Liberation Operation Underway in Mosul, Iraq, Photos in History

 1930

ap680829260359_9cover

AP: A trove of photographs now housed at the Library of Congress offers a glimpse of Mosul, Iraq, before wars, insurgency, sectarian strife and now radicals’ rule. The scenes were taken in the autumn of 1932 by staff from the American Colony Photo Department during a visit to Iraq at the end of the British mandate.

The photos show many of the sites that have now borne the brunt of the Islamic State group’s rule. Since capturing the city in June, the militants destroyed at least 30 shrines and historic sites they see as promoting idolatry and heresy.

As the United States and the international community are grappling with how to battle the militants, who now control territory stretching from northern Syria to the outskirts of Baghdad, here is a look at scenes from Mosul in more peaceful times and today under the rule of the Islamic State group.


To read more about the scenes form Mosul, then and now, visit AP’s Big Story.

Mideast Iraq Vintage Mosul Photo GalleryThis combination of two photographs shows a 1932 image of men on a lorry on the road to Mosul, northern Iraq, from the Library of Congress, top, and fighters from the Islamic State group parading in a commandeered Iraqi security forces armored vehicle down a main road in Mosul on Monday, June 23, 2014. (AP Photo) License this photo


Mideast Iraq Vintage Mosul Photo GalleryThis combination of two photographs shows a 1932 image of the Crooked Minaret mosque next to a Yazidi shrine in Mosul, northern Iraq, from the Library of Congress, top, and the same site, without the shrine, on June 8, 2009. In July, Islamic State militants failed to destroy the 840-year old Crooked Minaret that leans like Italy’s Tower of Pisa when residents sat on the ground and linked arms to form a human chain. (AP Photo) License this photo


Mideast Iraq Vintage Mosul Photo GalleryThis combination of two photographs shows a 1932 image of a lorry on the road south of Mosul, Iraq, from the Library of Congress, top, and an image posted on a militant news Twitter account on Thursday, June 12, 2014 showing militants from the Islamic State group removing part of the soil barrier on the Iraq-Syria borders and moving through it. (AP Photo) License this photo


Mideast Iraq Vintage Mosul Photo GalleryThis combination of two photographs shows a 1932 image of Iraqis in the market in Mosul, northern Iraq, from the Library of Congress, top, and demonstrators chanting pro-Islamic State group slogans as they carry the group’s flags in front of the provincial government headquarters in Mosul on Monday, June 16, 2014. (AP Photo) License this photo


Mideast Iraq Vintage Mosul Photo GalleryThis combination of two photographs shows a 1932 image of the Tigris River stretching out in the distance as seen from Mosul, northern Iraq from the Library of Congress, top, and a file photo of smoke rising during airstrikes targeting Islamic State militants at the Mosul Dam on Monday, Aug. 18, 2014. (AP Photo) License this photo


Mideast Iraq Vintage Mosul Photo GalleryThis combination of two photographs shows a 1932 image taken during the autumn of Nebi Yunis, the tomb of the prophet Jonah, in Mosul, northern Iraq, from the Library of Congress, top, and Iraqis walking in the rubble of the revered Muslim shrine after it was was destroyed on Thursday, July 24, 2014 by militants who overran the city in June and imposed their harsh interpretation of Islamic law. (AP Photo) License this photo


Mideast Iraq Vintage Mosul Photo GalleryThis combination of two photographs shows a 1932 image of Iraqi vendors and customers in the shoe market in Mosul, northern Iraq from the Library of Congress, top, and a Monday, July 7, 2014 file photo of a man walking in a market, nearly a month after Islamic militants took over the country’s second largest city. (AP Photo) License this photo


Mideast Iraq Vintage Mosul Photo GalleryThis combination of two photographs shows a 1932 image of a main street in Mosul, northern Iraq, from the Library of Congress, top, and militants parading down a main road in Mosul, posted on a militant Twitter account on Wednesday, June 11, 2014, which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting. (AP Photo) License this photo


 

Opening text from AP PHOTOS: SCENES FROM IRAQ’S MOSUL THEN AND NOW by MAYA ALLERUZZO.

