The U.S. is hoping this will spur an effort by Iraqi forces to launch an attempt to retake Ramadi. More details and some doubts about the plan are here. Obama continues to draw the line at training and equipping and will not send in combat troops.

The U.S. apparently still believes it can win over the tribes in the area and intends to support them as well:

A new site would allow U.S. trainers to provide greater support for Sunni tribal fighters, who have yet to receive all of the backing and arms promised by the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad.

Training and equipping the tribes is worthless in my opinion. They change allegiances. Every day there are photos and reports of new pledges of allegiance between tribes and ISIS. Here's one from 6 days ago about a tribe in Anbar.

The equipment we send will just end up with ISIS. Here's a photo of a U.S. TOW anti-tank missile used last month during the capture of the Syrian town of Palmyra.

The Guardian reports there's also skepticism because there's a lack of recruits to train:

It was additionally unclear how increasing the number of US soldiers available to train Iraqi fighters would overcome a central problem to the training effort most recently spelled out on Monday by Obama: a lack of recruits to train.

“We’ve got more training capacity than we’ve got recruits,” Obama said at the close of a G7 summit in Germany. “It’s not happening as fast as it needs to.”

Officials say retaking Mosul has taken a back seat to Ramadi.

On a lighter but related note, the fearsome Abu Wahib, ISIS military commander in Anbar, has been reported back in Anbar. ARA news (which has falsely reported him dead a few times) says he's returned from Mosul with a new bride. It features this photo of him:

There were reports of his marriage in November, 2014 (the month after the latest false death report.)

Who was his first wife? ARA news says she was the sister of former Iraqi MP Ahmed Alwan, who has been "under arrest since December 28, 2014, on charges of terrorism and suspicious links to the Islamic State group." That doesn't sound right to me. There is an Iraqi MP named Ahmed Alwan who was arrested in December, 2013. His sister was reportedly killed in the raid that captured Alwan, along with other members of their family.

Another source says the target of the raid was his brother Ali, who had an arrest warrant, but both Ali and the sister were killed.

Iraqi special forces tried to enforce an arrest warrant in Ramadi on `Ali al-`Alwani, the brother of well-known Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) parliamentarian Ahmad al-`Alwani. When tribal bodyguards sought to resist, a firefight resulted in the death of `Ali al-`Alwani and his sister, as well as the arrest of MP Ahmad al-`Alwani. For a full account of the events leading up to and following December 28, 2013, see “Maliki Targets Ramadi Protest Site,” Inside Iraqi Politics, January 8, 2014, pp. 2-8.

al-Alwani was sentenced to death in November, 2014. MP Ahmed Alwan is also prominently featured in human rights reports as a victim. (See page 21 of this report.)

I wonder if they are referring to a sister of ISIS military council leader Abu Ahmad al-Alwani who was killed last year. Al Alwani was a
former member of Saddam’s army, and a member of the ISIS military council. His real name is Waleed Jassem al-Alwani. That would at least make some sense.

Also, Ara News photo of Abu Wahib's burned hand, which it claims he suffered in an airstrike, is not recent. It is from at least March, 2014. What airstrikes were there in Anbar in March, 2014? Here's a copy of the photo from September, 2014 and a related one from July, 2014.

Back to Iraq. ISIS has published photos of its most recent grads from the al Zarqawi training camp in Kirkuk. The trainer is reportedly Chechen. I suspect ISIS will be well prepared for any future Anbar battles against Iraqi forces, regardless of whether we train and equip them.

Today is the one year anniversary of ISIS takeover of Mosul. ISIS has big celebrations planned, including a new video that will be released tomorrow. Here's the screengrab:

While there are articles that claim life is horrible there, al Monitor recently interviewed a variety of residents who say ISIS has done a better job than the Iraqi government. It also reviews the various services and says:

IS is regaining ground in Mosul in an unprecedented way and increasing its popularity, especially among civilians. It is worth noting, though, that the services are offered by the services department employees, who still receive their salaries from the Baghdad government. IS is working to prove to Mosul’s citizens that it is an organized entity capable of ensuring security and providing services — a goal the previous Iraqi governments and security forces failed to achieve over the last 11 years.

IS' efforts to rehabilitate the services sector in Mosul will further complicate the mission of the Iraqi forces and the international coalition against IS, if they decide to conduct military operations to regain control of Mosul.

And from today's Guardian: Mosul residents say despite its brutality, ISIS is more honest than the Shi'a Government.

Business is said to be booming under ISIS in Syria (for wealthy business owners who pay the tax.)

I suspect both pro and anti-ISIS points of view are exaggerated.

But the point is ISIS is not our responsibility. ISIS didn't urge attacks on the U.S. until we began our airstrikes. Instead of sending trainers and equipment, we should just get out. We are spending billions of dollars that could be better spent at home. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen with a presidential election on the horizon and Republicans so eager to blame Obama they claim war is the answer.

There are few tangible results of U.S.-led coalition in Iraq or Syria, other than killing thousands of militants and leaders who promptly get replaced. There are no "moderate Syrian rebels." The borders to Syria have not been closed to foreign fighters. The coalition hasn't caught "Jihadi John" who killed American and British citizens. It hasn't captured the kidnappers and torturers of western hostages. The media rarely mentions them any more. The coalition has still not come up with an effective media campaign to counter ISIS's message. Taking down Twitter accounts is worthless when they pop back up within hours.

The net effect of war is loss of life --from the civilians who get bombed to the military personnel who get killed. Why is the U.S. so threatened by the prospect of this bizarre Caliphate state? And why does it let the Iranian-backed Shi'a militias and Al Qaida-backed al Nusra get a free pass? Both groups are just as brutal as ISIS. Al Nusra today summarily executed 30 people. Al Nusra wants sharia law and a Caliph -- they just don't want it to be Baghdadi.

Even the Yazidis have turned violent, earning the criticism of Amnesty International. Being victimized doesn't give a group the right to kill innocent old people and children.

There will never be a military solution to ISIS and other violent groups in the Middle East.