by: Ahmed Ali
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Friday, October 10, 2014
Alleged Chemical Weapons Use in Syria Since August 19, 2014
By Jared Ferris and Theodore Bell with Jennifer Cafarella
The armed forces of the Assad regime have established the use of chemical weapons (CWs) as a tactic to force localized disruptions of rebel operations. Regime forces have on a number of occasions used this tactic in order to set the conditions for success for ground offensives against critical rebel holdout positions. Similar to the use of the Syrian Arab Air Force to project force into areas where the regime cannot deploy ground troops, the utilization of chemical weapons serves to offset the regime’s manpower shortage and enable offensive operations otherwise unlikely to achieve success. Their use is therefore often a crucial indicator of the weakness of regime forces in a given area, or alternatively a positive indicator of the ability of rebel groups to meaningfully challenge the regime in certain sectors. As such, recent allegations of CW use by the Assad regime shed important light on the status of the regime’s military campaign in Syria and highlight the continued importance of the regime’s use of unconventional tactics in achieving and holding terrain.
The Syrian regime agreed to surrender its stock of chemical weapons in order to forestall an international intervention in the aftermath of the August 2013 sarin gas attack on the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta. According to the terms of the agreement, the U.S. and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) embarked on a multilateral effort to destroy the regime’s CW stockpile. On August 19, 2014 the OPCW announced that all 600 tons of regime “Category 1” CWs, including 581 tons of sarin gas precursor and 19.8 tons of sulfur mustard gas, had been successfully destroyed, and on September 30, the OPCW-UN joint mission announced the completion of its mandate. However, subsequent allegations of the deployment of chlorine gas against rebel-held areas indicated that Assad had not relinquished the tactic itself. Assad was not required to declare his possession of chlorine given its ordinary use as an industrial agent, although the weaponization of chlorine is nonetheless a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in Syria in October of 2013.
A fact-finding mission announced by the OPCW in April 2014 to investigate alleged regime use of chlorine gas voiced concern that the Syrian regime may not have handed over all CWs. In May, Human Rights Watch released a report on an alleged chlorine gas attack on three towns in Hama Province, concluding that there was “strong evidence” the chemical agent had been used by regime forces. The deployment of chlorine gas as a CW appears to have been conducted through the use of barrel bombs embedded with cylinders of the gas. Responding to continuing allegations, on September 10 the OPCW reported it had found “compelling confirmation” that the regime deployed chlorine gas “systematically and repeatedly” in northern Syria in early 2014. Since the OPCW declared the complete neutralization of the regime’s surrendered CW stockpile on August 19, 2014, local sources have alleged a minimum of 16 chlorine gas attacks conducted by the regime, largely against rebels entrenched in the Damascus suburbs. In the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta, where rebel forces are largely commanded by the Jaysh al-Islam-led Islamic Front, local sources report that the regime has recently deployed chlorine gas prior to successful ground assaults on Adra, Dukhanniya, Jobar, and Irbeen. This tactic has permitted the regime to regain control over territory from the Islamic Front in Eastern Ghouta, most recently over parts of Adra on September 27 and over Dukhaniyya on September 28. In addition, the regime has allegedly deployed chlorine gas against a number of other rebel positions in Dera’a, Hama, and Deir ez-Zour provinces, areas in which regime offensives had been achieving little success.
In most cases, alleged CW strikes in Syria throughout 2014 have occurred in locations inaccessible to OPCW or Human Rights Watch investigators. Therefore, it is impossible to verify the accuracy of the allegations according to the standards utilized by these organizations. However, in the cases detailed here, evidence provided by local activist reporting regarding the occurrence of a strike is assessed with high confidence. In all cases, reports are drawn from sources on the ground assessed to have a high level of fidelity in their reporting, and are further crosschecked across sources. In addition, video evidence serves as a primary method through which to verify the symptomatic indicators of a likely CW strike, often involving the testimony of local physicians.
Where possible, alleged regime CW attacks are also evaluated against previous OPCW findings. Reported CW attacks near Hama, for example, follow a geographical pattern previously established by the OPCW. Reported regime CW usage between August and October furthermore follows a behavior pattern characterized by systematic and repeated CW usage. Given the dovetailing of local reporting with OPCW findings, we can therefore assess CW attacks reported between August and October with reasonable confidence.
Following the UN resolution mandating the destruction of the regime’s CWs, continued use of chlorine gas as a weaponized agent is a serious breach of international law and a violation of international attempts to prevent their use. If the reports listed here are confirmed, then use of CWs by the Assad regime appears to comprise a nearly routine element of regime military tactics to clear entrenched rebel positions. Combined with the utilization of siege-and-starve tactics in order to force the submission of rebel holdouts, the utilization of CWs is further evidence of the extent to which the regime is willing to utilize any means necessary in order to maintain control when faced with a meaningful challenge by rebel forces.
