Buck Brief: 50K Refugees Flee Mosul, Turn to Peshmerga and US Forces for Protection

November 22, 2016

Writer

Michael Pregent, adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute and a senior Middle East analyst, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday with an update on the situation in Mosul. Pregent is also a former military intelligence officer.

"The effort to take Mosul back from the Islamic State is now many weeks underway. What is the latest in this battle against ISIS on the ground in northern Iraq?" Buck Sexton asked, filling in for Glenn on radio.

Pregent had both good and bad news to relay. Among his concerns were the 50,000 refugees that have fled the area.

"They're preferring to go to places where the Peshmerga are in control of territory, because the Peshmerga have a heavier U.S. presence. And they believe that the U.S. can actually act as a guarantor, but they don't feel necessarily the same way about moving towards predominantly Shia forces," Pregent said.

With food supplies running low, Pregent calls it an "overwhelming" situation.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

VOICE: You are entering TheBlaze threat ops center. This is a secure space. All outside coms are down. Prepare to receive the Buck Brief.

BUCK: Michael Pregent joins us now. He's an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute where he's a senior Middle East analyst. And he's also a former military intelligence officer. Great to have you, Michael. Thanks for calling in.

MICHAEL: Hey, thanks, Buck. Thanks for having me.

BUCK: All right. The effort to take Mosul back from the Islamic State is now many weeks underway. What is the latest in this battle against ISIS on the ground in northern Iraq?

MICHAEL: Well, it's slowed down to a crawl. As the Iraqi security forces are starting to enter from the east, they're encountering a lot of resistance, but they're not getting the US air support or artillery support that they had counted on. And that's because the United States is not going to provide artillery and air support to a predominantly Shia force, as they enter a predominantly Sunni town, where there's still a population of almost a million people still there. So that's why it's slowed down to a crawl.

BUCK: And the -- so far, the humanitarian issues that have been concerns leading up to this, about refugees fleeing the area, the numbers are surging. Are they able -- are the proper authorities and resources in place to try to handle the outflow of refugees, or are they becoming overwhelmed?

MICHAEL: Well, they're already becoming overwhelmed. I think there's 50,000 refugees that have left Mosul so far, and they are running out of food supplies at some of these organizations. But what's more telling is the direction in which the refugee flow is going. The refugees aren't going to the west, where the Shia militias are. They're not going to the south, where the Iraqi military is. They're preferring to go to places where the Peshmerga are in control of territory, because the Peshmerga have a heavier US presence. And they believe that the US can actually act as a guarantor. But they don't feel necessarily the same way about moving towards predominantly Shia forces.

One of the things we're seeing is when CNN, Fox, BBC report on this, they're saying that the Iraqi military are separating the women and children from the men. Now, that is the normal process. A process that is more comfortable when the US is doing the along with Peshmerga to make sure that any military-aged male, who is actually affiliated with ISIS, is screened out.

The problem is when the Iraqi security forces do this, or when the Shia militias do this, they basically say that any Sunni military-aged male is likely collaborated with ISIS. And we've seen people who have disappeared off the battlefield in Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tekrit, when the Shia militias and the predominantly Shia Iraqi military are left in charge of this process.

BUCK: Now, as US support directed to the Peshmerga is limited because we don't want to be -- well, we don't want to be, one, taking any casualties, but also we don't, two, want to be close to some of the battle. They want it to be an Iraqi-led force, and they want the tip of the spear to be Iraqi as much as possible.

The Shia militias, it seems, are going to be more heavily utilized in this process, which could bring about some serious sectarian tension.

MICHAEL: What I'm looking at now is, you look at the forces that are participating in the Mosul operation. It's a counterterrorism service. A lot of these guys are already bandaged from previous battles. They're going in with wounds that they sustained fighting in Tikrit or Ramadi and Fallujah. They're taxed. These guys are tired. They're effective. But they're just overstressed. The 15th Iraqi army -- or 15th Iraqi Army Division is out of Baghdad -- so these are all Shia soldiers, a lot of them affiliated with Jay Salmedi. The 9th Iraqi Army Division is all Shia.

