Bill Roggio:
The lightning advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham and its allies from Mosul to the outskirts of Samarra, as well as its capture of several towns in eastern Diyala, all over the course of several days, appears to be part of a greater strategy to surround the capital of Baghdad before laying siege to it. This plan, to take over the “belt” region outside of Baghdad and cut off the capital, appears to be the same strategy used by the ISIS’ predecessor back in 2006.
The 2006 plan, which was drawn up by the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), the forerunner of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS), was discovered after the US found a crude map on the body of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, al Qaeda in Iraq’s leader who was killed by US forces in Baqubah in June 2006. The “Baghdad belts” map was released by Multinational Forces-Iraq during its offensive to liberate vast areas under al Qaeda/ISI control in 2007 and 2008.
Zarqawi’s plan was to seize control of the outer provinces and Baghdad’s belts, or key areas surrounding the capital. The ISI would then use its bases in the belts to control access to Baghdad and funnel money, weapons, car bombs, and fighters into the city. The ISI also planned to strangle the US helicopter air lanes by emplacing anti-aircraft cells along known routes in the belts areas around Baghdad.
In the ISI’s 2006 plan, the Baghdad belts were divided into five regions: the “Southern Belt,” which included northern Babil and southern Diyala provinces; the “Western belt,” which included eastern Anbar province and the Thar Thar area; the “Northern belt,” which included southern Salahaddin province and cities such as Taji; the “Diyala belt,” which included Baqubah and Khalis; and the “Eastern belt,” which included the rural areas east of Baghdad.
Watching the ISIS’ operations today, it appears the group is attempting to implement a strategy which is very similar, if not identical, to the previous one. This should come as no surprise; Nasser al Din Allah Abu Suleiman, ISIS’ current war minister, was a leader in al Qaeda in Iraq/ISI when the Baghdad belt strategy was implemented. Suleiman was appointed by al Qaeda in May 2010 to serve as the terror group’s top military commander after his predecessor, Abu Ayyub al Masri, was killed in a raid by Iraqi and US forces in April 2010.
US intelligence officials contacted by the Long War Journal who have extensive experience with al Qaeda in Iraq and the campaign to dislodge the group that began in 2007 said they believe the ISIS has dusted off its old plans to encircle Baghdad.
ISIS marches to the Baghdad belt
ISIS took the first step at the beginning of the year when it seized control of Fallujah and most of Anbar province. ISIS advanced to the outskirts of western Baghdad in March and April, when it captured Karma and Abu Ghraib.
After taking control of most of Anbar, ISIS launched a series of bombings and attacks in northern Babil province and southern Baghdad. The town of Jurf Al Sakhar is said to have fallen under ISIS control. The towns of Musayyib, Yusufiyah, Mahmoudiyah, Iskandariyah and Latifiyah in the so-called “triangle of death” area south of Baghdad have seen an uptick in attacks. These areas, which include a significant Sunni minority, sit along the fault line with Sunni and Shia, and were controlled by the ISI prior to the US surge in 2007.
ISIS’ control of Anbar as well as eastern areas in neighboring Syria allowed it to set its sights on northern, central, and eastern Iraq. Over the past week ISIS forces, backed by allied groups such as Ansar al Islam, Jaish Muhammad, and even the Baathist-led Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, seized control of Mosul and then swept southward, taking over Tikrit, Bayji, and several areas outside of Kirkuk before the southward advance was halted at Samarra.
My question is: where are the peaceniks who screamed that we were killing all of those Muslims?
Now, Muslim is killing Muslim, so does that make it all right?
Energy independence should be the lesson we learn.
Considering the numbers of Sunnis and Shiites it could keep them very busy a long time trying to win out over one another.
Just, please, allow those non-Muslims a chance to have amnesty somewhere.
ISIS has captured as many as 52 U.S.-made M198 howitzers in their march across Iraq in June.
The artillery weapons, which cost roughly $500,000 each, include GPS aiming systems which gives the shooter pinpoint accuracy.
Oh, goody!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/15/isil-captured-52-us-made-howitzers-artillery-weapo/
Item: Iraqi Kurdish women go to front lines to battle with ISIS jihadist invaders.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28308632
Do you recall how the Iraqi Army units, lavishly funded and trained by the US military, abandoned their posts, stripped off their uniforms, and ran, in advance of the arrival is ISIS Sunni Islamic fighters? The fleeing Iraqi soldiers were Shiites, defending traditionally Sunni real estate, to which they felt no affinity. In contrast, we now see Kurdish women, eagerly going to engage the same ISIS fighters, from which the male Iraqi army fled in fear. It’s an important lesson that these women are defending their own homeland real estate, in contrast to the Shiite Iraqi male army. People are willing to fight and die for their own homeland, where they won’t always do it to defend someone else’s homeland. The different ethnic/religious groups in Iraq don’t view a greater, unified Iraq as their homeland; their homeland consists of only that part of Iraq which was home to them and their ancestors.
In addition to present day US politicians, who made the colossal mistake of invading and destabilizing Iraq, it was World War I era European politicians who created much of the perpetual Middle Eastern woes, in drawing maps and creating nations without regard to ethnicity, religious demographics, and history (Google the Sykes Picot treaty and the Balfour Declaration).
Joe Biden is the only prominent American politician who publicly made the right call. The only chance for a stable Iraq is to have a three state partition (Kurd, Sunni, and Shia). Everyone scoffed, but Joe called it right. It’s happening now, in a very messy fashion, and it’s going to correct some of the mistakes of Sykes Picot, but at horrific cost — a century of iron fisted dictatorships, culminating in civil war unleashed by US invasion.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal): Actually Larry, you do have some things right, but you missed the boat on the real issues. Biden wanted the country divided in the current manner. This was after Saddam had taken at least two provinces and two major cities from the Kurds. The Kurds would never have been happy with Biden’s division. You can see right now that the Kurds are taking back the areas that the arabs had taken from them before the US came in and deposed Saddam.
The other thing you have wrong is that if the US had not removed Saddam from power, the Kurds would not have been liberated to build their army to this level. The uniforms and equipment I found strewn all over the Sunni part of Iraq in 2003 sure didn’t look like they were defending their home ground.
Larry, you always think you know better than those of us who were actually there on the ground. That is a typical left wing characteristic. They always know more because another lefty told them it was so. Biden could not negotiate his way out of a cup cake party thrown by a troop of Brownies.