Documentation of CW Strikes
Damascus
August 20, Jobar
Sham News Network post, August 20, 2014, https://www.facebook.com/ShaamNews/posts/815670118483564
Irbeen Surgical Hospital, [“One of the injured gassed,”], YouTube, August 20, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptm06NEmUrw&feature=youtu.be
Sham News Network, August 22, 2014, https://www.facebook.com/ShaamNewsNetwork/posts/717557478292030
All4Syria, Said Khabeya, August 22, 2014,
http://all4syria.info/Archive/163750
Al-Hadath News, August 22, 2014,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHkkezDEVS8&feature=youtu.be
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights post, September 13, 2014,
All4Syria, September 13, 2014,
http://all4syria.info/Archive/168119
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKIr0zLSp5o&feature=youtu.be
El-Dorar, September 23, 2014,
https://twitter.com/eldorar1/status/514162064261386241
Brown Moses Youtube Playlist, “Alleged chemical attack, Adra, Sept 24th 2014,” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPC0Udeof3T6uGM1wLJlI_gKz_208w3ex
Orient News, September 26, 2014,
https://twitter.com/OrientNews/status/515523818677633024
El-Dorar, September 26, 2014,
https://twitter.com/eldorar1/status/515510466370867200
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPC0Udeof3T6M2uop-8j-hBZfdG4FEo-V
RFS Media Office post, August 19, 2014, https://twitter.com/rfsmediaoffice/status/501657941360263168
Zaman al-Wasl, “Rebels kill 10 as they make advances in Hama, Alawites fears rise,” August 24, 2014,
https://www.zamanalwsl.net/en/news/6296.html
Abu Mohammed al-Hamawi, [“Helfaya, Hama, bombed with chlorine gas on August 23”], YouTube August 23, 2014,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV39OJ9-3mA&feature=youtu.be
Idlib Civil Defense post, August 28, 2014, https://twitter.com/SyriaCivilDef/status/505255819307278336
Abu Mu’ied Qutaini, [“Cases of asphyxiation resulting from the targeting of Siyad with chlorine gas by Assad’s planes on August 28, 2014”] and [“Asphyxiation of a baby as a result of being exposed to chlorine gas on August 28, 2014”]YouTube, August 28, 2014,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE6WnxXh2PQ&feature=youtu.be, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkaXKjty9DQ
Union of Hama Rebels, [“Interview with chlorine gas treatment administrator and president of Kafr Zita hospital president Dr. Hassan al-Arj”], YouTube, August 31, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuEmzpX34OU&feature=youtu.be.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=988930164467453
Sham News Network, September 13, 2014, https://twitter.com/shaamnews/status/510738532034699264
Aksalser News, September 13, 2014,
https://twitter.com/AksalserNews/status/510732619081089024
Mahmoud al-Hamawy, YouTube, September 13, 2014,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e5KZqG13S4&feature=youtu.be
Zaman al-Wasl, September 26, 2014,
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=783025041735628
Syrian Revolution Coordinators, September 26, 2014, https://www.facebook.com/SRC.Syria/posts/794359250614780
El-Dorar, September 27, 2014,
http://eldorar.com/node/60432
Local Coordination Committee Syria, September 27, 2014,
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=997384383622031
All4Syria, Safwan Al-Ahmed, September 28, 2014,
http://www.all4syria.info/Archive/170615
https://twitter.com/shaamnews/status/517197705572282368
Orient News, October 1, 2014,
https://twitter.com/OrientNews/status/517305449444823041
El-Dorar, October 1, 2014,
http://eldorar.com/node/60725
El-Dorar, October 6, 2014,
https://twitter.com/eldorar1/status/518884853639811073
Zaman al-Wasl, October 6, 2014,
https://twitter.com/zamanalwsl/status/519217668105043968
https://twitter.com/shaamnews/status/520072616598863872
Step News Agency, October 9, 2014,
https://twitter.com/stepagency1/status/520084543114854400
SMART News Agency, October 9, 2014, https://twitter.com/SMARTNewsAgency/status/520092809970196480
Inkhil United Media Office, [“Dera’a Inkhil targeted with barrels carrying chlorine gas on October 9, 2014”], YouTube, October 9, 2014,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-DJj4-iMQc&feature=youtu.be
https://twitter.com/shaamnews/status/520291808790978563
Shabha Press Agency, October 9, 2014, https://www.facebook.com/SHahba.P.A/posts/855135534504661
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Monday, October 6, 2014
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Control of Terrain in Iraq: October 5, 2014
by Ahmed Ali and Nichole Dicharry
Ahmed Ali is a Senior Iraq Research Analyst and the Iraq Team Lead.
Friday, October 3, 2014
ISIS Captures Anbar City in Coordinated Offensive
By Lauren Squires and Christopher Kozak
On October 2, ISIS detonated three SVBIEDs in Hit, a city between Ramadi and Haditha, targeting security checkpoints at the western and eastern entrances of the city as well as the city center. Hit is one of the few remaining areas in the Thar Thar area of Anbar Province that is not under ISIS control. ISIS followed this initial SVBIED wave with a ground attack and now reportedly controls between 70 and 90% of Hit. Local nationals report ISIS members moving freely around the city and black flags flying over government buildings.
