#Iraq Army Mounts Counteroffensive in Tikrit, Mosul

From Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, "Iraq launches offensive on ISIS in Tikrit, Mosul."

And at the New York Times, "In New Show of Force, Iraqi Army Drives Back Insurgents in Major City":

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi Army on Saturday drove Islamic extremists from the center of a major city in central Iraq, for the first time mounting a concerted assault against insurgents who had charged to within 50 miles of Baghdad.

Independent sources, including local officials and witnesses, confirmed that an Iraqi Army counteroffensive had driven militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria from the center of Tikrit, including from government buildings as well as from major roads and other positions throughout the city.

But fighting was still continuing, with Iraqi war planes bombing targets inside the city late in the afternoon.

Tikrit, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein, with a largely Sunni population of 250,000, is in the Tigris River Valley, 100 miles north of Baghdad. It has long been a stronghold of antigovernment Sunnis in Iraq, and losing it would sever the insurgents’ lines of communication to Mosul and Syria. It could also strand some of their fighters in pockets south of Tikrit.

Some Iraqi military analysts said they thought it was no coincidence that army’s counteroffensive was launched now, with 180 of the 300 American advisers ordered to Iraq by President Obama arriving over the past three days, but Iraqi officials denied that there was any American role.

If the advances by the Iraqi Army are sustained, and even built upon, it would provide a much needed morale boost for an army that lost as much as a fourth of its soldiers and equipment when ISIS overran Mosul, and has lurched from one embarrassment to another since then. It has given up the oil-rich city of Kirkuk to Kurdish forces. And it has lost all of its border crossing points with Syria and Jordan to the militants, ceding to them control of most of four major provinces spanning more than 200 miles from north to south.

A spokesman for the Iraqi military, Gen. Qassim Atta, claimed that ISIS militants were withdrawing and that they had buried their dead on the grounds of a former Hussein palace in Tikrit. “Reports and surveillance show that ISIS leaders have ordered a retreat,” he said...

More.

And at Business Week, "Iraqi Army Starts Assault to Dislodge Sunni Militants."

More Than Two-Thirds of American Youth Wouldn't Qualify for Military Service, Pentagon Says

This is interesting.

At WSJ, "Recruits' Ineligibility Tests the Military":

More than two-thirds of America's youth would fail to qualify for military service because of physical, behavioral or educational shortcomings, posing challenges to building the next generation of soldiers even as the U.S. draws down troops from conflict zones.

The military deems many youngsters ineligible due to obesity, lack of a high-school diploma, felony convictions and prescription-drug use for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. But others are now also running afoul of standards for appearance amid the growing popularity of large-scale tattoos and devices called ear gauges that create large holes in earlobes.

A few weeks ago, Brittany Crippen said she tried to enlist in the Army, only to learn that a tattoo of a fish on the back of her neck disqualified her. Determined to join, the 19-year-old college student visited a second recruiting center in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and was rejected again.

Apologetic recruiters encouraged her to return after removing the tattoo, a process she was told would take about year. "I was very upset," Ms. Crippen said...

More.

I like tattoos, although I personally never seriously considered getting one, even back in the day. But those "ear gauge" things? So disgusting. I can't even look at people who have them. They're literally deformed.

Are You an American Citizen?

Some drivers are refusing to identify themselves as U.S. citizens when asked by the Border Patrol.

At KABC-15 Phoenix, "Refusing to answer Border Patrols' questions could have consequences, says attorney."

Sophisticated Tactics Key to #Isis Strength

A report at the Financial Times, via Mike Shedlock, "Divided Iraq Inevitable; Isis Targets Baghdad Green Zone; Obama's Inane Weapon's Proposal."

It's a lot of cut-and-paste, but here's the interesting part on ISIS, from FT:

“They [Isis] are going against a supposedly professional military force with a speed and ferocity that has the Iraqis taking to their heels,” says Patrick Skinner, a former counter-terrorism officer at the Central Intelligence Agency and now analyst at the Soufan Group. “The Iraqi Security Forces [ISF] are mind-crushingly inept.”

