Extremists On The Offensive In Syria

Links: A. Al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham Advance In Syria
           B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour

Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria.  Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize.  I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force.  The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized.  It appears that I was mistaken.  Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere. 

For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria.  Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda?  And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria.  I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past.  Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families.  Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets.  If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know.  Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).

What a mess.  We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour.  Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor.  Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists?  Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States?  Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus.  I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly.  I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces.  But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces.  Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army").  If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad.  Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army.  In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch.  The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only.  Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it.  Was this a "defensive only" engagement? 

If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably.  What is the state of the Free Syrian Army?  Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only?  Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL?  If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition?  I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front.  The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed?  Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL.  The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down.  At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources.  When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict.  But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.   

Its Time To Get To Know Jabhat al-Nusrah

Links: A. Al-Nusrah Claims That U.S. Has Bombed Its Territory
           B. Al-Nusrah Front, Jun al-Aqsa Terrorist Groups In Idlib
           C. Al-Nusrah Forces U.S.-Backed Group From Idlib

We've managed to dissect just about every player in Syria except Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front), the regular Syrian Army, and the Free Syrian Army. 

The Regular Syrian Army

The regular Syrian Army consists of whatever Syrian President Bashir al-Assad has been able to patch together from the pre-war Syrian Army.  The Syrian Air Force has been decimated and will have to be rebuilt from scratch (which isn't necessarily that difficult if you have the cash to buy new jets from Russia), but the Army, which has basically been inactive over the past few months, really only needs reorganizing and a strong leader who can inspire men to fight.  Syria continues to have an absurd advantage in armor over all the players in this drama, and I imagine a great deal has been done to repair vehicles/tanks and train new soldiers.  For Assad, the allied air intervention was like water to the man in the desert dying of thirst.  He has been given a reprieve, and I have no doubt that he has been making the most of this down-time.  We can't forget that Russia continues to support the Syrian government in Damascus.  Vlad Putin is also grateful of the allied air campaign because the situation in Syria was becoming dire for Assad and his Ba'athist buddies.  The IS was making preparations for an assault on Aleppo, which would have only been the precursor to an attack on Damascus itself.  The Syrian Air Force, with most of its Air Bases overrun by the IS and other Islamic terrorist groups, had basically collapsed (with the exception of a few helicopter gunships, which Assad loves to call into action).  Without air

support, the army had lost its eyes and was finding itself caught in one ambush after another.  But the regular Syrian Army has been given the opportunity to retreat behind the front lines and lick its wounds, while the Kurds struggle against the IS in Kobani and forces supported by the U.S.(?) are driven out of Idlib (were the elements that were routed in Idlib connected to the Free Syrian Army?).  Make no mistake, when the time is most advantageous to Assad, his military will return to the battlefield, and don't be surprised if Putin has assisted in rebuilding the Syrian Air Force.

The Free Syrian Army

What about the Free Syrian Army (forgive me; for some time I was referring to this group as the "New Syrian Army")?  We digested news reports last week from Idlib (see link C) that detailed the rout of U.S.-backed fighters.  Were these fighters part of the Free Syrian Army that we are supposed to be training and wasn't supposed to be operational for at least another month?  And what about the statement from the Pentagon that the Free Syrian Army would be deployed in a defensive capacity only.  Were "our" fighters in Idlib in a defensive posture before they were run out of town?  Maybe this is a different group, and this is an indication that we are training other military elements that will have a more "offensive" plan of action.  I find this hypothesis to be the most hard to believe, because until now the Obama Administration has been very generous sharing every last detail of its intentions.  I see no reason to believe that the leopard has changed his spots; why train others as offensive pieces on the board, but leave the main body of your forces, the Free Syrian Army, in a purely defensive posture?  I am surprised that we don't have more information regarding the Free Syrian Army, especially regarding its timetable.  I can't help but wonder if this Free Syrian Army, in its effort to be "defensive", is going to get caught between the various Islamic groups in the east, and a reconstituted regular Syrian military in the west.

Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front)

The first two links I chose to share provide important details regarding Jabhat al-Nusrah, or the Nusrah Front.  The press, in its daily effort to retweet all the propaganda fed to it by the terrorist groups via social media, continues to remind us that al-Nusrah is the Al-Qaeda representative in Syria and that they are not friends with the IS whatsoever.  Common sense, and a career of working against Islamic terror groups, leads me to suspect that someone is falling hook, line  and sinker for the most obvious of disinformation campaigns.  Khorasan hates al-Nusrah and al-Nusrah hates the Islamic State and since al-Nusrah is the representative of Al-Qaeda in Syria (?), then Al-Qaeda must also hate the Islamic State.  Please, folks....listen carefully and try to see the truth in all its simplicity.  All of these groups are Sunni affiliated and all have historic Al-Qaeda connections of one type or another.  The Islamic State of the Levant was called Al-Qaeda in Iraq not to long ago, for goodness sake.  I think the decision by the Qatari Air Force to only bomb targets selectively (no Al-Nusrah targets, please) was part of the effort to convince us that there is freedom of thought and movement in its each individual group.  I don't accept this; as far as I'm concerned they are all Sunni terrorist groups who prey upon the weak and helpless.  In fact, our military would be best served by keeping all these groups under one header: "THE ENEMY", and let the CTC analysts at Langley worry about the personalities within.

Back to Jabhat al-Nusrah.  This group announced its formation in Syria in January 2012, and states that its end goal is the creation of a Pan-Islamic State under Sharia Law and ruled by a Caliph.  If we switched out "Jabhat al-Nusrah" with "Islamic State of the Levant", who would know the difference?  And yet, according to Twitter, the international media, and the Pentagon, the two groups are at each other's throats.  It is believed that many of the original members of Al-Nusrah are Syrians who were fighting with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) group during Operation Enduring Freedom.  The members of Al-Nusrah are believed to be the best trained and the best equipped of all the Sunni Extremist groups in the Syria/Iraq theater.  Al-Nusrah is known for conducting suicide attacks.  The leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the head of Al-Nusrah, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, appear to have had numerous discussions about the merging of the two groups.  According to Al-Jazeera, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the only remaining leader of Al-Qaeda without two bullet holes in his forehead (so far), instructed the two groups not to merge.  Al-Baghdadi ignored this instruction and continued to publicly declare a merger between the two.  Since they appear to be separate today, I'm assuming al-Julani won that argument.  But lets be honest; who really gives a shit about any of the back-and-forth that I just repeated (direct from Wikipedia)?  Al-Nusrah is on the battlefield in Syria, its fighters are well-trained, disciplined, and like to blow themselves up for Allah.  Much of the same can be said for the Islamic State, so as far as I see it, we are looking at two peas in a pod.  When the bullets start to fly, I guarantee that these two groups (and any other Sunni-affiliated armed extremist groups) will join ranks.  To be honest, the war in Syria means very little to me.  The Russians will find a way to protect their interests in the end, so I am forced to accept that Assad isn't going anywhere.  My interest is in Iraq, where we have easily identified allies in the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga/Kurdish regular forces.  Actually, it becomes more apparent everyday that Iranian military units have been participating in the war against IS.  From Assad in Syria to the Iranians in Iraq, we keep ending up with the strangest of bedfellows!  I recognize that the Iraqi Army has been strengthened by groups of both Shia militia and Sunni tribal fighters.  I see a real opportunity in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda/IS, solidify the Kurdish homeland, and greatly improve Sunni/Shia relations.  Insha'Allah!

Al-Qaeda Group In Syria Planning Attacks In U.S.?

Link: Khorasan is Al-Qaeda


According to the link, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) believes that the recently-identified "Khorasan Group" (sounds more like a Manhattan Hedge Fund than it does a terrorist group) may be planning attacks in the United States.  The article identifies Khorasan as a group of "battle-hardened Al-Qaeda veterans".   If this group consists of members of Al-Qaeda (a club you cannot quit once you join), then why are we STILL using the name "Khorasan"?  If the branches of the federal government are going to persist in disseminating the false idea that the enemy consists of the Islamic States of the Levant (ISIS or IS) and a bunch of disparate, non-aligned groups, then it's time someone forced them to pull their heads out of the sand.  The enemy is not the IS, or Khorasan, or Al-Qaeda in Syria, or the Al-Nusra Front, or Al-Qaeda in my Granny's Panties.  The enemy is Al-Qaeda.  Any group that is Sunni-affiliated and wishes to destroy the west and the United States in particular, is, for practical purposes, Al-Qaeda. Leave the differentiating to Langley, where they understand the ground truth.  They are paid to separate these various groups and collect identifying intelligence on the members.  It is part and parcel to what they do.  But the policy makers need to understand that our enemy is not splintered, but united under one goal: to kill Americans.