Hit occupies a strategic position along the Euphrates River Valley arm, and ISIS likely seeks to control Hit in order to counterbalance ISF control of Haditha, a city that has been highly contested between ISF and ISIS for the past several months. The attack on Hit is the latest in a series of operations that ISIS has conducted in Anbar province in order to gain freedom of movement and maneuver and to develop a secure staging area in preparation for further consolidating territory in the western Baghdad avenue of approach. Additionally, ISIS could be intensifying its effort in Anbar Province to eliminate tribal retaliatory attack planning. In the past two weeks ISIS has besieged an ISF base in Albu Aitha, north of Ramadi and overrun a second ISF position in Saqlawiyah northwest of Fallujah. ISIS persistently conducts attacks against emplaced ISF positions in the Euphrates River corridor to prevent ISF reinforcements from entering the province and to break ISF lines of communication to the outer Euphrates River belt.
ISIS’s Anbar urban offensive likely employs several different pincer movements in the outer Baghdad Belts and in the Euphrates River Valley, deliberately alternating its tactical engagements in time and space in order to keep the ISF and other adversarial forces off balance. ISIS attacks northwest of Baghdad appear to offset from ISIS attacks southwest of Baghdad, for example, and ISIS is offensives in eastern Anbar appear to offset from attacks in outer Anbar near Haditha. ISIS has been active in each of these locations over the last few weeks. ISIS tactics in the outer Anbar province also suggest ISIS commands from at least two distinct operational headquarter in Anbar. These two commands frame the Haditha-Ramadi corridor.
One headquarters element exercises control from the outer northwest Thar Thar region to middle Anbar, a block we have previously assessed to conduct attacks and provide strategic reinforcement along this corridor. The Thar Thar region that stretches from Fallujah north to Samarra is a likely stronghold for ISIS since the Abu Ghraib Prison attack in July 2013. ISIS took control of the Muthanna Complex there on June 11, 2014 - only a day after Mosul fell. The ISF have increasingly targeted villages on the southern edge of the region, such as Garma, after ISIS entered Fallujah in December 2013, but the evidence indicates that ISIS probably maintains a significant force in this zone.
The other element is likely in southwestern Anbar along the southern bank of the Euphrates near Haditha and Ana. This element is most likely responsible for attacks from far western Anbar towards the Haditha - Ramadi axis. ISIS was conducting attacks in Haditha at an almost daily rate in early September 2014. However, ISIS has been unsuccessful penetrating ISF defenses in Haditha and has shifted both logistical and operational focus farther down the Euphrates River Valley corridor. ISIS likely seeks to merge the efforts of these two Anbar elements and close the gap at Hit. If ISIS succeeds in this, it will isolate pro-government tribes that are fighting ISIS in Haditha and Ramadi from ISF reinforcements. It will also relieve ISIS elements in Anbar by diminishing the local population’s opportunity to resist. The ISIS offensive for Anbar is closely linked to the ISIS campaign for the Baghdad Belts. If ISIS can consolidate its core strength in Anbar, then its reinforcements that are currently augmenting attacks in this zone will likely shift to reinforce the northern and southern Baghdad Belts and prepare to attack the capital.
Hit locator map with ISIS control, attack, and support zones.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Control of Terrain in Iraq: October 2, 2014
by Ahmed Ali and Nichole Dicharry
Ahmed Ali is a Senior Iraq Research Analyst and the Iraq Team Lead.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Iraq Situation Report: September 30-October 1, 2014
by: Ahmed Ali, ISW Iraq team, and Nichole Dicharry
Ahmed Ali is a Senior Iraq Research Analyst and the Iraq Team Lead.
Local Dynamics Shift in Response to U.S.-Led Airstrikes in Syria
Jennifer Cafarella
- The responses of rebel groups and civilians within Syria to the U.S. and coalition airstrikes are an important indicator of the unviability of a counter-ISIS strategy that does not fully engage with the Syrian population in order to facilitate a counter-ISIS movement within Syria.
- Jabhat al-Nusra has capitalized on civilian opposition to the airstrikes to deepen its influence and to propagate its narrative that the coalition is working alongside Assad against the revolution.
- The reactions of a number of Islamist groups to the strikes that targeted JN on September 23 indicate their close operations with JN. If additional strikes against JN occur, JN is likely to leverage front groups to conceal the extent of their activities.
- If airstrikes against ISIS and JN continue to alienate the Syrian population and rebel leadership, it is possible that the unrest will encourage and enable a consolidation of ISIS and JN efforts.