Of immediate concern is the seizure by the jihadis of a range of high-grade military equipment. A force once lightly armed with an arsenal of shoulder-held missile launchers and anti-aircraft guns mounted on pick-up trucks, Isis is now far more comprehensively kitted out, thanks to its raids on the depots of the Iraqi army’s second motorised division.

Identifying exactly what the jihadi group has in its armoury is complicated because it has been wildly embellishing its capabilities for effect on social media. But even a conservative list – corroborated by intelligence and military officials – is worrying enough. It includes unknown quantities of M114 Humvees, other armoured personnel carriers and Stinger missiles, as well as a huge cache of explosives and small arms and an unspecified number of M198 155m howitzer artillery pieces with a conventional range of 22km.

In July 2012, Isis – then still known as al-Qaeda in Iraq – began the first of two intensive insurgency campaigns that paved the way for its current fight.

“These were intelligent campaigns in design: well-resourced, prepared, executed and adapted,” says Jessica Lewis, a veteran US army intelligence officer who served in Iraq and is now research director at the Institute for the Study of War. “These are not things I might associate with a terrorist organisation. These are things I associate with an army.”

All of which raises questions about just how big Isis is. US intelligence officials posit a central fighting force of 3,000. Military and intelligence analysts put the minimum size of Isis’s larger force at 7,000 to 10,000. “They are not spreading themselves too thinly,” says Ms Lewis.

“They have matched personnel to their objectives carefully.”

As to what those objectives are, Isis’s attack pattern now seems to point squarely in one direction.

“Isis has uncommitted forces proximate to Baghdad,” says Ms Lewis. “They always meant to establish control. They always meant to break the state. They want Baghdad.” And specifically, she adds, the government-protected Green Zone...

Embassy Threats: Overseas Facilities May Face Greater Risks Due to Gaps in Security-Related Activities

At the Daily Signal, "GAO Report: U.S. Embassies at Risk Because of Security Gaps":

Security at U.S. diplomatic posts is falling short, and Benghazi is only the most visible example.

A new report on “Diplomatic Security” by the Government Accountability Office — GAO-14-655 — demonstrates the problem is systemic, leaving U.S. personnel serving overseas at unnecessary risk. At a time of rising security threats from metastasizing Al Qaeda spinoffs and other terrorist groups, this problem must be addressed immediately at the State Department.

According to the report, State conducts a range of activities to manage risk at overseas work facilities, including the setting of security standards. But GAO found State lacked a fully developed risk management policy to coordinate these activities. It is unclear what standards apply to some facilities, and in others, it took eight years for standards to be identified.

The report identified other deficiencies, including...

Keep reading.

What Did Happen Exactly to James Hong, David Wang, and George Chen?

I'm really disliking this 20/20 Barbara Walters interview with Peter Rodger, Elliot Rodger's dad.

I might blog it tomorrow. I think Mr. Rodger is lying about how "surprised" he was at his son's rampage. He even sees his son as the "victim," not the perpetrator. (Or he thought his son was the "victim" when he first got news from Isla Vista.)

Meanwhile, here's the front-page report out a week or so ago at the Los Angeles Times "UCSB friends were victims of circumstance."

Also, "Elliot Rodger may have used knife, hammer, machete in killings, attorney says."

U.S. Deploys Armed Drones Over Baghdad — #Iraq

David Martin reports, for CBS Evening News:

Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Kirkuk, #Iraq

Intense scene.

Yesterday, at Russia Today, "Six die in northern Kirkuk, as ISIS militants fight bloody war in Iraq."

Obama Pitches a Shutout at the Supreme Court on Recess Appointments

A great editorial from this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Senate 9, President 0":

The Supreme Court handed President Obama his 13th unanimous loss in two years on Thursday, and this one may be the most consequential. All nine Justices voted to overturn Mr. Obama's non-recess recess appointments as an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Over nearly 238 years of American history, the Supreme Court has never had to review the President's authority to temporarily fill vacant executive offices when Congress is adjourned. Mr. Obama's 2012 maneuver to void the Senate's advice and consent role triggered a judicial intercession, and defeats at the High Court are seldom as total as this one...

Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Supreme Court Limits Presidential Power in Recess Appointments."

