By Sal Bommarito

Since 2012, three million refugees have fled Syria. Their destinations have been:

(in thousands)
Lebanon 1,185
Turkey* 843
Jordan 615
Iraq 215
Egypt 139

Total 2,997

*Refugees from Kobani, Syria and Mosul, Iraq have greatly increased Turkey’s total to 1.7 million in recent days.

Most of those fleeing Syria have left because of increasing oppression by the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad and the ISIS invasion.

In Turkey, 13% of the refugees are in government camps and the balance have moved into nearby cities and towns. The costs to the Turkish government have risen to over $4 billion; the international community has contributed $240 million to the cause.

The generosity of the Turkish government is a result of a moral imperative to help the needy “even if it is difficult, costly, unpopular and risky.” However, the conditions that these people must to endure are horrendous and will worsen as winter arrives.

The Turkish situation is most perplexing because the country’s objectives are quite diverse compared to other Arab nations in the region. Certainly, Turkey wants to defeat ISIS, but equally important are its desire to defeat Assad and limit the immigration of Syrian Kurds into Turkey.

Turkey has asked the U.S. to create a no-fly zone along its border with Syria that would protect Kurds and other groups fighting against Assad and ISIS thereby limiting their migration into the country. However, a no-fly zone could result in confrontations between U.S. and Syrian aircraft that would no doubt attack any groups hostile towards Assad.

A report in the New York Times today indicates that “Thousands of Syrians, mostly women and children, have been stranded for weeks on Jordan’s border, according to international and aid agencies who say Jordan appears to be increasingly turning away Syrians fleeing war at home.” Internally, Jordan citizens are objecting to the costs and risk of infiltrators of the massive migration.

When the ISIS crisis ends, the greatest tragedy might be a humanitarian disaster relating to all the displaced people. The refugee issue is only a part of this drama; millions of Iraqis and Syrians have been forced out of their homes and relocated to other parts of the country. Overcrowding and difficult conditions have developed.

The refugee support provided by the countries listed above is huge. The cost of it for all the new inhabitants will severely impact their financial viability. This will, for sure, decrease the level of service that the needy will require.

By Sal Bommarito

At long last, non-military actions are being proposed to stem the ISIS juggernaut. Ironically, it is the United Nations that has entered the fray offering some strong suggestions that could go a long way towards decreasing ISIS’s strength. Frankly, it’s about time the U.N. and other influential organizations stood up against the human rights violations being perpetrated by jihadists.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that a U.N. panel recommended the Security Council order “all countries [to] seize oil trucks coming in and out of territory controlled by [ISIS] and to impose a global moratorium on the sale of antiquities from [Iraq and Syria].”

An international organization has finally recognized and severely criticized the havoc being created by ISIS and proposed definitive actions to cut off its funding. The panel indicated that ISIS generates between $846 thousand and $1.6 million each day from black market sales of mostly oil and antiquities. The money is used to motivate fighters and buy weapons.

The panel also urged countries near Iraq and Syria to stop the influx of new fighters and place sanctions on those who recruit for ISIS.

On Wednesday, a Times story reported that a U.N. official “called on the Muslim world to denounce crimes of the extremist group that seeks to establish an Islamic state . . . calling its actions both a violation of international law and Islamic tenets.”

The official, who is a member of the Jordanian royal family and a Muslim, is the high commissioner for human rights at the U.N. He said it was “disturbing” that “few to nonexistent” public demonstrations in the Muslim world have condemned the actions of ISIS even while Arab nations have spoken against the rebels.

Bravely, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein cited Muslim clerics that ISIS has violated Shariah countless times through forced conversions to Islam, reintroduction of slavery and murder of civilians. He said Islam also “prohibited the killing of diplomats and emissaries.”

It is heartening to hear the beginnings of outrage emanating from the Muslim world. The silence of the group has caused many non-Muslims to believe that nonviolent elements in the Arab world are silently supportive of ISIS. If this is untrue, these people should speak out in protest and on social media. It would unite them with those who want peace, discourage the continuation of the ISIS jihad and decrease the recruitment of more fighters.

By Sal Bommarito

The two lead international stories today are the execution of American Peter Kassig and the increasingly tenuous negotiations with Iran relating to its nuclear program.