The combat operations initiated by U.S. and allied forces on September 23 are interacting with a landscape of actors within Syria that is markedly different from the situation in August 2013 when the Obama Administration contemplated strikes against the government of Bashar al-Assad. During the interim months, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has waged a highly successful and devastatingly brutal campaign for control of Sunni areas across Iraq and Syria. However, the rise of ISIS is only one component of a larger shift in the landscape of powerful actors within the Syrian civil war. The al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) has steadily deepened its influence with the Syrian population and has taken advantage of a continually degraded and fracturing Free Syrian Army (FSA) to play an increasingly vital role in the fight against Assad. JN’s largely unimpeded operations have enabled it to embed itself within the landscape of the Syrian opposition and to accelerate the degradation of the moderate trend within opposition ranks.
The ongoing U.S. and allied operations have focused largely on disrupting ISIS’s freedom of movement, but also included a set of initial strikes against a group of al-Qaeda core members sent to Syria in an advisory role to JN. Action in Syria is therefore nested within the larger strategic objective of countering the threat of jihadist groups possessing the will, capabilities, and access, provided through foreign fighters with western passports, to attack the West. The U .S. justified its action in Syria on the grounds that the Syrian regime had failed to neutralize safe havens used by ISIS to launch attacks in Iraq, as well as an emergent plan to attack the United States by JN. In addition, the UN Security Council passed a resolution (2178) that seeks to create a policy and legal framework for international action in response to the threat of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters.” The resolution expresses concern about ISIS, JN, and “other groups associated with al-Qaeda.” U.S. action in Syria appears to be responsive to this threat. The U.S. State Department identified Jaysh al-Muhajireen wa al-Ansar (JMA) and Harakat Sham al-Islam as Specially Designated Terrorist Groups on September 24. JMA and Harakat Sham al-Islam are Chechen and Moroccan-led foreign fighter brigades in Syria, respectively, that often cooperate closely with JN. While not explicitly linked to counter-JN action in Syria, the designation of these groups supports the assessment that they have been operating as JN front groups. A more detailed examination of JN and associated front groups is forthcoming from ISW in October 2014.
Airstrikes against ISIS and groups such as JN in Syria are a starting point for the elimination of a critical threat to regional security and U.S. interests, and are a component of a wider global effort to halt the proliferation of groups attracting and radicalizing foreign fighters. However, the strikes do not properly interact with a wartime environment in Syria in which treatment of jihadist threats cannot meaningfully be accomplished in the absence of a strategy for Syria as a whole. The responses of rebel groups and civilians within Syria to the U.S. and coalition airstrikes are an important indicator of the unviability of a counter-ISIS strategy that does not fully engage with the Syrian population in order to generate and protect a counter-ISIS movement within Syria. Popular and rebel support for U.S. airstrikes will be difficult to acquire unless counter-ISIS strategy in Syria includes the prioritization of the fall of the Assad regime, an objective unlikely to be surrendered by Syrian rebel forces. JN’s reactions to the airstrikes illustrate its ability to capitalize on the changing environment within Syria to strengthen its hand, foreshadowing a growth in anti-Western sentiments within Syria if the current trajectory is allowed to continue.
In the immediate aftermath of the first strikes, prominent figures within the Syrian opposition stated that the U.S. military had informed them of the impending airstrikes in Syria. However, there is no ongoing coordination between rebels on the ground and the airstrike campaign, leaving many to question their utility. The response to the airstrikes was therefore largely muted, and a number of elements within the opposition emerged quickly in protest. Prominently, the FSA affiliate and prominent TOW missile recipient Harakat Hazm issued an immediate statement condemning the U.S. strikes, and in the days that followed additional groups also came out in opposition. These included Jaysh al-Mujahideen (JAM) and a number of other FSA groups in addition to Islamic Front groups such as Liwa al-Tawhid and Suqour al-Sham. The consistent complaint put forth in statements released by these groups alleges that the strikes act against the Syrian revolution by failing to target the Assad regime. In some cases, these groups identified ISIS as a regime puppet and alleged that coalition strikes therefore actually directly strengthen the regime. In most cases, however, the statements released by these groups served to reaffirm their refusal to be distracted from their main objective of defeating the Assad regime. Highlighting this, the FSA General Staff released a statement re-pledging its commitment to fighting the Syrian regime and identified “the need to avoid targeting moderate national and Islamic forces and unarmed civilians.” Likely after receiving significant pressure from the West, Harakat Hazm reversed its position and released a subsequent statement alongside the FSA’s 5th Legion welcoming the strikes but stating they must also extend to “the source of terrorism: the Assad regime,” and that greater coordination with rebels on the ground is needed to avert civilian casualties.
This initial reaction by prominent rebel groups indicates the risk that a counter-ISIS strategy that isn’t tailored to the requirements for securing rebel support can serve to indirectly limit future possibilities for partnership with on-the-ground forces. Angered by a strike that appears to have hit a base of Islamic Front affiliate Liwa al-Haqq, the FSA General Staff called on the international coalition to clarify the concept of the “moderate opposition” with which the U.S. seeks to partner. Significantly, JAM is a group reportedly undergoing vetting as a possible future aid recipient, and its rejection of the airstrikes is therefore a crucial indicator of the danger of alienating those potential partners on whom a meaningful counter-ISIS strategy in Syria will depend.
A few localized efforts to align the promised support to the Syrian opposition with ongoing counter-ISIS airstrikes have emerged, however they remain too localized to produce a meaningful battlefield effect throughout ISIS’s depth. On September 25, CNN reported that over 20 rebel commanders from the FSA and the Syriac Christian Military Council signed an agreement, mediated by two U.S. representatives, to unite in the fight against both Assad and ISIS. The Syriac Christian Military Council operates in Hasaka Province, where it often cooperates with Kurdish YPG forces, and the coalition is therefore a localized effort. Highlighting the current threat posed by ISIS in this region, the council put out a statement on September 28 calling for a continuation of airstrikes near Ayn al-Arab as well as the initiation of airstrikes against ISIS positions on the borders of Hasaka Province. In addition, the YPG military command in Hasaka and an FSA brigade released a joint statement on September 28 announcing the formation of a joint operations room to fight ISIS in northern Syria and calling for military assistance from the international community. It remains unclear whether the U.S. has promised these new coalitions additional weapons and training, but reports of increased weapons shipments to Syrian rebels have emerged in the wake of U.S. and coalition airstrikes. If U.S. airstrikes continue to target ISIS positions near Ayn al-Arab and initiate strikes against ISIS in areas in northeastern Hasaka province, it is possible these new coalitions will achieve local battlefield success in pushing back ISIS. However, these groups are unlikely to be willing or able to penetrate deep into the ISIS interior, as they do not possess the manpower or the logistical command and control capabilities required for a sustained ground campaign into Syria’s southeast regions.
As an initial target, JN has capitalized on rebel antagonism toward the airstrikes to strengthen its own position within Syria. In its reaction to the attacks, JN has effectively put forth the narrative that the coalition airstrikes are against the Syrian revolution. In doing so, it has drawn direct parallels between Assad's bombardment of Syrian civilians and the counter-ISIS strikes, actively leveraging the civilian death tolls of the airstrikes to further its popularity with the Syrian population and deepen its influence within the ranks of the Syrian opposition.
JN emerged in immediate defiance of the strikes, yet carefully wove its condemnation within its narrative placing itself as champion of the Syrian uprising. On September 27, a JN spokesman with ties to the al-Qaeda core (AQC), Abu Firas al-Suri, released a defiant video statement, indicating that JN had expected this aggression, and that it would not be sufficient to “prevent the jihad or to stop its march.” Stating that the “heinous” and “criminal action was not against JN but the Syrian people themselves,” he continued “we trust in the people of Sham that they will stand with the al-Nusra Front… They will stand with us on our long path, until we achieve the Islamic State and its banner is raised high and fluttering across Sham, and across all of the Islamic countries.” After issuing condolences to the families of those killed in the strikes, he reaffirmed JN’s commitment to the Syrian people, stating “This war will not end within months, a year, or years. We are engaged in war, and perhaps it could last decades.” The following day, JN leader Abu Muhammad al-Jolani released an audio statement titled “Advice to Muslims and Warning to Infidels” in which he called on the Syrian people to recognize that “the airstrikes are means to suppress your effort and uprising and to return you to Assad’s lap.” He also warned of attacks against the West, stating that the West would only be safe from the Mujahidin if it halts the “aggression” against Muslims.
The statements released by JN’s military and religious leadership convey important aspects of JN’s short and long-term strategies within Syria. Together, the statements comprise the most direct communication of JN’s vision and disposition toward the West, and as such serve as a crucial indicator of the true nature of JN’s long-term goals. Yet the couching of JN’s vision within a narrative of the defense of the Syrian people is a concerning indicator of the sense of safety perceived by JN’s leadership within Syria. The openness with which Abu Firas al-Suri discussed JN’s long-term goal of the establishment of an Islamic State indicates a new level of transparency in the communication of JN’s objectives within Syria. As such, the statements illustrate that the recent transition by JN to more overt forms of presence within Syria, spurred by the rise of ISIS, has continued to draw upon support from the Syrian people.