Obama's Bulked-Up Plan to Aid Rebels Deepens U.S. Role in #Syria

Following-up on my last post, "#ISIS Commander Abu Omar Photographed in Tent Marked 'U.S. Agency for International Development'."

Now here's more at the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Administration Deepens U.S. Role in Syria and Iraq: Funding and Arming Fighters Presents Risks, Officials Say":

PARIS—The Obama administration ended the week deeply immersed in stemming crises in Iraq and Syria as it launches a new strategy that American and Arab officials acknowledge could be risky for the U.S. and its closest Mideast allies.

Days of high-stakes Middle East diplomacy on a trip Secretary of State John Kerry completed Friday, combined with a $500 million plan for supporting Syrian rebels announced the day before by the White House, outline a markedly expanded U.S. role in the region's chaotic security and political landscape.

A primary risk for the administration is that much of the strategy rests on the removal of Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from office, an outcome that remains deeply uncertain, according to these officials, as Baghdad embarks next week on the task of picking a new national government.

Washington's new approach also entangles the administration in a volatile thicket of interests held by America's friends and foes. Taking on a larger share of responsibility in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama finds himself funding a war against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, but aligned with the Syrian strongman in the fight against Islamic extremists who are seizing control across Iraq.

"It's a devilishly difficult circumstance to confront," said former Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad. "My experience in that part of the world is you better be very modest about what you think you are going to achieve…in part because we're stepping into what is in essence a family feud."

Mr. Kerry ended his weeklong trip to the Middle East and Europe on Friday in Saudi Arabia, in a visit that brought the Iraq and Syria crises into a single frame. The U.S. diplomat held meetings in the Red Sea city of Jeddah with Saudi King Abdullah as well as with Ahmed Jarba, head of Syria's main political opposition coalition.

Mr. Kerry noted that Mr. Jarba "represents a tribe that reaches right into Iraq," and would be crucial to countering the insurgents of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS. Like King Abdullah's mother and some of his wives, Mr. Jarba is a member of the Shammar tribe, whose ranks sprawl across the adjoining borders of Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Jarba, however, said the situation in Iraq is different than Syria. He said Mr. Maliki's divisive approach calls for "greater efforts on the part of the U.S. and regional powers to address the situation in Iraq."  Mr. Kerry, in the week's meetings with Middle East leaders in Paris, Baghdad, Erbil and Jeddah, sought to forge a regional consensus among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to create a new Iraqi government that is more representative of the country's three main communities and unified in the fight against ISIS.

But after a week of intense pressure, the Iraqi leader so far has offered no sign that he is willing to leave office. Many U.S. and Arab officials acknowledge that Washington and its allies may not be able to refrain from military action against ISIS while Baghdad sorts out its political divisions, due to advances by the al Qaeda-linked militia.

If Mr. Maliki does leave office in the selection process that begins next week in Baghdad, the administration will face a vexing choice: Get more deeply involved in a country that has little chance of holding together, or watch 10 years of U.S. investment disappear in the carnage.

U.S. officials also are contemplating military strikes against ISIS sites in Syria, a move Mr. Obama has struggled for years to avoid. Washington's closest Mideast allies—whose support Mr. Obama critically needs to execute his Iraq strategy—are pressing the White House to strike ISIS inside Syria.

"If there are bad guys and they represent a threat, you have to hit them wherever they are," said a senior Arab official who has taken part in discussions about ISIS with the U.S. in recent days. "I think they understand this now. I also think they understand how dangerous not dealing with them is."

New Emmy Rossum Pics

Following up from Monday, "Emmy Rossum Spotted in West Hollywood."

Here's more of the young lady at Popoholic, "Emmy Rossum Puts on a Ridiculously Sexy Post-Workout Show!"

#ISIS Commander Abu Omar Photographed in Tent Marked 'U.S. Agency for International Development'

It's not a new photo. Pamela Geller had this last September, "Al Qaeda group in Syria enjoying USAID." As did Robert Spencer, "Al Qaeda-linked Syria group enjoying USAID?":

In any case, if this photo is real, it indicates yet again that our leadership in Washington is utterly clueless, and that their assurances that we are aiding only “moderates” are completely hollow.

