|
“Western” Media Silent As Iraq And 4+1 Inflict Huge Islamic State Defeat
Update Oct 22:
An detailed Iraqi account of the Baiji operation: Baiji District Recaptured by Iraq’s Forces in Rapid Offensive
The US-led international coalition played a minimal role at best during this weeklong offensive. From Oct. 13th-20th, the coalition conducted a grand total of just 10 strikes on Da’ish positions ‘near Baiji’. On Friday, as fighting in the district was winding down and militants were fleeing north towards Mosul or northeast towards Hawijah, the coalition dropped one bomb on one artillery piece. That’s it. While abysmal, it’s hardly surprising due to the heavy presence of the Hashd Al-Sha’abi, which the coalition actively tries to avoid aiding.
End Update – original piece follows
Yesterday saw a huge defeat of the Islamic State but "western" media hardly noted it.
Iraqi Hashd militia and the Iraqi army defeated the Islamic State fighters in Baiji refinery and Baiji city. This was a big success:
Footage aired by the state-run TV showed Iraqi troops waving flags from rooftops in Baiji as thick black smoke billowed into the air.
…
Baiji is the second most significant area recaptured in Salahuddin over the past months as pro-government forces retook the provincial capital of Tikrit in late March after weeks of clashes with the militants. The liberation of Baiji could be a prelude to Iraq’s highly-anticipated offensive into Mosul, which has served as the de-facto capital of Daesh in Iraq.
The road from Baghdad to Mosul runs south to north through Balad, Samara, Tikrit and Baiji. Tikrit was liberated in March and the fight about the Baiji refinery and Baiji city had waged since. The victory now opens the road towards Mosul, Iraq's second biggest city and in the hand of the Islamic State.
The success can be attributed mostly to Iraqi militia supported by Iran. The 4+1 intelligence and operations room in Baghdad, where Iraq, Iran, Russia, Syria and Hizbullah as well as the Hashd coordinate their efforts, advised throughout the operation. The U.S. was not involved as it does not want to work with the Hashd militia and Iran.
When looking through the daily strike reports of the U.S. lead operation Inherent Resolve one finds hardly any air strikes against IS forces around Baiji. The few that took place hit some IS "machine gun position" or "tactical fighting position". Hardly the effort that was needed to free the city. Indeed it took the Iraqi air force to do the real work:
Zaid Benjamin @zaidbenjamin
Inherent Resolve Spx Steve Warren: Dealing with small pockets in #Beiji refinery. Iraqi air-force mounted 40 airstrikes & the coalition 4.
Iraqi militia did the groundwork and the Iraqi air force covered the attack. The operation proceed under advice from Russia and Iran. The U.S. was not involved. It is no wonder then that "western" media are mostly silent about it.
There is nothing about the Iraqi victory in the Washington Post and the New York Times gives it just one sentence in a piece about the Joint Chiefs chairman. This after wall-to-wall coverage when the Islamic State first captured the refinery. Even the small mention in the NYT manages to deceive its readers about the leading party of the operation:
The American-led coalition is putting pressure on the militants on several fronts. Backed by American air power, Iraqi forces are on the outskirts of Ramadi, which was taken by the militants in May. Iraqi forces and Shiite militias captured the Baiji oil refinery, north of Baghdad, on Friday and are trying to expand the territory under their control there. On Tuesday, the Iraqi military said it had secured the nearby town of Baiji after days of fighting.
The casual reader of that paragraph will assume that the "American-led coalition" and "American air power" was responsible for the liberation of Baiji. But besides four minor airstrike in as many days that "American-led coalition" was not involved at all. The Iraqi militia supported by Russia and Iran are clearly steeling the Pentagon's show.
The U.S. fears the replacement of its sham campaign against the Islamic State by a real one run by Russia and Iran. The Joint Chiefs chairman Dunford even threatened the Iraqi premier with love deprivation:
If Russia did begin flying missions over Iraq, it would preclude the United States from flying, Dunford told the Iraqi leaders. They understood the situation, he said, and Abadi told him that Iraq has not asked the Russians to fly missions over Iraq and Russia has not offered to launch strikes inside Iraq.
Officially Abadi has not asked. But Iraqi requests were made to Moscow and answered positively. Iraq will wait a few month and then compare the Russian success in Syria with the U.S. success in Iraq. Should the campaign in Syria be more successful than the U.S. led one in Iraq it surely would consider switching its partners.
