The Kurdish پێشمەرگە (peshmerga) - "those who follow death"

Kurdish peshmerga - note Kurdistan flag

One of my readers asked that I write a small piece about the Kurdish peshmerga. I am happy to do so. As I often do, I want to disclose my relationship with the Kurds.

In the mid-1990's, I served in northern Iraq - my duties put me in a close working relationship with senior Kurdish political leaders on both sides of the political division between the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan - including their intelligence services and their military arms - the peshmerga.

A senior peshmerga leader and me in northern Iraq - the dagger is not a prop

The word peshmerga - پێشمەرگە in Kurdish - literally means "those who follow death." They are committed men and women who have taken an oath to defend the Kurdish people and the Kurdish homeland at all costs. They are tough, single-minded and loyal to a fault - you will find no finer irregular troops anywhere in the world.

The Kurds were the targets of the Saddam Husayn regime for years. In the 1980's, the Iraqi military's Anfal campaign was aimed at defeating the Kurds once and for all, since the effort to forcefully integrate them into the Iraqi Arab population had failed. That program, the ta'rib (Arabization) effort, attempted to move large numbers of Kurds, sometimes entire villages, into the southern part of Iraq, and at the same time, move large numbers of Arabs into the Kurdish areas.

The Anfal campaign saw pitched battles between the Iraqi Army and the Kurds - Kurdish cities were defended by the vastly outnumbered and outgunned peshmerga. On March 16, 1988, the Iraqi Air Force dropped bombs filled with the nerve agent Sarin (and possibly VX) on the Kurdish city of Halabjah, killing an estimated 5,000 people. It was later determined to be a final weapons test before launching chemical attacks on Iranian troops on the southern front. I was in Baghdad when all this occurred.

After the Iraqi defeat in Operation Desert Storm, the Kurds rose up against Saddam Husayn. As he did effectively in the south against a similar Shi'a uprising, Saddam unleashed the Iraqi Air Force and Army Aviation to brutally attack the Kurds. This led to the U.S. and NATO-imposed "no fly zone" in northern Iraq that allowed the Kurds to operate as a virtually separate enclave until the American invasion of 2003. It was during those years that I served with the Kurds in the north.

During the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the peshmerga were close allies of the United States, often working directly with American forces in the northern part of the country. They were also key players in the search for, and capture of, Saddam Husayn. It was the Kurds that played a vital role in the capture of Usamah bin Ladin's messenger, which led to the killing of the al-Qa'idah leader.

The Kurds, in accordance with provisions of the Iraqi constitution of 2005, established the Kurdish Autonomous Region comprised of the provinces of Arbil, Dohuk and Sulaymaniyah (and now the newly-created province of Halabjah). Part of the Kurdistan Regional Government is the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs, which functions similar to a regional ministry of defense. The peshmerga constitute the armed forces of the Kurdish area - the group consists of about 18 brigades.

Should the Kurds pursue independence from Iraq, the peshmerga will be the armed forces of the new country. They will need to acquire additional capabilities, however, including an air and air defense force.

CNN Reliable Sources - Should we listen to Dick Cheney?

Should we listen to Dick Cheney?

CNN Military analyst Rick Francona and counterterrorism analyst Phillip Mudd discuss former Vice President Dick Cheney's recent criticism of the Obama administration over Iraq; does he still deserve the media's attention?

Take a look at the video of the segment.

Russia delivers first of five Sukhoi SU-25 ground attack fighters to Iraq

Iraqi Air Force Su-25 buried in desert - 2003

According to a video released by the Iraqi defense ministry, a Russian Federation Air Force Antonov AN-124 (NATO: Condor) heavy transport aircraft delivered the first two of five Sukhoi SU-25 (NATO: Frogfoot) ground attack aircraft to an unidentified Iraqi air base.

The used fighter aircraft were purchased in the last few days to react to the threat posed by advancing forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and [Greater] Syria. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki expressed frustration at the long delivery schedule of the Iraqi Air Force American-built F-16 fighters. The F-16 fighters are not due to be delivered to Iraq until this fall, although some of the aircraft have been turned over to the Iraqi Air Force for training in Texas.