Now, notice I just talked about the Iraqi Army here. They're already heavily infiltrated with militias, except they wear uniforms. They're still flying sectarian flags. Now, the Shia militias in the West, as they move to HEP Talaffer, they're going in, and they're starting to cause some problems there.

What I'm looking at now is, where do these Shia militias put their artillery and their rockets? Because the United States and the coalition is not going to blow up civilian neighborhoods like the Iraqi military and the militias did in Fallujah and Ramadi. So if you keep track of these Shia militias, where they put artillery and rockets, that will be very telling, because as they move into range of Mosul, they will start hitting these neighborhoods where these population centers are still in play.

BUCK: Is there any sense that you've picked up from your contacts on the ground, that the Sunni Arabs who live in Mosul, a city in which no one really knows how many people live there now, but in the past, it's about about a million people. Do you get any sense from those who are in contact with Sunni airbags there, that they feel like it's a good thing obviously that the Islamic State is hopefully going to lose control of Mosul within weeks, maybe months. But it's certainly taken a very long time for the Iraqi government to get to this point. It feels like an unacceptable delay, despite the fact that we should be -- it's a positive development that this is happening. It took, what, two years?

MICHAEL: Well, I would argue that we never really defeated or controlled Mosul when the US was there. We developed networks. We developed relationships to travel leaders. We built a Sunni intelligence network. And we slowly used an intelligence-backed strategy to decimate the leadership, which led to their demise, using the sons of Iraq and the awakening. I think this is a great opportunity to do that, put that back into play now. Obviously, you're not going to be able to take Mosul and the US is unable to provide air support and artery. Now is the time to slow it down, start to develop the Sunni sources, have them provide intelligence, because they've been doing that. They've given intelligence to the Peshmerga and some of the Iraqi security forces that have pinpointed ISIS locations, that have allowed US airstrikes to come in. I think right now, if I was able to advise something on it, let's slow it down. Let's make an intelligence operation that empowers the Sunni operation in Mosul with manpower and Intel to go after ISIS. And then create that political space for them to start building trust with Baghdad again. But that requires huge leverage on our part with Baghdad, to increase that leverage, to pull those levers to make sure that we make Baghdad a government that the Sunni population in Iraq can trust again. And that's going to be the hardest challenge.

BUCK: And this clearing operation will last months, at this point?

MICHAEL: Well, there will be a -- there could be a PR victory. We've replaced the flag in the center of Mosul. And that's exactly what happened.

But if you look at any of those three cities today, you'll still see that there are ISIS networks active, and that they're still able to conduct high profile attacks in Bagdad so there can be a victory that the media celebrates, that ISIS has been defeated in Mosul. And I will argue that that isn't going to happen until the Sunni population in Iraq trusts Baghdad. So I see this going on for a while.

Like I said, we were there from '03 to '11. And there were still pocket of resistance symbols. They just chose not to attack us.

BUCK: Michael, switching gears with one more question for you. You're former US military. What do you think about the likely pick of General Mattis for Secretary of Defense?

MICHAEL: I love the pick. I hope he takes it because he balances everything that people are worried about with the Trump administration. He's hard on Russia. He's hard on Iran. He's pragmatic. He believes that the use of military force needs to be one where you only put the military in if you want to win and you empower them to win. I hope he takes the position. He'd be a great voice -- a great pragmatic voice, a well-respected voice. And I think he would -- he would stay the concerns of most Middle Eastern leaders on what the next administration looks like over the next four years.

BUCK: Michael Pregent is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute. Mike, always great to have you. We'll talk to you soon. Thanks for calling in.

MICHAEL: Thanks, Buck. Thanks for having me.

Featured Image: A picture taken through the bullet-riddled windshield of an Iraqi Special Forces armoured vehicle shows residents walking on a street in the Aden district of Mosul after troops almost entirely retook the area from Islamic State (IS) group jihadists on November 22, 2016. The fighting inside the city so far has focused on eastern neighbourhoods, which elite counter-terrorism and army forces entered earlier this month. The Islamic State group has offered fierce resistance to defend its last remaining bastion in Iraq, the city where its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed a caliphate in June 2014. (Photo Credit: THOMAS COEX/AFP/Getty Images)

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep