DOCSLIB.ORG

ISIS: the Military Response in Iraq and Syria

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ISIS: the Military Response in Iraq and Syria ISIS: the military response in Iraq and Syria Standard Note: SN/IA/6995 Last updated: 12 November 2014 Author: Louisa Brooke-Holland and Claire Mills Section International Affairs and Defence Section The United States has led airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. RAF Tornado GR4 and the Reaper remotely piloted air system (RPAS) have conducted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq. Reaper and Rivet Joint aircraft have also been authorised to fly surveillance missions over Syria. France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Canada and Denmark have all conducted air strikes in Iraq. Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have all supported US strikes against ISIS in Syria. Combat troops have been explicitly ruled out by the UK and the other the countries involved, amid debate about the reliance on air power alone. However a number of British soldiers are training Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq, while further advisory personnel are expected to be deployed to Iraqi headquarters as part of a broader package of support announced on 5 November. The US also announced on 7 November the intention to deploy up to 1,500 additional military personnel in order to initiate a more comprehensive training package for Iraqi forces. Several Coalition partners have offered additional trainers as part of that initiative. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents 1 Summary 3 1.1 Key dates in 2014 3 2 Military operations 4 2.1 US assets 4 2.2 Countries involved in military action 4 Air strikes in Iraq 5 Air strikes in Syria 6 2.3 Duration of the mission 7 3 British military participation 7 3.1 Details of RAF airstrikes 8 3.2 Surveillance Operations Over Syria 9 3.3 Assets 9 Royal Air Force 9 Royal Navy 11 Army 11 3.4 Sustainability of UK mission 12 3.5 Costs of the mission 13 4 ISIS military capabilities 14 Risks to coalition forces? 15 4.1 Impact of airstrikes on ISIS 15 5 Boots on the ground? 16 5.1 UK position 16 5.2 Views of Parliamentarians and former defence chiefs 17 5.3 Views of defence experts and commentators 18 5.4 Views of the US and other Coalition Partners 19 2 1 Summary The United States has led airstrikes against ISIS1 in both Iraq and Syria, beginning in Iraq in August and in Syria in September. So far only the US and its Arab partners - Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates - have participated in airstrikes in Syria. The United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Canada and Denmark have all conducted air strikes in Iraq. All are reluctant to intervene militarily in Syria. The Turkish Parliament has approved a motion allowing its military to join the campaign in both Syria and Iraq. Turkey borders both countries. Military action has so far been restricted to air operations in support of local forces, providing reconnaissance, surveillance and attack capabilities. RAF Tornado GR4 aircraft, based in Cyprus, and the Reaper remotely piloted air system (RPAS) have conducted a number of airstrikes and reconnaissance missions in Iraq, with support aircraft including the new Voyager tanker/transport aircraft. UK Reaper and Rivet Joint aircraft have also conducted surveillance operations over Syria. Other countries have deployed F-16, F-18, Tornado and Rafale combat aircraft, plus support aircraft in the form of tankers, surveillance and transport aircraft. There is widespread resistance from North America, European nations and Australia to deploying ground combat troops (excluding Special Forces). The reliance on air power has prompted a debate about the need for ‘boots on the ground’, or land forces, among former defence chiefs and Parliamentarians. The US, UK, Canada, Australia and France have all explicitly ruled out deploying ground combat forces in Iraq. The UK has deployed “non- combat Army trainers” to northern Iraq and announced at the beginning of November that a small number of advisers would deploy to Iraqi headquarters. The US is reporting seeing a change of behaviour by ISIS in response to the airstrikes and air reconnaissance missions, suggesting they have having to change tactics to avoid detection, thus disrupting their movements. Airstrikes so far have targeted heavy weapons, armed vehicles (e.g. armed pick-up trucks, also called ‘technicals’) and ISIS fighters engaged in combat fire with local ground forces. This note complements House of Commons Library Note Iraq, Syria and ISIS – recent developments which provides a broader political and humanitarian context. 