The SU-25 had been in service with the pre-American invasion Iraqi Air Force - at one point, as many as 66 of the fighters were in the Iraqi inventory. None survived the two wars with the United States - some were buried in the desert as a survival measure (see above photo). It is a capable close air support fighter.

On hand to greet the arriving aircraft was Iraqi Air Force commander Staff Lieutenant General (Pilot) Anwar Hamad Amin. According to the general (interviewed in the video), the aircraft will be reassembled by "our friends the Russians" and will be ready to enter service in the coming three to four days, after which they will be used to attack "terrorist ISIS takfiri criminal forces," specifically citing ISIS forces in Salah al-Din province (basically the Tigris valley between Baghdad and Mosul).

When asked about maintenance and support for the aircraft, General Anwar said that the Iraqi Air Force has long experience with this (aircraft), and together with the Russian "experts" the logistics and maintenance will not be an issue. Also, he said that though the Iraqi Air Force and Iraqi Army Aviation have struck ISIS targets in the past few days, the addition of these aircraft will provide a greater attack capability.

Life in the Islamic State in Iraq and [Greater] Syria

The Islamic State in Iraq and [Greater] Syria (ISIS) is not a new phenomenon that just burst on the scene two weeks ago as they seized the northern Iraqi city of Mosul (al-Mawsil). ISIS has already been governing a wide swath of territory in neighboring Syria, most notably in al-Raqqah governorate. To see what life will be like in the newly-seized areas of Iraq, one need only look at how the group governs al-Raqqah. It is not pretty - watch this CNN video about ISIS's takeover of the city of al-Raqqah.

There is no reason to believe that life in the areas seized in Iraq will be any different. Reports coming out of Mosul indicate a process of imposing strict Islamic rule almost identical to that which we saw in al-Raqqah months ago. Alcohol, smoking, music - all prohibited. Violations of the new laws are severely punished according to Islamic law. One of the first institutions to be established in Mosul was the Higher Islamic Court. This is reminiscent of what Afghanistan became under the Taliban from 1996 until the government was removed by the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance in 2001.

ISIS has set up the Islamic State to have subordinate provinces* closely following the current governorate structure in Syria and Iraq - a few have been renamed. A new country is being created as the rest of the world is encouraging the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to form a more inclusive structure. Unfortunately, the Sunnis now in the ISIS area are not in position to participate.

Life under ISIS will eventually wear thin on the Sunni Iraqis. These independent tribal groups want to maintain their way of life. At some point, I assess they will tire of the draconian Sharia'-based life which ISIS wishes to impose. That is when we may see a second "Anbar Awakening" and a refutation of ISIS by the tribal leaders. It was the original Anbar Awakening in 2007 and 2008 that helped defeat al-Qa'idah in Iraq (also known as the Islamic State in Iraq), forerunner of ISIS.

ISIS may be good at taking territory, generating support among the Sunnis who have been poorly treated by the Shi'a government in Baghdad, and expelling the Shi'a-dominated Iraqi Army from Sunni areas. However, they have had problems governing in western Iraq.

LATE ADDENDUM (added without comment - I think it speaks for itself):

_______________
* The translation of the words for "state" present a semantic problem - there are two words used by ISIS. Dawlah and wilayat. The first is a state in the larger, national sense, like State of Kuwait or State of Israel. The second is more like a component of a larger entity, more akin to the U.S. states of California, Oregon, etc. To distinguish, I am going to use province for wilayat.

CNN's Out Front with Erin Burnett - June 23, 2014

I appeared on CNN's Out Front with Erin Burnett a few days ago, discussing Iraq with retired Army Colonel Peter Mansoor. Take a look:

Is Iraq Lost? - Out Front with Erin Burnett

Iranian support to Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki - why is anyone surprised?

Iranian-made Mohajer-4 reconnaissance drone in service with

 the Syrian Army over the southern suburbs of Damascus.

There has been recent reporting highlighting Iran's operation of reconnaissance drones (the Mohajer-4 as seen in Syria in the above video) over Iraq in support of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The timing is, of course, interesting - this comes at the same time that American reconnaissance aircraft - manned and unmanned - are also operating over Iraq. Both countries are collecting intelligence on the fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and [Greater] Syria (ISIS).

ISIS has mounted an impressive military campaign, moving in two short weeks from Syria, seizing a huge swath of western Iraq from the city of Mosul (al-Mawsil) in the north to the outskirts of Baghdad and virtually closing Iraq's borders with neighboring Syria and Jordan.