In Syria meanwhile the "moderate rebels" open more joined operations rooms with Ahrar al-Shams and Jabhat al Nusra. There is new talk about a unification of the "moderate rebels" of Ahrar al-Shams and the "moderate rebels" of Al Qaeda:
Zaid Benjamin @zaidbenjamin
Ahrar ash-Sham forge alliance with Jabhat al-Nusra one day after a CNN interview with #Qatar's FM saying that Ahrar has no links to al-Qaeda
Russian intelligence picked up talks between the the Islamic State and Nusra/al-Qaeda commanders about a united effort against the Syrian government.
The reality that all these groups submit to the same ideology and aims will soon become even more evident. That will make it more difficult for the U.S. and Turkey to continue with their sham campaign against the Islamic State while supporting the "moderates" that are joined with that professed enemy.
Meanwhile Russia continues its political efforts to end the fighting in Syria. The Syrian president Bashar Assad visited Moscow for talks with the Russian president Putin. He also had an intimate dinner with the highest figures of the Russian government – Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and Shoygu attended. After the visit the Russian president had phonecalls with the Turkish president Erdogan and the Saudi King Salman today. The foreign ministers of Russia, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Turkey will meet Friday in Vienna. There is either a deal in the making … or the war on Syria will escalate further.
[…] The casual reader of that paragraph will assume that the “American-led coalition” and “American air power” was responsible for the liberation of Baiji […]
It looks like the MSM is on a roll to manipulate the recent success of the Iraqi army as US “inspired,” as b pointed out; however, some news outlets are going beyond that. Take a look at the USA Today rag,
U.S. military chief: Iraq doesn’t want Russian help
[…] Dunford has said he is looking at options that could bolster the assistance the United States is providing to Iraq’s military, citing some recent successes the country’s armed forces have had against the Islamic State.
The United States has about 3,400 troops in Iraq to train and support Iraq’s military. Much of the country’s armed forces had to be rebuilt after a crushing defeat at the hands of the Islamic State, which is also called ISIS or ISIL, last year.
“We’re going to look at a wide range of things that we could do to help the Iraqis generate momentum and reinforce the successes that they’re starting to have,” he said.
Iraq’s military, led by its elite counterterrorism forces, retook control of an oil refinery — the nation’s largest — near the town of Beiji in recent days, said Maj. Michael Filanowski, a coalition operations officer. The refinery had been fought over for more than a year.
Several Iraqi divisions are also closing in on Ramadi after a months long offensive to push the militants out of the strategic Sunni city in western Iraq.
The city center remains in the hands of militants, who have established a sophisticated ring of defenses around the city, but Iraqi forces are continuing to take ground around it as they draw closer to its center.
Dunford said he doesn’t consider the ground war in Iraq a stalemate.
“How could it be a stalemate,” Dunford said. “ISIS has lost ground.”
Dunford’s statements are purposely interspersed within the article to make it appear as if…US military aid is not only responsible for the training and support of the Iraqi army, but also rebuilt it from scratch after it was routed by IS last year. Furthermore, it is also behind the latest victories over IS, and his comment denying a stalemate closing the article would seal the perception on the uninformed reader. At the same time, at the center of the article we find negative comments about Russia’s intervention in Syria, the same old “counterproductive” BS, blah, blah, blah.
So, what brainwashing do we have?
First, the Iraqis don’t want Russian help; second, the reason might be the “counterproductive” intervention in Syria; and third, the Iraqis are winning because of our aid, and they have sided with us, not the Russians. No mention of Iran’s help to Iraq for a decade now, or the C&C center created by the 4+1, or the Iranian-trained Iraqi militias, at the forefront of the battle against IS.
OTOH, al-Abadi is sitting-on-the-fence, playing with fire, trying to steal as much as possible while it lasts. Ultimately, Iran will decide if the Russians enter the fray in Iraq. All they need to do is send a message to al-Sistani who will issue a fatwa, a parliamentary decision will follow, and that’s it, al-Abadi is meat.
But the common Americans are also meat, the MSM brainwashing is overwhelming. No reason anyone betting on the stupidity of the American people has never lost any money so far.
Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 22 2015 0:48 utc | 43
@62 Demian, your analysis is very silly, I am afraid. There is no continuity of the British Empire to the US Empire. Such concepts are based on: a) 19th Century (and onwards) yellow press’ tabloid journalism in the USA in which conspiracy theorists posited that ‘England still controls us!’; b) the ‘tweaking the lion’s tail’ strategy popular amongst American politicians appealing to Irish immigrants and Nativists alike.; c) lazy repetition of early Soviet propaganda and later Trotskyite propaganda.
The USA did not take over from the British Empire:
i) The USA has adopted a more indirect approach (economic, ‘lawfare-centric’, ‘regulatory’, using economic hit-men, use of insurgents and terrorism, etc.) as compared to the UK’s more hard-power’ approach of invasion and permanent colonisation by British-born settlers.
ii) The USA has not physically occupied the areas from which the UK recolonised. E.g., Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.
iii) The USA’s physical ‘footprint’ abroad consists of myriad military bases spread around the world with no particular overlap with the old British Empire. The British Empire never
iv) The USA’s territorial occupation abroad has no convergence or overlap with the old British Empire. E.g, USA has. Cuba. Philippines.
v) The economic modalities of the british and American ‘power blocks’ are very different. The British Empire sought to direct all of the Empire’s skilled and high-laying industries towards the UK ‘heartland’, so that the Uk remained a high-wage manufacturing power. The USA has exported its best-paying industries abroad, and attempted to impoverish American workers and middle class in an attempt to break their political power (because the USA is run by external colonisers, namely Zionist Jews). If anything, this shows the USA to be the colonised nation, exploited by Zionist jewish billionaires, loyal to Israel. This is the precise reverse of the British Empire situation.
vi) “Hatred of Russia by their elites”: ignorant and purile. Explain to me why Kim Philby and so many other members of the british elite were loyal communists. Explain to me why Woodrow Wilson and Wall Street bankers like Baruch financed the new Bolshevik government in Russia, ensuring it did not collapse. Explain to me the Rockefeller Foudnation’s desire to unify Western and Soviet governmental systems. And of course, although ordinary Republicans or Democrats, Labour Party Members or Conservatives may have disliked Russian Communism, they had no hatred for Russia or the Russian people. You keep trying to sell the idea that the British hated Russia, it sounds racist.
vii) I explained before that your ‘America and Britain hate Russia because sea power’ comment is balderdash. I’m sorry, but it’s trash, a lazy use of a concept without an underlying factual foundation. Britain DID NOT CARE ABOUT RUSSIA BECAUSE THE TWO NATIONS’ INTERESTS AND SPHERES OF INTEREST RARELY CONFLICTED OR OVERLAPPED. The UK’s ‘sea power’ stance in the 18th and 19th Centuries made it LACK significant or prolonged conflict with Russia.
viii) The USA is not an ‘Anglo’ empire. As early as 1900, the overwhelming majority of its citizens were *not* descended from ‘Anglo’ British families. Today, perhaps 15% of Americans’ ‘DNA’ comes from ‘Anglo’ British ancestors. The rest is from Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, France, Russia, Italy, Ukraine, Latin America, Africa, etc.
ix) I am aware that Zionists do not have to be Christian. But tell me: do you find many non-Jewish Zionists in those nations where Jewish Zionists have not found a place at the top table? (Hint: No. You find none.)
x) I have studied the Zionist movement in depth. 95% trace their ancestry back to continental Europe, not the UK.
xi) ‘England’ is not a political or legal entity, and was not at the time. If you can’t even get the country name right, that says a lot for your accuracy. I may make lots to eposbecause I type fast, but you make category mistakes.
xii) England did not create Israel with the Balfour declaration. a) Israel was a multi-generaltional Zionist project, and Zionists created it over a 100-year period up to 1948.
xiii) The Balfour Declaration was wrung out of a reluctant British Government, on paid of having WW1 financial support withdrawn by the German-descended Rothschild banking family.
xiv) Britain fought Israeli terrorists in Palestine – literally, fought an insurgency – to prevent Zionists from taking control. The USA told Britain it would remove all financial support post-WW2 and crash Britain’s economy if Britain continued. Don’t you dare – don’t you DARE – repeat the lie that Britain cerated Israel. My grandfather personally risked his life in the military police to stop Irgun murderers from massacring Palestinian civilians. The Stern Gang tried to murder senior British politicians. If you think ‘Britain’ liked the idea of an Israeli state, you are painfully ignorant of history.
Demian, you really need to read some history books.
Posted by: BiffaBacon | Oct 22 2015 16:36 utc | 88
|