Lead Image Caption: This photograph shows a 1932 image of a coppersmith working in the market in Mosul, northern Iraq, from the Library of Congress. (AP Photo)

UK Sanctions Russian Bank Accounts, then their Base(s) in Syria

Russia Today’s UK bank accounts closed down, says editor

Unclear whether British government responsible for shutting down accounts of Moscow’s main instrument of propaganda in English-speaking world

Guardian: The UK bank accounts of Russian TV broadcaster Russia Today have been shut down, its editor-in-chief has said, in a move that the UK government appears to have been aware of.

In a tweet in Russian Margarita Simonyan said that “all the accounts” had been closed in the UK. She said the decision was final, adding sarcastically: “Long live freedom of speech!”

The channel received a letter from NatWest bank, Simonyan said. It said: “We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities.”

The bank said that the entire Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is a part, would refuse to handle RT. According to Simonyan, the letter said the decision was final and that it was “not prepared to enter into any discussion in relation to it.”

It was unclear whether the British government was behind the move, but the foreign office was aware of the news when contacted by the Guardian and referred inquiries to the Treasury. The move – if confirmed – casts into doubt the ability of the Kremlin-backed news channel to carry on broadcasting. RT said on Monday it will continue operating.

The US and Britain said on Sunday that they were considering fresh measures and possible further sanctions against Moscow in protest at Russia’s continuing bombardment of civilians in eastern Aleppo.

Maria Zakharova, a Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, wrote on Facebook: “It looks like, as it leaves the EU, London has decided to leave behind all its obligations towards freedom of speech. As they say, best to start a new life without bad habits.”

Russia Today – now known as RT – is the main instrument of propaganda for the Russian government in the English-speaking world. The channel presents itself as a left-leaning alternative to “mainstream news” under the slogan “Question More”?

In reality, however, its reporting assiduously reflects the Kremlin’s anti-western worldview. It has portrayed Russia’s military intervention in Syria as a campaign against terrorists, and reflects its official position that no civilians have been killed by Russian jets.

The channel typically invites studio guests who endorse the Kremlin’s anti-US views. Guests have included Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingstone and George Galloway. Another frequent contributor is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who hosted his own chat show on RT.

Simonyan visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy during a trip to London in 2014.

In a statement on Monday RT struck a defiant tone, calling the decision “incomprehensible” and “without warning”. It added: “It is however not at odds with the countless measures that have been undertaken in the UK and Europe over the last few years to ostracize, shout down, or downright impede the work of RT.”

Since RT started broadcasting in the UK about 10 years ago, Ofcom has recorded breaches of the UK broadcasting rules on 14 occasions. It was last investigated in April for accusing the Turkish government of genocide against the Kurds.

******

Russia Advances its IADS in Syria

By Chris Harmer and Kathleen Weinberger 

Over the last year, Russia has built up an expeditionary Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) in Syria.  Russia intends to use this IADS to push the potential cost of continued US coalition involvement in Syria past the threshold of acceptable risk. On 03 OCT the Russian military deployed the S-300 (NATO reporting name: SA-23) air defense system to the Syrian naval base in Tartus. Russian forces already operate the S-400 (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler) long-range air defense system, which has a claimed range of 400km, as well as the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon), in Syria. Russia also operates a number of short-range air defense systems, including the Pantsir-S1 and Buk missile systems, as well as the naval version of the S-300 a Slava-class guided missile cruiser in the Mediterranean. In addition to the IADS, Syrian forces operate the Bastion coastal defense system out of Tartus.