The beheading of Kassig was another unnecessary and extraordinarily cruel act on the part of ISIS. It involves only one man, yet the significance of the misdeed is great. First off, Kassig was on a mission of mercy, a humanitarian effort to help those who are being negatively impacted by the turmoil in the Middle East. Why would any group target and behead a person whose intentions are so honorable?

Second, the act is an insult to the U.S. and every one of its citizens. Taking the life of an innocent American should not occur without serious retribution. The whole episode ought to be a call to arms; a deadly response is totally justifiable. To make matters worse, ISIS barbarians openly defy the president and are not frightened by the military might of America. Why, because of the meek response of our leaders to the tragedies that are affiliated with the ISIS confrontation.

By broadcasting his battle plans and refusing to consider tactics that would enable the U.S. to actually destroy the enemy, the president has made his country look like a paper tiger, too frightened to take appropriate action. The logical response to the beheadings and other acts of criminality should be deadly force and targeted strikes on ISIS leadership with U.S. soldiers that are expert in these types of matters.

The negotiations with Iran were bound to experience serious bumps. Iran’s clerics who rule the country have great incentive to eliminate economic sanctions imposed on them by the U.S. However, they know Obama is acting with other intentions. And so, the Iranian decision makers sense an opportunity to obtain much more from a nuclear deal with America.

What are the other intentions of Obama? The president is struggling with the ground force situation. A deal with Iran could include an agreement for it to engage ISIS. By Iran doing so, it might ameliorate the need for the U.S. to send troops to confront ISIS. If the U.S. cannot ally with Iran and cannot muster sufficient and capable ground support from Iraq and Syria, American soldiers will likely be needed to finish off ISIS.

The Iranians know the president is approaching the end of his tenure, and looking back, his achievements are not impressive. A nuclear deal with Iran, even a less than optimal one, could be seen as a great accomplishment that bolsters the president’s legacy.

A new deal could decrease the threat of Israel to Iran. Many think the Israelis will attack Iran if it determines that a nuclear weapon is imminent. But, on the heels of a deal with Iran, it would seem less likely.

On the other side of the coin, the president has the power of economic sanctions and lower oil prices in his favor. Iran is going to experience greater economic strife if it cannot sell its oil, especially if oil prices remain low.

Getting a deal done that can be approved by Congress will be increasingly difficult. As time passes and relations deteriorate between the president and Congress over domestic issues, chances of a new Iran deal will become more remote.

The ISIS war is creating derivative concerns every day. The struggle is at a critical point and any missteps could have long-lasting strategic implications. The president dearly needs some positive developments in the near future.

By Sal Bommarito

ISIS beheaded Peter Kassig today, an American. Kassig was a former Army Ranger who returned to Syria after his tenure in the military to do humanitarian work.

The New York Times published a story about Yazidi girls in Iraq who have been kidnapped. ISIS seized upwards of 7,000 young women who were forced to convert to Islam, sold off like animals and used by ISIS fighters for sexual purposes. ISIS kidnapped the women after raids on their towns in Iraq. Some have been sent to Syria as compensation to rebel fighters.

Where is the outrage for these horrendous acts? When is the world, and in particular the U.S., going to take more appropriate and deadly action against these despicable terrorists? How long can America look the other way?

There is little doubt that the issue at hand is the deployment of ground forces, which we have been told will come from Iraqi and Syria. It is absurd to think that 80,000 soldiers from these countries will be trained and ready for action in the near future. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made this forecast.

The execution of Kassig is yet another slap in the face intended to insult and denigrate America. The savages perpetrating these deeds defy the U.S. and challenge it to increase its military presence. What is so unnerving is that the people being executed are in the region trying to assist those who have been hurt by the war.

ISIS “has openly acknowledged its slavery industry.” In an article in Dabiq, the group’s online English-language magazine, ISIS indicated it has begun to use a “custom justified under Shariah.” This custom suggests “one-fifth of the slaves [should be] transferred to the Islamic State’s authority to be divided as Kitums.” Kitums are a tax on the spoils of war.

Human Rights Watch said, “The systematic abduction, abuse and killing of Yazidis might amount to crimes against humanity.” There is no doubt that the actions warrant severe retribution.

