Revisiting the Iraq War.

For all of 2016, I have been without a television.  It wasn't some moral choice on my part to rid my life of time wasting distractions and bad influences, it was more of a case of changing residences and not finding the time to hire a new Cable or Satellite provider.  Once Lent season rolled around, and I still hadn't connected the boob tube, I decided to guilt myself into extending this new lifestyle sans TV.  I gave up television for Lent.  Granted, when Lent commenced I was already without my 46' flat-screen Sony, but I did have the intention of rejoining the grid.  Lent gave me the opportunity to extend this experiment, which no-doubt has been good for me.  The most valued benefit of not having a television is being able to keep Donald Trump out of my life.  Friends assumed I would spend less time at home without a TV, but having my own personal, guaranteed "no Trump zone" tempts me to spend more time in my empty little apartment, catching up on my reading.  But I still function in this society, therefore I am destined to get more than my share of "The Donald".  This character manages to increase my dislike for him every single chance he has.  If I'm at my friend Sue's house, or visiting my Mother, and the TV is on in the background, the media will find a way to include Trump in the programming.  I could be mistaken, but I believe my friend Stacy and I actually saw Trump interjected into a National Geographic Channel program about asexual reproduction in the worm community.....and there's Trump.

I've already explained my hypothesis regarding Trump, the media, and our future next President, Donald Trump.  Today my annoyance is with something I've heard this ignorant bully repeat a number of times.  Donald Trump did not support President George Bush's decision to invade Iraq following 9/11.  Shockingly, Trump normally explains his lack of support for the invasion by connecting the war and its aftermath to Bush's less-than brilliant attempt to justify the invasion by protecting the free world from Iraq's research into Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  Trump, who seems to enjoy soaking in his own ignorance like a chicken in a pot of stew, seems to believe that Iraq, in fact, did not have any WMD and was not conducting banned weapons research.  In fact, Iraq was (is?) littered with WMD; Saddam Hussein had poison gas storage facilities in a number of locations around Iraq.  Maybe you don't consider Mustard Gas a Weapon of Mass Destruction?  I'm sure the Shi'a women and children that Saddam gassed following the first Gulf War will disagree. But Trump, in all his bluster and braggadocio, can't help himself.  So he goes on television to brag to the American people that he did not support the Iraq War and that he knew that there were no WMDs.  I only wish Trump would have been obliged to spend a bit of time out in the desert as we had to do.  A good gust of wind and sand would turn his hair into a magic carpet.

I no longer discuss the subject of WMD as it relates to the Iraq War, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss the conflict in simple, factual terms.  After observing the damage that had been inflicted on our transportation grid and our sense of safety, no doubt Osama bin-Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri spent the months following the September 11 tragedy, making every effort to plan and implement a similar attack.  The longer we waited to directly respond, the more likely that al-Qaida and their supporters would find the opportunity to hit us again.  As a nation, our defense apparati had to undergo a Sea Change, and make terrorism the greatest threat to our security.  Fighting a war against s terrorist group is nothing like conventional warfare.  They don't want to be forced into prolonged military engagements because they have neither the manpower or the equipment to be successful.  Hence their Modus Operandi of utilizing well-trained, heavily-armed and religiously motivated operators with tremendous religious conviction.  Terrorists can slip into crowds and disappear like a needle in a haystack.  President Bush was faced with a difficult task: how to defeat an enemy that is so far removed from the United States, and relishes the backward, primitive society within which they live.  Bush and his advisors came to the conclusion that to destroy Al-Qaida, the conflict must be taken to bin-Laden and his group of butchers.  We knew that Al-Qaida was being given a form of Sanctuary by Afghanistan's Islamic Extremist Taliban government.  I believe that the Bush Administration chose to deliver the war to Al-Qaida in its own back yard, which ideally would force them into a conventional conflict, and there was no way that Al-Qaida (and the Taliban, for good measure, could hope to triumph over the United States military in a conventional war.  But the Bush Administration had a dilemma: a country was needed that was near enough to Afghanistan to support our military efforts against the Taliban, and also present an opportunity for a long-term military presence, in the form of military bases.  If this plan were successful, Al-Qaida would not have the resources or operatives to continue launching suicide attacks against Europe and the United States.

We all know that Iraq was chosen as the ideal location.  The United Nations had been involved in a protracted struggle with Iraq regarding its attitude towards UN resolutions.  The Bush Administration must have considered Iraq as the ideal location the create this semi-permanent military footprint in the Middle East.  I imagine that Bush expected the UN and it's member states to welcome the willingness of the United States to go into Iraq, remove a bloodthirsty dictator, and rebuild a nation with tremendous oil reserves.  Heck, he probably expected that our troops would be greeted as liberators (at least that's what a number of the Iraqi ex-pats, told Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

In the end, the plan proved successful, at least temporarily.  By 2009, much of Iraq had been rebuilt, including its transportation network and refining capacity.  But more important is the fact that following 9-11, Islamic Extremists were unable to repeat their destruction.  The U.S. military, like an avenging giant, transported itself in a matter of weeks into bin-Laden's front AND back yard.  Al-Qaida attempted to combat the U.S. presence, partly by sending Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Iraq with orders to establish an Iraqi-based military force that would conduct lightening raids and ambushes, and make deadly use of Improvised Explosive Devises.  In the end, our military dropped a 500 lb bomb in Zarqawi's lap, and his group took off for greener pastures (Syria beckoned).  Of course, our foreign policy since 2008 has been at odds with what was accomplished during the Bush Administration.  But let's not let Trump trick himself anymore.  He wants to brag that he would not have invaded Iraq in 2003, then I wonder just how long it would have been before Donald Trump was witnessing another domestic terror incident.  So lay blame as you see fit, Mr. Trump.  I'm convinced that history will give the Bush Administration credit for keeping the pressure on Al-Qaida, and disrupting any other attempts at 9-11 type attacks.

Thirteen years later, a look back at the Iraq War, its motivations and its consequences. (Part I)

Link: Wikipedia entry for the Benghazi scandal.

Part I

The recent opening of a well-produced and costly film on the 2012 Benghazi incident in which four Americans, including an Ambassador were killed, reminds us of the sadly dangerous world we live in.  Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three young men that lost their lives that night, believed that they were in Benghazi, Libya, to help spread America's message of freedom and give hope to a nation in great need of something in which to believe.  When I was a child, I would spend hours looking at the globe my parents bought me for my ninth birthday, and try to learn, day by day, a little bit about all the different countries around the world.  Over the year, I remember using that globe to identify places where war had broken out.  As I've gotten older, the areas free from conflict has continually gotten smaller.  Today, as I look at a map of the world, I can no longer identify a place which isn't in some way either directly under attack or threatened by the plague of Islamic Extremist terrorism.  In the seven years following the 9-11 tragedy, the United States used its military capability to force the terrorist elements to fight in their own backyard.  True, Al-Qaeda was guest-of-honor of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  But strategically, the best way to get at Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was by using Iraq as a spring-board.  The Bush Administration had been in a war of words with Iraq and its manipulation of the oil-for-food program to ignore United Nation's Resolutions.  I don't know the real answer, but it would seem that the Bush Administration gambled that the Democrats, the United Nations, and the rest of the world wouldn't mind if the U.S. borrowed Iraq's U.N. Resolution violations as an excuse to invade Iraq and turn it into a U.S. military base.  I understand the reasoning behind the strategy: the best was to annihilate Al-Qaeda was to force them into a conventional war (to which they were wholly unsuited) in their own backyard; no place to retreat. 

As for the politics involved, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, I understand the frustration of folks who did not follow the Bush Administration's lead.  But Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who had ignored every attempt by the United Nations to get him in line.  And by 2009, the Iraqi insurgency was over, and Iraq was beginning, for the first time as an independent and free nation, to stand on its own feet (thank you, U.S. taxpayer).  You see, while the military was defeating first, Saddam loyalists and second, the insurgency, we had engineers, architects, plumbers, construction specialists, electricians, town planners, and all sorts of other "nation rebuilding" experts in place, to rebuild Iraq.  Highways were put back in order, from one side of Iraq to the other.  The urban transportation systems were modernized and put back on line, along with traffic lights and speed limits.  The water distribution and waste disposal systems in place were practically from the time of the Ottomans, and we fixed what was repairable and replaced the rest.  Education was important to President Bush, and school building was a priority, from grade school to university-level education.  A tremendous effort to put Iraq's refining capacity back on line was not complete by 2009, but a great deal had been accomplished.  Also, the U.S. military was in the process of training a streamlined, effective, modern Iraqi Armed Forces.

    

2016 and domestic terror: best-case and worst-case scenarios.