Civilian opposition to the airstrikes is a primary avenue through which JN has leveraged its more overt presence to capitalize on the situation within Syria. JN’s narrative of championing the Syrian people limits the extent to which Western actors can leverage the provision of armaments to the FSA to accomplish change on the ground that is counter to JN’s interests. JN encouraged civilian unrest against the strikes, posting video and picture evidence of the damage incurred through the strikes. Civilian protests against the strikes erupted almost immediately, with civilians perceiving the attack against JN headquarters housing “Khorasan” group leaders as an attack against the opposition itself. Immediate protests in Kafr al-Takhreem, Kafr Nabel, and Ma’aret al-Nu’man in Idlib Province and in Houla, Homs Province, firmly denounced the airstrikes. This civilian unrest escalated following Friday morning prayers on September 26, with widespread protests occurring throughout Dera’a, Homs, Idlib, ar-Raqqa, and Aleppo provinces. The protests had a distinctly anti-Western character, extending to the burning of an American flag in Telbisa and of a President Obama t-shirt in Qaalet al-Madeeq, Hama Province and to the chanting of “no to the secular state” in Homs Province. Testament to the success of JN’s soft power strategy within Syria, demonstrations in solidarity with JN also occurred in Ma’arat Misrin and Binnish and were advertised by JN on its social media platforms on September 27. In addition, JN's Hama twitter account released a video on September 30 of a civilian protest against the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in which protesters carried JN flags and chanted pro-JN slogans. Some of the flags carried were the full JN al-Qaeda flag, and at least one protester carried a sign that read “we are all Jabhat al-Nusra,” a parallel to the pro-JN rallies that occurred in December 2012 when the US listed JN as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The fact that this protest took place in Hama is not surprising, as the regime considerably increased its bombardment of northwest Hama where JN operates in days prior to the protest. Finally, in footage of protests held in the town where the “Khorasan” leaders were struck, protesters held banners that read “stop shelling civilians” and “Nusra Front represents me.”
Screenshot of Video of pro-JN Civilian Protest Uploaded by JN on September 30, 2014.
Pro-JN protest in Ma’arat Misrin, uploaded by JN on September 27, 2014.
The reactions of certain rebel groups to the targeting of the JN Khorasan members on September 23 sheds important light on the nature of JN’s interaction with elements of the Syrian opposition. In its coverage of the strikes, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) indicated that some “Islamist groups” had been targeted by coalition airstrikes in addition to ISIS and JN. While no official confirmation has emerged regarding the targeting of Islamist groups close to JN’s center of gravity, it nonetheless appears that a number of groups fear this possibility. The clearest example has been Ahrar al-Sham (HASI), a hardline Salafist member from the Islamic Front with leadership ties to the al-Qaeda core that operates very closely with JN throughout Syria. A self-identified HASI spokesperson denied that coalition forces had not targeted HASI positions, and reaffirmed that HASI’s first priority is the fall of the Syrian regime in a phone conversation with al-Jazeera on September 25. However, according to SOHR, civilians living near HASI headquarters in addition to ISIS and JN bases throughout Deir ez-Zour, Aleppo, Hasaka, and ar-Raqqa provinces began to evacuate their homes for fear of future strikes. Citing the desire to avoid civilian casualties, HASI and JN announced the evacuation of its headquarters near civilian areas in Idlib and Aleppo provinces on September 24. Finally, local sources reported on September 25 that JN fighters in Northern Aleppo had shaved their beards and began to dress in civilian clothing in order to blend in within the civilian population.
In addition, the execution of alleged informants by Jund al-Aqsa is an indicator of the group’s responsiveness to JN’s objectives within Syria. The group executed a man in Saraqeb, Idlib, on September 24 on charge of “dealing with the regime forces and putting electronic chips for the warplanes in the populated areas,” allegedly after the man confessed. Jund al-Aqsa cooperates closely with JN in Idlib and Hama Provinces, and may be a JN front group. In addition, JN reportedly executed 3 men in Khan Shaykhoun on charges of dealing with regime forces. On September 27, an unidentified Islamic battalion reportedly executed an additional 5 men in Aleppo province on charge of “spying on al Mujahedeen and correcting coordinates of bombing that have taken place on the rebels’ posts and densely populated places.” The execution of collaborators is not a new phenomenon within Syria, however their occurrence in areas where JN positions had been hit and the justifications offered for the executions themselves indicate the likelihood that these groups acted in the interest of JN’s continued operations within Idlib and Aleppo.
Rumors that JN and ISIS may be considering a merger emerged quickly in the wake of the strikes, with many expecting these jihadi elements to quickly resolve their differences in order to unite against the new threat. Reports that some JN members defected to ISIS on September 26 spurred this expectation. In addition, Reuters reported on September 26 that JN’s leadership is facing growing pressure from within its ranks to reconcile with ISIS in order to confront their now-common enemy. While this prospect has also been forwarded by AQ ideologue and JN supporter Abu Mussab al-Maqdisi, no credible evidence has yet emerged that such a rapprochement is underway. In fact, some of the more seemingly credibly rumors instead point to the possibility of an ISIS alliance with Islamist factions within Syria. If inclusive of Islamist elements heavily influenced by JN, this sort of alliance could serve as an indirect form of ISIS-JN partnership. In the interim, JN and ISIS are likely to maintain their tacit relationship in Syria, in which participation on opposite sides of local battlefronts hasn’t precluded negotiations elsewhere within Syria. However, if airstrikes against ISIS continue to alienate the Syrian population and rebel leadership, it is possible that civilian unrest toward the campaign will encourage and enable a direct consolidation of ISIS and JN efforts.
