ISIS: Understanding Asymmetry -- Now Paris

An Update -- January, 2015:

MeanMesa is re-posting this from October, 2014, due to its increased relevance to events in France last week. This decision is more than an "I told you so," because what is described in this post -- events in Canada last year -- are now becoming much more likely to be repeated in the present. The ISIL "caliphate's" edict to all supporters everywhere --"fight everywhere with whatever weapons you've got" -- is, perhaps, the ultimate in asymmetric warfare effort the world has witnessed in a very long time.

MeanMesa suggests having another look at what events have led up to the Paris attack.

Be safe.

A Confusing Paradigm

Is this an attack? Is this terrorism?

What is this?

News in the last week or so has, predictably, focused on what are frankly unusual episodes of violent attacks against military and governmental personnel in Canada and the United States. Westerners, seeing these accounts, are understandable perplexed. These attacks don't seem to have any particular military value, and they also seem to "fall flat" in terms of evoking very much terror from the greater populations.

[MeanMesa will continue to refer to the Sunni rebels in Syria and Iraq as "ISIS," presuming that the group will probably return to this name sooner or later. In the meantime, who cares?]

Three of the most recent of these unusual, isolated attacks are reported in the following news stories. Have a look at these "samples," and then we'll get down to figuring out what they mean -- or might mean.

BBC

1. New York axe attack 'terrorist act by Muslim convert'

25 October 2014
[BBC - excerpted. Read the original article here.]

[photo New York Police Department]

Police in New York say an axe attack on two officers was a terrorist act carried out by a radicalised Muslim convert.

Zale Thompson, 32, was shot dead after wounding the two officers, one critically, in Queens on Thursday.

Commissioner William Bratton said Thompson was not on any watch lists but had browsed al-Qaeda web sites and watched beheadings.

A bystander shot in the incident is critical but stable in hospital.

'Loner'

Witnesses said the man deliberately targeted the foot-patrol officers, charging them and then swinging the axe two-handed.

One officer, Kenneth Healy, 25, was hit on the head and was listed as critical but stable in hospital. The other officer was hit on the arm.

The officers fired several rounds, killing the attacker and wounding a female bystander, police said.

Canadian Parliament Building [image - CBS News]

2. 2014 shootings 

at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

A series of shootings occurred on October 22, 2014, at Parliament Hill and nearby in Ottawa, Canada. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau fatally shot Corporal Nathan Cirillo, a Canadian soldier on ceremonial guard duty at the Canadian National War Memorial. He then launched an attack in the nearby Centre Block parliament building, where members of the Parliament of Canada were attending caucuses. Zehaf-Bibeau was killed inside the building in a gunfight with parliament security personnel. Following the shootings, the downtown core of Ottawa was placed on lockdown while police searched for any potential additional threats.

[Excerpted. Read entire WIKI article here.]

3. 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu

 ramming attack

[image MeanMesa]

The 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack was an attack in which a car was deliberately rammed into a group of Canadian soldiers in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, Canada, on October 20, 2014 at 11:30 a.m. ET. The attack was perpetrated by a radicalized Muslim convert, Martin Couture-Rouleau, who killed Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent before himself being killed by police following a police chase.

Attack

A 25-year-old terrorist, Martin Couture-Rouleau, a French-Canadian, rammed a car into two Canadian Armed Forces soldiers. He sat in a parking lot for over two hours before attacking the two soldiers. Couture-Rouleau was a 25-year-old with extensive police encounters who had become a Muslim convert in 2013 and was a supporter of ISIL. Couture-Rouleau used his car to run down the two soldiers before being fatally shot by police during an ensuing car chase. One of the soldiers, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, age 52, subsequently died from his injuries.

[Excerpted. Visit the original WIKI article here.]

An Abbreviated Glimpse at "Asymmetry"

Definitions might keep this post "on the tracks."

Because the "essence" of these events is based the asymmetric tactics ISIS is utilizing in pursuing the "foreign" part of its ambition to establish its caliphate, a couple of general definitions may provide visitors with a "base line understanding." This may be important, because MeanMesa suspects that we will be seeing more events similar to these in the weeks and months ahead.

Asymmetry is the absence of, or a violation of, symmetry (the property of an object being invariant to a transformation, such as reflection). Symmetry is an important property of both physical and abstract systems and it may be displayed in precise terms or in more aesthetic terms. The absence of violation of symmetry that are either expected or desired can have important consequences for a system.

[Read the WIKI article here.]

Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.

Asymmetric warfare can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the weaker combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality. Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized. This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.

The term is frequently used to describe what is also called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "terrorism", "counterinsurgency", and "counter terrorism", essentially violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, less equipped and supported, undermanned but resilient opponent.

 [Read the WIKI article here.]

Bombs, Guns, Videos and Psychology

Well rounded terrorism for the 21st Century

A general theme of "asymmetric response" has run through the tactics of insurgent planning for several years, but the introduction of a more "institutional" style of military response to meet such insurgencies has provided an incentive for them to even further refine such practices. The final verdict is still out as to the long term effectiveness of selecting this "institutional" military response. There really are alternatives.

Obama Doctrine: 'Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail'

[DailyKos]

["Institutional military assets?" Even amid an almost frantic barrage of pessimistic criticism, the Obama Administration has resolutely stuck to the idea of using low exposure "institutional" military assets -- at least so far as what is offered for public consumption -- in its response to ISIS. This means jet fighter bombers, drones and ship to surface missiles. The previous "President" chose to use massively more, high exposure "institutional" military assets in campaigns in the region which included tanks and lots of combat troops and Marines.]

An insurgency such as ISIS can be considered a "hybrid" form of traditional terrorists. Unlike an organization such as Al Qaeda, ISIS has been able to muster and equip ground forces and hold territory, but all of this military activity has been specifically regional and -- so far -- very "low tech." "Institutional" military power can be defined as being comprised of assets which provide the capability of "projecting power." 