Iranian involvement in Iraq should come as no surprise. Iran has been active in Iraq for decades, especially following the end of Operation Desert Storm in which the Iraqi armed forces were defeated in short order by the U.S. military.

In the turmoil that followed the end of the liberation of Kuwait - the Shi'a uprising in the south and the Kurdish rebellion in the north - Iran moved to protect their Shi'a brethren in the south, and the Kurds in the north with whom they have enjoyed a good relationship. Iran provided safe haven to many Kurds during successive operations in the 1980s by Saddam Husayn that bordered on genocide.

Iran remained a key player in the northern part of Iraq, especially as the Kurds set up a de facto autonomous enclave, albeit split politically between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) led by Mas'ud Barzani and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Jalal Talabani. Barzani is now the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government in the Kurdish autonomous region, and Talabani is the president of Iraq. The Kurds have resolved their internal differences and are focused on making their region successful politically and economically.

I served in the Kurdish areas of both the KDP and PUK in the 1990s, working closely with the senior leadership of both parties (especially the PUK). Both parties freely admitted to us that they closely cooperated with the Iranians. When I pressed the issue, the Kurds disclosed the fact that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had teams operating in the area.

It was hard for us Americans to complain about the presence of the IRGC, since we and the Turks (and maybe others - the Israelis?) were doing the exact same thing, all hoping to hasten the removal of the Saddam Husayn regime. In fact, I spent several nervous nights sleeping in the same guest house as my Iranian counterparts - we had an unspoken agreement to ignore each others' presence, although we all maintained a "weapons ready" posture.

After the American invasion in 2003, the IRGC was again busy, training Shi'a militias to attack American troops. It was the IRGC that provided the shaped charge known as the "explosively formed penetrator" - capable of effectively penetrating the armor on American vehicles. The Qods Force, the IRGC special operations force, were the key trainers of the militia of radical Shi'a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr known as the jaysh al-mahdi, or JAM.

When the new Iraqi government was formed, Iran was there - lobbying for the election of long-time exile in Iran Nuri al-Maliki, their chosen leader for Iraq. Since the majority of Iraq is of the Shi'a sect, it was a foregone conclusion that the Shi'a would dominate the elected government. Since Iran is generally regarded as the protector and proponent of the world's Shi'a, it was also no surprise that their chosen candidate emerged as the new prime minister of Iraq.

The Iranians have never left. Their influence is felt throughout the Iraqi government agencies, including the office of the prime minister. Nuri al-Maliki is ofter referred to by the Sunnis as nuri al-irani - "Nuri the Iranian." His office has been derisively labeled by his opponents as al-sajad al-irani, "the Persian carpet."

Now here is a surprise: Iran has returned 130 Iraqi Air Force aircraft that Saddam Husayn had ordered flown to Iran to prevent their certain destruction at the hands of the US-led coalition air forces in 1991. Soon after the Operation Desert Storm air campaign began, it became patently clear to Saddam and his generals that unless he moved the aircraft to Iran, all of them would be systematically destroyed.

According to the Iraqi armed forces, the aircraft have been refurbished and equipped by Iran with "sophisticated weapons" to fight ISIS. Bringing aircraft that have been in storage for over 20 years back to operational status requires a lot of work. That to me demonstrates to me the importance Iran attaches to its relationship with the Shi'a-dominated government in Baghdad.

Iranian support to, and strong influence over, the Iraqi government should come as no surprise. Flying drones, even to the point of flying them from an airfield in Baghdad, should also come as no surprise. The Iranians could actually be helpful in this regard. They can easily direct Muqtada al-Sadr to ratchet down his rhetoric about attacking any American adivsors that come to Iraq.

I think it would useful for the Obama Administration to make it crystal clear that we have no intentions of coordinating our military activities with the Iranians. Iran is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, they are the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, they are Syria's key allies in their repression of their own population, they are the key patrons and suppliers of Hizballah, and despite their unbelievable claims to the contrary they are developing a nuclear weapon. These are not the people we should be working with.

All that said, the fact that Iran is attempting to keep itself in play as the Americans arrive back in Baghdad by continuing their ongoing support for what many believe is their puppet government in Iraq should not be a surprise. What would be a surprise is them not doing so.