As the air campaign against ISIS continues in northern and eastern Syria, JN is likely to continue to be successful in capitalizing on anti-airstrike sentiment from within the Syrian population to deepen its influence in Syria’s western regions. Critically, this rise in influence follows a recent JN reconsolidation in Idlib province, and is therefore likely to bolster JN’s already-growing momentum in Syria’s northwest. Rebel antagonism to the strikes largely stems from the unlikelihood of success against ISIS by ground forces continually under bombardment from Assad’s air campaign. While initial efforts appear to have been made to consolidate the strength of groups in northern Syria against ISIS, this is a limited effort and is unlikely to be successful in penetrating into the ISIS interior. As such, the counter-ISIS strategy currently being implemented in Syria is insufficiently tailored to the local dynamics with which the strikes interact. This dissonance will likely hinder the effectiveness of the air campaign, and may actually result in a future JN-ISIS alignment, further increasing the threat against the U.S. homeland emanating from Syria.
**Coming in October**: ISW Syria analyst and Evans Hanson Fellow, Jennifer Cafarella, will release a comprehensive report on Jabhat al Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. This report will examine JN’s ideology, long-term strategy, military efficiency, and its governance in Syria in order to properly situate the al-Qaeda threat in its Syrian context.
Control of Terrain in Iraq: October 1, 2014
by Ahmed Ali and Nichole Dicharry
Ahmed Ali is a Senior Iraq Research Analyst and the Iraq Team Lead.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Iraq Situation Report: September 29, 2014
by: Ahmed Ali, Jessica D. Lewis, and Nichole Dicharry
Ahmed Ali is a Senior Iraq Research Analyst and the Iraq Team Lead.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Iraq Situation Report: September 27-28, 2014
by: Ahmed Ali and Nichole Dicharry
Friday, September 26, 2014
Iraq Situation Report: September 25-26, 2014
by: Ahmed Ali and Nichole Dicharry
Thursday, September 25, 2014
ISIS Ramps Up Activity in Northwestern Baghdad
By: Christopher Kozak and Jessica D. Lewis
Airstrikes in Iraq and Syria have the potential to disrupt ISIS by obstructing the physical links across its disparate operating areas. Degrading the military ability of ISIS to launch coordinated attacks across a wide area and limiting the ability of ISIS to launch new ground offensives is vital. However, these strikes do not operate inside a closed system. Observing how ISIS operates on its multiple fronts is key to understanding how airstrikes in one area affect the others. One of the primary areas where ISIS has been on the offensive in September 2014 is the Northern Baghdad Belts zone in Iraq, including strikes upon the capital itself. U.S. airstrikes have recently begun to target ISIS assets in this zone and it is important to anticipate how ISIS will react within Iraq’s capital region.
Explosive attacks have continued in Baghdad throughout the summer. On September 4, ISIS detonated an SVBIED in Kadhmiyah, apparently aimed at civilian targets in Abdul Mohsen al-Kadhimi Square. Kadhmiyah is a predominantly Shi’a neighborhood housing one of Iraq’s most important shrines, and ISIS has attacked it often in order to incite sectarian mobilization. The ISIS attack on the Adala Prison in the Kadhmiyah military intelligence headquarters complex on September 18 marked an escalation in ISIS’s operations in the Baghdad zone. This attack was the first ground force attack upon a fixed military facility in the city since the fall of Mosul in June 2014. ISIS had attacked numerous prisons across Iraq during the 2012-2013 “Breaking the Walls” campaign, ending with the successful prison break at Abu Ghraib in July 2013. The complex combined arms attack against the prison in Kadhmiyah included mortars, an SVBIED, two SVESTS, and small-arms fire. ISIS detonated an additional VBIED at the office of the Badr organization in Iskan, western Baghdad. ISIS denied that the operation was an unsuccessful prison break attempt, but at minimum the attacks indicate that ISIS is exercising its ability to breach capital defenses at a concentrated point near a shrine in order to strike military and Shi’a militia targets.
Indirect fire was also reported from locations north of Baghdad on September 15 and September 21. The use of indirect fire in the capital may indicate attempts by ISIS or other groups to attack Baghdad from a distance. Isolated indirect fire events may also constitute operational testing in support of future attacks. However, ISF defenses have increased in response to recent attacks. The ISF closed two bridges in central Baghdad after a VBIED detonated in the Karrada neighborhood on September 19. While airstrikes continue to escalate against ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria, ISIS may react by projecting greater force within the Baghdad zone.
