US and British special forces are on the ground in Iraq, according to new reports, with an eye particularly on identifying the so-called Jihadi John who beheaded James Foley.
British Ambassador to the US Sir Peter Westmacott claimed the nations are “close” to identifying the man, believed to be a British citizen, and there has been considerable speculation that he is Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, though this is not confirmed.
The most interesting part of this operation is that, including the unidentified Jihadi John, the US and Britain haven’t really conclusively identified many ISIS leaders, and don’t really have much understanding of how the group works.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the “caliph” of ISIS, is the leader. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess. The speculation seems to be coming primarily out of the various ISIS recruitment videos, with the assumption that anyone who makes a lot of appearances is probably a “leader.”
This guessing about the leadership makes the US plans to start assassinating ISIS leaders in airstrikes dicey, at best, and seems likely to lead to a lot of claims of “top leaders” killed who were at best tangentially linked to the organization.
"…lot of claims of “top leaders” killed who were at best tangentially linked…"
But wasn't that the modus operandi developed in Operation Iraqi Liberation? Make claims of "AQI leadership" kills which the toady media gobbled up willingly and at face value allowing the USG to claim successes that weren't and that they were winning which they also weren't. And since there are no corroborating sources, the media will again take what the USG tells them and swallow it whole.
"For lack of knowledge my people perish."
There you go, notwithstanding NSA and their multibillion dollar CIA budget, a lack of knowledge has severely limited the ability of Empire USA to move forward in it's insatiable quest for expansion.
Yes, good point. The US spends more on "defense" than the rest of the planet combined. This of course is mainly spending to maintain a vast overseas military presence. The US and allies spend multi billions on surveillance satellites, electronic intercepts, bribes of foreigners, etc. with vast fleets of drones, airplanes,agents and ships. I'm sure the real numbers are shocking.
Yet some small band of lightly armed nobodies has the world abuzz via their brutal tactics and their own smart social media campaigns. The real question is, with multiple billions spent annually on all of these spying resources, if the US govt is in the dark about ISIS, what is the point? How is failure defined? We are talking about ISIS "leaders" who were in US run prisons in Iraq. A few thousand fighters in a mostly open desert place. Yet ignorance is proclaimed amid cries of more military involvement, more US commitment.
So is the government lying about its ISIS ignorance? If multiple billions spent can't effectively locate a ragtag group of fanatics in an open desert and small towns, what is the point? The silence from the US about various Ukraine events is also telling. Either they know in detail what's happening or they don't. They pretend ignorance but again, if that's the case, the entire NSA/CIA monstrosity should be scrapped. The entire ISIS matter is starting to stink of intentional lying and manipulation, as has often been the case during the drumbeats and cries for "war".
Either they are totally lying or totally incompetent. Which?
So the US itself claim that dealing with terrorists is something wholly different than any other conflict and yet they think that killing some top guy is going to make a difference as if they're dealing with some nation's president?
Yes, that tactic is termed "decapitation" (like ISIS did to James Foley) and in nearly every actual conflict killing off the enemy leader doesn't end the war. That is an ancient practice that worked (usually) when leaders led their troops into battle. But not for a long time.
Interesting this same meme is constantly used in the drug wars: "Cartel head XXX captured" and this is supposed to be the end of the YYY Cartel. But aside from the occasional name change, it doesn't follow. We are led to think that al Bagdadhi , the self proclaimed "caliph" of ISIS is a one man Islamic sheik and that probably taking him out will end ISIS. But that didn't work with al Qaeda and as RickR30 notes above, even killing the leader of a large nation rarely ends a war.
So once again we are in "security theater" territory where fanciful concepts and easy to follow plot lines are fed the public in order to gin up support for wider US military intervention.
I'm assuming that those 'special forces' are on the ground in Iraq and the surrounding region, and as a veteran I have to assume they're wearing boots. I guess this is one of those moments when 'boots on the ground' doesn't really mean 'boots on the ground'. Or the infamous "they weren't there before they were there" event?