Secretary Kerry, please focus on American national interests, not Iraq's failed government

This will be short and to the point. Secretary Kerry needs to focus first and foremost on U.S. national interests, not Iraq's failed government.

Here is an June 24 article from CBS News, written by Dan Kedmey:
--------------------------
Kerry Says U.S. Air Strikes in Iraq Would Be ‘Act of Irresponsibility’
Top American diplomat warns against strikes in a power vacuum

Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday ruled out U.S. air strikes in Iraq so long as its government remains fractured along sectarian lines and incapable of combating extremist Sunni militants who are capturing towns in the country’s north.

Kerry told CBS News that the U.S. military was prepared to provide assistance to Iraqi troops, but launching air strikes at this moment would constitute “a complete and total act of responsibility.”

“There’s no government, there’s no backup, there’s no military, there’s nothing there that provides the capacity for success,” Kerry said.

His remarks appeared to walk back comments made the day before, when he suggested the progress by fighters from the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) could force U.S. action. Kerry is in Iraq this week meeting with the country’s leaders and urging them to form a more inclusive government.
--------------------------

Mr. Kerry, you were right several times in this article, but not in the right order.

Time is not on our side in this particular crisis. The notion that the three disparate factions of the Iraqi electorate are going to come together because you are here and imploring them to do so flies in the face of reality. I think you may have gotten a small dose of that reality when Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki publicly rebuffed your proposal today saying he would not seek to form a national unity government, claiming that the process you espouse is in contravention of the Iraqi constitution.

Yesterday (June 24), you met with the leadership of the Kurdish Regional Government in Irbil, the government of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq. The Kurds see no future in maintaining the fiction of a coherent Iraqi government - there has been no such thing since the withdrawal of American forces in late 2011.

I know personally most of the senior Kurdish leadership, having worked closely with them years ago while serving in northern Iraq in the Saddam years. This may be their best chance at an independent Kurdish state. On a personal level, I hope they are successful, despite the complications this poses for your current mission.

After the removal of U.S. troops, al-Maliki felt relieved of any constraints to maintain the facade of a truly representative government. He replaced the competent (often Kurdish or Sunni Arab) leadership of military and government organizations with his Shi'a cronies. That resulted in the collapse of the Iraqi armed forces and security services when confronted with the threat from committed ISIS forces.

ISIS has taken most of the territory of western Iraq from the edge of the Kurdish area north of Mosul (al-Mawsil) to the southern border. Granted, much of that territory is vacant desert, and there are a few areas that are still contested, but for the most part, ISIS controls the Syrian-Iraqi border and may (there are conflicting reports) control the Jordanian-Iraqi border.

There are reports (accurate information is difficult to obtain) that ISIS has also moved across the area southwest of Baghdad along the Euphrates River. With the potential fall of Ba'qubah to the northeast of Baghdad, the already ISIS-occupied al-Fallujah to the west of Baghdad, and this possible move south of the city, ISIS is attempting to isolate the city from it's Shi'a base in the south of the country.

So, here is my paraphrase of your words as you should have said them - this fits the Middle East context in which we find ourselves.

"Progress by fighters from the militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria could force U.S. action, because there’s no government, there’s no backup, there’s no military, there’s nothing there that provides the capacity for success. The United States military is prepared to provide assistance to Iraqi troops - launching air strikes at this moment may be required to prevent the collapse of the Iraqi state as we know it."

Yes, Mr. Secretary, it is that dire. The notion that there is enough time to hold a series of meetings to convince the Iraqis to form a more inclusive government - among groups that are unwilling to do so - is merely fooling yourself. Call me pessimistic, but I have spent a lot of time living and working in this region, and the animosities at this point in time present an insurmountable hurdle to the fictional government you are imposing as a precondition to American airstrikes.

The presence of a radical Islamist state - yes, a state with an organized government and a huge expanse of territory in what were parts of Syria and Iraq - presents a real threat to the United States. Think Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. They already have training camps in Syria, and have indicated the intention to strike American interests, if not the United States itself.

Do not underestimate these radical jihadis. They are true believers in their warped sense of Islam, committed to the cause of spreading their version of the Islamic revolution. We cannot allow them a pseudo-state in the heart of the Middle East.