In this regard, ISIS is having difficulty even "projecting" its military power to readily accessible targets such as the nearby city of Kobane.

The "hybrid" idea comes into relevance when we consider that ISIS is a military power in its immediate vicinity, but one which must rely on more conventional psychological terrorism to "project" terrorism beyond the borders of the territory it currently holds. One side of this "projection" can be seen in the publicized video accounts of "crowd management" atrocities being committed within its territory.

However, no matter how shockingly sanguine these videos may be, none of them can imply a direct, material threat to their audience in the West. They may cause nightmares among some of those they reach, but their impact, while causing "conceptual" fear, does not evoke the type of fear one might expect from, say, the approach of an invading army or even something along the lines of the 9/11 attacks.

So, what can ISIS do to "fill this vacuum?"

For this answer we can return to the examples provided above.

An Army of Ones

"Making do" - Middle East style...

Remembering Rumsfeld: "You go to war with the Army you have -- not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

[Read the entire article Crooks and Liars - here.]

First, kindly indulge MeanMesa in a brief, "Sentimental Journey" back to 9/11.

What did bin Laden want?

By now we see that the conveniently simple "urban myth" that bin Laden was motivated to anger by US troops in Saudi Arabia was no more than a necessary fabrication to satisfy the curiosity of already geographically addled American public. Quite the contrary, Bin Laden saw an opening opportunity seldom matched even in the long string of coincidences littering modern history.

Al Qeada's leader saw incompetent, effeminate President was controlled by a cravenly ambitious "billionaire wanna be" who stood to gain literally billions if war with Sadam Hussein could be triggered by a terrorist attack. In hindsight, bin Laden probably didn't care much at all about the "purity and innocence" of the Saudi sands, Afghanistan or Iraq.

bin Laden wanted to impale the American economy. He had a good plan, and -- $6 Tn later -- his Al Qaeda operatives executed it quite well. While we can hardly blame bin Laden's efforts for all the painful aspects of the 2008 Bush Economic Disaster, the results of his work certainly didn't help and, in fact, set the stage for many of them.

The Difference Between bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Modern ISIS

9/11 -- regardless of whom one might currently suspect of having quietly "being in charge" -- was a masterful clockwork with each component specifically tailored to take advantage of existing "weak links" in the US security apparatus. Most of those "weak links" are now gone, making an ISIS repetition of such a complex scheme incredibly more difficult.

Although ISIS has demonstrated a respectable "savvy" at issues such as appealing to recruits and public image development through social media with the dual intentions of soliciting sympathizers and terrifying everyone else, the group has yet to show much evidence of the capacity required for a major terrorist attack similar to 9/11.

Interestingly, "money" may not be what's holding ISIS back, either.

Instead, two factors are much more likely at play in the thinking of the ISIS "high command."  

First, unlike conditions facing Al Qaeda, the odds of failing are significantly greater, and a highly public failure would "throw a wrench" in the caliphate's international recruiting program. And, remember, these insurgents are not only recruiting ground troops, they are also quite interested in recruiting "sponsors" with check books and an axe to grind.

Absolutely nothing screws up fund raising of this sort as much as a gloriously expensive, highly public, poorly planned, outrageously over ambitious screw up does.

Second, unlike conditions facing Al Qaeda, ISIS is incredibly more "publicly known." Even in the "double secret" bunker below the ISIS command center, you can probably "feel the buzz" from the thousands of  spy gizmos now focused on every move the insurgents are making, discussing or even fantasizing while fast asleep in one of their delusional terrorist wet dreams.

This leaves us ready to discuss the "Army of Ones" idea.

If you are in command of ISIS, just about now you are finding more and more of your stolen equipment has been reduced to burned out wreckage all across the Anwar desert, your purloined oil wells have been reduced to stuff you can only sell to recycled metal dealers, your "Blitzkrieg" advance across the tatters of Syria seems to be "petering out" in the middle of no where and the "bright shiny object" with the strategic potential to become a glittering propaganda show piece that had so ignited your dreams, Kobane, looks like it's about to send your crack siege troops packing.

The great beheading videos which worked so well have fallen victim to the inevitable entropy of the US media's "headline cycle" and are now more like a stubborn toothache -- an annoying tid bit from "yesterday's news" that only elicits a passing "Yeah, I guess I heard something..." at US water fountains.

Then you have an idea.

Why not juice up some recruit "wanna be" where ever you can find one with the idea of narcotically righteous, random self-sacrifice in a half baked, utterly amateurish, screw ball attack on any near by "soft target." "Drive over an unsuspecting soldier in your car!" "Shoot the bored honor guard at the veterans' memorial when he's not looking!" "Empty your clip in the Parliament's hall way!"

Your dream is that these will convince the 400 million people living in the United States and Canada that it's only a matter of time until snarling, covert ISIS fighters will begin appearing everywhere -- spewing death and horror -- from Fort Yukon to Miami.

Unhappily, the same 400 million people have already invested as much of their life energy -- and media attention -- in your back woods terrorism scams as they intend to -- yawn...winter's coming, Thanksgiving is just around the corner and some of them are having an election. 

MeanMesa thinks that maybe the ISIS big shots are thinking that George W. Bush is still in the Oval Office. Sorry guys. Not all US Presidents come from gated mansions in Connecticut -- some of them come from South Chicago. Meet the black guy.

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.

An ISIS Primer

The Oil Soaked, Religious, Arab Desert 

Politics of Revenge, Ambition and Betrayal

Wet dynamite packed in the trunk of a stalled Pinto parked in the rain

What could possibly go wrong?

