US and Kurds announce new offensive targeting ISIS's capitol in Syria, Raqqa.

US fighters in Syria. Reuters.

The United States and their Kurdish allies in Syria have announced a new offensive targeting ISIS's capitol, Raqqa. Reuters. The new offensive is timed to coordinate with the Iraqi offensive to take back ISIS's 2nd major city of Mosul. The Kurdish led alliance, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), announced the attack and the United States will contribute air support. The initial operations in this new offensive will be an effort to cut off Raqqa from the rest of the Islamic State. Tensions are high though because Turkey is demanding to be a part of the offensive.

My Comment:

Talk about premature. Unlike Mosul, Kurdish forces aren't anywhere close to Raqqa. There are a lot of villages, towns and even cities between Kurdish forces and Raqqa. Indeed, it seems that there is a lot of work to do before the Kurds can even threaten ISIS's capitol. 

And I think it is way premature to announce this operation is targeting Raqqa. Not only is that pretty unrealistic at this point it's tipping off ISIS to what their enemy is up to. There seems to be little reason to do so. There are other places that ISIS could have been attacked, such as the rather large salient between Aleppo and Manbij, or even in Eastern Syria. But now ISIS knows that the SDF will not be attacking in those areas. 

Still, if you read between the lines you can tell that this attack really isn't focusing on Raqqa. It's more about isolating the city and cutting off it's line of supplies. How exactly they are going to try and do that is a mystery to me, but my guess is that the plan will be essentially the same one that they have in Iraq for Mosul. Right now only a few forces are actually fighting in the city while the rest are trying to cut the city off so they can lay siege.

I am guessing, long term, that is what will happen in Raqqa as well. It's just a long, long way off. Looking at a map of the situation in Syria, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to even cut off the city. I can't imagine that the SDF will have a rapid advance unless ISIS totally collapses, so any discussion about the battle of Raqqa is months premature. This offensive is just the very early stage of that battle which will probably start sometime next year. 

All that being said, ISIS has to be under a lot of pressure right now. They are doing their best to defend Mosul, their last major holding in Iraq. If they lose that city, they lose their main outpost in Iraq and will be pushed out of the country. It could even potentially cause a collapse. 

With new attacks coming in the Raqqa area, ISIS may have to shift forces around to defend the city. ISIS only has so many troops and they have no real way to replace their losses. With much of their forces either fighting in Mosul or against the Turks near the border, they might not have the reserves to throw into battle against the Kurds. 

The wildcard is, of course, Turkey. Turkey has said that they want to join the battle from Raqqa. Turkey has been a key factor in ISIS's downturn and they have cut off the terror group's main line of supply by clearing out the border area between Syria and Turkey. They want in on this offensive.

Why? Because they hate the Kurds. They do not want them to expand outside of their traditional areas. Raqqa has never been a Kurdish city so to have them take back the city is a major threat to Turkey. Yes, the SDF has Arab members, but it's mostly a Kurdish force. Turkey views an expansionist Kurdish group as a existential threat.

This, more then any other factor, makes me think that this offensive is mostly smoke and mirrors. The Kurds will need to keep many of their troops at home due to the threat of Turkey taking territory from them. Turkey has said for a long time that they are going to take back Manbij from the Kurds, and when that happens I bet the Kurds will have to call off this offensive to defend themselves. ISIS will remain in Raqqa for the time being...  

I officially endorse voting for Donald Trump (or Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders)

Donald Trump. Gage Skidmore

As you are surely aware, the presidential election begins next Tuesday. I have long wanted to write a post about who I think you should vote for. But in the end I found that writing about policy is pointless. I'm not suddenly going to convince a hard core Democrat that they should vote for Trump when they are die hard pro-choice or pro gun control. It would just be rehashing the same old arguments again and again, and I would be unlikely to convince anyone. 

And I also don't think I am going to reach the people that hate Donald Trump. Though I think the accusations against him are largely unfounded, I do understand that people dislike the man as a person or even disagree with his policies. 