Western nations should not become embroiled in social activities of sovereign nations unless individual acts are deemed to be capital crimes and/or crimes against humanity. Considering that ISIS is not a legal entity and is committing egregious crimes, the coalition would be justified if it utilized greater military force. This action would not only be justified, it is the right thing to do. How long is the U.S. going to continue a benign bombing campaign that cannot alone bring victory? It would be immoral to ignore the barbarians by allowing them to continue to behead their enemies, kidnap women and slaughter innocent civilians. It is unconscionable to wait some uncertain amount of time until ground forces from Iraq and Syria are ready to set out after ISIS fighters, especially if there is any doubt that the soldiers will be ready and able to complete their missions.

The bombing campaign is insufficient; the situation is screaming for greater force. It is time for the president to revisit his ground forces policy. Thousand, and perhaps millions of people, are depending upon America to save them.

I sincerely regret making a case that will endanger our young and brave soldiers. However, it is likely that the U.S. will have to send ground troops to end this war, or at worse to stop ISIS from overrunning other Arab nations.

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS conflict is filled with more contradictions each day. U.S. generals are still “considering” what contingencies might cause them to recommend ground force deployment. Iraqis and Syrians located in different parts of their countries are supportive and against the U.S. and ISIS.

The president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. He has indicated on several occasions that there will be no deployment of U.S. ground forces into either Iraq or Syria, while simultaneously doubling the number of “military advisors” just a few days ago. Nevertheless, senior commanders including Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other high-ranking soldiers have speculated about the moment to use American foot soldiers. Dempsey postulated to the House Armed Services Committee about events that would force him to recommend the deployment of troops to the president.

Certainly, enough military personnel, military experts and military talking heads have warned that the U.S. will not be able to defeat and degrade ISIS without ground soldiers. The only way to root out ISIS fighters from populated areas is with this additional capability. Also, qualified soldiers are needed on the scene to provide U.S. bombers with quality targets. Currently, pilots identify targets from the air. The former will result in many more successful bombing sorties and less collateral damage.

In spite of all this mumbling behind his back, the president is still willing to bet the war on indigenous ground forces that are supposed to do very difficult work sometime in the future. Many people in the know have indicated that the Iraqi Army is not and will not be up to the task of facing off against ISIS. And, the proposed training of moderate rebels to repel ISIS in Syria has not even begun. In the meantime, ISIS is digging in to their positions, often in populated areas. New recruits are pouring in and ISIS is providing services to civilians in cities they have overwhelmed as a precursor to establishing an Islamic State. The New York Times reported on the aforementioned civilian services along with some very different perspectives among Iraqis about U.S. bombing and ISIS occupation.

The ISIS war is beginning to feel like an extended conflict with no end in sight as neither side is making any definitive moves to assert itself. The U.S. is continuing with a somewhat anemic battle plan: bombing runs are much fewer than other conflicts in the region in the past several years. The targets being hit by U.S. are not worthy of the high tech munitions being employed to blow up trucks and other soft targets.

If no body bags are sent back to the U.S., Americans will probably not object to a standoff in the Middle East. But, it’s likely that the new Congress will start asking tough questions about the mission, the direction of the war and the likelihood of defeating ISIS.

By Sal Bommarito

On rare occasions, I agree with Tom Friedman, columnist at the New York Times. He wrote a very insightful article about the conflicting forces in the Middle East and how they might impede the effort to defeat ISIS.

An unbiased observer could reasonably conclude that ISIS should be the principal concern for all the key players in the Middle East. After all, ISIS has threatened to kill all non-Arabs and non-Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria in an effort to create a Sunni caliphate. Moreover, ISIS fighters are approaching the borders that abut Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Jordan foretelling future violence.

Since the current ISIS brouhaha began a few months ago, many have wondered why Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have not been more concerned with the rampaging radicals, and why they are not more engaged in the fight. Friedman has unveiled the answer: these Arab nations have other issues that are equal to or greater in importance than ISIS.

The Middle East has been on the front pages of the newspapers for years. In recent times, oil supply, two Iraq wars, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and now the ISIS encounter have directed attention towards the region. Intermittently, different antagonists have incurred the wrath of Arabs. For years, the Israeli state has been a thorn in the sides of Arabs. The U.S.’s all too frequent incursions into the area, along with its support of Israel have confounded Arab leaders. But Friedman believes the most important underlying issue has been something else.

All the sturm and drang is a masquerade that diverts everyone from the real truth: the centuries old feud between Sunnis and Shiite. It is useful to consider Friedman’s take on this notion.

