red lines until Islamic State is routed.

Syria’s seven million displaced people may then just be able to see the slightest glimmer of light at the end of a long and very dark tunnel.

David Singer: Russia Demands American Capitulation To Help Eradicate Islamic State

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov [pictured] has called on America to end its attempt to remove Syria’s President Assad from power in return for Russia’s co-operation to militarily confront Islamic State.

Lavrov reportedly told Bloomberg on 2 June 2015: 

“The U.S.’s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick.

If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region…”

America is part of the Friends of Syria core group known as the London Eleven that has been assisting rebel forces in Syria attempting to overthrow Assad.

Assad – backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah – has rebuffed such attempts during four years of horrendous conflict that has so far seen over 220,000 Syrians die, four million citizens made refugees and another 7.6 million internally displaced. A report published by the UN in March 2015 estimated the total economic loss since the start of the conflict was $202 billion and that four in every five Syrians were now living in poverty – 30 per cent of them in abject poverty. Syria's education, health and social welfare systems are also in a state of collapse.

America apparently intends to ignore Lavrov’s sage advice and continue to pursue its Syrian policy to oust Assad. Marie Harf  – a US State Department spokeswoman – told reporters in Washington that:

“we’re certainly not going to coordinate with a brutal dictator who’s massacred so many of his own citizens.”

That’s just an absurd proposition. That’s certainly not going to happen.”

Lavrov’s comments come at a time when Islamic State  – already controlling a large part of Syria and Iraq covering an area greater than the United Kingdom  – continues to make further advances – recently seizing the city of Ramadi 110 kilometers west of the Iraqi capital – Baghdad – and capturing the strategic northern Syrian city of Palmyra – a World Heritage listed site containing the monumental ruins of one of the most important cultural centres of the ancient world.

Islamic State reportedly controls up to 80 per cent of oil fields in Syria and has destroyed and also sold looted antiquities in Hatra, Nimrod and Mosul to acquire a major source of its funding  – sometimes for seven figure sums.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034

The American led coalition of some 62 States – meeting in Paris this week - has proved totally unable to stem the advance of Islamic State in its stated objective of restoring the Islamic Caliphate and Sharia law wherever it seizes territory. Graeme Wood – a contributing editor at The Atlantic – sums up Islamic State’s vulnerability:

"If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.” 

Only a UN sanctioned military force can hope to achieve this objective.

Obama and Putin need to urgently do a deal that sees:

1. A UN led process on the political future of Syria being undertaken without first removing Assad 

2. A UN Security Council Chapter VII Resolution passed under Article 42 of the UN Charter authorising military action against Islamic State.

Senseless head-butting needs to give way to sensible brain-storming.

David Singer: Islamic State Morphing Into Global Gehenna

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/pentagon-admits-no-strategy-to-blunt-isis-expansion/

"Islamic State Morphing Into Global Gehenna" is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Growing support for – and pledges of allegiance to – Islamic State by diverse Islamic terrorist groups world-wide are now creating horrific humanitarian problems for Christian communities in many countries – some far removed from the Middle East.

Thirty such groups have so far been identified:

• al-I’tisam of the Quran and Sunnah [Sudan] — Aug. 1, 2014 — Support
• Abu Sayyaf Group [Philippines] — June 25, 2014 — Support
• Ansar al-Khilafah [Philippines] — Aug. 4, 2014 — Allegiance
• Ansar al-Tawhid in India [India] — Oct. 4, 2014 — Allegiance
• Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) [Phillipines] — Aug. 13, 2014 — Support
• Bangsmoro Justice Movement (BJM) [Phillipines] — Sept. 11, 2014 — Support
• al-Huda Battalion in Maghreb of Islam [Algeria] — June 30, 2014 — Allegiance
• Heroes of Islam Brigade in Khorasan [Afghanistan] — Sept. 30, 2014 — Allegiance
• The Soldiers of the Caliphate in Algeria [Algeria] — 30 Sep. 2014 — Allegiance
• Jundullah [Pakistan] — Nov. 17, 2014 — Support
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) [Pakistan] Statement — Sept. 24, dated Sept. 12, 2014 — Support
• Islamic Youth Shura Council [Libya] — June 22, 2014 — Support
• Jaish al-Sahabah in the Levant [Syria] — July 1, 2014 — Allegiance
• Faction of Katibat al-Imam Bukhari [Syria] — Oct. 29, 2014 – Allegiance
• Jamaat Ansar Bait al-Maqdis [Egypt] — June 30, 2014 — Allegiance
• Jund al-Khilafah in Egypt [Egypt] — Sept. 23, 2014 — Allegiance
• Liwa Ahrar al-Sunna in Baalbek [Lebanon] — June 30, 2014 — Allegiance
• Islamic State Libya (Darnah) [Libya] — Nov. 9, 2014 — Allegiance
• Shura Council of Shabab al-Islam Darnah [Libya] — Oct. 6, 2014 — Allegiance
• Mujahedeen Indonesia Timor (MIT) [Indonesia] — July 1, 2014 — Allegiance
• Mujahedeen Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem (MSCJ) [Egypt] — Oct. 1, 2014 — Support
• Tehreek-e-Khilafat [Pakistan] — July 9, 2014 — Allegiance
• Okba Ibn Nafaa Battalion [Tunisia] — Sept. 20 2014 — Support
• Mujahedeen of Yemen [Yemen] — Nov. 10, 2014 — Allegiance
• Supporters for the Islamic State in Yemen [Yemen] — Sept. 4, 2014 — Allegiance
• al-Tawheed Brigade in Khorasan [Afghanistan] — Sept. 23, 2014 — Allegiance
• Supporters of the Islamic State in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques [Saudi Arabia] — Dec. 2, 2014 — Support
• Ansar al-Islam [Iraq] — Jan. 8, 2015 — Allegiance
• Leaders of the Mujahed in Khorasan (10 former TTP commanders) [Pakistan] — Jan. 10, 2015 — Allegiance
• Boko Haram [Nigeria] — March 7, 2015 — Allegiance