So I have decided to write something a little different. Instead of touting Trump and his policies, I am going to be arguing against voting for Hillary Clinton, even if you like her policies. My goal isn't to convince you that voting for Trump is the right thing to do. But I do think that if you can't support Donald Trump, that you shouldn't automatically support Clinton instead. There are very strong arguments against voting for her and if you personally find Trump and/or his policies distasteful, I would remind you that there are third party campaigns and write ins that you can vote for instead of just voting for Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders are all in play as well. 

This will be mostly about the consequences of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency. I will mostly avoid policy, except when her policies are the things that will cause the negative consequences. I'm going to take this point by point. Apologies in advance for the listicle format! 

1. Hillary Clinton's foreign policy will likely lead to war. If you have been reading my campaign coverage at all this year the one thing I keep harping on again and again is that a no-fly zone in Syria is a horrible idea that would likely lead to war. This isn't a left and right issue because many people on the GOP side have argued the same thing. And people to the left of Trump, including Johnson, Stein and Sanders, agree with me. 

Hillary Clinton has a neocon view of Russia. She thinks that they are still an existential threat to America. This is a foolish and outdated idea, which was even mocked by Barack Obama when Mitt Romney brought it up during the debates four years ago. I have found no legitimate reason to strike Russian interests in Syria. The only reason I see is hatred against Russia and fighting a cause that was lost a long time ago.

And I have to say how shocking the turn around on this issue was. Just a few years ago people were bashing everyone for neo-con foreign policy. When Barack Obama wanted to go to war in Syria after they crossed his "red line" there was bipartisan opposition to him, but suddenly when Clinton is running on a much more aggressive foreign policy those on the left, who were united in the opposition to the Iraq War, have fallen in line. 

I also want you to think about the personal consequences you would suffer if we got into a nuclear war with Russia. I have myself and I have little confidence I would survive such a conflict. Though I don't believe the smaller suburb that I live in would be directly targeted in such a war, the larger city I live near would be. Since I work in that city, there's about a 1/3 chance on any given day, at the very least, that I would die in such an attack. I most likely wouldn't be in the "fireball" area, but I would be in the blast zone. If I got lucky, I would be crushed or otherwise killed by the shockwave. But most likely I would die a horrible death due to radiation burns... Maybe I would live long enough to get cancer or die in the ensuing famine and unrest. 

Your chances may be even worse. If you live in a city with a large population then you are essentially doomed if Clinton gets us into a war. And even if you live in a smaller city or town, you could still die in the initial exchange. There are some towns near me that are small and look safe but would be targeted because they produce things of military importance. Indeed, my old college town had a major military factory nearby. If I still lived there, I wouldn't have enough time to scream when the bombs dropped... Most of you won't either and the survivors would get to play Fallout in real life. That's the potential outcome of a Clinton presidency and what you are voting for if you vote Clinton on November 8th. 

2. Hillary Clinton is mired in scandal. She's currently under multiple FBI investigations. The e-mail server is actually the more minor of the investigations. The FBI has basically admitted that they had enough to charge her for putting national security at risk. Somehow, James Comey decided that even though Clinton did things that would normally called criminally negligent, he claimed that there was no intent. The wikileaks scandal shows that there was intent. 

But it's not just the e-mails. It's also the Clinton Foundation. While portrayed as a charity, it's largely a slush fund that the Clinton's have used for pay and play purposes. The investigation into the foundation has been very complex and will likely result in charges or impeachment for Hillary Clinton. And there are rumors, unsubstantiated at this point, that the Clinton's were involved in even worse things. If those rumors end up being true then the situation will quickly spiral out of control... 

With the Antony Wiener sex scandal, the situation has gotten even worse. On his and Huma Abedin's laptop, new e-mails have been discovered and are being reviewed. I have no idea what is on those e-mails but it is very possible that criminal acts will be found.

If Clinton wins there is a very good chance that she will be impeached, just like her husband before her. And in this case I think she would really be removed from office. Such an outcome would be a disaster to the country and would erode trust in government to a massive degree. And if she doesn't get removed then we have to live with the consequences of having a president that is completely above the law... 

3. Trump will have more opposition then a Clinton presidency. The media is completely on Hillary Clinton's side and will only rarely call her out on her issues. While Trump gets accused of murder for just about everything, Clinton largely gets a free pass. She does get some minor flack occasionally, but nothing to compared to what Trump gets. If he gets elected, the press will keep him honest. That won't happen with Hillary Clinton. 