According to the Religious Freedom Coalition:

The tent is part of the “non-lethal” aid that President Barack Obama bragged about sending to Syria’s “legitimate” resistance and civilians. Most news sites say the photo “purports” to be of Kavkaz wa Sham, however, the placement of the shadows clearly shows that this photo has not been photo-shopped.

Whatever. Regardless of the authenticity of the photo, Abu Omar is indeed in Syria, as reported earlier at the Long War Journal, "Chechen commander leads Muhajireen Brigade in Syria." And at the BBC, "Syria crisis: Omar Shishani, Chechen jihadist leader."

According to Wikipedia, Abu Omar:

...was named commander of the northern sector of Syria by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the summer of 2013. Units under his command have participated in major assaults against Syrian military bases in and around Aleppo, including the capture of Menagh Airbase in August 2013.[2] He is considered "one of the most influential military leaders of the Syrian opposition forces."

This is all the more important now in light of the Obama administration's approval of at least $500 million in military aid for the "moderate" rebels in Syria. See the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Proposes $500 Million to Aid Syrian Rebels: Program to Train and Equip Moderate Opposition Would Expand U.S. Role in Civil War":

WASHINGTON—The White House on Thursday proposed a major program to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels, in a significant expansion of the U.S. role in a civil war that officials fear is bleeding into Iraq and across the region.

The Obama administration requested $500 million—a larger amount than expected—to aid the Syrian opposition, reflecting growing U.S. alarm at the expanding strength of Islamist forces in Syria, who in recent weeks have asserted control of large parts of neighboring Iraq and now pose threats to U.S. allies in the region.

Coming on the heels of a decision to send 300 military advisers to Iraq, the Syrian rebel training elevates the U.S. role in the Middle East.

The proposal amounts to a major U-turn by the administration, which had sought until now to limit its involvement in the war.

However, the expanded U.S. involvement will be on President Barack Obama's terms, by emphasizing the use of partner forces, and not the direct use of American combat forces.

Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Minneapolis on Thursday, Mr. Obama emphasized that he didn't want U.S. forces fighting in the Middle East, but said recent violence has focused attention on the region.

"We've got to pay attention to the threats that are emanating from the chaos in the Middle East," Mr. Obama said.

Officials stressed there are hurdles to overcome before the expanded Syrian rebel program goes into effect, including obtaining congressional approval; figuring out how to effectively vet large numbers of rebel fighters so the U.S. doesn't end up training extremists; and persuading countries in the region to host the effort.

Officials said the program may not actually begin until next year. They said the first batch of fighters could complete training roughly six to eight months after the proposed program is authorized and funded by Congress.

Still, the move amounts to an about face by an administration that had sought to strictly limit its role in the Syrian civil war.  Related Iraq Parliament to Start Talks on New Government Think Tank: Addressing the Conflict in Syria Is the Way to Move Forward in Iraq...

Yeah, "vetting" the extremists might be important, yo.

'Americans Will Shed a River of Blood' — #ISIS Threatens U.S. in Social Media Propaganda Campaign

Jenan Moussa reports:

ISIS threatens U.S: 'If United States bomb #Iraq, every American citizen is a legitimate target for us' Read http://t.co/MeeqRtvRqK @akhbar

— Jenan Moussa (@jenanmoussa) June 27, 2014

This is the hashtag used by ISIS supporters all over the world to threaten/ warn U.S not to bomb #Iraq ----> #CalamityWillBefallUS

— Jenan Moussa (@jenanmoussa) June 27, 2014

And at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, "Emboldened ISIS Threatens Americans, and the Jewish Journal of Greater L.A., "ISIS propaganda campaign threatens U.S."

Bill Clinton Blames George W. Bush for #Obama Administration's Complete Capitulation to Global Jihad

Utter shameless political opportunism from the disgraced president whose own policy the George W. Bush administration implemented in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Once again, the left proves it will do anything to cling to power, even when all objective analyses see the current Middle East meltdown as the worst crisis in American national security since the Carter era.

