DISPATCHES FROM MOON OF ALABAMA, BY "B"
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from Moon of Alabama
WITH SELECT COMMENTS FROM ORIGINAL THREAD
The whore US media does not care to clarify the situation, as usual, since that would point to the embarrassing but illuminating fact the US military [read, the US deep state] is again attacking forces fighting ISIS instead of ISIS itself, as it has long claimed.
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hat may be true or may be not true. Here is what happened.Within Syria @WithinSyriaBlog - 17:43 UTC · Dec 29, 2019
Trump just made the mistake of his presidency.
On Friday a volley of some 30 107mm Katyusha rockets hit the K1 base which houses Iraqi and U.S. troops near Kirkuk, Iraq. One U.S. mercenary/contractor died, two Iraqi and four U.S. soldiers were wounded. Instead of finding the real culprits - ISIS remnants, disgruntled locals, Kurds who want to regain control over Kirkuk - the U.S. decided that Kata'ib Hizbullah was the group guilty of the attack.
Protesters in Iraq surround US embassy compound to show their anger at American air strikes against the wrong target.
Kata'ib Hizbullah is a mostly Shia group with some relations to Iran. It is part of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) which were founded and trained by Iran to stop and defeat the Islamic State (ISIS) when it occupied nearly a third of Iraq and Syria. KH is like all PMU units now under command and control of the Iraqi Ministry of Defense.
To take revenge for the death of one of its mercenaries the U.S. air force attacked five camps where Kata'ib Hizbullah and other Iraqi forces were stationed:
In response to repeated Kata'ib Hizbollah (KH) attacks on Iraqi bases that host Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) coalition forces, U.S. forces have conducted precision defensive strikes against five KH facilities in Iraq and Syria that will degrade KH's ability to conduct future attacks against OIR coalition forces.
The five targets include three KH locations in Iraq and two in Syria. These locations included weapon storage facilities and command and control locations that KH uses to plan and execute attacks on OIR coalition forces.
All of the KH positions that were hit were in the western Anbar desert, 450 kilometers away from Kirkuk. KH has bases on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border where it is engaged in fighting the still active ISIS. The results of the air strikes were devastating:
Elijah J. Magnier @ejmalrai - 6:20 UTC · Dec 30, 2019
32 killed and 45 wounded the count of #US violent aggression on #Iraq security forces brigades 45 and 46 last night on a military position established to counter-attack and raid #ISIS remnant at al-Qaem, the borders between Iraq and Syria.
The al-Qaem/al-Bukamal border station is the only open one between Iraq and Syria which is not under U.S. control. The U.S. was furious when the Iraqi prime minister Adil Abdul Mahdi allowed it to be established. It was previously attacked by Israel which had launched its assault from a U.S. air force base in east Syria.
TØM CΛT @TomtheBasedCat - 6:11 UTC · Dec 29, 2019
It wasn't just Hezbollah Battalions members who were affected, there are also wounded among the ranks of the Missiles Forces / Rocket Battalion which is considered a separate unit apart from the numbered brigades.
The dead include Abu Ali Madiniyah, the commander of the 1st battalion of the 45th Brigade.
The strikes were in total disregard of Iraqi sovereignty and against forces under direct command of the Iraqi state:
In a statement, Abdul-Mahdi said Defense Secretary Mark Esper had called him about a half-hour before the U.S. strikes to tell him of U.S. intentions to hit bases of the militia suspected of being behind Friday’s rocket attack. Abdul-Mahdi said in the statement he asked Esper to call off U.S. retaliation plans.
The statement said Iraqi President Barham Salih also received advance notice from a U.S. diplomat, and also asked unsuccessfully for Americans to call off it off.
The strikes were designed to kill those who still fight ISIS in its most virulent hide outs:
Rania Khalek @RaniaKhalek - 18:44 UTC · Dec 29, 2019
The PMF group that was hit by the Americans has been fighting ISIS for years. They were on the front lines protecting Iraq from ISIS in Syria and engaged in the ongoing battles with ISIS in the Syrian and Iraqi deserts. They were THE line of defense.
The American attack on this PMF group is not only a disproportionate act of revenge, it is also a threat to regional security. AND it’s pathetic for a so-called super power to get into a fight with a small militia.
Here is video of the bloody aftermath.
One of the videos from last night: pic.twitter.com/ptqr9fnjPo
— TØM CΛT (@TomtheBasedCat) December 30, 2019
There are some 5,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq in bases which also house 10,000nds of Iraqi soldiers and PMF troops. Revenge attacks are now inevitable:
In the aftermath of the American strikes, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi said, “We have already confirmed our rejection of any unilateral action by coalition forces or any other forces inside Iraq. We consider it a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and a dangerous escalation that threatens the security of Iraq and the region,” according to a statement released on Iraqi state television.
Abdul-Mahdi now finds himself facing the nightmare possibility of Iranian-linked paramilitaries, whose political wings hold enormous sway over his government, going to war with American forces on Iraqi territory, which would compound a disastrous few months in which the deaths of hundreds of protestors have been laid at his feet, prompting him to hand in his resignation to parliament.
The coming days and weeks will answer a number of questions about how this perilous situation will play out, primarily how far are the paramilitaries willing to act upon their rhetoric which has endlessly stated that the American presence in Iraq is a continuation of the occupation, in addition to their readiness to take military action in order to force out the Americans, “once again”.
The U.S. and Israel have already killed hundreds of Iraqi forces that are aligned with Iran. But these were the most egregious strikes. There is no doubt. The U.S. forces will have to (again) leave Iraq:
Brasco_Aad @Brasco_Aad - 19:55 UTC · Dec 29, 2019
Iraqi PMU Asai'b Ahl al-Haq statement on the American attack on Iraq tonight:
''The American military presence has become a burden for the State and a source of aggression against our forces and therefore it has become mandatory for all of us to expel them from Iraq.''
U.S. President Donald Trump had declared that he wants U.S. troops to leave the Middle East. But the 'deep state', the Pentagon and State Department bureaucracy, have resisted any such move:
Pompeo, Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, flew to Palm Beach, Florida, after the operation to brief President Donald Trump.
Esper said they discussed with Trump “other options that are available” to respond to Iran.
...
Trump was at Mar-a-Lago but did not appear with his top national security officials. After Pompeo and Esper spoke, the president traveled to his private golf club in West Palm Beach. The White House did not immediately say why Trump returned to the club after spending nearly six hours there earlier Sunday.
Yesterday's attacks guarantee that all U.S. troops will have to leave Iraq and will thereby also lose their supply lines to Syria.
One wonders if that was the real intent of those strikes.
Posted by b on December 30, 2019 at 8:03 UTC | Permalink
|
Instead of finding the real culprits - ISIS remnants, disgruntled locals, Kurds who want to regain control over Kirkuk - the U.S. decided that Kata'ib Hizbullah was the group guilty of the attack.... Good article, thank you:) So you're wondering if Trump murdered a bunch of people in Syria and Iraq in order to leave the Middle East? I've yet to catch a glimpse of Trump fighting a "Deep State". Posted by: SharonM | Dec 30 2019 8:41 utc | 2 It sounded to me as though the typically ignorant Americans, maybe even Trump himself, but certainly Pompeo, to judge from what he said, didn't understand that Kata'ib Hizbullah in Iraq have nothing to do with Hizbullah in Lebanon. They are completely separate organisations. But ignorant Washington lights upon them because the same name. Classic American error. Posted by: Laguerre | Dec 30 2019 8:48 utc | 3 Looks to me like a mindless reflexive "blame it on Iran" response rather than some Obama style 11 dimensional chess (not that Obama was doing that, it was just always trotted out to support whatever corrupt sellout he was engaged in at the time)> Posted by: pretzelattack | Dec 30 2019 9:26 utc | 4 The attackers build sofisticated launching platform to secretly transport the rockets inside iraq but left it unharmed with 4 iranian made rockets. pictures Posted by: Gary | Dec 30 2019 9:35 utc | 5 For those of us fed up with U.S. intervention and foriegn adventures; I would suggest just a wee bit more patience. Our ignorance, arrogance, hubris, and murderous behavior will finally be our undoing. There is a saying (not said enough) that there is another super-power; the rest of the world...We may now be seeing that alt-superpower emerging albeit, slowly. But I also sense a quickening... Posted by: V | Dec 30 2019 9:36 utc | 6 So by your analysis either: a) the Generals devised a way to create more bloodshed and kill more US soldiers so that they can leave with their tails between their legs instead of under previously 'peaceful' and more dignified terms? b) Trump approved the strike knowing this would cause retaliations and would then use the US' untenable position and mounting losses as justification to pull out, in blatant defeat leading into an election, and outmanoeuvring his generals, assuming he could even get the withdrawal he has thus far failed to achieve? Sorry, but neither scenario seems even remotely possible or that well thought through. Posted by: Et Tu Brute | Dec 30 2019 9:41 utc | 7 "Yesterday's attacks guarantee that all U.S. troops will have to leave Iraq and will thereby also lose their supply lines to Syria." That statement would fill me with joy if true. So if you are confident in making that statement, then I would very much like you to explain in support of that statement, because I have no idea why you are so confident. Posted by: braithwa842 | Dec 30 2019 9:42 utc | 8 Posted by: Laguerre | Dec 30 2019 8:48 utc | 3 "Kata'ib Hizbullah in Iraq have nothing to do with Hizbullah in Lebanon. They are completely separate organisations. But ignorant Washington lights upon them because the same name." Whether it was ignorance or deliberate confounding makes no difference toward the goal of blaming Iran and trying to provoke Iran. How can they launch 30 rockets and only kill one person? Posted by: Johny Conspiranoid | Dec 30 2019 10:45 utc | 10 After U.S. Strike On Iraqi Forces Its Troops Will (Again) Have To Leave yeah, like the old adage about quitting smoking... it's easy, done it many times! Posted by: john | Dec 30 2019 10:46 utc | 11 I'm much less sanguine than b about the probable result of this butchery. The arsholes in control of deep state initiatives generally do pride themselves on their ignorance of any culture not based upon amerikan ivy league. They tend to take perverse delight in sh1tting on the idiosyncrasies of another culture and then say "oops we didn't know - sorry" whilst also creating the false meme of it all really being the other fellas fault because, "nobody told us" ignoring the fact they are the invaders, so it is down to them to know what's what. If the yanks double down on that one right now by trying to create the belief among amerikan idiots that Kata'ib Hizbullah = Hizbollah "see we always told ya those Lebanese under the thumb of that Nasrullah tyrant are all terrorists", I don't think thay will get away with it. It will become obvious that it was all about shutting down the border base and even if the dems want to ignore cos Nettyahoo has told them to, the amerikan media has gotten so hysterical about the need to get rid of the buffoon, some will dig up all sh1t they can to hurl at WH. The dems are simply too fragmented angry & stressed to organise a clear consistant message be pumped out. However if the other piece is in play, the one run by the mob who have swotted up on the complex rivalries which some militias thrive on, they likely believe everything has been correctly timed to mix this issue in with those before xmas demonstrations against all established political movements in Iraq. Blind Freddy can see that entire thing is a classic amerikan pre-coup strategy, in which case the amerikan smarties will be hoping the Iraqi government makes a big noise about the bombings, so they can crank up the proxies and create a Libya like major incident. Now that last option is more unlikely but it is a possible scenario. Posted by: A User | Dec 30 2019 10:53 utc | 12 Posted by: Russ | Dec 30 2019 10:10 utc | 9
You haven't understood that an innocent target was hit because the US leadership is too ignorant of what any normal leadership would know. b is right that it might lead to demands for the US to leave, if the US is going to attack government supporters, one of the Shi'a militias who did the hard work of defeating Da'ish in Iraq. Posted by: Laguerre | Dec 30 2019 11:35 utc | 13
Posted by: A User | Dec 30 2019 10:53 utc | 12 You're as bad as Trump and Pompeo. There won't be a coup in Iraq, because there isn't any potential Iraqi government more suitable for US interests. I've posted that point a good number of times on here. But people recycle their ignorance, whatever anybody says. That was why the bombing was particularly stupid. It was weakening the compliant government who are willing to tolerate the US. Posted by: Laguerre | Dec 30 2019 11:47 utc | 14 Posted by: Laguerre | Dec 30 2019 11:35 utc | 13