Fairly reasonable estimates put the total number of "participants" in the ISIS rebellion at somewhere around 30,000 - 40,000. This isn't the number of "fingers on the trigger," but, instead, this represents the full collection of Islamists ranging from casually sympathetic to completely and feverishly dedicated. We can safely assume that a good number have "joined up" simply because conditions of life where they were had become so terrible that practically anything looked like an improvement.

Future caliphates don't have much to offer beyond promises, but they don't need much more.

The "WWII thing" would have been somewhat accurate a month or two ago. Events at that time were painting a new face on what we had seen of terrorism previously. The "militias" were taking and holding territory in Northwestern Syria and Eastern Iraq -- that was something quite different from the "fly by and blow it up" approach we had seen everywhere before.

Right away, however, we need to take a closer look at the "territory" which was being taken. Northwestern Syria was essentially a "freebie" given that most of Assad's ground forces were entangled with stubborn rebel fighters in the other end of the country. The Syrian dictator's air force was continuing to make "show the flag" sorties over the ISIS held regions, but these amounted to little more that "three times a week reminders" from Damascus that "We'll get around to you after we've finished in the South."

The plains of Eastern Iraq presented a slightly different situation, but, in the end, one destined to suffer the same outcome. The Baghdad government had remained paralyzed by the Shi'ite looters who had been installed at the end of the occupation. In hindsight, it is now quite clear that the Iraqi soldiers charged with facing the ISIS threat in combat were thoroughly convinced that, win or lose, they could expect nothing more than continuing exploitation from Baghdad.

We need to remember that those forming the Iraqi "democracy" were being counseled by Viscount Bremer, US Governor of Iraq, presenting the grotesque Bush W. version of the US democracy for a model.

Taking a Hard, Tactical Look at ISIS

Please remind everyone who'll listen that this ISN'T WWII.

Especially the war mongering geriatrics in Congress.

The surrender of Mosul and their retreat from the battle field may have appeared surreal to those of us accustomed to European armies, but when the "proposed combat" is a zero sum game, MeanMesa sees the frantic withdrawal of the Iraqi military as completely understandable and essentially inevitable. Interestingly, there was potentially an opportunity for a withdrawal which might have included also withdrawing the substantial equipment deployed with the Iraqis, but -- tellingly -- even this was abandoned. [Read more here: New York Times]

There was no lingering interest in "returning to the fight" in the minds of the Iraqi military running toward Baghdad after Mosul's fall. This is evidence of how deep and complete the demoralization inflicted by the Baghdad government had become in the Iraqi military.

The forces now being fielded by Baghdad are being energized by groups such as the Mahdi Shi'ite militias which the US occupation had so much trouble suppressing in places like Sadr City. It turns out that no matter how far along the military violence in the region may have progressed, there is always still time to transform it into sectarian warfare. The political version of this same divisive impulse in the Baghdad government delivered the intractable mess currently unfolding, so it's not surprising that the rise of the materially military form of the same thing is part of the result.

These are the wages of apartheid, Middle Eastern style. [Read more here: Foreign Affairs - Keven Russel]

Supplying Gasoline and Cash to the Caliphate

Even stolen trucks have thirsty gas tanks...

The "WWII thing" really begins to evaporate when we consider precisely what assets ISIS has within the new "caliphate."

For starters, the revenue generating ISIS "oil refineries" scattered around the Northern Syrian desert would be mistaken for junk yards everywhere else in the world, and, if they didn't look like junk yards before the first waves of bombing, they do now. Permanently junk or not, you can't hide them, you can't move them, and you probably can't build very many news ones from what's left.

Exactly this presents the first "supply challenge" faced by the "caliphate" -- gasoline or diesel. The "home refineries" produce, at best, slightly refined crude oil. The current "market" for this refinery product is, generally, in Turkey and Syria. It cannot be used to fuel gasoline powered engines and, although it might run a diesel engine, it would not be good for it. Black market trucks load up with this barely refined crude -- black market priced somewhere around $20/barrel -- and haul it to "full" refineries across the Turkish border to the north where it is further refined into gasoline or diesel.

Most of this refined black market gasoline or diesel is marketed in Turkey, but some of it is loaded back into the trucks that brought the crude and sent back to the fuel hungry ISIS vehicles in the "caliphate." The diplomatic branch of the coalition is pressuring Turkey to take steps needed to curtail this cross border flow -- both ways. The coalition is also quite interested in ferreting out refineries which might be supplying fuel to ISIS directly.

This explains the almost obsessive ISIS interest in capturing Kirkuk, the site of established "full" oil refineries. With control of this area ISIS would move significantly closer to enjoying a self-sustaining gasoline or diesel supply along with a major increase in revenue from refined product sales. [Read more: Reuters]

Kirkuk Refinery [image Kirkuk-Now]

Many oil refineries processes include an on-site crude oil topping unit scaled to provide gasoline for the vehicles servicing the plant. The small on site refinery at Kirkuk also produces fuel for the power grid. Should ISIS manage to capture one of these in tact, it could then be up scaled to more or less permanently solve the ISIS fuel problems.

The back yard refineries have been generating ISIS revenue at a respectable rate but an incredible inefficiency. Neutralizing this revenue stream was clearly one of the objectives of the coalition air strikes in Syria. Some of the "big money" revenue for ISIS is generated by sales of crude oil from the refineries they have captured and held, and another substantial part is from direct donations originating in primarily Gulf states. [Read more here: Fortune (July 2014)]

ISIS: Where Can We Store All This Stuff?

We need to keep it handy across a 500 mile wide caliphate.

Additionally, what we might first imagine as something similar to a US National Guard armory full of supplies or a military transportation center full of trucks would be a far departure from what ISIS was using for these purposes. This issue unavoidably "bleeds" into the further question of "Who's actually in charge?"

Also, we have all seen plenty of video of ISIS fighters packed into fairly new pick up trucks bristling with guns roaring across the desert. Every once in a while these scenes also include a few tanks, low-boy trailers carrying anti-aircraft missiles and a collection of field artillery that looks suspiciously similar to old US issue 105 mm. Howitzers.