1.1 Key dates in 2014 8 August: first US airstrikes on ISIS targets in Iraq. 19 September: France carries out its first air strike in Iraq. 23 September: first US airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria supported by Arab states. 26 September: UK Parliament approves military action in Iraq only, not in Syria. 29 September: RAF Tornado GR4 conduct first armed reconnaissance missions over Iraq, but do not carry out any airstrikes. 1 ISIS, ISIS and the Islamic State are different names for the same group 3 30 September: first UK airstrikes on ISIS targets in Iraq. 16 October: RAF Reaper RPAS re-deployed from Afghanistan to the Middle East for use in ISIS operations. 21 October: Reaper and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft authorised to conduct surveillance flights over Syria. 5 November: Additional UK military assistance to Iraqi forces is announced. 7 November: US announces the deployment of up to 1,500 additional non-combat personnel to Iraq. 9 November: RAF Reaper conducts first offensive strike sortie in Iraq. 2 Military operations This section looks at the military operations involving the US and partner nations, including pledges made by other governments to participate and what military equipment they are contributing. The UK contribution is assessed separately, in section 3, while the debate about the deployment of combat troops is discussed in section 5. 2.1 US assets US Air Force and Navy aircraft, including F-15, F/A-18 aircraft and MQ-1 Predator drones have been conducting air strikes in Iraq since early August 2014. Operations were expanded into Syria towards the end of September. US aircraft participating in those sorties have included F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22 fighter aircraft and B-1 bombers. Tomahawk missiles deployed aboard US naval vessels deployed in the Red Sea and North Arabian Gulf were also utilised in the initial stage of offensive operations in Syria. The USS George H W Bush Carrier Strike Group is currently deployed in the Gulf. The Secretary of the Navy has ruled out adding a second carrier.2 Significantly the F-22 conducted its first ever combat flight during the attacks on ISIS forces in Syria on 22 September. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions have continued using a mixture of manned and unmanned systems. On 7 November the Department of Defense confirmed the deployment of up to 1,500 additional military personnel to Iraq, in a non-combat role. Their objective is to expand the US “advise and assist” mission and to initiate a more comprehensive training package for Iraqi forces.3 US Central Command provides updates on operations. 2.2 Countries involved in military action In terms of offensive military operations, the US is currently being assisted by a broad coalition of partners deploying a range of assets, including F-16, F-18, Tornado and Rafale 2 “One carrier in the Gulf sufficient for now, USN’s top civilian says”, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 8 October 2014 3 In addition to the 1,400 US military personnel already in Iraq. 4 combat aircraft, Reaper RPAS, plus support aircraft in the form of tankers, surveillance and transport aircraft. Combat aircraft from the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Denmark have all carried out airstrikes on ISIS targets in Iraq. So far only Arab nations have supported the US in conducting airstrikes and air operations in Syria. In mid-October the UK announced that the Reaper RPAS and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft had been authorised to conduct surveillance operations over Syria. The Reaper is not authorised, however, to be used in an offensive capacity in Syria. Air strikes in Iraq France was the first country to join the US in air conducting airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq.4 At present the French Government does not envisage expanding those operations into Syria.5 France initially deployed six fighter jets, an Atlantique 2 maritime patrol aircraft and a refueling plane at its base in the United Arab Emirates as part of operation Chammal. On 1 October the French Defence Ministry said three further Rafale jets and an anti-aircraft warship will be sent to the Gulf. A Defence ministry source said this would strengthen capacity to “increase the rhythm of missions”.6 France has ruled out providing combat troops.7 The UK joined the coalition on 26 September, following a vote in Parliament (see separate section below). It conducted its first airstrikes on 30 September.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supplement to the London Gazette, 15Th April 1997