The international community enters 2016 in a state of turmoil that probably hasn't been matched since the Second World War.  The terror organization ISIS continues to expand its ability to impact peoples lives.  Yesterday, while police in Germany were disrupting a planned attack at a rail station, another terror group, The Taliban, detonated a bomb at a restaurant in Kabul, which killed at least three persons while injuring scores of others.  The Taliban is not ISIS, nor are Boko Haram and Al-Qaida the same organization.  But they have the same motivations, follow Islamic extremist ideology, and use the same targets.  Earlier in the week, while appearing on Fox News, I responded to a comment made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, identifying ISIS as "a new group".  We can no longer allow our leaders to get away without making use of the tough but necessary labels.  ISIS is not a new group; they are a reconstituted organization that in 2005 was set up in Iraq to organize a resistance to the U.S. military presence.  By 2008/2009 they had lost all initiative had had not choice but to gather their remaining members and relocate to the deserts of eastern Syria.  And why not?  Syria was ripe territory for a terrorist group to lick its wounds, recruit, and adopt a new slogan.  When ISIS lectures about its desire of a new Caliphate, it is just as worthless as when the Taliban argues that it is only interested in getting westerners out of Afghanistan, or when Al-Qaida preaches that its goal is the removal of U.S. warships and influence in the Persian Gulf.  These separate "causes" are one of the many methods utilized by these groups to distract us into thinking that they can be reasonable, and negotiations might be possible.  The reality is that these groups in their core are no different from each other.  They are driven my an Islamic extremist ideology which has been selectively plucked from Quran for the sole purpose of mobilizing the Muslim world in a Holy War against all other religions.  Many still mistakenly believe that these fanatics are focused on destroying "Christianity and The West".  This war is not just taking place in Syria, Iraq, Europe, Africa and the United States.  Its also underway in far western China, as the Chinese government is forced to confront its own Muslim extremist population.  It is also brewing in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Indian Subcontinent.  This plague has succeeded in reaching every corner of the globe, and obviously its not only ISIS.  If we focus exclusively on ISIS, the phalanges of Islamic extremism, either as Boko Haram or Al-Qaida in the Maghreb, will continue to spread the virus. And if this scenario isn't scary enough, remember that this movement has had years to perfect methods of disguising how it raises and launders money, and also how it smuggles weapons and operatives from one country to the next.  No one abuses the goodwill offered to humanitarian organizations as effectively as Muslim extremists.

The best-case scenario would be the continued disruption of active terror plots and the apprehension of terrorists.  Our Law Enforcement Officers are the best in the world, and they are on-the-job 24 hours a day, while we sleep or watch the Sugar Bowl with our friends and families.  We will never know the stories about all the successes, believe me.  I was stateside on September 11, 2001, and I remember how quickly the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement came together to respond to the threat.  In a matter of days, our men and women in local Police, Sheriff's offices, Constables, and Federal Law Enforcement started rooting out groups of people with plans to cause mayhem.  I'm not at liberty to discuss where, when, or how many, but rest assured that it is happening, even as I write this blog.  As for me, I'm praying for the best-case scenario.  I believe that anything is possible, and we can defeat this monster without having to endure any additional loss of life in our nation.  It may seem unlikely to some, but law enforcement all over the world successfully disrupted numerous attacks during the Christmas-New Years Holidays.  As the bad guys get better at what they do, we get better at finding them.  They are the ones who must hide like criminals, and there are still more of us then them.

In January 2016, our biggest concern has to be with the spread of ISIS and other terrorist groups to other parts of the world.  Areas of the third world provide extremists with ideal recruitment opportunities, and the lack of civil authority simplifies the need to remain clandestine as weapons are purchased and smuggled.  The United States does a tremendous job working with many third-world governments to locate and root-out terror groups, but administrations have a tendency to change quickly, and president so-and-so one day may not be as helpful as his predecessor was the day before.  Speaking of changes in administration, the United States will elect a new president in 2016, and the American people are already being subjected to endless promises from all the candidates regarding national security and foreign affairs.  This has no bearing on the job Federal Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community faces today, in locating any terror cells presently in the United States, while at the same time preventing new ones from getting in.  At the moment, no one is talking seriously about the use of profiling to assist in identifying potential terror suspects.  But if the United States suffers from a string of terror attacks similar to what happened in San Bernardino, there is no doubt that people will be more willing to give up certain conveniences.  As we begin 2016, the worst-case scenario would be the activation of a string of sleeper cells throughout urban America.  I have no reason to believe that these cells exist in any great number.  I have great faith in our Law Enforcement and Border Patrol to keep us safe.  But in the United States, we love our liberties and have a tremendous history of welcoming visitors, and extremists won't think twice about abusing our courtesy.  But if we consider the worst-case scenario, and the United States is faced with terror-related incidents in numerous locations, we must remember what the enemy is trying to achieve.  They don't care about the number of people they kill; their only goal is to create a sense of fear in our nation that directly impacts the way we lead our lives.  We must let our Law Enforcement authorities do their job and deal with the terrorists directly, while we do everything that we can to stay out of the way and follow instructions.  For those of us without weapons, our job is just as important.  Once the dust clears, it is incumbent upon us to continue living our lives as we did the week before.  Go to the movies, go to the beach, go to dinner, celebrate a birthday, take a trip overseas.  We must keep our faith strong, support each other, and draw strength from the examples being set by those first-responders and soldiers in the field who remind us everyday what it means to be a brave American.  

Russia attempts to block IMF lending to Ukraine as Russian separatists violate ceasefire.

Link: Russia attempts to disrupt Ukrainian IMF loan.

It took two months for Russian-backed separatists to violate the latest ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.  The only surprise was that the ceasefire lasted as long as it did, but we can probably blame the delay on Russia's current pre-occupation in Syria.  The government of Ukraine and the various Russian-backed separatist groups in the east have agreed to two previous ceasefires, at least by my count.  In every instance, the apparently inevitable violation was committed by the separatists, which begs the obvious question: why does Kiev keep making agreements with these jerks?  Simply put, Ukraine has no choice.  President Petro Poroshenko has yet to implement any personal strategy for resolving this conflict.  Every decision from Ukraine's corner has been made by Kiev's European allies.  Ukraine is in no position to ignore the "advice" put forward by the U.S., French and German diplomats, and we all know that these three would just as soon see Ukraine completely overrun with Russians before agreeing to any type of aggressive military action.  Not that the Ukrainian Army is in a position to conduct a serious offensive in the southeast.  Repeated requests for military aid, to the U.S. in particular, have been denied, as the U.S. strives to encourage a more "peaceful" approach the to crisis.  Russia has taken full advantage of the prostrate policy currently put forth by the Europeans and the Obama Administration to occupy strategic villages and all-but off the vital port city of Mariupol from the rest of Ukraine.  During the last three years, Russia and her surrogates in eastern Ukraine have been able to dictate the time and pace of negotiations and military action to suit Russia's international strategy.  Expect the Ukrainian separatists to step-up military action in an attempt to occupy as much territory as possible before the election of a new, less-accommodating administration following the November 2016 presidential elections in the United States.

It appears that Russia's very recent diplomatic effort to interfere with Ukraine's relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has failed.  Russia has been known for this type of occasional diplomatic overreach, and who  can blame Moscow for trying?  Internationally, Russia continues to court various U.S. allies.  Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to enhanced military ties with the Emir of Kuwait, and Putin's envoy to Afghanistan has announced preparations to sell Hind Attack Helicopters and small arms to Kabul.  Russia has also reached out to Tunisia and Algeria, expressing the desire for increased cooperation in the fight against international terror.  The U.S. Department of State will respond to these overtures with some belated offer of aid or a concession on a trade treaty,  but the real problem for the United States has nothing to do with a Russian agreement with Kuwait or Helicopter sales to Afghanistan.  The fact is, Russia is running diplomatic circles around the U.S., and is showing no hesitation to flirt with long-time U.S. partners.  In the past, the United States would have reacted swiftly to Russian diplomatic advances to an ally by taking the same action.  The Bush or Reagan presidencies might have responded by agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine, or by increasing the presence of U.S. troops in eastern Europe.  At present, the U.S. has no response to these Russian overtures.  Russia continues to express an interest in forming a security alliance of sorts vis-à-vis Syria, to include the U.S. and its allies.  Washington DC has responded in a positive way to this potential agreement, but many suspect it is nothing more than a Russian distraction.   

The CIA in 2015: balancing force protection, terrorism, and traditional intelligence collection.

Since I formally retired from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) roughly five years ago, and I was given the opportunity to come out from under cover, I have been regularly approached by young people who are interested in a career with the organization.  The fact that I published a memoir, and had the misfortune to be poisoned during my career while working operationally, has created an awkward, public persona with my name attached.  I don't mind, because I come from the mindset that only experienced officers can truly recognize the attitude and determination necessary to be a successful Case Officer.  Unfortunately, I've never been approached regarding one of the many other opportunities the Agency offers.  The CIA consists of four separate Directorates, and each one promises a career unlike any other, with tremendous opportunity to learn about the world we live in, and to be part of supporting National Security.  Any job with the Agency also provides regular opportunity for advancement in an environment of great challenges.  When I chose to write this blog post, I decided to avoid any appearance of a recruitment pitch.  No job is perfect, and the CIA exists under intense public and even international scrutiny.  I had instances of frustration, but they were almost always connected to the unfortunate bureaucracy that comes with working for Uncle Sam.  If someone is under the mistaken belief that typical government problems don't exist at the Agency, the reality is, because of the sensitive nature of the job, scrutiny is even more a part of everyday work, and officers must be vigilant to follow ALL rules, regulations, and guidelines.  That being said, let me take a little time to express to you why my career with the CIA was the pivotal, most incredible experience of my life.

