What Do You Mean 'We,' Kemosabe?

A clan begins to think of self-preservation apart from Assad:

During four years of civil war, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could count on the country’s Druze to keep quiet. Like other religious minorities, the Druze community tended to back the strongman, fearing their fate could be worse under the rebels, who are mostly Sunni Muslims.

Recently, however, the Druze have been defying Assad's government. Many are refusing compulsory military service. Increasingly, Druze spiritual leaders are criticizing the embattled president and urging their community to adopt a neutral stance in the conflict.

Representing less than 3% of Syria's population, the Druze have little margin for error in picking the winning side.

Remember, the deal was that the Druze would fight for Assad who would protect the Druze from a hostile majority. If Assad is going to lose, the deal is that the Druze will die for a losing cause and then suffer retribution from the victors, too. That's not nearly as good a deal.

The Kurds are doing this already. But they are geographically distant from the center of Assad's power and never really trusted, anyway. So their attempt to survive apart from Assad is not shocking.

Although they are flexible enough to fight with Assad's forces against ISIL at Hasakeh in the northeast.

If Assad had more power relative to ISIL and other jihadis, Assad might have made a deal with the Kurds exchanging autonomy for a common alliance against Sunni Arab rebels and terrorists.

Is this the start of every clan for itself decisions in Syria?

Stop Me Before I Kill Again?

Seriously, the notion our president has advanced that the Iran deal is the only thing preventing a war makes it sound like a plea to America to go along with his plan to keep him from killing again.

President Obama is the Commander in Chief. He'd have to order the military to attack Iran. Is he really saying he's a barely restrained warmonger?

Well, perhaps he has a point ...

There Is Another Hope

One long-shot hope I've had over stopping a bad nuclear deal with Iran is that the Iranians might ultimately refuse to pretend that they don't want nukes by signing a deal with the Great Satan:

I've long assumed the general outline of an Obama administration nuclear deal with Iran is quite clear. Iran will pretend not to have a nuclear weapons program; and we will pretend to believe them.

Yet I've held out hope that Iran itself would save us from such a bad deal because of their utter contempt for us and their refusal to even pretend to bow to us in their certainty that God is on their side and backs their nuclear efforts.

Could I be right?

A UN Security Council resolution endorsing Iran’s nuclear deal that passed on Monday is unacceptable, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohammed Ali Jafari was quoted as saying by the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.

“Some parts of the draft have clearly crossed the Islamic republic’s red lines, especially in Iran’s military capabilities. We will never accept it,” he was quoted as saying shortly before the resolution was passed in New York.

Could the nuttiest of the Iranian nutballs scuttle the deal because they don't want to even lower themselves to pretend to abandon their nuclear path when God is so clearly on their side?

Smaller and Lighter

Strategypage addresses the issue of the fluctuating Army size.

I added a large update to my post on that issue. I note this since the post will have slipped off the main page by now.

An Easy Choice

Donald Trump is in a feud with Senator McCain.

Let me just say that if the choice is between siding with the man who was last in his class at Annapolis and the man who was first in his class at Clown College, the choice is clear.

But excuse Trump, he probably thinks the Hanoi Hilton is a four-star property he could buy and slap his name on.

And I'm not a particular fan of McCain the politician.

UPDATE: Yet it is hard to be too pro-McCain the politician, given he started the fight by saying Trump brings out the "crazies."

That's no way to speak of potential supporters who are frustrated that their party's established politicians won't discuss the issues. The appeal of even a buffoon who talks about the issues is strong in the short run, at least.

UPDATE: This is late, but very relevant:

To explain the inexplicable rise of Donald Trump is to calibrate the anger of a fed-up crowd that is enjoying the comeuppance of an elite that never pays for the ramifications of its own ideology. The elite media, whose trademark is fad and cant, writes off the fed-up crowd as naïve and susceptible to demagoguery as the contradictory and hypocritical Trump manipulates their anger. In fact, they probably got it backwards. Trump is a transitory vehicle of the fed-up crowd, a current expression of their distaste for both Democratic and Republican politics, but not an end in and of himself. The fed-up crowd is tired of being demagogued to death by progressives, who brag of “working across the aisle” and “bipartisanship” as they ram through agendas with executive orders, court decisions, and public ridicule. So the fed-ups want other conservative candidates to emulate Trump’s verve, energy, eagerness to speak the unspeakable, and no-holds barred Lee Atwater style — without otherwise being Trump.