    4472 SUPPLEMENT TO THE LONDON GAZETTE, 15TH APRIL 1997 Officer Cadet 2494S224 Richard Ian ANDERSON (547277) to be Hampshire and The Isle of Wight Second Lieutenant (on probation) 6 October 1996 Peter SIDEBOTHAM (547573) to be Second Lieutenant (on Officer Cadet 24936811 Steven William JOHNSTON (546992) to be probation) 12 February 1997 Second Lieutenant (on probation) 6 October 1996 Judith Ann SUTHERLAND (547575) to be Second Lieutenant (on EPH PARKER (542144) to be Second Lieutenant (on probation) 21 probation) 12 February 1997 February 1997 with seniority 2 May 1995 Leicestershire and Northamptonshire COMBINED CADET FORCE Lieutenant LJ DOREY (527494) (Lieutenant Territorial Army) to be Lieutenant 16 January 1997 with seniority 5 October 1990 Bedford School Contingent Greater London (City of London & North East Sector) Callum BEAL (547485) to be Second Lieutenant (on probation) 9 January 1997 Second Lieutenant (on probation) DJ RYNN (544614) is confirmed as Second Lieutenant 14 February 1995 To be Lieutenant 14 Cranleigh School Contingent February 1997 Second Lieutenant (on probation) GSB VOIZEY (544501) is Second Lieutenant (on probation) MP TWITCHETT (544617) is confirmed as Second Lieutenant 9 February 1995 To be confirmed as Second Lieutenant 14 February 1995 To be Lieutenant 9 February 1997 Lieutenant 14 February 1997 Framlingham College Contingent 2 (Northern Ireland) Battalion Second Lieutenant (on probation) MA WARDLE (542109) is Major JN McCoNNELL (521013) (From Reserve of Officers Class confirmed as Second Lieutenant 21 July
    [Show full text]
  • The Air League Newsletter
    The Air League Newsletter Issue 2: March/April 2013 THE PRESIDENT WRITES Publication of the defence equipment programme – A Curate’s egg! or the Defence Industry, the Government’s view of its future equipment and support requirements is a compelling factor in assessing investment decisions and, ultimately, in determining the sustainability of the sector in the UK. The role of the domestic customerF as an ‘early adopter’ is also key to export sales. Hence, January’s long awaited publication of the NAO-audited Equipment Plan was eagerly anticipated. So what does it and the related NAO commentary tell us? First, it records that, pre-SDSR, the Coalition and the timescales for the introduction of Government faced a £74 billion deficit in the new capability. Equally, it provides a stark 10-year defence budget as a whole, of which reminder of the significance of support a significant proportion lay in the Equipment solutions and the need to continue the forensic Programme. Secondly, it confirms that, over 10 search for economies. But, the document years, the MOD expects to spend £159 billion does not provide specific guidance. To take on equipment and its support. Within this, one example very close to the sleigh: how will some £13 billion is held as risk contingency the UK maintain its medium-altitude, long- and £8 billion is unallocated headroom. This endurance UAV into the future? The current approach is aimed at eradicating permanently Reaper force was procured as an Urgent the over-heated programme aspirations of the Operational Requirement for Afghanistan. So, past. Thirdly, £86billion (54%) is allocated will Reaper be funded for inclusion in the core to support costs across the 10-year period, programme or will there be a new platform? In underlining the complexity of modern military the latter case, will this be procured off-the- platforms and re-emphasising the importance shelf, through an Anglo-French arrangement of through-life costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Michael Quinlan on RAF Policy 1962-65
    ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY JOURNAL 24 2 The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the contributors concerned and are not necessarily those held by the Royal Air Force Historical Society. Copyright 2001: Royal Air Force Historical Society First published in the UK in 2001 by the Royal Air Force Historical Society All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing. ISSN 1361-4231 Typeset by Creative Associates 115 Magdalen Road Oxford OX4 1RS Printed by Professional Book Supplies Ltd 8 Station Yard Steventon Nr Abingdon OX13 6RX 3 CONTENTS ‘THE ROYAL AIR FORCE IN TRANSITION, 1962- 5 1965’: Address by Sir Michael Quinlan at the AGM held on 28th June 2000. BOSNIA 1992-1995 – A CASE STUDY IN THE 12 DENIAL OF THE ADVANTAGE CONFERRED BY AIR SUPERIORITY. A winning British Two Air Forces Award paper by Sqn Ldr S Harpum RAF. THE INFLUENCE OF SPACE POWER ON HISTORY 21 (1944-1998). A winning American Two Air Forces Award paper by Capt John Shaw USAF. THE DE HAVILLAND VENOM WITH No 8 SQN IN 36 THE MIDDLE EAST by Air Vice-Marshal L W Phipps. SQN LDR G D GRAHAM DSO MBE by Frank Card. 46 THE RAF HERALDRY TRUST. 56 SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 60 FOURTEENTH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE CLUB ON 28 JUNE 2000. FEEDBACK 64 BOOK REVIEWS.