As a Case Ofiicer, I was given the opportunity to complete the most intense, all-encompassing training regime that has ever existed for an Intelligence Officer.  The organization will not put officers in the field who have not demonstrated a thorough understanding and respect for security, counter-intelligence, and tradecraft.  What is tradecraft?  Simply put, tradecraft are the skills a Case Officer requires to operate successfully in an overseas environment.  Because of the current public obsession with the subject of espionage, the average American has a distorted perception of the Agency.  The CIA has no law enforcement authority, and only functions domestically in joint-arrangements with our Federal Law Enforcement partners.  Following the horrific and mind-numbing events of September 11, 2001, the Agency began an aggressive effort to share resources with Law Enforcement in support of National Security.  I have worked closely in just such an environment, and the results have been more successful than the public realizes.  Also, CIA officers, beyond the security officers the Agency hires for its facilities, DO NOT carry weapons domestically.  Outside of war zones, CIA officers aren't normally armed overseas.  And if an officer has been assigned to a war zone or dangerous environment, he or she is required to complete a thorough weapons training and familiarization course.  Having to work in a wartime environment should not come naturally to most Case Officers, but the changed circumstances of National Security have necessitated the Agency's involvement in various conflicts worldwide.  This effort is part of the mission to ensure Force Protection- the collection of vital intelligence to protect our young men and women in uniform.  I was also fortunate to work in a number of denied environments, and I can assure you that there is no more important job than defending our troops, and no greater satisfaction after the successful completion of a job-well-done.

I decided to write a memoir in order to share my experiences as a victim of intended poisoning by someone I was meeting for intelligence purposes.  Please understand, this wasn't a situation involving a foreign government, it was about someone who was mentally unstable and trying to play "spy".  When you chose a career as a Case Officer, you do not have the luxury of deciding who has access to vital information.  Eventually in their career, every Case Officer will be obliged to meet with unpleasant people.  I was young and anxious, and probably missed warning signs that a more experienced officer would have detected.  Be that as it may, I discovered the true meaning of dedication once my medical issues became a concern.  The Agency supported me in every way, providing access to the best physicians and specialists that the country had to offer.  I will always be  grateful for the support I received for my medical difficulties while still working.  The CIA Office of Medical Services is as good as it can possibly get, with brilliant on staff physicians and nurses, who travel at a moment's notice to treat unexpected illnesses.  The Agency will travel anywhere to collect the intelligence that the government needs to keep the American people safe.  Therefore, you will on occasion find officers suffering from conditions normally foreign to us.  The Office of Medical Services keeps the Agency healthy in both mind and body, because the need for intelligence never sleeps.

During my career, I discovered a support network within the Agency that went well beyond my expectations.  In one way or another, everyone working at the CIA does a job in support of life-saving intelligence.  In a nutshell, CIA Operations Officers spend time overseas, collecting confidential information that is vitally needed by our government.  The information is relayed back to the United States, where it is organized, formatted, and disseminated to the appropriate government agencies.  Its obviously much more complicated, and planning, hiring, training, and execution are all essential elements of the CIA's mission.  In order to collect the intelligence to keep America safe, the CIA must continue to attract the best and the brightest that our country has to offer.  I always tell interested persons that bringing a language skill to the table, especially Arabic, Russian or Chinese, is a good start, as is a history of some overseas living experience.  But not every Agency employee ends up, or even desires to go overseas.  For those that do, the key is being to assimilate oneself into foreign environments.  The name of the game is discretion; the art of NOT being able to draw attention to one's self.  Also, any officer serving overseas must understand the no-compromise importance of following the rules.  Espionage is not a game or a movie, and people can die if someone gets lazy.  A career with the CIA requires extreme discipline, as inevitably you will be exposed to classified information of one kind or another.  Understand before you even begin to fill out the application, that the organization can only be successful if the need for secrecy is paramount and non-negotiable.  If you have a natural habit of sharing things without thinking, then probably the CIA is not the place for you.  But if you enjoy current events and foreign affairs, if you have great discipline and want to be daily challenged, if you love Democracy and want to be a part of protecting national security, then without a doubt, give it some serious consideration.

Foreign Policy Armageddon: Obama fiddles as the Middle East burns.

Link: Syria is showplace for Russia's new military.

We keep waiting for the Obama Administration to introduce a flurry of new policy initiatives to counter the aggressive movements made by Russia in Syria and Iraq, but all we get from the Oval Office is diplomatic double-speak.  The fact is, it appears that the job of President no longer interests Barack Obama, and he's just counting down the days until he can become a permanent fixture on the celebrity golf circuit.  Actually, I'm convinced that Obama has one more important presidential decision to make before 2016 comes to an end.  I believe Obama will use Executive Action to provide a direct path to citizenship for up to twenty million illegal aliens living in the United States.
We will hear the tired excuse that Congress is broken and that the American people deserve action.  I guess the American people don't deserve action as far as the Middle East is concerned, regardless of our security concerns and the fact that every country in the region short of Iran is swarming with U.S. intelligence officers, military training specialists, diplomats, aid workers, State Department personnel, evangelists, and last and least, media correspondents.  I can only assume that Europe has its fair share of citizens traipsing around Baghdad, Damascus, Amman and Jerusalem as well.  One interesting development to note about the European nations is their willingness to follow the United States hook, line, and sinker since Barack Obama took office.  I haven't decided if its just another symptom of Obamamania, or fear on the part of the Merkels and the Hollandes that their people would remove them from office if they step out of the Obama line. 

One thing is certain: now would be an ideal time to create a coalition to either oppose Putin's heavy-handedness, or build a military coalition to fight ISIS side-by-side with the Russians.  It would allow the west to reap some of the good press that will result from the squashing of the Islamic State.  How can I be sure that Europe would support an appeal from Obama for some kind of collective response to Russia's heavy-handed military intrusion into Syria?  For the answer, all that is needed is a simple review of every policy move made by Obama since he took office.  Count the times that his initiatives were in the smallest manner opposed or criticized by a European government outside of Hungary; probably never.  Actually, all you need to do is observe how quickly the European leaders suffered "shrinkage" when Putin pushed the envelope on Ukraine.  Obama was quick to announce that NOTHING would make him take steps harsher than sanctions in response to blatant Russian aggression.  Obama provided the Russians with the European, NATO and U.S. strategy in one fell swoop:  regardless of what you do, Mr. Putin, you will never have to deal with anything more uncomfortable than economic sanctions, which in reality will only end up hurting the middle-class and poor in Russia.  Putin with his KGB background has never expressed the slightest sympathy for the average Russian.  Once Putin knew Obama's limits, he announced the permanent annexation of Crimea.  

Back to the Middle East, where President Obama continues to argue that he sits in a position of "strength", and Russia "argues from a position of weakness".  Anyone who makes that statement is trying to convince an audience of something that they themselves know to be untrue.  Obama has been drowning in sycophant bullshit for so long, that he thinks he can get away with anything.  Hell, what am I taking about; he can.  A treaty with Iran that legitimizes their in-your-face effort to obtain a home-brewed nuclear weapon (just like whiskey, home brew is always better than purchased, because if you want more, you can always make it yourself), turns Inspections into an embarrassing waste of time, and gives the Ayatollahs access to buy freely from the world's most modern stockpiles of weapons, is declared a victory by Obama.  Also, he doesn't see any connection whatsoever to the return of ISIS to Iraq and the simultaneous departure of most of the U.S. military personnel.  The Obama Administration's policy vs-a-vis the Arab World is so convoluted, that even the press seems about ready to throw in the towel.   I give Obama some credit; in other regions, including the South China Sea, Obama appears willing to allow the experts to run the show, i.e. the U.S. Navy.  In fact, for some time it appeared that he was determined not to allow the Taliban to regenerate in Afghanistan.  But the Taliban are like cactus; sooner or later, they'll be back.  The key is, when one of those nasty bastards shows his bearded mug in public, he should have a 500-lb bomb dropped in his lap. Considering the number of troops that have been withdrawn from Afghanistan in the last two years, I'm not optimistic regarding the success of the above-mentioned Operation Bomb the Bad Guys.

Russia is running rampant, using Turkey as its roadmap to Syria, eliminating the groups that originally opposed Bashar al-Assad, and making friends in Baghdad by providing intelligence on ISIS to the Iraqi military.  Every step seems well-thought and executed, with the Iranians along for the ride.  The relationship between Tehran and Moscow has become increasingly friendly as the Russians expressed their willingness to sell anything that wasn't cemented down, including nuclear-related goodies.  In my next blog post, we will discuss what Iran hopes to gain from its involvement in Iraq and its evolving partnership with Russia.   

How serious is the most recent resurgence of the Taliban?

Link: Taliban forces making gains in Kunduz.


In the last few weeks, the Taliban have demonstrated the ability to rise from the ashes once again.  Just a few years past, many thought that the Taliban had become just a footnote in Afghan history.  The nation was at peace, and the Afghan people seemed to embrace the idea of a more open, modern society.  Satellite dishes popped up everywhere, including outside of the capital city, and internet cafes could be found on just about every corner in Kabul.  Most impressive was the school attendance statistics, with boys and girls attending classes all over the country.  The freedom with which young Afghans embraced education, both grade school and secondary, was an indication that he continued presence of NATO and U.S. military forces was providing a strong sense of security.  But insidious organizations like the Taliban, ISIS, and Al-Qaida, never really go away.  They will always find another avenue of anger, disappointment and rage to tap into and use to their advantage.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban has always directed their recruitment efforts at the young make section of the population.  Many young men in Afghanistan have difficult lives and not much hope for a better future.  The Taliban blames this on the pervading influence of western culture, and exhorts their target audience to return to Islam, with its familiar traditions and promises of eternal life, scores of virgins, and whatever else is included in the brochure.  Another strong appeal for young Afghan men is the Taliban strict interpretation of the Quran in its instruction regarding women.  The idea of a totally subservient, uneducated wife, always waiting at home and never leaving the house without a burqa, is appealing.  Not to mention that in Taliban society, a woman is not allowed to disagree with her husband.  Beatings are common, and on the occurrence of "accidental" death, no one is prosecuted.  The Taliban has been beaten before and re-emerged, as we are seeing again today.  The ability to always appeal to the same particular common denominators guarantees that they will always have a certain percentage of the population who are willing to drink the Taliban Kool-Aid.

Following the successful September 28 offensive against Kunduz city, the Taliban have increased operational activity all throughout northern Afghanistan.  The initial display of strength has been troubling to NATO and U.S. military officials currently serving in Afghanistan.  The attempt to invest Kunduz city was expected, but the Taliban's ability to conduct large offensive operations in other provinces was not anticipated.  All intelligence had pointed to a resurgence in Taliban influence and numbers, but the Taliban is demonstrating an offensive capacity, including weapons and supplies, that was unknown before the week of September 28th.  It appears that the intel folks will have to review their assessment.  Interestingly, some concern is already being expressed regarding the defense of the capital Kabul.  A quick glance at Iraq reveals a similar scenario.  Iraq has Ramadi, Afghanistan has Kunduz; both the extremists and the government are willing to expend great resources to gain full control of this particular city.  In the last year or so, concern has been raised regarding the threat that ISIS poses to Baghdad.  With ISIS able to conduct operations in Diyala Province to the east of Baghdad, Salah al-Din to the north and Anbar to the west, Iraq's capital city is indeed in a difficult position, although ISIS' ability to actually lay siege to such a large city is in question.  Kabul is also under threat, but just how long it will take the Taliban to reach that point is unknown.  The Taliban will be just as interested in taking Kabul as ISIS is in occupying Baghdad because for many average Afghans the news that Kabul is under the control of the Taliban is all they would need to fall back into the extremist footstep.  Due to predictable Taliban infighting, the Afghan government does have some time to prepare its Armed Forces for a counter-offensive in the north, probably focusing on the recapture of Kunduz.  As far as the Taliban are concerned, Mullah Akthar Mansour is still consolidating his power base by establishing a presence in Badakhshan, Takhar and Bakhlan Provinces.  No doubt the current offensives in Jowzjan, Faryab, and Farah Provinces were also part of that effort.   

Affghanistan: the Taliban launches broad, coordinated offensive in nine northern districts.

Link: Taliban offensive in northern Afghanistan.

I can't recall the last time I devoted an entire post to Afghanistan.  I've been living in a cycle of world events that includes only Syria, Iraq, Iran and Ukraine.  I admit its nice to focus on a different topic, but the Taliban, who are responsible for the relocation of my attention, won't be receiving a thank you card.  In 2011 President Obama ordered the withdrawal of 10,000 U.S. troops, and another 23,000 were removed in 2012.  The United States continues to keep 10,000 mostly Special Forces troops in country, in an effort to both train and bolster the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).  Prior to 2011, the Taliban had for the most part lost its authority in Afghanistan.  Even in areas traditionally loyal to the Taliban, the government was making inroads building schools and introducing technology.  There was hope that the Taliban was gone for good, and with the Taliban goes Al-Qaeda.  Not surprisingly, the Taliban still existed, but was hunkered down, patiently waiting for the opportunity to return.  The reality is, if the Taliban had been obliged to stay in hibernation for an extended period of time, and some of the more grizzled, fanatical leaders had died, the organization itself very well may have disappeared.  But the extremists know us all too well, as was demonstrated in the deserts of Western Iraq at about the same time.  The Taliban understood that a political change had occurred in Washington DC, and the new man in charge wanted to pull the U.S. military out of Afghanistan as quickly as politically expedient.  Their job was to be patient, because without a doubt, the ANSF would eventually collapse, as they had in the past.  Once the U.S. began withdrawing from Afghanistan, the Taliban slowly began to re-emerge.  The more troops withdrawn, the more attacks by the Taliban on Afghan military or government targets.  Of course, the withdrawal in Iraq was much more precipitous; the Iraqi Army was in no way ready to take the field in battle.  This information wasn't confidential, and ISIS immediately took advantage by crossing into the western deserts of Iraq from Syria, and beginning an offensive that would take them to the gates of Tikrit.  The rejuvenation of the Taliban has taken a bit more time, as U.S. and NATO forces continue to provide support to the ANSF.

The recent military advances by the Taliban involve nine northern provinces of Afghanistan, and comes on the heels of the occupation of Kunduz.  Its fascinating how some of the events in Iraq seem to mirror events in Afghanistan.  Just as the Iraqi forces attempted to retake Ramadi bit by bit after it initially fell to ISIS, the ANSF are trying to regain Kunduz one neighborhood at a time.  And just as ISIS took advantage of the focus on Ramadi to expand their presence to areas north, south, and east of Baghdad, the Taliban is using the capture of Kunduz as a jumping-off point for further offensive activity in northern Afghanistan.  The re-emergence of the Taliban is no great surprise, and was discussed as a real possibility on a regular basis in the media.  Frankly speaking, their strength and level of organization and military sophistication are a bit of a surprise to us.  The amount of territory involved in this broad attack is very discouraging, and brings into question the long-term security of the capital city.  Once before, President Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan; would he consider doing so, this late in his term?  Don't hold your breath.  What happens in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and even sad-and-forgotten Ukraine, will involve the U.S. only as long as diplomacy is involved.  The U.S. may continue the Coalition Air Campaign, but that is as far as it goes.  Until a new president is sworn in, the U.S. will not involve ground forces in a foreign conflict.  

2016 election: where do the candidates stand on issues of National Security?

As I watched last week's initial Republican Presidential Debate, I made a point to jot down any comments from the various candidates on the issue of National Security.  Its not a simple topic.  Some people consider National Security to be limited to any external threat to the United States, including terrorism and rampant illegal immigration, for example.  I include our runaway national debt and unwillingness to control spending as a major threat to National Security, but many consider this to be a domestic issue.  I will include the National Debt in our discussion, but refrain from getting into the weeds.  My criteria for inclusion in the list of threats to National Security include any development which threatens the existence of our republic.  I am a reasonable man, and I am an optimist when it comes to issues that are exclusively controlled by the American people.  But our National Debt is beginning to reach the point of no return.  I am no longer able to calculate how this issue can be brought under control by the current budgetary process.  Even if Congress and the Executive Branch were in agreement, we can only dedicate so much to cutting the national debt, before our ability to pay social security and related social entitlements is threatened  What about National Defense?  Can we continue to have a dynamic and proactive defense industry if we start to cut back on military spending?  The reality is, every fiber of our national government could use a diet.  Waste is rampant in every nook and cranny of Washington, DC.  So many elements of our Federal Government have unlimited access to taxpayers money, that they have begun to see it AS THEIR OWN.  And during the past six years, the problem has exploded, as the Obama Administration has created new and previously unconsidered ways to expand the number of government checks being delivered.  Just how much has the debt grown under Obama?  I've heard many answers, including the politically driven "the debt comes from Bush and his illegal wars" argument.  The ignorance of some people is worn like a badge of honor.  Our economy GROWS in wartime, it does not contract.  Its true that after the conclusion of a war, the economy faces the added pressures of an expanded work force, and fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not come cheap.   But the actual expenditures by the Federal Government to the entitlements industry absolutely dwarfs the cost of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our treasury bonds have been scarfed up by the Government of China at an unprecedented rate, which means that as long as we consider ourselves a solvent and viable economic state, we are responsible to the Chinese for those bonds.  When did we decide that it was okay to just keep spending money and balance it by selling treasury bonds to nations that do not have our best interests in mind?