You haven't understood that the US government doesn't care how many innocent targets are hit (or for that matter that from the US point of view there are no "innocents", only enemies to be attacked and resources to be expended), they care only about their brutish aims and are increasingly heavy-handed and stupid about going after these aims. Of course it leads at least to political demands for the US to leave, though as I wrote in my first comment I haven't seen whether or not there are yet formal demands; until then it's just empty rhetoric. And then we'll see how real any such demands are. In the past they were sham - the US "leaving" meant staying, just primarily in the Western desert. If the Iraqi government insists on any real change to the status quo, the regime-change-seeking color revolution will really kick into high gear. Mercenaries are people who kill other people for money. In America mercenaries are culture heroes. When heroic Special Forces tire of meddlesome bureaucratic restraints they become mercs and defend America for real. And get rich in process. What's not to like? Plus they get all the coolest and newest toys and props and wardrobe. A nation where little boys want to grow up to be mercenaries and whole industries strive to push boys in that direction is a nation that no longer needs to exist. The rot is top to bottom. Every class, every tribe, every cohort, every club in America thinks mercs are just the best. Ragheads who kill mercs just gotta die. Posted by: oldhippie | Dec 30 2019 11:52 utc | 16 It may be that Trump got mousetrapped. In terms of the 2020 election one might consider that being seen to lose (that's when they're shooting at you when you leave) may in the ultracon mind be seen as a way to weaken Trump, while in the general population many would be happy if the US were to leave Iraq, even under fire. So the ultracons may not get the result they like, because they're delusional. But I doubt they're leaving. If they stay they'll be staying under fire. Until they leave. Minds one of Vietnam... However, the recent naval maneuvers in Gulf of Oman demonstrated the ability to close the strait...Kinzal is "deployed" at antipodal loci...and generally this is not the world that was yesterday. Like Ripper said, two can play the game... Posted by: Walter | Dec 30 2019 11:54 utc | 17 Posted by: Laguerre | Dec 30 2019 11:47 utc | 14 "There won't be a coup in Iraq, because there isn't any potential Iraqi government more suitable for US interests...That was why the bombing was particularly stupid. It was weakening the compliant government who are willing to tolerate the US." You just got done saying how stupid the US leadership is, and here you say it again, yet in the same breath you say they're too smart to work for a coup since they've calculated they can't do better than the current government. As always, you can count on the asshole US government and its bloated military to indiscriminately kill more people in Iraq/Syria/Yemen/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Libya/Palestine/Venezuela/Bolivia/Sudan/Somalia/Ukraine etc. If there is one country in the world which makes life on Earth miserable, unjust, with 'war without end' it is the asshole USA! USA is easily the most hated nation on Earth, and you can see why from this article! Posted by: deschutes | Dec 30 2019 11:56 utc | 19 |
"b" is Moon of Alabama's founding (and chief) editor. Bernhard started and still runs the site. Once in a while you will also find posts and art from regular commentators. The name Moon of Alabama was taken from the first line of the chorus of that song: "Oh, moon of Alabama ...". You can reach the current administrator of this site by emailing Bernhard at MoonofA@aol.com. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Yesterday's attacks guarantee that all U.S. troops will have to leave Iraq and will thereby also lose their supply lines to Syria.
One wonders if that was the real intend of those strikes.
Just like with 9/11 and Iraq where the US government immediately pushed its pre-existing agenda, so the US doesn't care who really launches attacks on US and US-client positions in Iraq and Syria but automatically assigns them to Hezbollah and thus to Iran, in accord with the pre-existing neocon wet dream of provoking a full-scale war with Iran.
If that's the US intent, to escalate against Iran, and if conversely the Iraq government is serious about kicking out the US military, we'll have the confrontation discussed in the open thread.
As for the idea that Trump was briar-patching here, wanting a good legalistic pretext to withdraw troops from Iraq (which would then trigger the practical supply-based pretext to withdraw them from Syria and not "take the oil" after all), well even if he had such confused thoughts, we've already seen how spineless he is about trying to assert his will over that of the neocon bureaucracies, civilian and military. Do we really expect them to agree to vacate Iraq merely because the legally constituted supposedly sovereign government told them to? It seems more likely they'll tell the government they're not going anywhere and demand that the government help them suppress non-governmental resistance to their ongoing presence, or else. (I don't know if there's yet been a formal order to leave from the Iraqi government, or just rhetoric in an attempt to save face.)
Posted by: Russ | Dec 30 2019 8:34 utc | 1