Hanson points out that while liberal city governments are celebrated for "sanctuary city" policies that nullify federal immigration laws, no conservative municipality could get away with nullifying federal gun laws or abortion laws in a similar fashion.

A fighter without the clown-college behavior would get the Trump base rather quickly, I suspect.

CSI: Jihad

The media can conjure up Tea Party connections within hours of a violent attack, but the Tennessee attacks are a mystery of impenetrable motivations.

I will say that we should remember that the American Moslem community has been very resistant to jihadi impulses. The jihadis know that it is risky to operate within the community that has relations with our law enforcement to find jihadi types.

As I wrote in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks:

We must trust that our Moslem and Arab neighbors share our values. They or their parents or grandparents immigrated to America because they too cherish our freedoms and way of life. Like most Americans, they are here because someone in their family fled poverty, oppression, or both, to build a better life for their children. They are horrified and angry like all Americans. "They" are our friends and neighbors and are part of "us." Some, whether citizens or residents, will be guilty of cooperating with the enemy or even actively fighting us. This is not new. Fascism and communism had their admirers here even in our darkest hours during those fights. Those betrayers were guilty as individuals and not as members of any religion or ethnic group. Let us not descend into the logic of our enemies that the perceived or actual guilt of one condemns all similar innocents.

We need to coolly and calmly track down and destroy these jihadis who live among us, including lawful surveillance of mosques (remember that they were jihadi arsenals and barracks in Iraq), without indicting all Moslems as jihadi supporters.

Indeed, robust efforts to destroy jihadis will strengthen the ability of other Moslems to act against the jihadis by eliminating the fear of jihadis seeking retribution and reducing the appeal to young idiots who want to ride with the "strong horse."

The Thin Red Line Segment

Britain is determined to be a solid military ally for America despite dramatic reductions in British military power.

This is good news:

“There are few areas where our strategic interests are more natural, or our global interests are more aligned, than at sea,” [the Royal Navy’s First Sea Lord Adm. George]Zambellas told an audience at the Royal Institute of International Affairs — also known as Chatham House.

Zambellas said the 75-year-old partnership, which dates to the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II, is about to become “even closer and stronger” thanks to a combination of sustained investment in ships and equipment and on the “direct practical [and] spiritual support we’ve had from the US Navy.”

I'd rather have a Britain with a military capable of acting independent of us. But you go to war with the ally you have and not the ally you wish you had.

And Britain has to face reality, too. This is what you do when you can no longer carry out significant independent operations.

Britain is lucky we exist. Who do we support if our military capabilities are scaled back too much?

So this is good for us as a consolation prize sort of thing. But then, I said that in the air and at sea, using tribal auxiliaries to support our armed forces would be easier.

Our Human Terrain

Our effort to study the human terrain of enemy/allied societies has been deemed a failure:

The Army's anthropology experiment ends in defeat

That's the headline. But it would probably be better to say the Army's anthropologist experiment ends in defeat:

After the Pentagon announced the program in 2007 -- noting that one founder, Montgomery McFate, was a Yale- and Berkeley-trained Ph.D. anthropologist -- the American Anthropological Association called it "an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise." Given that the Venn diagram of anthropologists and Bernie Sanders supporters is probably a perfect circle, this should have been expected.

How it was unacceptable to help our troops win is beyond me. But I'm nuance-deficient, as I've long admitted.


We have war plans for lots of contingencies. Mapping the human terrain should be part of those plans.

Mind you, the Army made mistakes in preparing and deploying the anthropologists who were sent into the field with our units. So we should learn from this experiment. It's an important initiative to get right.

When China Cards Attack

Russia thinks they can play the "China card" to deflect the West. But as Russia plays up mythical NATO threats to western Russia, China advances into Central Asia.