The Spider Web Caliphate [image source]

The "ISIS colored" area on the map [right] would greatly under represent the "secured caliphate" in the eyes of ISIS, but this discrepancy would reflect more on the uncertainty of exactly what an "ISIS controlled area" actually means. MeanMesa suspects that all that is required is that a field commander can order ISIS fighters into such a place without expecting resistance.

[The link for image credit on the picture to the right offers an extended source of current information about ISIS.]

A more conventional army would have a command infrastructure in place to, for example, decide which "teams" of fighters would have trucks. However, at this time the amount of military equipment seized by ISIS during its rushing advance through Iraq can be considered "the curse of plenty." There are probably very few disgruntled ISIS fighters anywhere in the "caliphate" frustrated because the "high command" didn't give them a truck.

Heavier weapon equipment is, apparently, not nearly as "over stocked." ISIS has, however, allocated what heavy weapons it has fairly effectively -- most recently when confronting Kurdish troops --  but generally when there are any valuable "hard targets" to be taken. For example, the Kurds have the misfortune of frequently standing between ISIS and refineries.

So, without armories, mechanic shops or big warehouses manned by inventory officers and file keepers ISIS is, at least in the tactical military sense, nomadic to a fault. So far this has been a vulnerability because it leaves ISIS equipment in the open. The predictable asymmetric response habitually chosen by terrorists and rebels is to rapidly insinuate all of this into civilian populations to counter the advantage promised by air superiority.

Still, if you happen to be an ISIS commander trying to focus the force carried by all this spread out, rag tag, camouflaged army, the dispersion nightmare only becomes worse. To mount an offensive somewhere the equipment must be called from where it is hidden, moved to an attack position, and then gathered in plain sight before an aggressive advance can be initiated.

This is the material advantage of coalition air superiority -- even when capitalizing on it means trying to coordinate with the Iraqi Security Forces. For ISIS any plan to continually resupply such an active advance once in progress will carry a very, very high price.

Think of it as almost the exact opposite of the Indians in General Custer's India Wars.

Bullets, Boots, Bandages, Food and Spare Parts

There are, undoubtedly, already crippling shortages.

There are, for certain, "supply lines" flowing into the ISIS controlled region shown on the map. [above] Yes, the area is "blessed" with international borders, but these seem to offer very little impedance to the massive re-supply effort necessary to sustain 30,000 combatants in an active military theater. [Read more here: Public Radio International]

Further, while ISIS has, unquestionably, begun to warehouse these supplies in the best tactical dispersal possible for the existing conditions, the problems began immediately for them and continue to grow worse. The black market suppliers are, very likely, failing to provide the "complete list" of the thousands of specific things necessary for operations and maintenance.

Think about how many items are in the catalogs used by a supply officer for a US military unit. Think about the tedious process of requisitions, approvals, acquisition, delivery, warehousing and ultimate distribution required to actually put those supplies where needed to sustain a US or European military unit -- even when not engaged in active warfare. Remember that all this is done in Europe and the US with procurement contractors eager for the business in territory not dominated by hostile fighter bombers.

Here, we're not referring to the right flavor of toothpaste or replacement pillows for the barracks. ISIS procurement is focused on items such as breech block lubricants, brake pads.

The point here is that the surviving ISIS supply warehouses are -- or soon will be -- running out of everything. In many cases the necessary re-supply will not be exclusively a matter of cash, but also one seriously complicated by problems of logistics. The coalition's diplomatic strategy will be doing everything possible to make those logistic problems even worse than they are currently.

Command and Control for an Uncontrollable Army

Gee whiz, there certainly seems to be a lot of 

different agendas and priorities in this outfit.

Make no mistake. The "top end" and the "bottom end" of the ISIS army are perched in shockingly disparate, fundamentally alienated roles with respect to both dreams and temperament. We won't find many ISIS fighters who perceive "Supreme Caliphate Commander al Baghdadi" as something even remotely similar to General Patton's famous title as "the soldier's General."

This is not to say that there are not remarkably cohesive "local militia units" in place around the "caliphate." Also, there are, indeed, orders or some sort floating down from Supreme Commander -- orders which are largely, more or less, often obeyed -- at least roughly. There is a general staff of old Baathist Generals who have survived like "cock roaches with stars" from the Sadam Hussein regime in Iraq who are charged with breathing some very dilute form of military discipline into the hordes. [Read more here: New York Times]

At the local militia level ISIS fighters have a wide -- and understandable  -- collection of personal priorities and motivation. Perhaps the largest block of the influences would be comprised mainly of the "three R's:"  revenge, respect and revelation. Many of these fighters are motivated by the opportunity for personal vendettas offered along with service to ISIS. In general populations in  the region sustain more than a little resentment at the 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead resulting from the US invasion. [Read more here: WIKI]

We can also assume that there is, probably, even a smaller force of ISIS soldiers which can be considered "relocatable," that is, who are stable enough to be transferred from one of the militia units to another effectively in response to active combat developments. We see a consequential disadvantage when we size up the "technically competent" units who, for example, might be dependably capable of launching surface to air missiles or even manning Howitzers.

However, for the vast majority of the "caliphate's army," ISIS has "breathed new meaning" into the old phrase: "cannon fodder."

Caliphs, dictators, kings and most other versions of autocrats have found religion an awkward but essential foundation for their authority -- especially when it comes to managing an unruly fighting force. By "unruly" we mean one with a robust variety of available "reasons" to suddenly turn on absolutely anyone. When such an army is, actually, "cannon fodder," the religion becomes even more useful and necessary -- particularly if you happen to be the one who might be unexpectedly attacked.

This is nothing new. It was already this way when Pope Urban II declared holy war and the Crusades on the Ottoman Empire in 1095 AD, and history has continued this trend since then.