At Pat Dollard's, "Bill Clinton Blames Bush for Return to Power of Al Qaeda in Iraq After Obama Recklessly Removed All U.S. Troops, Bases."

Also at WSJ, "Bill Clinton Calls Dick Cheney’s Attacks on Obama ‘Unseemly’."

And see National Review, "After Supporting War, Bill Clinton Now Blames Bush for Iraq."



BONUS: Dick Cheney responds, "Former Vice President Dick Cheney goes after Obama at energy trade show."

Mississippi Tea Party Leader Mark Mayfield Dead of Apparent Suicide

At the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, "Update: Tea party leader Mayfield dead of apparent suicide."

Also at the Los Angeles Times, "Mississippi tea party leader arrested in bizarre photo scandal is dead":

Tea party official Mark Mayfield, charged in connection with a scandal involving photos of Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran's ailing wife, has been found dead and police said they suspect suicide.

Ridgeland Police Chief Jimmy Houston said the body of Mayfield, who was an attorney, was found Friday morning at his house outside Jackson, Miss., and that a suicide note was found at the scene, the Associated Press reported.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant released a statement early Friday...

More at Twitchy, "Reports: Mississippi attorney charged in Cochran nursing home photo scandal commits suicide."

Outrageous! Mexican Military Helicopter Fires on U.S. Border Patrol Agents in Arizona

At Gateway Pundit, "Mexican Military Choppers Cross Over Into US – FIRE ON BORDER AGENTS!", and Memeorandum.

More from Katie Pavlich, "Border Patrol Agents: Cartels May Have "Rented" Cover From Mexican Military Helicopter in Shooting Incident":

Thanks for the apology about shooting at our Border Agents, Mexico. Now give us back our Marine #MarineHeldInMexico
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) June 27, 2014

On Thursday morning between midnight and 6 a.m. at least one Mexican military helicopter crossed eight miles into the United States and shot at Border Patrol agents with lethal force before returning to Mexican territory. The incident occurred in an area notorious for violent drug cartel activity just west of the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation during a Border Patrol drug interdiction operation. The timing and location of the incident has prompted agents to believe the use of the helicopter by the Mexican military may have been on behalf of drug cartels operating in the area.

"Mexican military are oftentimes working hand in glove with the cartels. The Mexican military has routinely crossed the border in areas that Border Patrol agents are actively tracking or seizing drug loads. Inevitably the Mexican military claim they got lost, that the border was not clearly marked, or in extreme cases fire on agents to cover their retreat," National Border Patrol Council Spokesman Shawn Moran exclusively tells Townhall. "Ajo, AZ Border Patrol agents have had several incidents like this over the years where they have taken shots from the Mexican military. The cartels' resources are nearly limitless and it would not surprise me if they "rented" the cover by the Mexican military helicopter in this incident."

A Border Patrol agent stationed in Arizona, who asked to remain anonymous, backed up Moran's statements saying the Mexican military regularly works with cartels on the border and has been doing so for years.

The Mexican government has apologized for the shooting, but has not explained why the helicopter was in the area.

Obama's Libya Intervention Created North Africa's Worst Terror State, Drug Trafficker, and Arms Exporter

The Obama administration's cluster of "kinetic military action."

At the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale":

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group "just to touch us and thank us," recalled Susan Rice, President Obama's national security advisor.

The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi's foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a "model intervention."

But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict.

"If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result," said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. "The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs."

Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn't want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

Libya has become North Africa's most active militant sanctuary, at the center of the resurgent threat that Obama warned about in a May address at West Point. A 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Arms trafficking from Libya "is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents," an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

More than 50,000 people, including refugees from Syria and migrants from North Africa, have flooded into Europe through Libya's porous borders, sharpening the continent's immigration crisis.

The latest U.S. State Department travel warning portrays Libya as a society in near-collapse, beset by crime, terrorism, factional fighting, government failure and the wide availability of portable antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down commercial airplanes...

Also at the far-left Jacobin, "Libya and Its Contexts: The Libyan campaign not only caused extensive death and human rights violations, but it may usher in decades of more war."

Global #Jihad Spreading Chaos and Fear — And 'This Has Nothing to Do With Islam'!