Iran has made it abundantly clear it wants to develop a nuclear weapon. Understandably, the rest of the civilized world is against this ambition. Why is it so important to Iran? The answer is that Iran intends to use this newfound club to bully Arabs into a Shiite caliphate, or a state led by a supreme religious leader.

Iran is the unchallenged leader of the Shiite world. According to Friedman, “[Iran] has taken control of four Arab capitals: Beirut, through the Shiite militia Hezbollah; Damascus, through the Shiite/Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad; Baghdad, through the Shiite-led government; and . . . Sana, where a pro-Iranian-Yemen-Shiite offshoot . . . recently swept into the capital of Yemen [to dominate Sunnis].”

Up north, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erodogan, has abandoned the dream of democracy for the region. He now hopes to establish a Sunni caliphate that will dominate the Middle East under his leadership. Turkey has other issues that it believes are equally as important as the ISIS threat. They include the Kurdish aspiration of independence and the continued existence of the Assad regime in Syria. Turkey intends to pursue ISIS along with the aforementioned concerns on an equally aggressive basis, unless or until ISIS steps over its border.

And finally Saudi Arabia will play a large role in the Middle East drama. Its leaders also long for a caliphate that is Sunni, but Saudi-led. Just like the Iranians, Saudis have unleashed insurgents into Shiite strongholds to provoke violence and instability. No Saudi decision will be made regarding ISIS without first considering religious ramifications.

How ISIS will be defeated is unknown at this time. Many believe ISIS cannot be repelled without efficient ground support. Unfortunately, no nation is able and prepared to provide foot soldiers. Nevertheless, if ISIS is neutralized, the conflict in the region will continue in the form of new confrontations between Sunnis and Shiites.

By Sal Bommarito

Many Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about the mission to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Comprehensive reporting by the New York Times will not allay these concerns.

The following is a list of issues facing the U.S. in its confrontation with ISIS in Iraq and Syria that were documented in the Times article.

• Spotty intelligence, poor weather and an Iraqi army that only now is going on the offensive are challenging commanders.
• Weekend airstrikes included a convoy of ten armed trucks and two checkpoints. Sadly, we are using munitions and weapons technologies that cost billions to destroy a few trucks and an outpost.
• The slow pace of Iraqi and Kurdish engagements is influencing the air war. The result is that ISIS fighters are digging in and avoiding bombs.
• Bomber pilots are seeking out targets of opportunity such as checkpoints, artillery and combat vehicles. The preferred method of conducting the air war would be to use ground forces to root out fighters and identify high value targets for the bombers. Finding targets is difficult from the air, and so, only one in four planes are dropping their loads.
• American commandos are not active in either Iraq or Syria so no raids on military camps and safe houses are occurring. These attacks generated useful information in previous confrontations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Airstrikes are constrained by concerns about collateral damage. Civilian casualties could alienate Sunni tribesmen in western Iraq, in particular. This is a group the coalition hopes will fight ISIS.
• The current request for funding the war of $5 billion is woefully low to conduct operations and train indigenous troops.
• The coalition is dependent upon the new Iraqi government to be inclusive towards Sunnis. If disenfranchisement of Sunnis by Shiites resumes, Sunnis may not fight ISIS. Given the bad blood between the sects, this contingency is highly probable.
• The pace of the training of Iraqi soldiers is very slow giving the enemy an opportunity to prepare for a counter offensive.
• Pilots are finding it cumbersome to get approval to hit targets they identify. This is related to concerns about collateral damage.
• The air campaign has averaged five strikes a day in both Iraq and Syria. In Libya, NATO carried out 50 strikes. In Afghanistan, 85 daily strikes occurred. In Iraq in 2003, 800 strikes occurred. The impact on ISIS of U.S. airpower at the current rate is relatively insignificant.

David A. Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who fought in Afghanistan and the first Iraq War said, “Air power needs to be applied like a thunderstorm, and so far we’ve only witnessed a drizzle.” General Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff said, “It’s going to take people on the ground, ground forces.” He added, “the priority is to develop ‘indigenous forces’ to retake territory from ISIS . . . [if the current strategy is unsuccessful], then we’re going to have to reassess, and decide whether [to deploy U.S. ground forces].”

The ISIS situation is becoming a monstrous problem with the potential to continue for years. The U.S. should not have entered the fray unless its leaders were prepared to complete the mission expeditiously.