The higher leadership of ISIS is comprised of the "borrowed and re-soled" Generals, largely self-established militia leaders and a sprinkling of the ISIS equivalent of "field marshals" empowered to issue assignments to the militia groups under their command. The man at the very top is [at least reported to be] al Baghdadi.

Biographical accounts of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi have suffered the predictable insults to their accuracy, but none of the propaganda seems inclined to downgrade the Iraqi Sunni's dynamic capacity to command ISIS effectively. [Read more here: Washington Post.] Iraqi propaganda is reporting his death during one of the air strikes, but this account has very low credibility. [Read more here: Iraqi News]

While ISIS has demonstrated a respectable savvy with the use of video cameras for their decapitations and the social media for soliciting recruits and terrifying everyone else, MeanMesa presumes that command level communication throughout the ISIS military structure is woefully amateur at such techniques as effective encryption, code writing and even the routine discipline regarding what's to be said and not said in cell phone calls between the military leadership.

All these weaknesses coupled with the rather strangely limited coalition air strikes targeting "available" ISIS targets in Iraq lead MeanMesa to assume that the intelligence build up is significant. The likely outcome of this is an intense, rapidly executed program of air strikes against every identifiable ISIS target in the field when the order is finally given. [Read more here: MeanMesa: ISIS and the Politics of Congress]

In the meantime ISIS is suffering losses only in instances of "wide open" exposure to coalition air power. Strategically, this is probably because ground forces cannot yet capitalize on the results of a more aggressive air campaign. There is little reason to simply "liberate" territory only to leave it available for "re-occupation" by ISIS forces a few days later when some of them are sent there.

A Delightful, Final Conspiracy Theory

There may be some actual malice

 down among all the feathers and fury.

What could possibly be a better ending for this long post than proposing a so far unspoken conspiracy theory to stand in for the "icing on the cake?"

The "quiet" player with perhaps the greatest interest in what ultimately becomes of Syria is the Russian Federation. [Read more here: MeanMesa: Syria and Russia] Of course, it is sometimes frustrating -- if not out rightly perplexing -- to attempt to divide the state aspirations of the Russian Federation and the suspiciously personal ambitions of its President, Vladimir Putin, but the likely consequences of the success of either will play directly into the matter of ISIS.

It is no mystery that the stubborn Russian support of the Syrian Assad regime has weathered all manner of international criticism already, but it is also not a mystery that any likely prospects of a "good outcome" for the apparently intractable Syrian civil war remain tragically out of reach, too. Given these unarguably ugly possible choices, let's take a look at what may well be some "not so far fetched after all" suspicions MeanMesa is entertaining about the intentions of this "Russian wild card."

1. The Kremlin's "second choice" for Syria

Assad and his bloody regime are probably permanently finished whether the insurrection in Syria succeeds within the next few years or not. This leaves the Russians looking for a second choice. "If not more of Assad, then more of whom?"

All the insurgent armies in Syria have "troubling strings" extending to other powers in the region and the world. Most of those battling Assad are receiving substantial resources from Middle Eastern sources, Europe or the United States. If any one of these groups -- or any collection of them -- were to wrest control of Syria, Russian interests [especially the naval station] would take a serious hit.

If such a "hit" were constrained only by the necessity of satisfying the interests of the new owners, things might be manageable for the Federation, but if the interests of those who had patiently supplied millions or billions of dollars worth of aid for the long fight were added to the mix, the Federation could emerge the loser.

Facing this possibility, ISIS might actually appear at least slightly more workable as the new Syrian government to the Russians.

2. Russian supply lines and a Grateful ISIS

Among all the potential "state supporters" of the "caliphate," the Russians are absolutely in the top tier with respect to their ability to move military supplies into the battle zone. Given the Federation's already existing arrangements with the Assad regime in Damascus, this access to Syria -- currently intended to support the regime and supply the Russian naval assets at Tartus -- could be almost painlessly diverted to provide support for ISIS.

Don't cringe. The US has a sordid history of supporting both sides in wars for years.

With ISIS firmly in control of Syria that old "Moscow magic" could fairly easily begin purchasing the cooperation of important players in the new ISIS-Syrian government. Russian ambitions for access to the Mediterranean would be protected with only a few, painless policy accommodations for the Islamic State.

3. Diffusing Ukraine and Bothering NATO

An ISIS seizure of Syria would trump the current waves of criticism for the Federation's "meat handed" annexation of Crimea and rabble rousing in Eastern Ukraine. If the impact on the "news cycle" continued long enough, Vladimir might possibly use it as cover for an even more aggressive policy in Ukraine, perhaps including an out right invasion.

At least in the beginning a Russian sponsored ISIS success in Syria and Iraq would pose a far greater problem for the West than it would pose for the Russian Federation. If it were actually possible to embarrass the United States even more after the Bush W. catastrophe in Iraq, so much the better.

4. Exacting Revenge for the "Crimea Sanctions"

Although the Russians have played every possible card to depict the economic sanctions as ineffective and irrelevant, the wounded oligarchs surrounding Putin are remaining far from convinced. The sanctions were designed to be venous, painful and patient, and MeanMesa is suspects that they will have precisely that effect. Their impact will relentlessly increase as they continue over time.

Patience is the key. There remains a very real possibility that, in the end, it may turn out that Crimea is not as permanently Russian as reported and concluded.

Quite aside from the economic punch the sanctions inflicted, the "image damage" plays a close second in terms of being irritating if not persuasive. Russia acted badly, and flagrantly boasted that no one could do anything to change "the facts on the ground." The pitch was that the Russian Federation was so powerful that it could effortlessly withstand all calls to conscience, and that it could painlessly endure any retribution.

This may have been the original plan, but then the Federation was scolded and punished.

This is the garden where revenge is grown -- in any season.