London's Daily Mail had a great piece Wednesday tying all the various jihadist attacks together into a logical program of worldwide terror, "From Syria to Iraq, Kenya to Malaysia: How new era of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading fear and chaos around the world."

But the newspaper ruined the piece by citing some bozo "Middle East security analyst," Andreas Krieg, who inexplicably argued that:

'All the empirical evidence shows that it is on the rise. You're seeing it in all the headlines, then you're looking at Iraq, you're looking at Syria, you're looking at Nigeria.

'But in all three cases this has nothing to do with Islam. I think people in the West may think it is because they feel alienated by Islam. There is alot of Islamaphobia.'

I promptly blew off this otherwise interesting piece as unworthy, and would have forgotten about it, but Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch was flabbergasted that this Krieg idiot's comments passed for "expert" analysis at Daily Mail. See, "“Middle East security analyst”: rise of global jihad “has nothing to do with Islam”":

How could a “radical interpretation of Islam” have “nothing to do with the religion”? How is it that these groups that uniformly explain and justify their actions on the basis of Islam have nothing to do with Islam? How is it that a group that calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant and another that calls itself the Congregation of the People of the Sunnah for Dawah and Jihad have nothing to do with Islam? Why is it that study after study has shown that jihadis are actually generally wealthier than their peers, and yet Krieg asserts that the jihadis are “disillusioned by austerity” and thus turn to Islam? Why is it that this palpable nonsense gets printed in the mainstream media without a murmur of dissent?

Why is only Krieg quoted and no one who looks at the available evidence and says that the rise of the global jihad has everything to do with Islam? Why does the ever-witless Daily Mail not ask Krieg to give anything more than the barest explanation for his counterfactual claims? Why does the mainstream media always rush to exonerate Islam of all responsibility for the ever-mounting number of atrocities done in its name and inspired by its texts and teachings, instead of confronting the ideology that jihadis say motivates and inspires them and formulating positive and effective ways to limit its power to incite to violence?

I’d love to debate Andreas Krieg about this question. But I am sure that he would refuse to do so.

U.S. Air Power Won't Save #Iraq

From Erica Borghard and Costantino Pischedda, at the National Interest, "Why American Air Power Won't Save Iraq from ISIS":

President Obama’s [last] Thursday speech outlining America’s response to the situation in Iraq alluded to the possibility of an expanded U.S. role there, which could involve some form of aerial support to Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) fighting on the ground against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other Sunni Arab insurgents. The coordination of air power and Iraqi allies on the ground (perhaps with a limited presence of American Special Operations Forces) would mirror U.S. interventions in Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya in 2011. The principal objective of a limited aerial intervention in Iraq would be to provide battlefield support to ISF to change the dynamics on the ground, decisively halting ISIS’s offensive and reversing its recent territorial gains. While this approach was tactically and operationally successful in Afghanistan and Libya, its long-term strategic benefits in those cases are more uncertain. There is no reason to expect that a similar intervention in the unfolding crisis in Iraq will further long-term American strategic interests—even if it achieves limited tactical successes.

At first glance, Iraq would seem to be an ideal setting for reenacting the Afghan/Libyan model. As it did in Afghanistan and Libya, airpower could have a decisive impact on the outcome of what are essentially conventional battles between Sunni insurgents and ISF. However, a closer look at those cases does not provide much ground for optimism. First, the antigovernment forces would adapt their tactics in response to American airpower and thus make it less effective. Similar to the response of Qaddafi’s forces to NATO bombing, ISIS and its allies would eschew massing their forces in the open in conventional formations (thus posing as targets for American precision bombs); their forces would instead disperse, take cover and conceal, which would significantly reduce their vulnerability from airpower, without necessarily ending their offensive. This tactical adjustment would not necessarily allow the insurgents to hold on to their newly conquered territory indefinitely. As the Libya case clearly shows, a prolonged intervention with precision airpower in conjunction with local ground forces can weaken and help overcome local opponents through attrition. With sufficient time, airstrikes would enable ISF to defend the territory it currently holds and even reclaim territory lost to ISIS forces.