Now that the Russian IADS in Syria is deployed and presumably fully functional, it changes the regional security situation in two ways. First, it confirms that the ongoing Russian deployment of disparate missile systems to Syria over the past year always intended to culminate in a fully functional IADS, rather than individual missile systems in different locations. SAM systems in the S-300 family (including the S-400) are designed to be both forwards and backwards compatible, which means that their component parts – command and control modules, search and fire control radars, missile launchers and missiles  –  may be used in different combinations.

Second, this deployable and road mobile IADS solely aims to threaten US and coalition aircraft and deter further involvement or escalation of coalition operations.  There is no credible fixed wing, rotary wing, or ballistic missile threat to Russian forces in Syria from ISIS or any other potential adversary that would require a modern IADS. The only purpose of this IADS is to pressure US and coalition policy makers to cede the majority of Syrian airspace to Russian and Syrian aircraft in order to continue their campaign of targeting civilian populations for destruction or depopulation, as evidenced by recent Russian threats to shoot down U.S. coalition aircraft. This expeditionary, modular, and mobile Russian IADS is a significant upgrade over the legacy Syrian IADS.  The component parts of the Syrian IADS were largely fixed, difficult if not impossible to move, and highly dependent on centralized command and control as well as external long range radar cuing. The interdependency of the legacy Syrian IADS meant that destroying any one component of the Syrian IADS would significantly reduce its efficacy. In contrast, the Russian expeditionary IADS is fully road mobile, with partial offroad capability, and modular, meaning each component can operate as a standalone SAM system or be organized as a genuine IADS, which is what Russia has now achieved. The Russian expeditionary IADS is much more survivable than the legacy Syrian IADS.

U.S. officials, including presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, have suggested establishing a no-fly zone in parts of northern Syria. This would mean using U.S. aircraft to patrol Syrian airspace in order to prevent Russian and Syrian planes from carrying out strikes. Russian expansion of its IADS network means that U.S. coalition aircraft risk being shot down while operating within Russia’s A2AD envelope. A shoot-down of a U.S. coalition aircraft would force the U.S. to either drastically escalate in order to answer Russia’s provocation, or to downscale or cease operations in Syria. Russia aims to present the U.S. with these two undesirable options on the assumption that the U.S. would choose to avoid any potential conflict. By establishing this expeditionary IADS in Syria, Russia aims to establish a de facto no-fly zone for US and coalition aircraft over much of Syria.

Success in Dabiq, the Symbolic HQ of ISIS

 Image result for dabiq, syria

Dabiq, which lies about 10km (6 miles) from the border with Turkey, features in Islamic apocalyptic prophecies as the site of an end-of-times showdown between Muslims and their “Roman” enemies.

The Prophet Muhammad is believed to have said that “the last hour will not come” until Muslims vanquished the Romans at “Dabiq or al-Amaq” – both in the Syria-Turkey border region – on their way to conquer Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). More here from BBC.

British militant in Dabiq, Syria appearing in an Islamic State video

Statement by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on the Liberation of Dabiq‎

I welcome today’s news that Syrian opposition forces liberated the Syrian town of Dabiq from ISIL control, aided by strong support from our ally Turkey and our international coalition. This is more than just the latest military result against this barbaric group. Dabiq held symbolic importance to ISIL. The group carried out unspeakable atrocities in Dabiq, named its English-language magazine after the town and claimed it would be the site of a final victory for the so-called caliphate. Instead its liberation gives the campaign to deliver ISIL a lasting defeat new momentum in Syria. Again I want to congratulate the Syrians who fought to free Dabiq and thank our ally Turkey for the close coordination during this operation.

****

Image result for dabiq, syria

Reuters: Turkey-backed Syrian rebels began an attack on Islamic State’s symbolically potent stronghold of Dabiq in northwestern Syria on Saturday, a rebel commander said, taking territory that has all but cut it off according to a war monitor.

Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday said the rebels were advancing on Dabiq and a Turkish security source said they had that morning cleared the militants from the hamlet of al-Ghaylaniyeh.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based war monitor, said the rebels had also taken the villages of Irshaf and Ghaitun, which would all but cut off Dabiq and another large village, Soran, in an isolated pocket surrounded by insurgents.