We cannot afford to base our foreign policy on the actions of a failed Iraqi government - we need to take action based on American national interests. If that means conducting airstrikes without the establishment of some form of inclusive government in Baghdad, so be it.

We need to act in our national interests, not the Administration's view of Iraq's national interests.

Syrian Air Force strikes targets in Iraq - not waiting for the Americans

Posted June 24

Posted June 20

Part of the American plan to address the rapid success of fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and [Greater] Syria (ISIS) includes the option for what President Barack Obama labeled "targeted and precise military action." For those who do not understand diplo-speak, that means airstrikes. As most people who have served in the military, or have studied military history, airstrikes can be effective if conducted properly.

The United States government is not the only government that knows this. The Iraqis are well aware of it, having twice been on the receiving end of American airpower. The Syrians have used their air force - jet fighters, fighter-bombers and helicopters - to great effect in their efforts against the various groups of rebels in that country.

Meanwhile, the United States is slowly deploying its first advisors to the country to assess the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the Iraqi Army and what steps can be taken to stem the advance of ISIS as it moves to the gates of Baghdad, as well as the Jordanian border. ISIS has effectively taken control of the entire Syrian border with Iraq, and the single border crossing between Iraq and Jordan.

Faced with the loss of the major border crossing at al-Bukamal (Syria) and al-Qa'im (Iraq), the Syrian Air Force, reportedly in cooperation with the Iraqi Army, has conducted a series of airstrikes inside Iraqi territory (see map). We don't need a sophisticated intelligence capability to know this - the Syrians have announced it.

I refer you to the two Facebook posts above. These are from the Syrian Arab Army Facebook page - a semi-official organ of the Syrian Armed Forces public affairs office. I have followed this page for years - they have reported information that could only originate with the government. Having served as the first Air Attache at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, I am fully aware of how tightly the Syrian regime controls information about its military capabilities and operations. Virtually everything was kept secret - I remain surprised at how much information is now being released by the regime of President Bashar al-Asad.

The June 24 post (top) shows a Syrian Air Force Sukhoi SU-22M4 (NATO: FITTER K) fighter-bomber, the workhorse of Syrian air operations against the rebels in Syria. The post claims that the Syrians conducted airstrikes against ISIS targets in the al-Qa'im area of Iraq. The June 20 post (lower) indicates that Syrian Air Force struck a bridge in the city of al-Qa'im, Iraq. Al Qa'im is fully six miles inside the Iraqi border.

The Iraqis and Syrian governments are both in trouble - and they know it. ISIS control of this major border crossing, as well as virtually all of the other minor crossings, prohibits the Iraqis sending supplies and equipment to their allies in Damascus - some of that materiel originates in Iran. The Syrians are trying to keep this important main supply route (known in military circles as an MSR) open.

The Iraqis feel that they cannot wait for the Americans to make a decision to conduct airstrikes - they have asked their allies in Syria for assistance. The Syrians, affected by ongoing events almost as much as the Iraqis, have come to the aid of their Iraqi allies.

So what? So the Syrian Air Force conducts airstrikes in support of the Iraqis - is that a concern? Maybe not just now, but what happens when armed Syrian Air Force jet fighter/fighter-bomber aircraft conduct operations in the same airspace as U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy fighter, fighter-bomber, C-130 gunships, and/or helicopters? The potential for misunderstandings could lead to dangerous confrontations. I seriously doubt that American forces are going to cooperate with the Syrian Air Force.

Time is running out - this situation is not static. ISIS is not waiting for the United States to conduct its assessment as it rolls towards Baghdad now, and possibly Amman in the future.

Where is the Iraqi Army?

As the Islamic State in Iraq and [Greater] Syria (ISIS) rolls through western and north central Iraq, seizing cities, towns and border crossings seemingly with little resistance, many military analysts - many of us with experience in Iraq - are asking the question, "Where is the Iraqi Army?" What happened to the force that we spent billions of dollars and countless man hours training and equipping.

As the Islamist fighters of ISIS approached Iraq's second largest city of Mosul (al-Mawsil), the Iraqi Army defenders appeared to collapse in the face of the jihadi fighters pouring into the country from their ISIS enclave in northern Syria. By most accounts, the soldiers deserted and headed south. What happened? Four of Iraq's 14 divisions simply evaporated?