As for the various candidates and their positions on National Security, we have two different parties to examine.  The Democratic race, which once appeared to be an anointing party for Hillary Clinton, has become fluid in the last few months, as Hillary loses the reigns of her own "damage control" machine.  I can't see Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the only admitted Socialist in DC, winning the nomination, although it would usher in an era of honesty of sorts.  We've been living under a Socialist government of rampant government control and expansion and executive action for six years....at least Bernie is honest about his motivations.  But a Sander's nomination would hand the presidency to the GOP, so don't hold your breath on his candidacy.  Watch our for Jim Webb of Virginia.  The media has appointed him as a moderate in order to make him more attractive to the independent voter, but Jim Webb is no moderate.  Such a creature doesn't exist in the Democratic Party of 2015.  Joe Biden is chewing up his shorts in excitement of a possible presidential run, but he is limited by his late arrival and his questionable ability to raise money.  As for National Security, Biden, Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren of the Massachusetts Tribe will move the United States closer to our European allies and their guilt-ridden, blind approach to international issues.  These three stooges would continue the path we are on, with useless sanctions and failed diplomacy "ad nauseam".  Take a look around the world today and see the result of the European and Obama model of foreign policy: ISIS running free in Syria and putting the Iraqis to flight, and expanding to every inhabited continent; Russia banging the expansionist war drum louder than ever, and North Korea still being North Korea.  As for the Chinese, through innovative and determined use of espionage and diplomacy, the Chinese have turned the United States into a technological client-state.  Its fascinating that the Chinese and U.S. researchers always seem to be working on the same projects simultaneously, with almost concurrent successes.  I'm looking for a candidate that will rid our Universities and Research Laboratories of Chinese spies, and press criminal charges on politicians who take campaign money to lobby for Chinese defense interests in Congress (hello, Bill Clinton).

The Republican candidates present a mixed-bag.  At the moment, when they must appeal to the more conservative Republican voter, everyone becomes a hawk, including Jeb Bush.  But I have a message for anyone who is soft on illegal immigration: you will not win the nomination.  Even though most of the press attempts to downplay the fact that Republican voters are incensed by the Amnesty issue, the candidates can't avoid the results of the ballot box.  Watching Bush, Rubio, Lindsay Graham, and Chris Christie become hawks on immigration will be good comedy, but they will be exposed for their true nature by the fulsome and detailed opinions already given.  Yes, immigration is a National Security issue, and it is directly tied into concerns regarding domestic terrorism.  The consistent hawks include Ted Cruz, Rand Paul (its true), Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina.  I can't speak to Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, Perry or Santorum on this issue, because basically, along with Fiorina I see this second-tier as running for Vice President or for an early exit.  I can't take Donald Trump seriously on any foreign policy issue, regardless of his status in the polls.  He is a candidate of sound-bites, and the GOP electorate will begin to tire of hearing the same "clever phrases" repeated over and over again.  Each time he makes a comment about "taking the fight to ISIS", or "building a wall on the Mexican border", I find myself asking for more....how, Mr. Trump?  Where's the Beef?  While the other candidates release documents highlighting their plans for controlling immigration and tackling the debt, all Trump does is issue platitudes and phrases.  Go home, Donald.

As with all the issues, I find myself drawn to two candidates: Ted Cruz and Dr. Ben Carson.  I like Ted Cruz because he is not afraid to follow through on his campaign convictions.  How we have grown weary of Republican politicians who say one thing on the campaign trail, and then return to the protective political cocoon of Washington DC, where everyone works together to ensure that they all get re-elected- to hell with the best interests of the nation.  Ted Cruz is a true conservative who is not afraid to make a mistake, as long as his motivations and integrity are beyond question.  Cruz is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE and I agree with him on every issue.  He realizes that the threat from both ISIS and Al-Qaeda is much closer to home than most people realize, and that our borders have become as porous as a broken salt shaker.  The FBI does amazing work, considering the politicizing of the Justice Department.  These men and women are out in the field everyday, looking for sleeper cells in our own communities, while the Obama Administration refuses to use the words "Islamic Terrorist" to describe these religiously motivated murderers.  Be that as it may, the FBI has been heavily distracted from the anti-terror focus to concentrate on "race crimes".  I will leave that subject alone for now.

I like Rand Paul because he brings a streak of Libertarianism to the contest.  He is a tireless worker, and I have only disagreed with him on one subject (Cuba).  Even though Rand Paul represents the solid-red state of Kentucky, his nomination would probably swing neighboring Ohio into the GOP orbit.  Unfortunately, nothing Scott Walker does will get Wisconsin to vote Republican, and I wonder about Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio being able to deliver Florida.  They didn't in the last election, if memory serves me correctly.  I think Rand Paul understands the threat posed by China and Russia, and is appropriately galvanized to deal with the ISIS issue.  But my current choice, Dr. Ben Carson, brings something to the discussion of foreign affairs, that we haven't seen in a very long time.  Carson is not an elected official, and has not rubbed elbows with the Ambassador from so-and-so and negotiators from this place and that.  I believe Carson sees the world as a private U.S. citizen; in other words, as we do.  His concern is for the protection of our Democracy and the opportunities and freedoms that existed which allowed him to become a world-renowned surgeon and philanthropist.  He is not a seasoned politician, and I have my concerns about his ability and willingness to rip apart his opponent during a presidential debate (remember Romney?).  But what a change to consider someone sitting in the Oval Office who can remember what its like to drive their own car, and can carry on a discussion with real people about grocery prices, medical and insurance costs, and the fear of terrorism finding its way into our cities and towns.  Carson has been criticized because of his lack of political experience; he has not negotiated a treaty with a foreign government or sat on a Congressional Committee reviewing an international development or incident.  And that may be his greatest asset.  

Jabhat al-Nusra: the evolution of Al-Qaeda and the need for conventional warfare.

Link: Tension between Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria.

We have always expressed the opinion that Al-Qaeda and its representative groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), were really not that far removed from motivations and intentions of the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS).  In fact, we have always been surprised and a bit frustrated at the mainstream media's obsession with separating each and every Sunni-based Jihadi group.  No doubt Al-Qaeda and ISIS have done everything they can to perpetuate this idea that these groups work exclusively of each other.  This impression encourages the idea that Sunni-based jihadism is much more entrenched in the Sunni community than it really is.  We have argued that because of their mutual goals, orientation and teachings, that it was virtually impossible for ISIS and JN to be working against each other.  In the last six months, both ISIS and JN have enjoyed tremendous success on the battlefields of Syria, as the regime forces have to defend from almost daily attacks, sometimes from different directions.  Although we have gone to some lengths to illustrate the common ideology and genesis of ISIS and Al-Qaeda/JN, we have never discounted the probability that the groups would have disagreements that might lead to actual violence.  But we continue to strongly believe that any such conflicts would be temporary (and have actually proven to be so).

An interesting trend that we have noted previously is becoming more visible on the battlefields of Syria.  We have discussed in some depth the efforts of ISIS to create an effective conventional military, complete with departments, promotions and letters from home.  We opined that the numerous former Ba'ath Party members who had found a home in ISIS, were useful to the group because of the organizational and planning experience and skills that they possessed.  For a short time it was popular to consider the idea that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party had some level of influence within ISIS, when actually the opposite is true.  These former bureaucrats and armchair Generals of the Saddam regime are survivors, and ISIS just happened to be in the hiring business.  Believe me, it has nothing to do with ideology.

But the need for ISIS to recruit individuals with certain skills outside of bomb-making and decapitation is obvious.  ISIS has created the first conventional terrorist army, and to keep that army supplied and effective, a support mechanism must exist.  Their effort is evolving, and they have met with some difficulties, but their success can't be denied.  We have previously explained the justification for the Islamic extremist cause to pursue a conventional army.  In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United State Armed Forces proved time and again, that small groups if ill-prepared and inconsistently equipped tribesmen can't defeat a well-trained and well-equipped army and air force (Vietnam was a diplomatic failure but a military success; the American people lost the stomach for daily casualties highlighted by politically-driven new coverage).  In 2009, with the apparent successes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the decision was made to support the creation of a conventional fighting force loyal to Al-Qaeda, and Syria provided the ideal nursery.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq had relocated from Iraq to Syria (or should I say they had been "booted out"), so the platform was in place.  Fighters were recruited, many from Africa and the West, and equipment was either purchased or purloined from the Syrians.  The group changed its name, probably as a purposeful effort to separate itself from Al-Qaeda and strengthen the suggestion that the region was full of Sunni-based extremist military groups.  The head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, did move the group away from Al-Qaeda to a certain extent, a move which no doubt infuriated Ayman al-Zawahiri, hold up back in Pakistan somewhere (probably at the Pakistani Intel Service main headquarters), and the link indicates that the two groups are not necessarily coordinating their operations or sharing their battle plans.  This mild declaration of independence by ISIS, forgive the phrase, is the reason JN has become so successful on the battlefield.