Dabiq is symbolically important to the jihadist group because it is the site of an apocalyptic Islamic prophesy, and Islamic State has stationed around 1,200 of its fighters there said the Observatory, a Britain-based war monitor.

Euphrates Shield, the campaign by Turkey and allied Syrian rebels to clear Islamic State from areas along the border between the two countries began in August.

A rebel commander in the Euphrates Shield operation said the attack on Dabiq had started on Saturday morning and the Observatory said the rebels backed by Turkish tanks and warplanes had begun their attack on the village’s environs.

However, the Turkish military sources said the operation was ongoing.

“The operation for Dabiq started 10 days ago. We started the effort to take control of the region from the south. Daesh (Islamic States) targets are being hit by Turkish fighter jets and artillery” one of them said.

According to Islamic tradition, Dabiq will be the site of a final battle between Muslims and infidels heralding Doomsday, a prophesy that the jihadist group had encouraged its supporters to regard as imminent and named one of its publications “Dabiq”.

However, in a recent edition of its al-Naba online publication, Islamic State appeared to step back from that position, saying that the coming battle for Dabiq between it and the Turkey-backed rebels was not the one in the prophesy.

While Euphrates Shield has pushed Islamic State from its last foothold on Syria’s Turkish border, a longer campaign by the U.S.-backed, Kurd-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces has recaptured swathes of territory from the group since last year.

Islamic State also faces an expected assault on Iraq’s Mosul, the largest and most important city it has held since its lightning advance across huge tracts of Syria and Iraq in summer 2014.

****

The Battle of Marj Dābiq (Arabic: مرج دابق‎‎, meaning “the meadow of Dābiq”; Turkish: Mercidabık Muharebesi) was a decisive military engagement in Middle Eastern history, fought on 24 August 1516, near the town of Dabiq, 44 km north of Aleppo, Syria.[1] The battle was part of the 1516–17 war between the Ottoman Empire and the Mamluk Sultanate, which ended in an Ottoman victory and conquest of much of the Middle East, bringing about the destruction of the Mamluk Sultanate. The Ottoman victory in this battle gave Selim’s armies control of the entire region of Syria and opened the door to the invasion of Egypt.

Russia Prepared for War, What we Should Know

I have been asked several times in the last month if we are prepared for nuclear war with Russia. My responses have consistently been yes but the United States is always prepared and the likelihood of a nuclear conflict is slim. Sure, there is always that threat, yet it is just that, a threat.

 Jamestown.0rg

Related reading:  Russia’s Use of Military Power in Ukraine

This site has published countless items in recent months regarding Russia and the most important of all of them is the Gerasimov Doctrine, a paper that very few have read. Okay, while it is important, below will summarize some items in cliff note fashion.

In July 2015, Putin stated that:

recent events show that we cannot hope that some of our geopolitical opponents will change their hostile course any time in the foreseeable future … we must respond accordingly to this situation … and take additional systemic measures in all key areas … [to] preserve our country’s social, political and economic stability. Much here will depend on consolidating the efforts of our state institutions and civil society and concentrating resources in priority areas.117  (Chatham House)  

Steps to a war footing: Recently, Moscow ordered an nationwide military drill for several important reasons. 1. It needed it as a test to determine flaws. 2. The drill was part of the normal propaganda machine where, your government cares deeply about you.

There have been bunkers built and tours provided, there has been training for school children and the applications gas masks, directions throughout the country and who is in charge and has authority, the movement of nuclear weapons to other locations and missile testing.

***** But with all this chatter, are we at a point of a Cuban missile crisis? Well…all the symptoms are there and increasing for sure and American citizens should take notice. However….go slow, be measured and understand more of what needs to be understood and that is Russia itself. She is not a big threat to America as she is to Eastern Europe and Europe proper.