I have to admit my surprise at the collapse of the Iraqi Army. In 1988 - the last year of the Iran-Iraq War - I served at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad as a liaison officer to the Iraqi Army's military intelligence service. As part of my duties, I traveled to several battlefields and was able to observe the Iraqi Army in action.

After eight years of fighting, the Iraqi Army had developed into an effective force, at least in the context of the Middle East in the 1980s. They had an inflated sense of their own capabilities, which did not serve them well when confronted with the much better trained and equipped U.S. armed forces a few years later in Operation Desert Storm.

After the two crushing defeats at the hands of the Americans in 1991 and 2003, the Iraqi Army was essentially destroyed, not only as a fighting force, but as a social institution as well. Many Iraqi Army unit commanders had been recruited by American intelligence officers between 1991 and 2003 and had been convinced not to fight when the Americans invaded, with the promise that they and their soldiers would be part of the post-Saddam military. That effort served American forces well as they made the lightning thrust to Baghdad - U.S. senior commanders were aware of which units would not engage them.

Following the ill-advised disbanding of the Iraqi army in 2003 by Coalition Provisional Administrator Paul Bremer, a new Iraqi Army had to be built from scratch. (I will not go into the far-reaching ramifications of Bremer's disastrous decision to dismantle the military, security and intelligence services; I have decried that mistake in great detail since the day he did it.)

Given the abysmal performance of the new post-Saddam Iraqi Army over the past few weeks, it would appear that the huge investment in time and money on the part of the United States was wasted. An estimated $25 billion was spent training the Iraqis, not to mention the billions of arms ordered by the Iraqi government. Much of the equipment fell into disrepair after U.S. advisors and trainers left at the end of 2011. American-made military equipment deployed to western Iraq is now in the hands of ISIS - some of it has been moved to ISIS-controlled areas of Syria.

So what happened?

There are numerous reasons for the poor performance and abysmal state of the Iraqi Army. First, when the United States withdrew its troops in late 2011, the training of Iraqi troops had barely reached the battalion level. This is critical, since the basic combat formation of most armies, including Iraq's, is the brigade. When deployed to the field, the units were not thoroughly trained in working at that level. (Note: I have already made my thoughts known about the effects of the American withdrawal in 2011.)

Soon after the removal of American troops, whose presence had provided a useful set of eyes and ears on the ground throughout the country, especially in the military and security forces, the Shi'a-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki began to systematically remove the competent military commanders - many of them Sunni Muslims - and replace them with his Shi'a cronies.

Military forces in many countries are more than just armed forces, they are social institutions. In poorer countries, they are also a source of money - weapons and the associated materials of war are expensive. There is a lot of potential for graft and corruption - I am told by many of my Iraqi contacts that this is exactly what happened. The Iraqi Army began a downward spiral from an army in the making to a third-world military rife with corruption.

The quality of the rank and file Iraqi soldier soon became irrelevant. In military service, the key ingredient is leadership. A mediocre army with good leadership can accomplish difficult missions; a good army with mediocre leadership can be defeated. I think we have just witnessed the latter.

I will watch with interest as the American officers make their assessment of just how broken the Iraqi armed forces are now. It may not be fixable in the time required to prevent ISIS from becoming established in the western part of Iraq.

ISIS map indicates intentions in the Levant

This is a map ostensibly published by the Islamic State in Iraq and [Greater] Syria (ISIS) - it is chilling.

Here is the legend:

- The black flags and grey/black circles indicate areas ISIS claims to have under its control
- The red circles indicate areas where fighting is going on
- The black rings on the borders are border crossings under their control
- The capital of the new Islamic State is indicated as Baghdad
- The lines of march in grey to the south indicate planned advances into Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which has been renamed "Land of the Two Holy Places" - once you remove the ruling family, the House of Sa'ud, it is no longer "Sa'udi" Arabia

Several cities in Syria that have come under ISIS control have been renamed as well. For example, Dayr al-Zawr, a city in the oil producing region on the Euphrates River is know called al-Khayr.

It would appear that ISIS wants to control the entire Levant....

Read this in conjunction with my earlier article: URGENT - ISIS seizes almost all Iraq-Syrian-Jordanian border crossings.