    [Show full text]
  • Stomperud I Bagdad
    Fagfellevurdert artikkel A˚ rgang 74 | Nr. 3 | 2016 | ISSN 1891-5580 Stomperud i Bagdad Cecilie Hellestveit*, PhD, Seniorforsker, International Law and Policy Institute Artikkelen foretar en analyse av Norges militære bidrag i Irak fra 2015 med utgangspunkt i folkerettens regler for militære utenlandsoppdrag. Artikkelen argumenterer for at de folkerettslige rammene for det norske militære bidraget i Irak pa˚ et par vesentlige punkter skiller seg fra andre nyere norske militære utenlandsoperasjoner. Den peker pa˚ tre utfordringer som det norske militære engasjementet i Irak derfor medfører: notoriteten til det militære oppdraget innad og utad, rettssikkerheten til norske soldater, og effektiviteten til soldater i en prekær rettslig situasjon. Stikkord: folkerett × maktbruk × Irak × Syria × IS × norske militære utlandsoperasjoner The article analyses the Norwegian military contribution to Iraq initiated in 2015 from the perspective of international law regulating military operations on foreign soil. It argues that this military operation is distinguished from other Norwegian military expeditions in recent decades. The article draws attention to three challenges that consequently arise: a low level of clarity concerning the nature and scope of the assignment, lack of legal guarantees calibrated to the tasks of the soldiers and finally poor efficiency resulting from a precarious legal situation. Innledning Den norske regjeringen besluttet i oktober 2014 a˚ sende 120 norske soldater til Irak for a˚ «bidra til a˚ trene opp irakiske sikkerhetsstyrker» (Solberg 2014). Fra april 2015 er en kontingent stasjonert i den kurdiske provinshovedstaden Irbil, formelt underlagt sikkerhetsstyrkene til den autonome kurdiske regionen i Nord-Irak (KRG), mens en annen er stasjonert i hovedstaden Bagdad. Militærpersonalet skal støtte irakiske sentralmyndigheter og kurdiske regionale myndigheter i kampen for a˚ gjenerobre territorium fra organisasjonen Islamsk Stat (IS), som i 2015 kontrollerte ca.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPPLEMENT to the LONDON GAZETTE, 15Ra DECEMBER 1992 21065
    SUPPLEMENT TO THE LONDON GAZETTE, 15ra DECEMBER 1992 21065 Shropshire AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT U. (A/Capt.) M. A. BASSBTT (519992). 15th December 1992 Surrey Lt. (A/Capt.) P. J. WRIGHT (519501). ROYAL AIR FORCE Yorkshire Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael GRAYDON K.C.B., C.B.E., is Lt. D. BESTINGTON (500783). appointed AIR Aide-de-Campe to The QUEEN in succession to Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter HARDING G.C.B., A.D.C., 6th Nov. 1992. The following officers are awarded the Cadet Forces Medal: COMBINED CADET FORCE GENERAL DUTIES BRANCH Blundell's School PROMOTION Lt. (A/Capt.) (now Hon. Capt.) T. V. CLOUGH (393928) Flying Officer to Flight Lieutenant: (Retired). M. W. DAVIES (8029379A) 23rd Oct. 1992. Bromsgrove School \3th Nov. 1992 Lt. (A/Maj.) N. THORN (509009). J. HODGKISON, B.Sc. (5207644B). Hurstpierpoint College J. R. STRANG, B.Sc. (5207647E). Lt. (A/Capt.) R. J. S. COOKE (510788). S. B. McGARRiGLE(8152356D) 16th Nov. 1992. King's School (Bruton) Pilot Officer to Flying Officer: Lt. (A/Maj.) R. C. F. HASTINGS (502968). 8/A Nov. 1992 Mill mi School G. A. D. BENCKE (8304434A). Lt. (A/Maj.) J. D. EVANS (502360) (Qualified at Radley L.B. CREESE (8304377H). College). T.E.OWEN(8304422J). William Hulme's Grammar School D. G. RAWUNS (8304391E). Lt. (A/Maj.) D. M. FISHER (506924). E. M. SAUNDERS (8302642G) W.R.A.F. J. M. SHAW (8304376G). ARMY CADET FORCE S. L. SMILEY (8304375F). Antrim and Belfast Bn. WthNov. 1992 Lt. (A/Maj.) W. M. GREGG (511266). (Seniority IQth May 1991) Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Bn.