 

A recent NewsMax article noted that Russia has deployed warships to the English Channel and that Russia was on a economic war-footing. What is an economic war-footing? It has several definitions but most is can this country feed the hungry during a prolonged conflict and Russia will inflict financial damage to her adversaries. Ukraine and regions of Europe could be sacrificial lambs due to stopping energy resources such as gas and oil.

Let’s look closer at Russia:

****

Military and security mobilization

In part from Chatham House: The military aspects of Russia’s mobilization include the transition of the military and civil defence forces on to a war footing.37 This is largely a task concerned with complex administration – storing supplies and equipment; organizing and concentrating forces; coordinating men, equipment and transport with their missions; and deploying these assets as needed.

But it is also about the evolving conceptualization of the structure and role of the Russian armed forces. Thus the theme of mobilization sheds light on some enduring questions for the Russian leadership that go beyond the simple idea that mobilization is administration and ‘a staff problem’.

Indeed, mobilization has traditionally been related to how Moscow thinks about contemporary and future war. It has long been associated with the modernization of Russia’s armed forces, as the leadership has sought to work out the kind of force structures necessary to minimize the country’s weaknesses and maximize its advantages over opponents.

Facing a Turbulent Time:

Mobilization, with Difficulty Gerasimov’s brief discussion of mobilization in his February 2013 article has been almost entirely overlooked in the Western debate about Russian actions. Yet it is revealing, and offers a means of understanding the thinking of the Russian leadership and its actions during the past five years, and the direction in which it is taking Russia. Indeed, the ‘Gerasimov doctrine’ is best understood as a portent not of ‘hybrid’ warfare, but of Russian state mobilization. It discussed moving the economy on to a war footing, and pointed to the discussion of mobilization as preparedness, even readiness, proceeding before the outbreak of war.

At heart, Russian state mobilization is, in effect, grand strategy in emergency circumstances. Its implementation reflects a deliberate attempt to generate power and an acknowledgment of the problems that Moscow faces, both in terms of a complex and potentially hostile international environment and the dysfunctionalities of the Russian system. Mobilization is also about conceptualizing contemporary and future war, and preparing for the many and multifaceted challenges it poses. In current circumstances, this means both military combat readiness and the resilience and coordination of the wider system, including the MVD, security and investigation services, and other ministries.

Where are we, then, in terms of Russian mobilization? Given the definitions above, it appears that the Russian leadership is currently operating in the ‘mobilization preparation’ phase. It is taking measures to mobilize the economy, armed forces and state institutions, including explicitly stated actions to prepare Russia for the transition to war. In this it is moving towards a ‘mobilization readiness’ framework. In early 2014 Gerasimov stated that the General Staff had received additional powers for the coordination of federal organs, and that, ‘just in case’, a range of measures had been developed to ‘prepare the country for the transition to conditions of war’.113 Putin had used the same terminology following the Zapad-2013 exercises, and even earlier.114

This process has been under way for some time. If many in the West see relations with Russia in a post-Ukraine, post-2014 context, the Russian leadership is operating in a longer time frame that, though it has roots stretching back over a decade, is perhaps best depicted as a post-Arab Spring context. It is worth restating Gerasimov’s line in his article in February 2013 that ‘mobilization and concentration is not part of the period after the onset of the state of war, as in 1914, but rather unnoticed, proceeds long before that’.115 It is important to read this whole summary for context and perspective.

******  One last item and most significant, don’t underestimate the pro-active measures and defense systems of the United States. It is about the Navy and this summary will offer some comfort. You ask about the weakness of Obama making any decisions and signing his authorization? Sure, he is weak, but there are some thresholds he cannot ignore as Commander in Chief. It is the Pentagon and the Intelligence community that will prove the next measure to the National Security Council along with the House and Senate Arms Services Committee.