A Post Posting Post Script

This post has not mentioned anything about what the right wing war mongers in the Congress have been bellowing about the handling of the issue with ISIS. We will get to this very, very soon. Watch this space.

[This was posted subsequently. If you would like to continue reading on this topic, please link to MeanMesa here:  ISIS and the Politics of Congress]

ISIS and the Politics of Congress

The Democracy Making War

A quick review of how it's done

When your Congressional district elects one of your neighbors to the US House of Representatives, your thoughts may be focused on matters such as tax rates and federal subsidies for pet projects. However, in the cold light of dawn, your neighbor has been elevated to a global position of significant power. When you and the other voters of your state elect your US Senator, a similar elevation has occurred.

Theoretically, these elections, your vote and the actions of those elected will be defined and limited, generally, by the Articles in the US Constitution. These comments will become more relevant as this post continues.

Separation of Powers [image]

In the most sanguine view possible this "elevation" places immense military power in the  hands of those inhabiting the Congressional bodies. The Representative you've just elected, acting in concert with the Senate and the President, Commander in Chief, has the power to attack any part of the 60% of the planet comprised of nations which are unable to resist. The "Triumvirate" of the Congress and the President is completed, at least theoretically, with the addition of the American electorate in the role of the "third party."

Further, the individual "roles and responsibilities" designated to the parties in democracy's "Triumvirate" are specifically detailed in the Constitution. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War and the centuries of European inter-state military violence in the centuries preceding it, the Constitution's authors designed the process very thoughtfully. 

The Constitution constantly imposes this fundamentally limiting structure -- that is, all the time, not just in times of threat. We need to keep this Constitutional provision in mind as we consider the role of the US democracy as it anticipates attacking ISIS, and the US democracy IS now anticipating attacking ISIS -- or, at least, it is trying to do something similar while appearing to be Constitutional.

Right away, "the thistles take the lawn."

The most favored harangue issuing forth from the oligarchs' think tanks as of late is that the President is "over reaching" his authority. Hence, we "little people" hear this message from the Republican controlled Congress with very little proposed contradiction from the tatters of the Democratic minority. The irony emerges as we watch those same Congressmen who accuse the President of this "over reach" demand that he do precisely this, that is, "over reach" with respect to making war on ISIS, because they will -- quite intentionally -- do nothing.

This is raw politics. Any Congressional interest in national security or following the Constitution is left on the floor as an unwelcome wine stain from the night before.

["Wait," you might insist, "the Congress is split between Party control, isn't it?" Well, yes and no. The Republican/tea bag minority weaseled control of the House through electoral manipulation. While they may be "called" the House Majority, they are not -- and they will tell you this themselves. The Senate also finds itself under control by the minority. The Republican/tea bag Party -- called the "minority" in name only --  currently has complete control of the Senate and has accomplished this by utilizing centuries old "Senate Rules."]

The game for these miscreants now is to abandon the President to act in accord with his oath while at the same time re-imaging the domestic media picture to suggest that he's, well, "over reaching" his Presidential authority. No one in the GOP could possibly care a whit about the "threat" of ISIS. As usual, this issue of National Security was immediately transformed by them into "politics as usual," and it's not a pretty transformation.

If the oligarchs' think tanks can successfully nail Barack Obama to this cross, their dream of impeaching him will have inched significantly closer to reality.

Let's review what the US Constitution says about "War Powers:" Who's got them. Where they reside. How they are used.

War Powers Clause

[WIKI: The War Powers Act]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording: [The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

A number of wars have been declared under the United States Constitution, although there is some controversy as to the exact number, as the Constitution does not specify the form of such a declaration.

History and usage

Five wars have been declared by Congress under their constitutional power to do so: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.

In a message to Congress on May 11, 1846, President James K. Polk announced that Texas was about to become a state. Consequentially, Mexico then threatened to invade Texas, upon which the President amassed troops in the area of Corpus Christi. Texas then became a state, and US troops moved into an area in which the new international boundary was disputed. Mexican troops moved into the same area, and the two forces clashed. The President then stated "after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced and that the two nations are now at war." Some in Congress wondered if this were so, including Abraham Lincoln. He wrote in a letter to his law partner:

“Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge...But Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and allow him to make war at pleasure…. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’ but he will say to you ‘be silent; I see it, if you don't.’

“The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.”

[MeanMesa has commented on this topic before. If you are interested, you can read the post here:

Why There Are No Declarations of War]

The Congressional Cowards

[In the interest of simplicity in this post MeanMesa will use the more or less colloquial term "ISIS" to refer to the Sunni rebels in Iraq and Syria rather than flit around furiously with all the other names that group has adopted.]

Well, it certainly looks like everything has been pretty well set up by the Constitution and the oaths all the D.C. Folks took to uphold it, but...

First of all, we really need to obliterate one commonly used excuse that we have heard from the Congress before. "We didn't know we were supposed to do this."

Granted, although a good number of bellowing tea bags in the House may have never actually read the Constitution, we have to assume that the oily lawyers the oligarchs sent with them have. Further, although this same crowd of tea bags may not have understood the oath they were taking in 2013, they, again, almost certainly have "staffers" who are quite literate.

The exact way this has unfolded, as we might all expect, is another of the clumsy, tragically comical, famously unscripted "strateegeries" of the Boehner directed House "Republican" caucus. Being "died in the wool" fear mongers, a literal chorus of these hill billies instantly began screeching for US military intervention in the "ISIS crisis" from the first day that FOX, their exclusive "information" source, began spouting in unison its typical fact twisting repertoire.

Son of a gun. They all wanted war. More importantly, obviously caring nothing whatsoever about the country's security, the march was on to feverishly convert every tidbit of the matter directly into politics. Republicans disavow the existence of policy. They believe everything is politics.