Seventy-one Chadian soldiers have reportedly been killed and 416 wounded in less than three months of fighting to crush Boko Haram. Chad has sent about 5,000 troops to fight alongside soldiers from Nigeria, Niger and Cameroon against Boko Haram whose Nigeria-based insurgency has increasingly spilled-over into neighbouring nations.

Some 13,000 Nigerians have been killed and 1.5 million have fled their homes since 2009.

Other Islamic terrorist groups can be expected to join their ranks.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/isis-beheads-pope-condemns-obama-golfs/

President Obama’s pledge to degrade and destroy Islamic State heading an international coalition of 62 like-minded nations is looking increasingly ineffectual as Islamic State rapidly morphs into a global Gehenna.

President Obama declared on 23 September 2013:

“The United States will continue to work with the entire continent of Africa and around the world to make sure that we are dismantling these networks of destruction.”

A Chapter VII Security Council Resolution is urgently required authorising the use of a UN military force to eradicate these “networks of destruction” that are now uniting into a ruthless killing machine dedicated to restoring the Islamic Caliphate.

Only an internationally sanctioned force replacing Obama’s coalition can stem the tide.

President Obama needs to get that Security Council Resolution rolling.

"America & Russia Must Be Brain Dead in Ignoring IS’s Increasing Threat To Their Vital Interests in the ME" Warns David Singer

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It is entitled  "Islamic State: Egypt wakes up – when will America and Russia?"

Writes David Singer:

Whilst the American-led coalition continues its largely ineffectual air strikes in Iraq and Syria, Islamic State has spread its barbaric tentacles into Libya with alarming rapidity.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for:

1. Attacking Tripoli’s downtown luxury hotel in January  – the Corinthian  – which left 11 dead

2. The brutal mass beheading of 21 Egyptian Christian Copts

3. A multi-pronged suicide attack that killed at least 45 people in the town al Qubbah in Libya’s east.

 4. Seizing the university in Sirte – deposed dictator Muammar Gadaffi’s hometown.

 Egypt’s President – Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi – has called for intervention by the United Nations:

“What is going on in Libya could change this country into a breeding ground that could threaten the whole region, not only Egypt. Egypt, the Mediterranean Basin and Europe have to deal with this problem because the mission was unaccomplished, was unfinished by our European friends. We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias.” 

An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was told this week by Libya’s Foreign Minister Mohamed Dayri:

"Libya needs a decisive stance from the international community to help us build our national army's capacity and this would come through a lifting of the embargo on weapons ... so as to deal with this rampant terrorism"

The Security Council ignored his plea – and with good reason.

Libya currently has two Governments – one located in Bayda and the other in Tripoli. In November 2014 Libya’s Supreme Court held the Bayda Government to be illegal and unconstitutional – a decision ignored by its two principal backers – the United States and the European Union.

Removing the arms embargo – in force since 2011– would mean new shipments of arms could risk ending up under Islamic State’s control.

The UN special envoy to Libya – Bernardino Leon – has said that Islamic State and other militants can only be defeated with a united Libyan government in place that has strong international support.
Any expectation that the United Nations can mediate between these rival Governments to forge a unity government to end ongoing hostilities and divisions in Libya is fanciful. Leon himself has frankly admitted the immediate threat Libya faces from Islamic State:

"In Libya, Islamic State has found fertile ground in the growing post revolution political instability, capitalizing also on the weakness of state institutions and state security sector"

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini has also acknowledged Libya’s parlous situation.

"What we are seeing today in Libya is a double threat: it is a threat of a country that is breaking apart and of a country where Daesh (Islamic State) is taking power and infiltrating"

President Obama’s urgently needs to rethink his September 2014 assessment that Islamic State:

1. Is not Islamic

2. Is not a state but only a terrorist organisation with no other vision

3. Can be degraded and destroyed by an American-led coalition 

Professor Deborah Lipstadt has succinctly summed up President Obama’s continuing political blindness:

“He has bent over backwards to try to separate [Islamic State] from Islam. Sometimes people try to keep an open mind. And when you have too open a mind, your brains can fall out.”

Islamic State continues to morph as groups such as “Province of Sinai “ – creating mayhem and havoc in the Egyptian desert area neighbouring Israel and Gaza –  swear allegiance to it

Islamic State will continue acquiring territory whilst military action remains unauthorised by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

America and Russia must both be brain dead in ignoring Islamic State’s increasing threat to their vital respective interests in the Middle East.