Al-Qaeda was the original genesis of the idea to create a conventional military capability to pursue the goals of international Sunni Jihad.  When ISIS began showing  bit of free will, JN, which was in direct contact with the Al-Qaeda leadership and much more representative of the group's most recent persona, began to follow the same plan which proved so successful to ISIS.  JN, although on a much smaller scale, started to morph into a conventional military force.  In the past, Al-Qaeda has relied on its small size to stay mobile, hidden, and able to strike targets and disappear.  JN created a supply mechanism, mostly utilizing its popularity with the local population, that kept its fighters fed and well-equipped.  Personnel were selected for various jobs according to background and training, and formalized planning became an integral part of every operation.  Communications were strengthened, liaison to the local community were chosen by ethnic background and language skills, and as more fighter arrived on the scene, the variety of military hardware increased.  Is it no surprise that JN has been just as successful on the Syrian battlefield lately, if not more, than ISIS.  The one life-line that both ISIS and JN rely on seems to be flowing stronger than ever: the financial support from the gulf states.  This support is not necessarily directly from the coffers of the various Emirates and Sheikdoms (some is), but it is coming from millionaire and billionaire families with loyalties to the extremist cause.  The financial support has increased as of late as Iran and the despised Shi'a stretch their legs in Yemen and Iraq.  No doubt some of these fanatics are expecting to re-fight the Battle of Karbala.

As things stand now, ISIS is a much more entrenched and evolved military machine.  In size and in capabilities, JN can't hold a candle to the Islamic State forces.  But everyday JN grows stronger, and JN has proven to be much more popular with the local communities than ISIS (probably has something to do with the burning of that young Jordanian pilot; families from the Hashemites in Jordan and the rural communities of Syria have a history of good relations).  With JN and ISIS both trying to outdo each other in capturing former regime towns, and the Sunni and Shi'a threatening to start an Islamic Civil War in Yemen and Iraq, the West has a bit of breathing room.  But once JN and ISIS merge, and they will, and the Iranians pull back behind the walls of secrecy they value so much, we will be faced with a tremendous foe.    

Just How Much Separation Really Exists Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? (Part I)

Links: A. Conflict Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
           B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?

If I get something wrong, I can rely upon my readers to send enough emails to ensure that I am corrected.  I get so little correspondence (the email address is provided below), that I welcome a polite scolding, just for the opportunity to interact with someone who has given consideration to my perspective.  And that, basically, is what the blog means to me.  It provides an opportunity for me to share my perspective with an unlimited number of people around the world.  Now my perspective is biased by definition.  I do my best to present a balanced viewpoint, supported by my personal life experiences.  But I am a citizen of the United States, and I fully believe in the exceptional nature of our Constitution and the American people; let there be no doubt that I would lay down my life for my country.  But I am half-French, and I cherish every part of me that is France.  That being said, I have been a world traveler, and I make a supreme effort to give full consideration to all viewpoints.  One issue that seems to draw sharp dividing lines is the relationship between the two terrorist groups Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State (IS).  I have included two links that present opinions which are contrary to my own, in an effort to jump-start a conversation which is truly very important.  The sources for the links I have provided, continually use information obtained from Social Media as evidence of a rift between the two organizations.  We have also heard vague rumors of actual violence between the groups, and also conflict with some of the other players on the ground in Iraq, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the Khorasan Group (K).  Both links are well-written and ideally sourced.  I found both commentaries to be full of well-intended, useful information.  But in the end, I disagree with their basic premise.  I believe that AQ and IS are closely linked and work within a loose, coordinated Confederation of sorts.  And the sooner we recognize this fact, the better.

Its no secret that the IS has evolved from the remnants of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  I see many similarities.  The first link above continues to highlight the atrocities committed by IS and its obvious propensity towards violence, as if AQ plays the game differently.  The history of the AQ movement begs to differ.  AQ brought us televised beheadings from Afghanistan when such demonstrations were still good for a bit of shock value.  AQ has ordered the slaughter of entire villages in Afghanistan and whole families in Pakistan.  I assume that I don't have to remind anyone about the amount of blood shed on September 11, 2001, or the desecration of the bodies of three U.S. contractors in Fallujah/Ramadi during Operation Enduring Freedom.  Osama bin-Laden fully understood the power of violence as a tool in both warfare and perception.  Bin-Laden frequently used violence to create fear in his enemies and the public in general, who would in turn acquiesce to his will.  Its not a new approach, nor is it Rocket Science (damn to hell all those clichés!).  I believe the attacks of September 11 carried a different message, a declaration of war against Christianity, Judaism and the west, as represented by the United States.  President George W. Bush recognized the determination in his enemy, and decided upon a course of action that will be debated until the end of time.  Bush decided to force AQ into a conventional conflict, in AQ's own backyard.  He used the issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a platform (excuse? justification?) from which to force AQ into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He correctly deduced that AQ could not avoid the confrontation with the U.S. Army in the heart of Islam, or risk losing legitimacy with the Muslim community internationally.  He was also correct in assuming that AQ would suffer logistics and funding crises, which would hamper its ability to stay active elsewhere.  I don't believe Bush, Rumsfeld or the Pentagon anticipated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the depth of the Iraqi insurgency, but before leaving office in 2008, he could be satisfied with the status quo in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bin-Laden and his elderly Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Physician-turned sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri (now that was a mouthful) obviously assessed the situation and realized early on that Bush was attempting to paint them into a corner.  But for the time being, they were obliged to play the game.  But Bin-Laden considered our Democratic habits to be our Achilles tendon, and in this instance he may have been correct.  in 2008, the American people voted for a new direction, and a new direction is what we received.  Although it didn't begin immediately, you might as well circle President Obama's first day in office as the start of the U.S. military's draw-down and eventual departure from Iraq.  Bin-Laden and Zawahiri anticipated this, and focused on rebuilding their movement from the ground-up (I'm frequently including Zawahiri because he now runs the show, and we need to get accustomed to his brand of terrorism.  He is methodical, detail-oriented, brilliant and probably a sociopath, and he is the enemy).  If the west wanted a conventional war, then the movement was happy to oblige.  First and foremost, I believe that sometime in between 2007 and 2009, AQ reviewed and rebuilt its internal security network.  Bin-Laden realized that many parts of his network had been compromised and a simpler, more effective plan was put in place.  The key to this plan was to limit the amount of time members engaged in face to face contact outside of the battlefield, and to severely limit all contact with Bin-Laden and Zawahiri.  Steps were taken to eliminate the need for direct contact.  As long as the brain could communicate with the limbs, everything else was almost superfluous.  Also, a designation must exist between highly-trained, professional operatives and the continued stream of unskilled volunteers that make there way into the organization.  I believe the root of the original AQ, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which trains highly skilled and motivated operatives for complex operations, still functions as it always has.  What has changed is the growth of another type of operative, the foot soldier who will give the movement a resource which was sorely lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq: a conventional offensive capability.

Why Has ISIS/ISIL Been So Successful? (Part II)

(Part II)

Another reason that the IS has been successful is that it Islamic Extremism does not consist of a handful of disparate, arguing, selfish groups that can't ever get on the same page.  I believe that once we get past all the bullshit, we will discover that one command structure exists for Khorasan, Al-Nusra and the IS.  The little identity game they play has already caused problems for the "air campaign" coalition, as certain Gulf States have refused to participate in targeted bombing raids because they weren't comfortable with the target.  The reality is, the IS has grown stronger because the Extremist cause has learned the importance of supporting one another.  AQIM will support Boko Haram, just as the Taliban support Al-Qaeda.  Unfortunately, the bad guys are finally grasping the ancient cliché that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (from a Muslim prince, by the way).   Recently, the world was focused on Yemen (for about seven minutes).  Al-Qaeda, who control a good part of the southern coast east of Aden and up to the border with Oman, have been utilizing Yemen as a training environment for new recruits.  Once we are in a position to interview (we don't use the word interrogate anymore)some of the IS soldiers who surrender in Syria after a battle, it will be fascinating to determine just how many of them had previous training assignments in Yemen.  Any Islamic Extremist who has trained in Yemen is affiliated with Al-Qaeda, so the discovery of a Syrian battlefield of veterans of the AQ training module in Arabia Felix, will destroy the myth that Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are distinctly separate terrorist groups.

I believe that the willingness and ability of Islamic Extremist groups to modernize and take full advantage of the advances made in telecommunications has been the most important part of their success.  That, and their use of Social Media has positively affected just about everything else they try to accomplish.  I am saving another important factor for last.  The Islamic Extremist cause was forced to adapt in a constantly evolving, modern world.  George Bush recognized this fact, and following September 11, 2001, Bush (and the Pentagon, I assume) realized that to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional war would require all of its resources and would eventually cripple the organization.  And the only way to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional war, was to take the conflict to a Muslim country.  Iraq was the perfect patsy, and even provided justification (let's face it, Saddam had been breaking U.N. prohibitions for years).  The United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and although things did not always go smoothly, (Abu Ghraib, the Sunni Insurgency) The U.S. military left Al-Qaeda crippled and down for the count.  Unfortunately, the American people voted for an Administration with an entirely different perspective regarding U.S. obligation and debt to the Muslim world.  The message that we would be basically inactive for some time (with the exception of finding Bin Laden, which was nothing more than a political tool) was telegraphed to the Gulf States, North Africa and beyond.  Al-Qaeda was allowed to lick its wounds and rebuild.  Bin Laden structured his organization so that his death would not impact the long-term plans of the group.  At this point, something pivotal occurred: Ayman al-Zawahiri became the go-to man.   Why is this so pivotal?  Because Zawahiri is arguably brilliant, and he spent his cave-time as number two, analyzing the history and strategy of the conflict, and creating a map to victory.  First and foremost, the Islamic Extremist cause had to create a conventional military element; and army, for lack of a better term.  AQIM had risen from the dust or far west Iraq and had inserted itself into the Syrian conflict, as "the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham", and later to "the Islamic State for the Levant"; but make no mistake - Baghdadi or no Baghdadi, this group looks west to the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, to a shrunken, tiny old Egyptian Doctor, for their guidance and leadership.