    [Show full text]
  • Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State
    Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State Kathleen J. McInnis Analyst in International Security Updated August 24, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44135 Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State Contents The Global Campaign to Counter the Islamic State ........................................................................ 1 Counter-IS Coalition Mandate......................................................................................................... 2 Military Aspects of the Coalition .................................................................................................... 2 NATO ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Russia ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Turkey ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Challenges to Coalition Coherence ........................................................................................... 6 Figures Figure 1. Operation Inherent Resolve: Average U.S. Daily Costs, by Month ................................. 3 Figure 2. Country Participation at Training and Capacity Building Bases in Iraq .......................... 7 Tables Table 1. Military Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humanitarian Implications of Violence in Northern and Central Iraq Key
    ACAPS Briefing Note: Conflict Humanitarian Implications of Violence Key highlights (25 July – 7 August) 1. August has seen significant deterioration in the humanitarian situation. An in Northern and Central Iraq estimated 200,000 individuals may have been displaced from recent fighting in 7 August 2014 Sinjar and surrounding areas, and as many as 35-50,000 IDPs could be trapped in Jebel Sinjar in extremely urgent need of humanitarian assistance: tens of children are reported to have died from dehydration. Insignificant Minor Moderate Important Major 2. Conflict affected areas face a breakdown of basic services, affecting an estimated Expected impact X 5 million people. Many qualified health, teaching and technical staff have fled and items such as spare parts, medicines and vaccines are in short supply. Not required Low Moderate Important Urgent Need for international International humanitarian organisations are mostly unable to reach those assistance X trapped in contested areas and information on the current situation is extremely limited. 3. Fighting between IS and Kurdish Peshmerga is currently concentrated around Key Findings Mosul dam, Iraq's largest hydroelectric facility. If maintenance of the critically Anticipated An estimated 850,000 people have been displaced in the two unstable dam is disrupted, the dam could be breached, leading to massive scope and months since the start of Islamic State’s (IS) ‘Ramadan offensive’, flooding. IS’ takeover of the dam could disrupt electricity supply to large parts of scale bringing the total displaced since the start of the year to 1.4 million. the country, including Baghdad. An unknown number of civilians are affected by conflict and the breakdown of public services.
    [Show full text]
  • The War with Islamic State
    The war with Islamic State An assessment of the United Kingdom’s Operation Shader and the wider coalition campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria Chris Abbott Steve Hathorn Matthew Clarke May 2016 Published by Open Briefing, 25 May 2016 Open Briefing 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N 3AX United Kingdom Tel +44 (0)20 7193 9805 [email protected] www.openbriefing.org Copyright © Open Briefing Ltd, 2016. Some rights reserved. This briefing is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence, which allows copy and distribution for non-profit use, provided the authors and Open Briefing are attributed properly and the text is not altered in any way. Chris Abbott is the founder and executive director of Open Briefing. He was the deputy director of the Oxford Research Group until 2009 and has been an honorary visiting research fellow at the University of Bristol and the University of Bradford. He is the author of two popular books and numerous influential reports on security and politics. Steve Hathorn is a senior analyst at Open Briefing. He is an intelligence analyst at the National Crime Agency and has over 20 years’ experience in intelligence with the British Army, Defence Intelligence Staff, National Criminal Intelligence Service, United Nations, International Criminal Court and the Competition and Markets Authority. Matthew Clarke is an associate researcher at Open Briefing. Following a master’s degree from the University of Birmingham, with a dissertation on the development of counter-insurgency strategies in Iraq, Matthew has worked in business, politics and the European NGO community.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Brief “Drones and Targeted Who Were Generous with Their Time and Insights
    EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN BRIEF POLICY RELATIONS ecfr.eu EUROPE’S NEW COUNTER-TERROR WARS Anthony Dworkin On 14 July 2016, a Tunisian citizen living in France drove a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice and killed SUMMARY 86 people. In response, among other measures, France’s • In recent years, several EU member states have President François Hollande announced he would intensify launched military operations against terrorist airstrikes in Syria and Iraq and send the aircraft carrier groups overseas, but have given little apparent Charles de Gaulle back to the eastern Mediterranean. By thought to the risks that these operations involve. ordering military action in the Middle East to counter a mass killing carried out in France by a French resident, • Military action is only likely to succeed against Hollande perfectly illustrated a remarkable turn in the terrorist groups when it is matched by a political European response to terrorism. In the face of new terrorist solution on the ground. Otherwise it will be groups that have emerged in Europe’s wider periphery, EU ineffective in reducing the threat of terrorism and member states have launched a wave of counter-terror wars. may even be counterproductive. In the years after the September 11 attacks, most European • European countries are at risk of setting damaging officials and politicians were strongly critical of the United legal precedents for the expansive use of force if States’ “global war on terror”. Although reluctant to openly they do not articulate clearer standards for when rebuke their close ally, many officials made it clear that they attacking terrorists overseas is permissible, both thought the US campaign against al-Qaeda fighters and outside and within armed conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Tier One Royal Air Force
    TOWARDS A TIER ONE ROYAL AIR FORCE MARK GUNZINGER JACOB COHN LUKAS AUTENRIED RYAN BOONE TOWARDS A TIER ONE ROYAL AIR FORCE MARK GUNZINGER JACOB COHN LUKAS AUTENRIED RYAN BOONE 2019 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2019 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces, Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004 and was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). He served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, an M.P.A. from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in Chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Michael Howard on Ethics, Deterrence And
    The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors concerned and are not necessarily those held by the Royal Air Force Historical Society Copyright © Royal Air Force Historical Society, 1994 All rights reserved. 1 Copyright © 1994 by Royal Air Force Historical Society First published in the UK in 1995 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing. Printed by Hastings Printing Company Limited Royal Air Force Historical Society 2 THE JOURNAL OFTHE ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY (Incorporating Proceedings) No 14 President: Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Michael Beetham GCB CBE DFC AFC Committee Vice-President and Air Marshal Sir Frederick B Sowrey Chairman: KCB CBE AFC Vice-Chairman Air Vice-Marshal A F C Hunter CBE AFC MA LLB General Secretary: Group Captain J C Ainsworth CEng MRAeS Membership Dr Jack Dunham PhD CPsychol AMRAeS Secretary: Treasurer: D Goch Esq FCCA Members: Wing Commander A J Brookes BA FRSA RAF *Dr M A Fopp MA FMA FIMgt *Group Captain Ian Madelin Air Commodore H A Probert MBE MA A E F Richardson Esq *Group Captain A P N Lambert MPhil RAF D H Wood Esq CRAeS * ex-officio members 3 CONTENTS Page 1. ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 5 Royal Air Force Club 4th July 1994 2. ETHICS, DETERRENCE AND STRATEGIC BOMBING 12 Lecture by Professor Sir Michael Howard 3. MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR AIR CHIEF MARSHAL SIR 24 JOHN THOMSON The Address by Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, CAS 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-ISIS States by Dr
    Background Report VII: September 5, 2017 - April 30, 2018 Post-ISIS States By Dr. Gina Lennox Kurdish Lobby Australia Email: [email protected] Website: www.kurdishlobbyaustralia.com ©2018 Kurdish Lobby Australia You are welcome to share this report but please do not make changes without permission from Kurdish Lobby Australia. 1 Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 3 Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 5 Why what is happening in the Middle East is relevant to Australia .......................... 9 What the Australian Government Can Do ........................................................................... 9 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 10 ISIS................................................................................................................................................... 10 Cost of War ................................................................................................................................... 11 Reconciliation and Reconstruction ..................................................................................... 14
    [Show full text]