Indeed, the media has proven again and again that they are in the tank for Clinton. Wikileaks has confirmed that as well, with Clinton being fed debate questions by the press and they have even sent stories to her campaign for approval. And they have openly admitted to being biased in favor of Clinton. 

That means that if Clinton does do something obviously illegal or immoral we can't count on the press to call her out on it. Sure, there will be outlets like Breitbart, but they lack the credibility needed to actually check Clinton's power. The mainstream media needs to be a check against presidential power and I just don't see it happening with Hillary Clinton. 

4. Hillary Clinton rigged the primary election in her favor. Though I don't think she will able to do the same thing in the presidential election, it's very clear that she did not play fair with Bernie Sanders. The DNC leaks and Wikileaks releases have shown that she did some terrible things in her effort to defeat Sanders. 

Like I said before, Wikileaks has shown that one of her supporters and new DNC chair Donna Brazile passed on debate questions to her. That gave her an unfair advantage at the debates but it's hardly the only example. There was also clear examples of the DNC and her campaign working together, which is against the rules. 

The Project Veritas videos showed even more collusion between Super PAC's and her campaign. These collisions are illegal and another example of Hillary Clinton not playing by the rules. Time and time again she has shown that she will do some seriously underhanded and wrong things to get ahead.

That kind of behavior should not be rewarded. We need to stand up and say that our elections matter and we won't tolerate any attempts to subvert the will of the people and to play outside of the agreed upon rules. And we should do that by voting for anyone but Hillary Clinton. 

5. Hillary Clinton is in poor health. We all remember the video of Hillary Clinton struggling at the 9/11 event. She was diagnosed with pneumonia and seems to have recovered but there have been many other questions about her health. She often looks haggard and rough during her campaign stops and I think that she is too unhealthy to serve. 

I also think that Clinton may have a substance abuse problem. She seems to drink quite a bit and several e-mails leaked by Wikileaks mention her assistants trying to sober up. While Gary Johnson has his own substance abuse problems, with him smoking pot quite a bit. Trump and presumably Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders don't have that problem. Trump never drinks so with him we don't have to worry about him making bad decisions three sheets to the wind. 

I can't prove those allegations, but even a minor drinking problem could exacerbate her bad health. And remember, she's trying to get the most stressful and harmful job in the world. Just look at how badly Bill Clinton, George Bush 43 and Barack Obama have aged in the 8 years they have been president. 

I can't imagine that someone who already seems to be in poor health will make it through a full four years. Trump's actually older then Clinton, but he seems to be in much better health. I worry about his health as well, but it seems he has a better chance of living a full four years and maybe even the eight years. Clinton has almost no chance. 

And that means Tim Kaine will be president. Go ahead, tell me everything you know about Tim Kaine. The only exposure most of us have had with him is the VP debate. He hasn't been vetted on the national level. At all. Who knows what he will do when he is president? He needs to be vetted but it won't happen at this point. 

So to recap: If you vote for Hillary Clinton, you are voting for the whole package. Even if you like some of her policies you are getting some very bad things along with her. She's a sick woman, who likes to drink, and she has cheated to get where she is. The media will not reliably call her out for her sins since they are deeply in favor of her and are helping her cheat into the presidency. She's also under several FBI investigations and will likely lead the country into a constitutional crisis. And, to top it all off, her foreign policy could directly lead to a nuclear war with Russia, which could threaten to kill us all. 

I think there is a clear choice this year. You should not support Hillary Clinton. The stakes are way too high. That doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump. You can always go for Johnson, Stein or even write in Bernie Sanders. I understand you might not be excited for a Trump presidency. But do you really want to go with Russia? Are the policies Clinton supports so important to you that you would give up your life and the lives of everyone you care about? And do you really want the government to fall when Clinton gets arrested? 

US warns of possible al-Qaeda terror attacks on Monday before election.

New York City. Reuters. 