 

 

The Search and Destroy History of Hillary Clinton

While America and actually the world is witnessing this National Enquirer headline presidential campaign for both Donald and Hillary, the one item that seems to be omitted completely is the Bill Clinton/Sandy Berger theft of documents from the National Archives. In case you need a reminder and a refresher including documents, a sampling is below, that is a compilation of FOIA requests.

nara-foia-sandy-berger

How about this? WikiLeaks Podesta email selection: It seems there could be some classified material in this communication.

Re: Here’s what I mentioned

Date: 2014-08-19 11:21
Subject: Re: Here’s what I mentioned
Agree but there may be opportunities as the Iraqi piece improves. Also, any idea whose fighters attacked Islamist positions in Tripoli, Libya? Worth analyzing for future purposes.
From: John Podesta [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 09:19 AM
To: H Subject: Re: Here’s what I mentioned Hit send too soon.
Meant to say Syria elements are vexing.
On Aug 19, 2014 9:17 AM, “John Podesta” <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think we are headed down this path in Iraq, but the Syria elements are
On Aug 17, 2014 3:50 PM, “H” <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region. 1. With all of its tragic aspects, the advance of ISIL through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle East. The most important factor in this matter is to make use of intelligence resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive manner, while avoiding the old school solution, which calls for more traditional military operations. In Iraq it is important that we engage ISIL using the resources of the Peshmerga fighters of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), and what, if any, reliable units exist in the Iraqi Army. The Peshmerga commanders are aggressive hard fighting troops, who have long standing relationships with CIA officers and Special Forces operators. However, they will need the continued commitment of U.S. personnel to work with them as advisors and strategic planners, the new generation of Peshmerga commanders being largely untested in traditional combat. That said, with this U.S. aid the Kurdish troops can inflict a real defeat on ISIL. 2. It is important that once we engage ISIL, as we have now done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are driven back suffering a tangible defeat. Anything short of this will be seen by other fighters in the region, Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, as an American defeat. However, if we provide advisors and planners, as well as increased close air support for the Peshmerga, these soldiers can defeat ISIL. They will give the new Iraqi Government a chance to organize itself, and restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria, moving the center of power toward moderate forces like the Free Syrian Army (FSA). In addition to air support, the Peshmerga also need artillery and armored vehicles to deal with the tanks and other heavy equipment captured from the Iraqi army by ISIL. 3. In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff, did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. Also this equipment can now be airlifted directly into the KRG zone. 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile, avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq. 6. In the end the situation in Iraq is merely the latest and most dangerous example of the regional restructuring that is taking place across North Africa, all the way to the Turkish border. These developments are important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ from country to country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy issues in Libya, and strategic commitments in Jordan. At the same time, as Turkey moves toward a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained to protect our national interests. This course of action offers the potential for success, as opposed to large scale, traditional military campaigns, that are too expensive and awkward to maintain over time. 7. (Note: A source in Tripoli stated in confidence that when the U.S. Embassy was evacuated, the presence of two U.S. Navy jet fighters over the city brought all fighting to a halt for several hours, as Islamist forces were not certain that these aircraft would not also provide close ground support for moderate government forces.) 8. If we do not take the changes needed to make our security policy in the region more realistic, there is a real danger of ISIL veterans moving on to other countries to facilitate operations by Islamist forces. This is already happening in Libya and Egypt, where fighters are returning from Syria to work with local forces. ISIL is only the latest and most violent example of this process. If we don’t act to defeat them in Iraq something even more violent and dangerous will develop. Successful military operations against these very irregular but determined forces can only be accomplished by making proper use of clandestine/special operations resources, in coordination with airpower, and established local allies. There is, unfortunately, a narrow window of opportunity on this issue, as we need to act before an ISIL state becomes better organized and reaches into Lebanon and Jordan. 9. (Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of Iraq and the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga command we can reassure the concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not exclude the Iraqi Government from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the same time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from these operations. Finally, as it now appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.)