If we create a military strategy that is based on attacking and destroying one group at a time, we will find an enemy that can reconstitute itself very quickly. Once our proxy "Free Syrian Army" has been trained and is ready for action, they should be given a map of eastern Syria and ordered to kill everything except civilians and domesticated pets.  Can you imagine an officer trying to explain to his troops, "well, this group isn't Al-Qaeda because they have a different name, so try and leave them in peace for now"?  Approaching hostilities in Syria with the idea that we are dealing with a dozen or so separate groups is suicide.  If The Al-Nusra Front does not want to be in the cross hairs, then they had better get behind Col. Travis' line in the sand.  Everyone on one side gets to live (but we're watching you), and everyone out to the east makes a lovely target.

Wars are not meant to be fought by artists or bohemians.  Its easy to screw things up with too much detail.  My goodness, many wars have been lost due to over complication.  We are starting this effort off on the wrong foot with the recruiting of a mercenary army and a bombing campaign that is not seconded by a ground offensive.  But the enemy is stuck in a bit of a hard spot as well.  The IS is still trying to determine if its a conventional army or a large guerilla force.  What happens just outside of Baghdad may go a long way to resolving that question.  From this point on, the United States and its coalition of the invisible (reminds me of Wonder Woman's invisible plane...the plane was invisible, but there she was flying the damn thing for everyone to see) needs to keep everything as simple as possible.  Remember that since September 11, 2001, we have had only one true enemy: Al-Qaeda (sorry, George W. Bush, but Saddam doesn't count).  I define an enemy as someone who hates everything about you.  It's safe to say that Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda fit that description; regardless of the variety of names under which they fester and erupt.

Does Khorasan Exist? Does It Really Matter?

Link: Is There An Actual Group Calling Itself Khorasan In Syria/Iraq?


Wikipedia Definition Of Khorasan


Well, I certainly didn't see this coming.  According to Andrew C. McCarthy and National Review, no group calling itself "Khorasan" exists.  Andrew boldly accuses the Obama Administration of inventing Khorasan to provide an enemy with an unknown wrap sheet; a target that exemplifies the threat as the Administration wants it to appear.  This astounding accusation has taken me by complete surprise.  The commentary is not lengthy but still manages to provide a disturbing amount of supporting evidence.  McCarthy alleges that last week's bombing targets were in fact "Al-Nusra Front" locations as opposed to Khorasan.  Last week I argued that we needed to avoid getting caught in the weeds with all the various branches and groups of Islamic extremists.  I remain convinced that sunni groups with extremist religious affiliations are connected.  McCarthy believes that the Administration is disseminating the incorrect idea that Iraq, Syria, and the Near East in general are home to dozens of separate and distinct Sunni extremist groups ("Jabhat al-Nusrsa", "Al-Qaeda in al-Sharm", "Al-Qaeda in -Magreb", "Al-Qaeda on the Indian Sub-Continent", "Al-Qaeda in Yemen", and on and on) who don't coordinate their activities.  During the 2012 presidential election campaign, President Obama made great hay from the death of bin-Laden and the apparent crippling of Al-Qaeda.  This narrative supported other pillars of his foreign policy.  The enemy is splintered into a herd of squabbling, locally focused, unprofessional groups.  The U.S. military is no longer needed in Iraq or Afghanistan if Al-Qaeda is toast.  The reality is that we evacuated Iraq at a record-setting pace as our enemies, not fifteen or twenty feuding, distinct organizations but a handful of groups united under one cause, rested and watching.