ISIS militants have also made repeated efforts to break the line of ISF defenses along the Tigris River which protect access to the northern Baghdad belts. On September 8 and 9, ISIS launched a two major attacks on the village of Dhuluiya, southeast of Samarra, involving mortars, three SVBIEDs, and two IEDs emplaced on boats. ISIS successful used another IED-equipped boat on September 13 to destroy the last remaining bridge to Dhuluiya, severing lines of resupply linking the ISF garrison to Baghdad and Camp Taji military base. Extensive indirect fire on the area was also reported between September 11 and September 16, including a possible attack by chlorine gas shells on September 15. These actions marked a heavy escalation of force and were likely an attempt to prepare the ground for a future offensive by softening ISF fortifications. If confirmed, the deployment of chemical assets to the area conforms to a historical pattern of chlorine gas use by Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and may also signal the strategic importance which ISIS places on the northern Baghdad front. On September 18, ISIS launched another major attack on Dhuluiya which was repelled by local tribal fighters. As ISIS comes under increasing pressure on other fronts, particularly from airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, further pressure on the northern Baghdad system can be expected.
Increasing levels of mobilization have been occurring behind this exterior line of ISF positions as well, in the vicinity of Taji, Balad, and Ishaqi. ISIS control of these areas would break the main lines of communication between Baghdad and forward-deployed ISF units in Tikrit, Samarra, and Dhuluiya. A chain of small-scale insurgent attacks, including roadside IEDs in Taji in September 14 and 20 as well as an attempt to kill a local Sahwa [Awakening] commander in Tarmiyah on September 22, indicate that ISIS maintained at least a low-level presence to harass ISF operations in the area. Following the Kadhmiyah prison break attempt, however, ISIS has visibly increased its force posture north of Baghdad. On September 21, ISIS launched a ground assault on the village of Dujail from four axes and has continued to apply pressure through daily attacks. ISIS forces also seized the village of Kaban in the Ishaqi sub-district on September 21, placing the neighboring village of Abu al-Sifa under siege. Dujail and Ishaqi both sit along the highway connecting the ISF units and Shi’a militias in Baghdad and Camp Taji with Samarra and Tikrit. Direct clashes also took place on September 23 in Tarmiyah, Mashahda, and Filahat, northeast of Camp Taji near the road to Baquba and al-Udhaim. This series of attacks is a decisive step change in ISIS behavior in the northern Baghdad belt and may be indicative of an ISIS response to increased pressure in other areas. The manpower required to execute simultaneous ground offensives also suggests that ISIS has redeployed units from neighboring control zones or activated latent capabilities in the northern Baghdad belt. One potential source of these reinforcements is the neighboring Thar Thar region, which has been previously assessed as a zone of strong ISIS control. Another ISIS line of communication may run along the far bank of the Tigris River from the outskirts of Dhuluiya, through al-Dujma across the river from Balad, and on to Tarmiyah. From this area, militants could also travel across unsecured desert to interact with other ISIS systems in the Hamrin Mountains and Tikrit.
In the western Baghdad belts, in the vicinity of Fallujah, ISIS has also expanded their operations in recent days. On September 21, ISIS militants overran an ISF military base in Saqlawiyah, northwest of Fallujah, after a multi-day siege, killing up to several hundred ISF members. Survivors reported that ISIS militants deployed an SVBIED and several SVESTs to breach the garrison’s defenses. The ability to concentrate and subsequently deploy a critical mass of forces in an active combat zone implies the presence of a nearby ISIS strategic reserve, likely located in the adjacent Thar Thar region. In conjunction with the attacks to the north of Baghdad, the location of the attack also suggests that ISIS elements in the Thar Thar area have been mobilized to cut ISF lines of communication to points in western Anbar, including Habbaniyah and Ramadi. The fall of the base in Saqlawiyah demonstrates the vulnerability of ISF positions on the outer Baghdad belt if ISIS efforts to isolate them from reinforcement and resupply are successful.
Baghdad locator map with ISIS control, attack, and support zones.
The Thar Thar region that stretches from Fallujah north to Samarra is a likely stronghold for ISIS, which took control of the Muthanna Complex there on June 11 - only a day after Mosul fell. The ISF have increasingly targeted villages on the southern edge of the region, such as Garma, after ISIS entered Fallujah in December 2013, but the evidence indicates that ISIS probably maintains a significant force in this zone. This ISIS force, along with elements in the northern Baghdad Belts near Taji and Balad, are likely responsible for attacks in northwestern Baghdad. They also likely contribute to attacks upon Samarra, Dhuluiya, and Balad. Combined with the ISIS force operating within Fallujah, this Thar Thar force was also likely responsible for the September 22 attack upon the ISF compound in Saqlawiyah, north of Fallujah. This force has been increasingly active in September 2014, a necessary reminder that ISIS still possesses the capacity to go on the offensive in the Baghdad zone. U.S. strategic planners appear to have recognized the threat posed by ISIS elements in the Thar Thar region. On September 23, one U.S. airstrike hit an ISIS vehicle northwest of Baghdad and on September 24 two additional U.S. airstrikes targeted ISIS armed vehicles to the west of Baghdad. These were the first strikes to be carried out in this area. A key measure for the effectiveness of these airstrikes will be whether ISIS can continue to mount further attacks forward of its primary control zones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)