Further, they weren't at all politically satisfied with the President's war making. They wanted BIG war making. Desperate, frantic war making. The owners of the Republican Party make money even faster when the United States acts like a drunken bully, and, with respect to war, they definitely don't care who wins or loses.

And, after all, these ISIS monsters ARE Muslims.

No problem. The official GOP party line would be one to maximize abject terror among their already rather frightened base. Absolutely anything that could be thrown into the soup to further horrify the hill billies! The scruffy Sunni rebels were glad to help, brutally slicing off the head of the US reporter on video -- and on FaceBook -- and on You Tube.

The whole drama suggests to MeanMesa that it was all quite similar to what must have gone on in Sunday School the week after Pope Urban II declared holy war on Islam 1095 and started the bloody Crusades. The god loving pastors of that day were charged with recruiting thousands of illiterate, rosy cheeked farm boys directly from those Sunday School classes for the march to Jerusalem.

And...so....what did all these bumbling, belching tea bag patriots do next?

They left town for a month long vacation.

Of course, the screeching didn't abate so much as a single decibel after they left town, either. The US corporate media made sure there were "drool proof" microphones waiting, ready for even more screeching, where ever they might travel. These patriotic tea bag Congressmen apparently never sleep when there's even a chance that they might further incite their education challenged base to an even higher state of frantic, Obama hating horror.

But, what these GOP tea bag patriots didn't do is also interesting.

They could have returned to Washington to debate US policy with ISIS. You know, something along the lines of what was laid out in the Constitution, [See above.] but they didn't.

The Media's Hilarious "Crucifixion"

of a "No Strategy" President

Good grief! What did he expect Congress to do?

Interestingly, the President told Congress what he expected from them. It was the same speech where the mindless media "reporters" latched on to the "terrifying no strategy" to further fuel the "incompetency" meme the media has invested so much promoting. The media was unable to "hear" the President's statement about what he expected for Congress to do in accordance with the Constitution and their oaths of office.

Just when the rest of the world was waiting for the American democracy to actually function, all we got was more Republican minority Party political maneuvering. 

This Reuters article is a prime sample of the brazenly biased, irrelevant "reporting" that has been flooding the media like wall paper.  MeanMesa has taken the liberty of highlighting some of the typical, glaring contradictions. MeanMesa doesn't particularly have a "bone to pick" with Reuters, but this article is typical of the media's relentlessly repeated "no strategy," lurching hopelessness seizure. The contradictions are embedded in the "green areas."

Obama says does not yet have broad strategy for Islamic State

BY STEVE HOLLAND AND PATRICIA ZENGERLE

WASHINGTON Thu Aug 28, 2014 

[Link to the original Reuters article here.]

U.S. President Barack Obama addresses reporters in the White House Press Briefing Room ahead of a meeting with his national security council in Washington, August 28, 2014.

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Thursday that he has not yet developed a broad strategy for confronting Islamic State in an acknowledgement that he has not decided whether to launch air strikes against the militant group in Syria.

"We don't have a strategy yet," Obama told a White House news conference ahead of meeting top national security advisers in the Situation Room about how to proceed against Islamic State.

Obama's decision to begin U.S. surveillance flights over Syria earlier this week prompted speculation that he was on the brink of expanding the fight against Islamic State from Iraq into Syria, prompting criticism from some lawmakers who worry they have not been properly consulted.

There has been a growing call from both Republicans and Obama's fellow Democrats in Congress for lawmakers to vote on whether the United States should broaden its action against the Islamic State.

Obama, who shied away from launching airstrikes in Syria a year ago to punish Syrian President Bashir al-Assad for use of chemical weapons against his own people [Ooops. The President threatened al-Assad with air strikes if he refused to turn over the chemical weapons for destruction in US and NATO ships in the Mediterranean. The weapons were delivered and destroyed. This is not the same as "threatening to punish al-Assad" for using the weapons.], has been reticent about getting involved in Syria's civil war, where he believes there are few good options for the United States to pursue.

Public anger at the beheading of American journalist James Foley, however, has led him to consider hitting Islamic State targets in Syria. So far the U.S. campaign against the group has been limited to striking the group's forces in Iraq but not taking on Islamic State's primary stronghold in Syria.

Obama said he has asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to prepare options for confronting Islamic State and said Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to the region to help put together an anti-Islamic State coalition.[This is what the Republicans and their press have conveniently characterized as "no strategy."]

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said after the news conference that when Obama said "we don't have a strategy yet" for Islamic State he was referring to military options still being developed for Syria.[This was actually presented later, after the corporate media had become transfixed on the incompetent "no strategy" line. It is not particularly true because the DOD planning will include military action against ISIS both in Syria and in Iraq. The President's point -- the one completely ignored by the media --is that the "strategy" needs to be compiled to match the military options with the results of the Congressional debate, but there hasn't been a debate yet. Congress is on vacation.]

Obama wants a comprehensive strategy for Islamic State that is not limited to military action but also includes encouraging a unity government in Baghdad between Shi'ites and Sunnis who have engaged in sectarian battles and supporting moderate Sunni rebels in Syria.

"My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL (Islamic State) made in Iraq are rolled back and that Iraq has the opportunity to govern itself effectively and secure itself," he said.

He said the options he had requested from military planners at the Pentagon focused primarily on making sure that Islamic State is "not overrunning Iraq." [The President has said repeatedly that he will not order the US military to fight ISIS acting in the role of "servant mercenaries" to the corrupt Iraq government. If Iraq intends to avoid being "over run" by ISIS, its government will have to start acting responsibly. Obama is currently willing to deploy US military power as air strikes to give Baghdad a "window of opportunity" to get organized and recapture Iraq.]

Congressional concerns have been increasing about a potential military strike in Syria.

In the House of Representatives, three members – Democrats James McGovern of Massachusetts and Barbara Lee of California as well as Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina - asked Speaker John Boehner in a letter that Congress debate and vote on any authorization to use military force when the House is in session during the week of Sept. 8.