Russia smiles and plays along as China calls the shots in their relationship:

Russia is acutely aware that it cannot, and will not try to, compete with China's growing global economic influence, even if this extends into Russia's traditional sphere of influence in Central Asia. However, it's clear that China's dominance in both its bilateral relationship with Russia and within the multilateral organisations it has traditionally co-led with Moscow is increasing. As such, it's difficult to see how the Silk Road Economic Belt and the EEU could fully integrate, particularly given the much broader remit of the former. Instead, at least on a symbolic level, it's more likely that the EEU project will be subsumed by the wider Chinese project.

Yeah, say goodbye to the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union. The Chinese simply aren't playing Russia's game, at all.

The Russians are running out of time for their policy of appeasing China.

To Win Hearts and Minds You Have to Kill the Evil Hearts and Minds

While it is true that ultimately Islam itself must reject the jihadi interpretation of their religion, killing the jihadis is a necessary step both to protect us and make it safe and expedient for Moslems to reject the jihadi interpretation of Islam.

This is lovely if pointless:

A U.S.-led coalition dropped new leaflets over the de facto capital of the Islamic State group in Syria, promising those below that "freedom will come" to the region, activists said Sunday.

Freedom will only come--unless we are prepared right now to say that we are content to wait decades or centuries for that freedom--if we crush the jihadis who stand as the "strong horse" who promises victory for their vision of Islam:

News flash: The single-most persuasive thing you can do to “win the war of ideas” is obliterate ISIS. To the jihadist mind ISIS’s success is the best argument for more jihad. ISIS’s success inspires new foot soldiers, leading radical Muslims to believe that finally the tide is turning in their favor, that the caliphate is upon us. Jihad thrives on success. Conversely, it withers in the face of defeat. This should be a matter of common sense, but too many Americans misunderstand martyrdom, believing that successful military operations are self-defeating because they “create martyrs.” No, martyrs are only truly inspiring (on a large scale) when they succeed, not when they fail.

Which is a variation of the theme that I've droned on about over the years: force doesn't create more jihadis (as the left likes to say)--ineffective force creates jihadis.

And simply killing jihadis from the air, as we often boast about, is not the same as defeating them.

Kill them, take their territory, and make them flee into the hills. That is a defeat and that will bring freedom to those who suffer under ISIL rule or suffer from jihadi control of their lives.

And that will make it possible for Moslems to reject Islamism without fear for their lives as well as discourage proto-jihadis from moving beyond big talk to killing.

UPDATE: Oh, I heard someone defend the Twitter-based campaign against Islamism by saying Reagan defeated the Soviets without firing a shot. That's true. But irrelevant.

First, Reagan never forgot he was dealing with an enemy whose defeat was the primary goal, regardless of the diplomacy of the moment.

Second, it was a "cold" war. The Soviets weren't directly shooting at us. Was he to escalate to war?

And if ISIL and other jihadis weren't shooting and beheading and bombing--and eager to do those things to us--I'd say an ideological war to undermine them without drones was the way to go. But they are shooting. And so we must shoot back. And shoot enough to win--none of that proportionality nonsense we sometimes hear.

Radio Silence

Why am I not reading news about Iraq operations lately?

President Obama was briefed at the Pentagon on the war on ISIL--a rare event for the president--a couple weeks ago. Iraq began a major offensive a week ago in Anbar province. And Jordan closed their border with Iraq three days ago.

So why has there been no news out of Iraq on the offensive for many days now?

A big offensive. A major Jordanian move (it harms their economy to close the border). And noteworthy presidential interest in the area.

Oh, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is over there right now:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made an unannounced visit here today to discuss progress in the ongoing fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey spoke to leaders about the situation on the ground, and he spoke to service members about their experiences in the country.

This article simply notes that operations to reclaim Ramadi are "ongoing."

Yet nothing newsworthy is happening over the last week? What gives? The press would usually hype any failures if nothing was going on, so even lack of progress wouldn't explain the silence.

Is there no news? Am I just not seeing the news? Is there news that isn't being reported right now?

It just seems odd.

UPDATE: Ah! News! Well, odd news. ISIL blew up a stadium in Ramadi. I assume to prevent it from being used as a landing place for helicopters.

UPDATE: On the 23rd, I read that our Secretary of Defense visited Iraq. That's a lot of interest lately.

But the article says that the grandly announced offensive really isn't trying very hard to retake objectives--yet:

His unannounced visit coincides with attempts by Iraqi forces to lay the groundwork for an eventual push to try to recapture Ramadi, isolating parts of the city with help from U.S.-led air strikes ahead of a full offensive.