Andrew managed to squeeze a ton of information and argument into a two-page commentary.  I tried to summarize it in the previous paragraph, and I fear I have not succeeded.  The first link is Andrew McCarthy's actual National Review piece.  I'll do everything I can to disseminate this commentary in social media because I believe it to be incredibly insightful.  The key to winning a war begins with knowing your enemy.  Right now we seem to be a bit confused on the matter.  Why did coalition air elements avoid all of the targets identified as "Khorasan" (U.S. jets only, no Qatari or Saudi jets, bombed Khorasan targets)?  Is it because Khorasan is actually the Al-Nusra Front, and our allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia support Al-Nusra's efforts to topple Assad in Syria?  Again, it brings me back to something we discussed last week.  The United States (note that I did not say "The Coalition") must have solid intelligence regarding the players in Syria and who they represent.  If we truly intend to build and equip an army to tackle the Islamic State on the ground, will a U.S. Officer be in command (at a distance, maybe offshore on an aircraft carrier, so his boots aren't on the ground)?  Without that type of hands-on discipline and authority, how can we expect this Army to do our bidding?  Occasionally I'm overwhelmed by this nightmare scenario of the New Syrian Army, weapons et al, deserting to the IS immediately upon completion of training.  Without troops, how can we prevent something like this taking place?  The burr in my saddle has to do with what becomes of the New Syrian Army after the job is done.  Will they turn on Assad and the regular Syrian Army?  you can bet your ass they will, and then the Russians jump into the picture.

I agree with McCarthy's assessment, but I'm not part of the "told ya so" crowd.  I want the IS wiped from the face of the planet and I want the Obama Administration to accomplish this task and add to his legacy.  I don't believe that the religious extremist terrorist groups are separate, distinct entities that seldom communicate.  I believe the network of cooperation and communication is similar to organized crime.  The goal of keeping numerous small units out in the field confuses the enemy and allows for wider access.  If a former British soldier with highly specialized explosives training is recruited on the streets of Ipswich or York or Harrogate, he will not end up swatting flies out in the middle of the Syrian desert.  He will be utilized to train operatives heading out into the field.  The communication network that the extremist community has created is probably impossible to destroy completely (especially in the UK).  We can hope to intercept calls, steal transmissions, and even occasionally bug the correct phone, but the only real way to listen in on the bad guys is through recruited assets.  We are still living in the world dominated by human intelligence (eventually it probably will be run by artificial intelligence, but who am I, Stanley Kubrick?), so lets hope that our Intelligence Organizations are having success penetrating this monster.

When I read "Vengeance: The true Story Of An Israeli Counter Terrorist Team", by George Jonas, I picked up a tremendous amount of useful information regarding Terrorist Cells in the 1960s and 1970s.  What is most fascinating is that the bad guys still do things the same way.  Old habits are hard to break, says the old cliché. Reading this book I learned that the German Terrorist Cell the "Baader-Meinhof Group" had direct contact with Palestinian and Japanese terrorists.  There is no doubt in my mind that the terrorist groups active in Syria and Iraq are bonded to each other through agenda and necessity....and hatred for the enemy.  I do not support the plan to create a surrogate army to fight the ground campaign against the IS, but since we appear to be committed to that plan, then I want it to succeed 100 percent.  Although we can't have U.S. soldiers of any rank on the front lines with the new Syrian Army we are training, I hope we will be able to direct their movement from a centralized location, i.e. offshore or from a nearby friendly country.  Giving authority to make strategic decisions to Officers within the New Syrian Army would be a mistake until they have proven that they won't immediately about-face on the battlefield and head to Damascus to settle old scores with Bashir.  We will not succeed until this coalition, and the United States diplomatic, intelligence and military elements in particular, accept the fact that we are truly facing only one enemy.  That enemy will grow stronger each time we use foreign affairs to score political points, as the minority Republicans are want to do at the moment.  National Security MUST trump all of that bullshit.

Questions About Christian Community in Syria

In the past two weeks I have received a number of emails regarding the status of the Syrian Christian community.  Roughly a tenth of the population of Syria is Christian, with the majority being adherents of the Greek Orthodox Church (formerly known as the Melkite Church or Melkites).  During the days of the crusades, the important Christian community of Edessa was located in Syria, as was the Principality of Antioch.  Following the end of the French United Nations Mandate (1946), Syria has suffered through one political crisis after another.  In 1966, the Syrian Ba'ath Party took control of the government, and in 1970 Hafez al-Assad, a former Air Force officer, became President (I'm disrespectfully running rampant over tons of Syrian history and I apologize).  At the time, the Soviet Union exerted tremendous influence over Syrian diplomacy and military affairs, a circumstance that Assad encouraged during his Presidency.  In 2000 Hafez al-Assad died, and his son Bashir won the subsequent presidential election (as the only candidate).  During the six decades since independence Syria has cultivated a reputation of non-repression towards religious minorities.  The Christian community in Damascus in particular has thrived, with allowances being made for Christian observance of the Sabbath and other traditions.  As Syria began its descent into civil war in 2011, many Christian leaders were concerned about the safety of the various communities in Syria.  In fact, organized Syrian Christian groups actually expressed support for the Assad regime and fear of the anti-government rebels.  What does the future hold for the Christians of Syria?