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, said he thought Obama would have “significant congressional support” [Think for a minute about the precise meaning of "significant Congressional support." The Congress -- both the House and the Senate -- is supposed to debate military action against ISIS. At the close of that debate, those bodies are supposed to vote and reach a decision. That decision will not be "significant support." That decision will be a statement of what Congress has decided the country will do.] if he provides a strategic plan to protect the United States and its allies from the Sunni militants.

Obama promised he would consult with Congress, but unlike a year ago when strikes were considered against Syria, he did not vow to seek a specific congressional authorization.[This is media "fact twisting" of the first order. Obama doesn't need to "promise" to consult Congress. The US Constitution requires that Congress debate this issue, make a decision and then tell the President what it is -- that is not "consulting." Obama has very clearly stated that he expects Congress crawl out from under their beds and do the job they swore they would do when they took their oath.]

"I don't want to put the cart before the horse," he said. He said news reports have suggested he is on the brink of an elaborate strategy for defeating the group without consulting Congress.

"That's not what's going to happen," he said.

A Few Words About the Difference

 Between Strategy and No Strategy

Gosh. The words seem to just roll right off my tongue.

Okay. When we "put out panties back on" and start to look at what's going on in Washington with the eyes of adults, it's not too difficult to rough out pretty much what has been going on in the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon. Dozens of folks -- who work for us, by the way -- have been pouring over intelligence, photographs and other statistics. They have been soliciting opinions from other people who actually know something about this -- about the players, about the region, about the possibilities, and so on.

While the corporate media has been frantically painting the picture of a befuddled black man, "in" way over his head, politically frightened [even though he is NOT running in the 2016 election...] and desperately paralyzing all the normal processes of government, the picture MeanMesa sees is quite different.

Things in Washington are proceeding in a pretty much normal process -- especially when we remember that this President is not only cautious, but historically effective in matters such as these. Still skeptical? For starters, let's just count the number of endless ground wars he has started since he was first Inaugurated.

The right wingers have fabricated a picture where the "ISIS strategy" has been doodled on a soiled scrap of paper which is being toyed with by an incompetent megalomaniac in the Oval Office. Well, relax. Take a deep breath. The vestigial "ISIS strategy" is currently comprised of dozens or hundreds of files, memoranda, research, intelligence and diplomatic estimations of all sorts. If all the classified parts were declassified and the entire pile were handed to Louie Gohmert with a ribbon, MeanMesa doubts that the Texan would be the least bit placated by the gift.

Louie and his ilk are not famous for being readers.

However, MeanMesa doesn't like to "penetrate" such pregnant issues without offering some sort of solution to the President -- at a "blog level," of course. In other words, when some strangely diffident passer-by asks MeanMesa "So, smarty pants, what would YOU do?" it's always more fun to have an answer ready.

MeanMesa's Solution: Fighting ISIS

How about the USAF as "repo man?"

First, let's go directly to MeanMesa's "ISIS strategy."

Begin by allowing the current sporadic frequency of US air strikes to "mellow out" for a week or so. This will provide the crazies in charge of the rebels time to grow "just a wee bit" more comfortable with the idea of daylight transport columns scrambling around the vast wasteland which is presently considered to be the "caliphate."

Once "traffic" has increased to a level deemed by those in the Pentagon to constitute a "target rich environment," unleash a cluster of armed drones that looks like a flock of swallows in springtime. Fly drones all over all the parts of Iraq currently held by ISIS and bomb every piece of "ex-American" military equipment which can be detected from aerial intelligence.

Drones are great at this kind of stuff!

By "ex-American" military equipment, MeanMesa refers to all the tanks, guns, trucks and jeeps the Iraqi army abandoned when it retreated frantically a few months back. All this stuff was previously handed over to the Iraqi government when the Americans left with the idea that, just maybe, that government might use it to maintain the autonomy of Iraq after we were gone.

This approach offers a couple of quite desirable military advantages.

1. ISIS has taken control of Mosul and a few other population centers in its advance into Iraq. In these areas the rebels enjoy the "protection" of being sequestered among large numbers of Iraqi civilians, making aggressive bombing far less effective, "hearts and minds-wise." Drones, on the other hand, could still select isolated targets even in these urban areas.

Out in the hinterlands of the Western Iraqi country side, this sudden "surge" could be even far more devastating to the bad guys. The survivors would either be walking or riding camels the next day.

2. The very idea of a strategic "surge" would play very favorably with the domestic electorate -- especially one that really, actually, worked. Grampy McCain would literally "cream his jeans."

3. These consolidated attacks could be executed a week or two before the President's 60 day time limit expired. The schedule should probably include several days during which they could be conducted repeatedly -- always un-announced. Should the Congress ever gather up enough gumption to actually ever debate US involvement in the regional conflict, the discourse might possibly be more constructive if there were a recent "victory" to lubricate the poll addicted miscreants currently seated in the pathologically risk averse House and Senate.

4. While the wing nuts' blustering demands for the unilateral "defeat of ISIS" would hardly emerge from the drone attacks, the rebels would suddenly be tactically "de-capacitated." Further, that development might open a "window of opportunity" for the Iraqi military -- or, at least, for our strong allies, the Kurds -- to retake significant territory and hold it.

The loud mouthed right wing McCain - Graham "chicken hawk" crowd are salivating over the prospect of the US bombing Syria uninvited, but what they really want is to lure President Obama into a show down with their very most favorite macho bully, Vladimir Putin. The righties have never had a moment's hesitation as they glorified Putin's "strong manly will" while they "compared" him to Obama.

If this Russian-US show down were to transpire in the manner of these war mongers' dreams, the cowardly, terrified Congress would pose even more of a national security threat to the country than it is now. Screeching, uber-political chicken hawks suck at fighting real wars.

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.