The spirit of Baghdad Bob and grand announcements persists.



Big overture, little show.

Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?

You know that a con is good when the victim thinks the con man is a friend even after the con is achieved.

Behold the Smart Diplomacy:

"The President thanked President Putin for Russia's important role in achieving this [nuclear deal with Iran] milestone, the culmination of nearly 20 months of intense negotiations," the White House said in a statement.

And this is after the Syria chemical weapons deal that the Russians "helped" us with, which saved Assad and didn't actually prevent Assad from using chemical weapons.

And after the conquest of Crimea and invasion of the Donbas region of Ukraine.

And after repeated Russian nuclear threats and pressure against the NATO Baltic States.



Just ... wow.

UPDATE: And who can be surprised that Spongespine Spandexpants delivered this deal?

UPDATE: Behold the level of pretending:

On April 7, 2015, President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “under this deal, you will have anywhere, any time 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.”

Now, on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Secretary of State John Kerry said, “This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. It was not on the table. There’s no such thing in arms control as any time, anywhere.”

Ponder that this deal may give the least effective American Secretary of State in recent history a Nobel Peace Prize.

Been a While

I went to art fair today. I couldn't get Lamb to go with me yesterday.

I found an artist who puts photos on ceramic and it is really good. So I grabbed his card.

I almost made a purchase, but I'm trying to ride out the summer without too much spending.

And I made it home before it rained a bit and before the temperatures got too high. And before it got too crowded.

It's been a while since I've been to the art fair(s).

Another Good Idea If Russia Had the Money

Russia's reserves reflect an old system that doesn't work for anything better than cannon fodder. The Russians are taking a small step to create Western style trained reserve forces.

In theory, having a new trained reserve force is a good idea for Russia:

[The new reserve force] will be distinct from Russia's existing military reserves because the part-time personnel will be paid a monthly sum and train regularly.

Russia already has several million military reservists consisting of ex-servicemen, but they do little training as there are restrictions on how often they can be called up.

The existing reserves are little better than drafting civilians. You have to retrain them because knowledge fades quickly without constant training. When you just had to march and shoot a rifle, that system could suffice (at a bloody cost), but now you are just sending lambs to the slaughter.

America's army reserve system of the National Guard and Reserves proved its worth by providing forces that could be plugged into the active force and perform at levels approaching regulars.

If memory serves me, PTSD (combat fatigue) is more of a problem with reserve units since personnel are recalled civilians without the routine stresses of active duty forces to strengthen their ability to resist wartime stress.

But the system worked in providing trained forces for combat. Indeed, in 2005, I believe the majority of combat units in Iraq were Guard units, which took up the slack while the Army was reorganizing its brigades.

But the new Russian Western-style force will start at only 5,000. If Russia wants to replace their existing reserves, they will find it is rather expensive.

On top of ambitious plans that are already unaffordable to reequip their army and air force, and expand the navy, this initiative seems unlikely to get funding.

UPDATE: Related on the reserves issue, the Finns are adding new reserves able to be rapidly mobilized and sent on offensive missions. Which would help repel Crimea-like subliminal invasions that count on Finland taking weeks to mobilize their conventional reserves.

Straw Man

Reading Roger Cohen is a waste of time that may kill brain cells (if certain experiments on mice translate into humans). I haven't read him in a long time. He hasn't gotten any better as he turns his attention to Iran.

We're fully into "this bad deal is better than no deal" territory after the false spring of "no deal is better than a bad deal" defense of negotiator integrity:

So what do the critics, from Republican presidential hopefuls to the Israeli government, seek in place of the deal with Iran that verifiably blocks Tehran’s path to a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years? Presumably, they want what would have happened if negotiations had collapsed. That would be renewed war talk as an unconstrained Iran installs sophisticated centrifuges, its stockpile of enriched uranium grows, Russia and China abandon the sanctions regime, moderates in Iran like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are sidelined, and a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic draws closer. [emphasis added]

But Iran would not be unconstrained absent this deal:

On July 14, the president explained, "Without this deal there would be no agreed-upon limitations for the Iranian nuclear program.” And the next day, he ridiculed “the alternative, no limits on Iran's nuclear program, no inspections.”