The decision to adopt a more formal approach to the struggle was not accomplished overnight.  In fact, it would be wise to assume that the Islamic Extremist cause continues to keep a smaller, discreet more typical capability on hand.  But after embracing the move to a more conventional model, the call went out for recruits.  A legitimate army must have soldiers, and Yemen was the location chosen to train the new recruits.  Why else would Al-Qaeda be devoting so many resources to that rocky, barren, stinky, qat-obsessed little dump?  The Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq have provided training-under fire at one time or another.  The options have become a bit more limited as of late, with Yemen and Iraq getting special attention.  Surprisingly (at least to me), the bad guys have taken to the idea of conventional warfare quite quickly.  IS units in the field appear to be well-fed, supplied and rested.  Just last week, the IS launched a mini-offensive in Anbar Province that took the Iraqi military by complete surprise.  This offensive was coordinated with attacks south of Tikrit and Samarah.  The IS is attempting to cut off Iraqi military units and Shi'a militia in place around Baiji, and the manner in which the offensive was conducted (the IS waited until the weather was overcast, to limit the impact of coalition air attacks.  As you read this, the IS is causing some serious headaches in Tehran, which is really such a shame.  Just when the Iranians were preparing to storm our embassy a second time (on this occasion, in the guise of a treaty with the United States regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions), the IS has to start making noise in a province that borders the Islamic Republic Of Iran.  What is truly interesting is that all of the Islamic Extremist groups are beginning to show signs of military discipline and planning.  Certainly Boko Haram and AQIM function in this manner.  After the death of Bin Laden, I believe Zawahiri made the decision to start infusing techniques of modern warfare and the benefits of the twenty-first century into the Islamic Extremist gameplan.  Does the current environment support my theory?  Isolated attacks in Paris, London, Boston, Sydney and Copenhagen, Boko Haram acting with impunity in Central and West Africa, the IS running a bit wild in Iraq and pushing the envelope in Syria, and real concerns about a well-funded, organized (surprised?) IS beginning to stretch its legs in Libya.  I guess they were just waiting for the dust to clear.  Certainly the almost complete disappearance of the United States in the battle against Islamic Extremism has contributed to this high-water mark, but the changing of the guard must have had an impact as well.

Why Has ISIS/ISIL Been So Successful? (Part I)

Links A. Stratfor Assessment Of The Islamic State
          B. IS Tweets Itself To Success
          C. Obama Haunted By Yemen Comments

Please take the time to visit the links I have chosen.  Today in particular, they are very useful in support of our discussion. Is this really a discussion?  Well,.....I hope the post will stimulate conversation between you and your colleagues/family/friends, during which you present my perspective, which inserts me into your discussion.  Ideally, that's the way it works.  To be honest, I wouldn't want to be present during everyone's conversations, because people might yell at me and call me a fascist, which would hurt my feelings.

Next to the debate about Bruce/Belinda Jenner, I think the most pondered question has been, how did the Islamic State become so powerful?  Its a truly fascinating issue, one that involves many factors.  I will approach the subject with the confidence of a blogger with six months of my own attitude and opinion to back me up.  Our society has seen Terrorist Groups come and go.  Some have died away, others have ended up in jail.  A few have re-made themselves into peaceful political participants (the Sandinistas, Hamas, Hezbollah), but the peaceful part seems to be a flexible description, especially in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah.  Our friends with Hezbollah have managed to involve themselves in the conflict against the Islamic State (IS).  You see, Hezbollah has been snuggling with de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad for some time, and his father before him (gross!).  When Lebanon became a proxy state for Syria, Hezbollah flourished at the discretion of Assad in Damascus.  To their credit, Hezbollah has been on the front lines in Syria, bleeding by the bucketful for Assad.  The IS has given heartburn to just about everyone at one time or another, including the Peshmerga, Syrian Kurds, SAF, IAF, Shi'ite militias, and even the Iranians.  As we've pointed out previously (and was repeated word for word by numerous sites with no attribution......assholes), the Islamic State used to be Al-Qaeda in Iraq, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still breathing.  So even the United States military has had its run-ins with the IS.  Another point that I continue to make repeatedly but has yet to catch on, is that all of these Sunni-based Islamic Terrorist Groups are connected.  Assigning different names and creating the impression that one group is actually ten or fifteen, increases fear and knee-jerk reactions from the west, which usually leads to mistakes of one kind or another.  The leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian physician and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the top dog as far as I'm concerned.  Since these groups operate with such apparent independence, I don't expect Zawahiri to act as the CEO or CIC of Islamic Extremism.  But they do work together.  Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) is aware what is happening is Syria, and Boko Haram is in regular communication with bad guys in Libya.  Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya follows the company line, and has been doing yeoman's work as of late recruiting in the townships of Nairobi.  I see the military wing of Islamic Extremism to be one entity fighting on many fronts, and the sooner our leaders accept this reality, the better off we will be.

When International Terrorism fist made itself known to the west, it was through the hijacking of airplanes, the kidnapping of bankers and industrialists, and attacks in airports.  Even though I was still in short pants, I remember the 1972 Munich Terrorist Attacks.  But even the horror of Munich did not truly bring the reality home (unless, of course, you were Israeli).  September 11, 2001 made everyone feel vulnerable; this was a group of twenty determined young men, who must have been supported by a much wider network.  Terrorism could no longer be thought of as four men with Uzis and one woman with a floppy hat, sun glasses, and a pistol.  Terrorism has arrived into the twenty-first century with a resounding thud.  They network, the plan, they recon, and they practice.  Advances made in telecommunications have made everything easier.  If an operation planned for Lagos is short one explosives expert, relief is a phone call (or text, or email, or Skype) away.  The bad guys have turned Twitter into a huge propaganda loudspeaker, and the ability of just about every cell phone to take and share videotapes has been invaluable as well. The IS can announce that a hostage was just beheaded, and to expect a video within twenty minutes.  The press gets prepared, and the video shows up, right on schedule.  Islamic Extremists use social media to incite fear; they are thrilled with the idea that their disgusted videos are causing people to no longer feel safe in their homes.  Social Media has also been a boon with regards to recruitment.  Today I learned that supporters of the IS (or bored, sick people) have been tweeting the wives of soldiers, and you can imagine what is being said.  Social Media has made planning, organizing, supply, communication, recruitment, and the spread of propaganda so much easier than before.  This is a big part of their success.

Click here to continue on to Part II of this post 

Review Of The Fight Against Islamic Extremism since 2009

Link: A. What Is Our Strategy To Defeat Terrorism?
          B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?

Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009.  In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain.  Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target.  What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense?  I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors.  Ouch?  Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden.  The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls.  I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan.  Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden?  Can anyone help me out here?  In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda?  It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention.  I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.

The truth is, there wasn't a plan.  What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq.  I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well.  But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq.  The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity.  Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there.  Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.  You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office.  But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or

Barak Obama at Cairo Univ. 6/4/2009
Source: The Official White
House Photostream-Flickr

plan did Obama have for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the like? The apology-tour must have been part of someone's plan, because something like that doesn't get decided over night.  Strange that during the campaign, he didn't announce his intention to travel to the Middle East, apologizing about the brutish behavior and U.S. history of bullying, to anyone who would listen.  And no doubt, behind closed doors, he also announced that Israel would no longer be getting a "free ride", and that the Arabs and Palestinians finally had a friend in the White House.  I'm positive this message was shared, if not by Obama directly, then by Hillary and her team of State Department apologists.  The coup de grace was Obama's speech in Cairo.  Obama certainly has some strong feelings about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but did he mention any of this during the campaign?  I don't think the American people would have taken well to our president groveling in front of this particular group of people.  Did I say grovel?  Remember, this is only my opinion.  I saw his attitude as an effort to make the United States appear as a racist, guilty, internally-broken country.

Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office.  Let's do this by continent, shall we?