US intelligence officials have warned local governments in New York, Texas and Virginia that al-Qaeda may be planning attacks on Monday, the day before the election. Reuters. No specific threats have been mentioned, but the Joint Terrorism Task Force has been notified. The FBI did not confirm or deny the report, which originally appeared on CBS News. The government often give warnings about possible terror attacks before major events and holidays. The CBS report also mentioned that there are worries that lone wolf terror attacks could occur at polling places on election day. 

My Comment:

One the one hand, these kinds of terror alerts are routine. I've posted about several in the past then ended up being nothing, most notably the 4th of July, during the summer of ISIS attacks. Nothing materialized then and I doubt anything serious will happen now. I only decided to cover this because of the obvious impact it would have, not because I think anything will come of it.

On the other hand, with how completely insane this election is right now, I wouldn't be surprised if a terror attack occurs. It would be the perfect end to a very, very insane year. Not that I want it to happen, of course, but from a thematic sense it works. Again, I don't think it is likely at all, but then again, what has been likely this year? 

I do find it interesting that the articles mentioned al-Qaeda specifically. Al-Qaeda has largely gone silent since the Charlie Hebdo attacks and they really haven't pulled off anything since then. Though they have a large and powerful affiliate in Yemen, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, they have mostly been focused on fighting against the Saudis and their allies in the war there. They have had some serious terror cred though, with the Charlie Hebdo attacks merely being their most famous. 

What worries me about al-Qaeda is that they have had a different style of attacking for quite some time. While ISIS has been focusing on the "guns and suicide bombs" mass shooting hybrid attacks, and lone wolf stabbings, al-Qaeda has always tried to focus more on spectacular 9/11 style attacks. If something does go down on Monday and it's al-Qaeda that is responsible, I worry it could be horrible. 

Al-Qaeda has also focused on assassinations as well. The Charlie Hebdo attack was essentially an assassination attempt on a large group of individuals. An attempt on either of the presidential candidates would be very difficult but even a failed attack would dramatically change the outcome of the race and would cause massive panic throughout the world. 

Of course, even a minor terror attack could have a disproportionate impact on the election. Forget about who it helps and who it hurts, turnout would be affected. People will be afraid to go to the polls if a major terrorist attack happens and even a minor one would be devastating if it happened at a polling place. I know people think this election is important, but is it so important that they would risk their lives?

It's a strong argument for voting early. Unfortunately, with as crazy as this election cycle is, that has it own downsides. New leaks are happening everyday now and some of the stuff coming out is just bizarre and disturbing. If you vote early, and don't live in a state where you can change your vote, you might be out of luck and vote for someone that disqualifies themselves at the last moment. But if you don't vote early and their is some kind of terror attack, you might lose your chance to vote.

It's a hell of a catch-22. My personal plan is to vote on election day. Even if there is a threat of an attack, I don't think it's a very large one. The chances of some crazy leak happening and derailing the election seems a lot more likely to me, especially considering everything that has happened this week. Vote early if you are scared, but keep in mind, you might regret you choices. 

And keep in mind, that this is all extremely unlikely. The government always releases these kinds of warnings before major events, just in case. It doesn't mean that the threat is massively greater then normal, just that we should be cautious and think about the possibility. If I had to put money on it I would be comfortable betting that nothing will happen. 

More corruption. US assistant attorney general in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton's e-mails was passing information to her.

Hillary Clinton. Getty. 

Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik gave Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta a heads up about the email investigation. Politico. Kadzik e-mailed Podesta to inform him of new developments in Clinton's e-mail case, including a house committee investigation and a Freedom of Information Act request. The revelation came through the Wikileaks coverage of the Podesta e-mail leak. Complicating the issue is the fact that Clinton's email issue has resurfaced after a computer was found during the investigation of her aide's, Huma Abedin's, husband Anthony Wiener, sexting scandal. After the development FBI director James Comey reopened the case. Peter Kadzik works at the Justice Department and is deeply involved in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and has a close relationship to John Podesta. 

My Comment:

The e-mail can be found via Wikileaks here.

So what's my take? Obvious corruption. It's pretty clear to me that Peter Kadzik was a mole in the Justice Department for the Hillary Clinton campaign. It's been proven that, at the very least, he was giving her campaign information that she did not need to have. That's some fairly obvious corruption and at the very least warrants more investigation. 