A key point, though, is that U.S. intervention from the air will not bring about these results quickly. Indeed, the NATO operation in Libya took far longer and involved significantly more firepower than the allies initially anticipated. A few pinprick attacks are unlikely to alter the trajectory on the ground; and a more sustained military campaign would require firm American political will—something that may not be in the cards.

Second (and more crucial), in response to a successful counteroffensive on the part of the Iraqi government, supported by U.S. airpower, ISIS would certainly switch to the kind of guerrilla tactics in which it proved so proficient in the past (just as the Taliban did after its early defeat in 2001). In this scenario, ISIS and other insurgent groups, benefiting from the support of significant segments of Iraq’s Sunni population, could sustain a high-intensity guerrilla campaign against the Iraqi government for a long period of time. This reinvigorated insurgency may make the year preceding the insurgent “surge” (with hundreds of terrorist and hit-and-run attacks and over 1,000 deaths a month) look like a period of relative stability. Thus, an aerial intervention would not provide a lasting solution; at best, it would merely push ISIS and the broader Sunni resistance back to the position they were in just some months ago.

At its heart, the crisis in Iraq stems from an underlying political problem that military means alone cannot address. Namely, Maliki’s ethnosectarian policies—in particular, the systematic marginalization and humiliation of the Sunni minority—have provided fertile ground for the growth of several insurgent organizations (some Baathist, some Jihadist) claiming the mantle of defenders of Iraq’s beleaguered Sunnis. An American intervention would reduce Maliki’s incentive to institute the much-needed political reforms that would give the country’s Sunni community a stake in the future of the country. Put simply, this is an ethnosectarian war (with an important transnational Islamist component) whose long-term solution won’t be brought about from 15,000 feet in the air.

One might object to this noninterventionist approach, pointing to a series of negative consequences that may result. These concerns are not baseless, but either rest on implausible worst-case-scenario assumptions, or identify risks and costs that could only be avoided by taking even riskier and costlier courses of action...

More.

An interesting analysis.

But it ignores a key point that Ralph Peters made the other day: A political solution won't be enough. The way to stop the ISIS onslaught is to kill the jihadists. See, "Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: 'Air Power Alone' Won't Stop #ISIS."

More Than Half of British Households Take More in Government Benefits Than They Pay in Taxes

It's unsustainable.

At Telegraph UK, "More than half of homes take more than they contribute: Official figures reveal record numbers of people who receive more in benefits and public services than they pay in tax":

In March the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned forcing Britain’s highest earners to foot a greater share of the tax bill is putting the long term finances at risk.

“Lumping more taxes on the rich” is not a sustainable strategy because the ability and willingness of high earners to pay more could eventually run out, the IFS suggested.

Just 300,000 high earners now pay 30 per cent of all income tax and 7.5 per cent of all tax, official figures show. Households with an average income of £104,000 paid £30,000 more in tax than they received from the state last year, ONS figures show.

The top ten per cent of earners contributed £26,984 in income and council tax, plus £10,303 in indirect taxes such as alcohol duty and VAT – a contribution to the public purse of £37,287. They received £2,284 in state cash benefits, which include child benefit, maternity pay and pensions.

The cost of educating their children came to £1,274, while they used NHS treatment worth £3,410 – meaning their total cost to the Exchequer was £7,264.

By contrast, a family with the national median income of £23,069 received £3,798 more in benefits and services than they paid in taxes last year.

They paid £4,620 in direct tax and £5,029 in indirect taxes, but received £6622 in cash benefits. They received schooling worth £2623 and NHS services worth £4,202. In total, they paid in £9,649 and received £13,477. It means for every £1 they paid in, they got £1.40 back.

The poorest ten per cent of families, with wages of £3,875 a year, paid £4,611 in direct and indirect taxes and received £13,559 in cash benefits and services. It means they received £2.94 in state support for every £1 they paid in tax.

The figures also show middle class families have seen the steepest fall in living standards since the financial crisis.

Also at the Daily Express UK, "Most households in Britain get more in benefits than they pay out in tax, new figures show," and London's Daily Mail, "Half of families receive more from the state than they pay in taxes but income equality widens as rich get richer."