This is patently false. The last council Iran sanctions resolution, 1929, adopted on June 9, 2010, requires the IAEA to report “on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities” that were set out in prior sanctions resolutions.

After receiving a report, Resolution 1929 set up [a] scenario for lifting sanctions, temporarily or permanently. ...

So has Iran satisfied the conditions for suspending or terminating the Security Council resolutions? The answer is a resounding no – from the mouth of the IAEA itself.

On May 29, 2015, the IAEA produced a report on Iran that lays out – for the umpteenth time – “Iran is conducting a number of activities…which are in contravention of its obligations to suspend all enrichment related activities and heavy water related projects.”

Why would the Security Council sanctions resolutions suddenly disappear when they specifically require Iranian compliance that has not been forthcoming? The answer is: they wouldn’t. The council sanctions only disintegrate if the Obama administration does the leg work for Iran and has them rescinded.

And yet Secretary Kerry lectured the deal’s non-believers in Vienna: “United Nations Resolution 1929…says specifically that if Iran comes to negotiate – not even get a deal, but comes to negotiate – sanctions would be lifted.”

Sanctions Resolution 1929 says no such thing. Sanctions get lifted if, and only if, the IAEA verifies Iran has suspended all enrichment-related and other activities – which the IAEA has not done (and will never do under the agreement).

We have the resolutions in place and the veto power to defend those sanctions. Just as we worry that Russia or China could veto new sanctions, we can defend existing sanctions as the basis of continuing to pressure Iran.

Sure, Russia, China, and others could violate the sanctions. But do nuclear deal defenders really want to stand on the ground of the ability of nations to undermine deals on paper?

Read it all. War was not the automatic alternative to walking away from this deal.

Based on Iran's actions without a deal, it could have been--and still may be unless this deal is just a way to ease us into accepting Iranian nuclear weapons--the only way to stop Iran.

Even if the deal really does prevent mullah-run Iran from getting nukes in the next decade, time flies when you are pretending to have solved a problem.

How'd that 1994 deal to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons go, anyway?

Cohen says that "the door to Iran opens" with this deal with Iran.

That's exactly my worry. We can live with Iran as an ally. We did before nutballs took over the country. But we can't live with mullah-run Iran as an ally.

And we'll find out what trying to live with a nuclear-armed nutball-run Iran is like.

Proof of Success

Call me cynical, but it would not be shocking if Iran releases the American hostages they hold:

Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday he raised the topic of detained Americans at every meeting he held with Iranians during the final weeks of nuclear negotiations and said he is hopeful Tehran would release them.

The Obama administration has faced criticism for not securing the Americans' release as part of the landmark deal reached on Tuesday in Vienna to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Getting worked up that the deal doesn't include these four Americans is probably a political mistake by the deal's opponents.

What can be said once the hostages are released, which the administration will then point to as evidence that nuclear deal is paying off already in getting a new and improved (now with less nutballery!) Iran?

Iran being Iran, they'll probably just release three and deny any knowledge of the fourth. Best to keep a hostage in reserve, eh?

So after a decent interval that Iran can use to deny there is any linkage, expect some hostages to come home, with a quick trip to the White House for a photo op.

Unexpectedly!

Yeah, where did that sentiment come from?

The main prayer service in the Iranian capital has been interrupted by repeated chants of "Death to America" — despite this week's landmark nuclear deal with world powers that was welcomed by authorities in Tehran.

"Despite?"

Yeah, it's like if in May 1943 we'd seen this story:

The 1943 Memorial Day parade in the American capital has been interrupted by repeated chants of "Death to Nazism" — despite this month's landmark Axis surrender in Tunisia to Allied armies that was welcomed by authorities in allied capitals.

When you achieve a victory over an enemy, you don't stop thinking of them as your enemy.

No, you seek more victories over them.

Which is why the Saudis have no delusions about Iranian motivations "despite" the landmark deal:

The nuclear deal that will lift tough sanctions on Iran is mobilizing Saudi Arabia to turn the tide against its regional rival in Yemen and Syria before it makes an economic recovery, military officials and analysts say.