Peter Kadzik should have and still should, recuse himself from the Clinton e-mail case and any of the other federal investigations into the Clinton camp, including the investigation into the Clinton foundation and the Anthony Wiener case. Someone that has close ties to someone they are involved in investigating should not be working the case at all. Though his role is supervisory, he still should have nothing to do with hit. 

This is just the latest incident in the internal war between the FBI and the rest of the government about Hillary Clinton. Though Comey himself wimped out and didn't charge Clinton, it's clear that the FBI wanted her to be arrested. The Justice Department, lead by Lorreta Lynch, wanted nothing to do with it. Lynch herself opened herself up to charges of corruption when she met with Bill Clinton on a tarmac right before Comey said he wouldn't recommend charges in the case.  

That makes it very clear that the Justice Department and the FBI weren't on the same wavelength on Hillary Clinton. At the very least there is the appearance of corruption. People like Lynch and Kadzik should not be sending information to people like Bill Clinton and John Podesta when they are investigating Hillary Clinton. That's completely obvious. Even if there is no out and out bribery or horse trading going on here, it still is fundamentally unfair for the government to be tipping off a suspect in a very serious case. 

And this case is incredibly serious. Forget the fact that Clinton is running for the top office in the country. Her actions as Secretary of State was unconscionable. To freely e-mail secret and top secret information, on a private sever no less, is a very serious crime that put the nation's national security at risk. 

But it gets worse. She was obviously using the private server so she could avoid government accountability and Freedom of Information Act requests. She may have even been doing it to hide possible criminal activity related to the Clinton Foundation. 

And the war between the FBI and the Justice Department has gotten worse. The FBI wants to indict Hillary Clinton, not only for the email issue but for the Clinton Foundation case as well. The Justice Department has refused in both cases to charge Hillary Clinton and the people in charge, Lynch and Kadzik, who at the very least give off the appearance of corruption, put an end to that.

So why did the e-mail issue come up again if the Justice Department is corrupt? Here's what I think happened. Anthony Wiener couldn't keep it in his pants so he sexted an underage girl. That information became public so the NYPD investigated. As they were looking for child porn they either found a computer, perhaps the one that had the Clinton server archive on it that was "lost in the mail", or Wiener cut a deal for the same computer. 

When the NYPD found the computer they saw what was on it and contacted the FBI. The emails that the FBI saw were damning enough that they had to reopen the case and even James Comey had to go along with it. My guess is that it was the lost laptop with the Clinton archive and even the pressure from the Justice Department wasn't enough to keep it quiet. I'm even hearing rumors of FBI agents resigning over the case and the NYPD threatening to leak the information if something wasn't done. 

How much of that is true? I have no idea. But I think there is a circumstantial case that it is the case. Either way, the investigation into Hillary Clinton is not going away, even if she wins. If she wins, expect an impeachment very quickly. If she loses, and I think she will, she is going to prison. Period. 

Finally, I have been hearing some very dark and very crazy rumors about this case. Reddit seems to be convinced that the FBI is communicating with them via twitter and the various archive releases they have been posting. The FBI is supposed to be non-partisian so Reddit and the various chans think that they are outsourcing the investigation to them. And they are saying that the Clinton Foundation is way more then a slush fund for the Clinton family. They things I am hearing about them are, quite frankly, beyond evil... 

In any other year that would be crazy tinfoil hattery, but this year, anything is possible. The problem is that there is no proof for any of it. Yet. But even if only 10% of it is true, then this is the biggest story since Watergate. Even if it isn't this is a huge scandal that needs to be investigated further. And Hillary Clinton should be completely disqualified for running for president... 

Iraqi forces are now battling ISIS in Mosul city limits.

Iraqi special forces stand guard in Bazwaia, east of Mosul. Reuters. 

Iraqi forces have finally reached the outskirts of Mosul, two weeks after their offensive began. Reuters. Urban fighting has broken out in the al-Quds neighborhood and Iraqi special forces have already taken back a tv station. In addition to Iraqi forces, Kurdish and Shiite militias are also advancing on Mosul, but the Iraqi special forces have made the quickest progress to the east of the city. Outside of the al-Quds neighborhood though, life continues as normal. Iraqi troops are trying to cut off escape routes to the city, but have not succeeded in doing so yet. ISIS has had some success in delaying the advance using mortars, snipers, suicide bombings and booby traps. The battle for Mosul could last months, but if it ends in a victory against ISIS, the terror group will largely have been defeated in Iraq. 