• North America: The attack at the Boston Marathon was handled brilliantly by local authorities and because of this, the casualty rate was low.  The FBI has disrupted a number of planned domestic attacks; remember, the news media doesn't always know what's happening behind the scenes.
• South America: The Islamic Extremist community has been involved in criminal activity in South America for sometime.  Both Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of operating in the Tri-Border Region (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina), and recently Al-Qaeda has arrived.  Since the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish community office in Buenos Aires, the majority of the Jewish population has emigrated from Argentina.  And let's not ignore the fact that a number of South American governments are openly Socialist, and hostile to the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina).
• Africa:  Al-Qaeda is having a field day in Africa.  The organization is growing in size and influence in West Africa, and its surrogate Boko Haram has repeatedly embarrassed the Nigerian Army. In the East, Al-Shabaab has become more active in Kenya, taking advantage of the endemic poverty and lack of jobs, to recruit in the townships.  In the last few years, Al-Shabaab has successfully conducted a number of high-casualty terrorist operations.  They have no fear of operating in Mombasa, and enjoy shooting up the wealthier suburbs of Nairobi.  The South African anti-terrorism unit of the SAP had better be keeping a close eye on its townships, especially the ones with high-immigrant populations.  Al-Qaeda and ISIS are there as we speak, recruiting jobless, disaffected young men — especially those with military experience.
• Europe:  Besides the highly-publicized recent episodes in Paris, the UK has also suffered through a number of terrorist-related attacks.  No doubt the governments and police of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc., are keeping tight-lipped about the number of operations they have disrupted.
• Australia:  Late last year, Australia suffered is own horrific pro-ISIS attack in a cafe in Sydney.
• Asia, which includes Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and is just too much for me to tackle in this post.  Thank goodness the terrorists haven't reached Greenland…yet.

It's safe to say that Islamic Extremism has advanced on all continents with barely a whisper from the world's most powerful nations.  No doubt, the Europeans were waiting for leadership from the United States.  Since 2009, the message has been one of confusion at best.  We went after, and got, Bin-Laden— but his organization has been allowed to aggressively influence policy in two nations (Pakistan and Yemen), and to expand its operations internationally.  Our policy in Syria seems to be a bit confused as well.  Where is the Free Syrian Army?  We are pursuing an important treaty with Iran, but are we at all interested in their military activity in Iraq?  I'm hoping that one day we will look back at February 2015 as the high-water mark for Islamic Extremism.

Why Is Pakistan So Welcoming To Islamic Extremists?

Links: A. Pakistan Wikipedia
           B. Pakistan Bans Terror Groups In Word Only
           C. Al-Qaeda Active And Influential In Pakistan
           D. Pakistani Support For Extremists Persists

(Quick personal comment: I am so grateful to all of you who come to this blog to read my commentaries.  I do my very best to include as much substance and fact as I do opinion, but by the end of the post, I will express my perspective on whatever issue I am discussing.  I welcome opposing viewpoints; most of the opinions I have today are variations of what they once were.  We have to learn to evolve our opinions in the face of presented facts that were previously unknown to us.  It is a sign of maturity and goodwill.  Also, if you do enjoy my posts, please recommend the blog to other persons who you believe might also find it interesting.  An unavoidable reality is that growth is essential in this medium, especially given the number of like-minded commentaries.)

I always find myself battling the need to keep my posts at a reasonable length.  I don't like to split a commentary into "Part I" and "Part II", because the uninterrupted flow of the conversation is essential.  But occasionally I give myself no choice.  Writing about Pakistan is a huge challenge.  As a nation, Pakistan has existed less than sixty years.  But it feels like an old soul, with many grievances to be addressed.  Please forgive me for this unworthy and inadequate review of Pakistani history, but a respectable effort would require a Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV....you get the picture.  What we know as Pakistan today was originally part of India.  When Great Britain decided to grant independence to India, it was decided that the Predominantly Muslim North Western and Eastern Provinces would be partitioned to create the nation of Pakistan.  Oddly enough, the British partition of India created two pieces of Muslim Pakistan separated by a giant India with a huge Hindu majority.  Twenty-four years following the partition, Eastern Pakistan suffered a bloody Civil War, with the opposition openly supported by India. Without the possibility of reinforcements and supplies, the Pakistani forces eventually surrendered, and the nation of Bangladesh is the result.  Given that relations between Pakistan and India were already less-than-friendly, India's interference in what Pakistan considered to be an internal rebellion, caused even more difficulties for the two nations.  Eventually, Islamabad and New Delhi might very well have healed the right, if it weren't for the Province of Punjab.  The far-north, mountainous area is almost equally divided in population between Muslims and Hindus (depending on whose census you believe), and Pakistan has always believed that it should have been included in the original partition.  India is just as adamant that it belongs to India.  This beautiful but almost inaccessible land has been a bone of contention ever since, and has come close to igniting a war between two nuclear powers.

I'm not writing this post to sink myself into the quick-sand of Pakistani-Indian history, so I will move on from the issue of relations with India.  Suffice to say that the two nations have never been friends, although a few times in the last decade, serious diplomatic efforts resulting in face-to-face meetings between the two Prime Ministers, have given rise to optimism.  Frankly speaking I find it hard to believe, and a bit disgusting that both of these nations have nuclear weapons.  In order to reach that level of technology, a huge amount of resources must have been expended, by two countries who still have trouble feeding their people.  That makes no sense to me. The huge defense expenditures allocated by both governments, compared to funds set aside for housing, education and social welfare programs, is astonishing and should be a national embarrassment.  And the real tragedy is that both countries are armed to the teeth because of the threat posed by their neighbor.  The fact the Pakistan has nuclear weapons is more disturbing because of the unstable nature of Pakistani politics.  People get assassinated in Pakistan (also in India) and governments fall.  I am forced to look at Pakistan through red, white and blue glasses.  I can't allow myself to be distracted by the sorry state of affairs with India, and the complete lack of opportunity and hope for the young people of Pakistan.  For one reason and another, this nation has become the world's largest safe house for Al-Qaeda and probably a bunch of other nasty groups as well.  The pillars that constitute the government of Pakistan have been infiltrated for decades by the bad guys, and I'm not referring to the bribes the average Pakistani has to pay to get a license to wipe his ass and water his yard.  The Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) is rotten to the core with Al-Qaeda sympathizers, as are all branches of the military.  The civilian government is not nearly as corrupted by extremists, but it certainly has its share of thieves.  In fact, the presence of the corruption is what allowed the extremists in to begin with.  The people of Pakistan are only being reasonable.  They voted for the party of capitalism and it failed them.  They elected a bunch of socialists, who also robbed them blind.  So who can blame them for looking towards the traditional, religious answer, especially when it delivers food?

If anyone has any question regarding the depth of extremist influence in the Pakistani military and security service, just remind yourself that Osama Bin-Laden's compound in Abbottabad was located across the street from the Pakistani Military Academy.  That juxtaposition was not accidental, it was meant to discourage any raids like the one that occurred.  Zawahiri is in Pakistan as well.  he is probably closing in on ninety yrs. old, and not many sick, whiny, spoiled Egyptian intellectuals will choose a cave in Afghanistan over a house.  Why do the people of Pakistan provide safe haven to terrorists?  The answer is not as complicated as some people want it to be.  Because of the economic situation in Pakistan ($3,100 per capita income) and the lack of employment opportunities (officially unemployment is 5.1 percent, but in reality its closer to 30 percent), the younger generation, which continues to grow, has little hope or opportunity for the future.  When I was in Pakistan, I was always taken aback by the number of young men walking the streets during the day, every day.  From habit, I said to myself, "shouldn't they be at college or at work?"  These young men are the perfect targets for groups like Al-Qaeda, who will blame the west, and Israel, and India, and their complacent government, for all the ills of Pakistani society.  And when Al-Qaeda hosts a blame party, they do it right.  whoever is on the receiving end isn't just the trouble maker, they are the enemy, THE DEVIL, and they will never allow you to better your condition or improve the lives of your relatives.  The crusade to blame the west and Israel (even more so than India, who is only a seasonal bad guy) has been so successful, that the terrorists and their support network can find sympathizers on every street, on every block, and in every city.  There is an entire segment of Pakistani society that is vehemently opposed to the message of Islamic extremism; they have my support and admiration but I fear that they are fighting a losing battle.

Pakistan continues to give the appearance of a politically moderate Muslim nation.  In the United Nations, it votes with the anti-Israel bloc, but on other issues, Pakistan is known to support the United States, especially regarding Russia.  On the other hand, Pakistan has developed a warm relationship with China, a development which originated with the ignorant decision on the part of the United States to accept payment from Pakistan for some F16s, and then decide not to deliver them.  Its my understanding that diplomatic efforts were made to address and rectify that particular insult, thank goodness.  The Pakistani government has given the U.S. military a surprisingly free hand to deal with the Taliban, especially on the border.  The U.S. military continues to train and equip the Pakistani Army and Air Force (what they don't get from China), and the United States can rely on some internal support, especially from the military High Command.  But the issue isn't limited to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban moving back-and-forth across the border, or with the activities of extremist groups in Waziristan.  The United States must address the alarming fact that Al-Qaeda militants likely have safe-houses in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad.  If this tumor living within Pakistani society becomes a cancer, and extremists take control of the Pakistani government, then we have a real problem.  A nuclear Iran and a nuclear Pakistan, both controlled by Islamic extremists.  I don't believe we have reached that point just yet.  I would like to believe that secular Pakistan will win the day, but the battle is for the hearts and minds of the young, not the middle-aged and old.  Those who love a secular and peaceful Pakistan must find a way to end corruption and provide opportunities for this generation and the one coming up right behind.  Otherwise they won't hesitate to listen to another message.