According to the sources, the military component of the Saudi offensive will include the use of special forces on the ground in Yemen, and a potentially widened use of Saudi and allied Sunni air power in Syria.

Peace for our time!

UPDATE: Strategypage has thoughts on the victory Iran achieved.

UPDATE: Thanks to Pseudo-Polymath for the link.

The Tragedy of the Commons

The Obama administration struck  blow against investigative journalism under the guise of freedom of information.

Bravo. Seriously, this is well played:

Starting this week, seven agencies — including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — launched a new effort to put online the records they distribute to requesters under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

So if a journalist, nonprofit group or corporation asks for the records, what they see, the public also will see. ...

The “release to one is release to all” policy will start as a six-month pilot at the EPA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and within some offices at the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the Justice Department and the National Archives and Records Administration.

(The EPA has been publishing its FOIA responses online since 2013).

And this is being portrayed as more transparency! With reporters acting as spoiled brats for resisting it! As I said, well played, Obama administration. I tip my hat to you.

Ponder this. A reporter works their sources to suspect something odd is going on in the government (I know, I'm reaching with these largely administration stenographers, but bear with me); the reporter files a FOIA request in order to see if their suspicions are correct; the administration releases the information to the world.

And now the reporter has their Pulitzer Prize-winning story potentially revealed to all their competitors who could jump into the game and beat the reporter who did the leg work in getting the story into print.

So under the new rules, the reporter doesn't file the FOIA. Because why do the work for others? Maybe if the reporter gets enough information on their own, they build the story without a FOIA request. Maybe.

Or maybe the story simply never gets written. Mission accomplished.

Far better for actual government transparency would be a rule that provides a three-month countdown to releasing the information to all. That would put pressure on the reporter to complete the story.

For all their European social-democrat inclinations, the Obama administration knows fully well that when everyone owns the requested information, nobody does.

Release to to all means release to no one.

An Ocean Closer to Where They're Needed

Preventing the vast economic, scientific, and military (well, potentially) of Europe from being wielded by a hostile power is a basic national security objective of America. After more than two decades of drawing down our Army there, we hope to add a brigade's worth of equipment to Europe to man a heavy brigade.

Russian aggression makes this proposal seem prudent rather than Cold War nostalgia, eh?

The Army wants to send a second brigade's worth of tanks, Bradleys and other heavy equipment, and dedicate an entire division to exercises, training and assurance missions in Europe amid growing concerns over Russian aggression....

While the Army steps up its rotational forces, the troops stationed in Europe also are critical, he said.

"The Army's going to have to cut 40,000 people," [Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of U.S. Army Europe,] said. "The fact that the Army still protected the 173rd Airborne Brigade, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and most of the things we still have in theater, I think that is a very, very strong endorsement by the Army that the capability we have that's forward stationed is very important."

Those forces are "an ocean closer" to Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Hodges said.

I'm on board that thinking. (See page 15. And note I write about XVIII Airborne Corps--not the 17th, whatever that is).

Europe may not be sufficiently interested in defending itself, but we have an interest in defending Europe regardless of what Europeans do.

The More, the Merrier

The Iraqi offensive into Anbar province against ISIL may not be racking up results yet, but it is still ongoing, at least:

As Iraqi forces prepare to try to recapture the city of Falluja, tens of thousands of civilians find themselves trapped between Islamic State militants ready to use them as human shields and a government suspicious of their loyalties. ...

The outskirts of Falluja are at least spared air strikes by a U.S.-led coalition, because the government forces advancing on the city are mostly Iranian-backed Shi'ite "Hashid Shaabi" militias, which Washington is reluctant to support.

There is, however, air support for the Iraqi army forces advancing on the provincial capital Ramadi, halfway between Falluja and Baghdad, from where thousands fled in April and May as Islamic State seized the city.

The question of whether the Iraqi effort will seek to actually retake major portions of Anbar rather than thrash around a bit and call it a day is important to answer if Jordan is to intervene at the western end of Anbar province.

Jordan has sealed the border:

A Jordanian government official and the state news agency Petra say Iraq has closed the only border crossing between the two countries.

This could certainly just be to isolate the region as a defensive measure against leakage into Jordan.

Or it could be that Jordan is emptying out eyes in the region prior to entering the battle.