My Comment:

The Iraqis are doing better then I thought. I didn't think they would reach the outskirts of Mosul so quickly. Indeed, it sounds like they are actually in the city, if the al-Quds neighborhood really counts. That's quite an accomplishment considering how much ground they had to cover and how many little towns and villages were in the way. 

It's telling that the first troops to enter the city were Iraqi special forces. They have been one of the better fighting groups in the Iraq War and they are comparatively well trained and well led. Unlike the main Iraqi Army, the special forces fight instead of running. They have been involved in some of the greatest victories against ISIS, including Ramadi and Fallujah. 

The problem is that the Iraqi government might be expending them. They only have so many special forces troops and they are going to take casualties in this fighting. And they have been leaning very heavily on these troops. Sooner or later, they might break from overuse. If that happens then the regular Iraqi army is going to need to step up. Given their performance this war, that does not exactly fill me with confidence. After all, they are the reason Mosul needs to be liberated in the first place... 

There are other factions fighting near Mosul as well. The Kurds have been very active and they have always been an effective fighting force. I expect very few problems from them, and I think they will contribute to the battle effectively. 

But I am more worried about the Shiite militias. They have committed some horrible atrocities in the past against Sunni civilians. In both Fallujah and Tikrit, they have murdered Sunni Muslims civilians and have committed other crimes against them, including widespread looting and arson. The fear is that they will do the same thing that they have done in the past in the almost completely Sunni city of Mosul. 

This is, of course, counter productive for reasons that should be obvious. If the civilians under control of ISIS are made aware that Shiite militias are coming and that there is a good chance they will loot, burn and kill everything in their path, they might just decide that they should stick with ISIS. After all, though ISIS is strict and horrible, they at least are Sunni Muslims. 

If it were up to me, I would not allow these Shiite militias to participate in the battle of Mosul at all. The risks of violence and looting are too high and I simply don't trust them to behave themselves. Unfortunately, that is not realistic. The Kurds and Iraqi Army just aren't strong enough to fight ISIS on their own. They need the extra bodies that these militias can provide, and they might not be able to win without them. 

So what else could be done? Well instead of having the Shiites enter the city they could be used in other ways. Since someone needs to cut off and surround the city, perhaps that would be a better role for them. Though they would still probably ravage the countryside, there would be less potential victims. They would be the anvil to the Iraqi and Kurdish hammers and ISIS could be crushed in between them. 

Another use is as a strategic reserve. ISIS has already launched some distraction attacks outside the Mosul theater and these militias could act as a quick reaction force to any ISIS counter attacks, either near the Mosul area or outside of it. Though this would be a good idea, I don't know if it is politically possible. These militias want to be included in the attack and are pulling strings to do so. 

The good news is that ISIS is in a very bad position right now. Turkey joining the war and clearing out the border area with Syria hurt them badly. With the border area now secure, ISIS lost it's main recruitment pipeline. They can't expect much in the way of reinforcement unless they start drafting local civilians. Somehow I don't think giving the people of Mosul weapons will work out very well for ISIS since I am guessing more then a few would like to turn them on their captors. 

The problem is that ISIS's escape route is still open. Much of ISIS's Iraqi leadership has fled for Syria and if things get too bad, ISIS might even withdraw completely. I don't know how likely that is. Mosul is the de-facto capitol of ISIS in Iraq and losing it would be a huge economic, strategic and morale blow. But if they withdraw they would be preserving a huge amount of troops that will likely otherwise die. 

Iraq shouldn't let them have that choice. The main priority shouldn't be these small skirmishes in the al-Quds neighborhood. They need to focus on cutting of the city and laying siege to it. By cutting off ISIS they can kill and capture enough fighters that ISIS won't still remain a threat after the battle is over. They already screwed up and let the leadership escape by announcing this battle months ahead of time, but they can redeem themselves by cutting off the escape of everyone that is left...