The Obama Administration has declared war on the Islamic State of the Levant, or simply the Islamic State (IS), which currently occupies most of eastern Syria.  The IS is a dedicated Sunni Islam fundamentalist group, which has a nasty habit of executing non-Muslims who do not convert.  The IS butchered many adherents of the Christian Chaldean and Yezidi sects in northern Iraq, and no doubt would do the same to the Assyrian and Greek Orthodox communities in Syria if they win the civil war.  Christians concerned about the welfare of Syrian Christian communities should welcome the Obama Administration's military campaign against the IS.  The real question mark continues to be the New Syrian Army (NSA) that the Administration is equipping and training to conduct the necessary ground campaign against the IS.  If the NSA is successful, will all sides (except the IS, of course) agree to some sort of armistice, to let the diplomats sort out the future of Syria?  No way.  The regular Syrian Army, which keeps a firm grip on Damascus, and President Bashir al-Assad will never agree to negotiations with the NSA.  Assad and the Ba'athists are convinced of their legitimacy, and Vladimir Putin will never agree to a new election monitored by the United Nations.  It astounds me how this argument in the media continues to ignore the Russian element.  Not to worry, because as far as I'm concerned, the NSA, if successful in dispatching the IS, will immediately turn its U.S.-supplied military hardware on Assad and the regular Syrian Army.  Keep in mind, the NSA was organized by disgruntled former elements of the Iraqi Armed Forces officer corps.  Their end goal is not the dismantling of the IS, but the occupation of the Presidential Palace in Damascus and Bashir al-Assad's head on the end of a stick.  They are happy to act as Obama's proxy for the moment, but what happens once the IS is destroyed?

The Christians of Syria have one real concern: the success of the IS.  If the regular Syrian Army and Russian stooge Assad keep power, then its business as usual and the Assyrians and Greek Orthodox Christians can breathe a sigh of relief.  Since the leaders of the NSA are former members of the Syrian military, I am comfortable assuming that if they come to power, they will adopt the same "laissez faire" attitude to the Syrian Christians.  The true enemy of Syrian Christians (and Christians everywhere, to be honest) is the IS, and the Khorasan, and the Al-Nusra Front.  The groups that are motivated by Sunni extremist ideology are the ones most likely to demand forced conversions.  A quick focus of this issue makes it even more apparent that the Sunni extremist groups who fall under different banners, are in fact part of one large, growing mass of hatred.  Al-Qaeda and Ayman al-Zawahiri are at the heart of this evolving mass of evil.  The longer we continue to view the enemy as a handful of separate, distinct Sunni extremists, the more dangerous and powerful it becomes.  I am glad to address the concerns regarding Christians in the battle zone, but I am petrified that sooner rather than later we may discover that the battle zone has come to us.

A Brief Look at al-Nusra and Khorasan

Link: Khorasan a Threat to the West?
          What is Khorasan?

Recently I posted comments relating to the various terror groups currently active in Syria.  I believe that it is best to focus more on the overall threat posed by these groups, than to get lost in the weeds trying to determine what name belongs to which faction.  Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Al-Qaeda in Magreb, al-Nusra, . . . they all have the same goal: they are determined to destroy our way of life.  The enemy does not separate the French infidels from the Danish infidels, or the Austrian blasphemers from the British infidels.  For those of us who are intelligence freaks, though, breaking down the various terror networks is what we enjoy.  I have stated my preferred strategy for militarily confronting these groups quite clearly in recent posts.  Today I would like to use my experience, training, and intuition to look into some of these groups.

On September 2, I spent an entire post detailing the evolution of the Islamic State (IS).  Not surprisingly, we could create a flow chart that connects all of these groups to Al-Qaeda in one way or another.  In fact, I believe all of the groups we have been reading about lately have an Al-Qaeda angle.  If these groups have an Al-Qaeda genesis and the same motivation, why have they splintered into so many factions?  First and foremost, its human nature.  These young men and women did not join a terrorist group to march on a parade ground and shine medals, they joined to kill in the name of Allah.  Without the discipline of a modern army unit, disagreements become arguments, and groups tend to splinter.  It doesn't mean that they hate you any less, it only means that personality clashes happen everywhere.  Also, smaller groups can be a strategic advantage in certain types of warfare.  Units of five to eight fighters can travel lightly and cover much more ground than two dozen armed men.  And if by chance the various groups come together for battle, they can splinter again just as quickly and disappear into the bush or mountains.  Its much harder to locate and keep track of smaller groups.  Another very important reason why we have so many groups with different monikers is vanity.  Everyone wants their five minutes of fame, so what better way than to create your own movement, name, and flag?

A review of open source media reveals (for the most part), four groups currently operating in Syria in opposition to the regular Syrian Army (loyal to President Bashir al-Assad).  The four names that seem to pop up most frequently are the IS, al-Nusra, Khorasan, and the New Syrian Army (NSA).  No doubt Al-Qaeda in present, advising the leaders of these various groups (NSA excepted, of course).  The NSA is the one anti-Assad group in Syria that appears to also oppose the Islamic extremist element.  The Obama Administration has selected the NSA to be our surrogates against the IS.  We spent time examining the NSA on September 21, so there is no need to revisit them so soon.  Personally, I am most fascinated by this group that calls itself the "al-Nusra Front" (ANF), or just "al-Nusra".  ANF is a direct extension of Al-Qaeda, straight from the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan (its so fascinating how history repeats itself, especially from a military perspective.  The Pakistan/Afghanistan border reminds me of the Vietnam War-era Vietnamese border with Laos and Cambodia).  Khorasan is an extension of al-Nusra.  During the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, the African National Congress (ANC) had a military wing (Umkhonto we sizwe- Spear of the Nation) to carry out attacks against the State.  It appears some of the terrorist groups are operating on similar lines.  Khorasan is known to favor western recruits, especially anyone with explosives training.  I believe Khorasan will attempt to exploit the training of its recruits to not only attack the enemy in Syria, but to also conduct more prolific attacks against western targets.

Khorasan is led by Muhsin Fadhli, a senior Al-Qaeda operative who was probably hiding out in Iran until recently (the Iran angle in this mess is most intriguing, and will be the subject of tomorrow's post).  It is believed that Fadhli was personally tasked by current Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to recruit westerners.  Why are the westerners so important?  Because some are former military and have specialized training, and (ostensibly) all can travel unhindered on western passports.  Examining the flow of recent media reporting on al-Nusra and Khorasan can be confusing.  Is Khorasan designed to be a specialized unit of western recruits with bomb-making experience, who can create explosives to be smuggled onto commercial airplanes?  Or will Khorasan use its skills to create I.E.Ds (Improvised Explosive Devices)?  ANF will be militarily active in Syria regardless of the presence of Khorasan, which leaves me with the impression that Khorasan will be used for specialized operations.

The Syrian conflict seems to become more complicated by the hour.  During a conversation with two colleagues, we couldn't help but laugh at some of the odd bedfellows that have evolved.  Will IS fight alongside ANF and Khorasan?  If events unfold as planned (by the Obama Administration), the New Syrian Army will be fighting both the IS and ANF/Khorasan.  Here is where it gets humorous.  If the situation on the ground develops logically, then the IS and the ANF/Khorasan will be fighting both the NEW Syrian Army and the OLD Syrian Army simultaneously.  And I'm sure before all is said and done, the NAS will settle its conflict with the regular Syrian Army.

One of the greatest books ever written (and I am an expert, just ask anyone) is Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia).  Seven Pillars is a poetic,

stylized biographic account of Lawrence during his efforts to organize Arab resistance to the Ottoman Turks during the First World War.  Don't be discouraged by the beginning...its can be a bit "thick".  Once you leave the beginning behind, you won't be able to put it down.  The book is written so beautifully as to provide the mind's eye with the most amazing Arabian landscapes and events.  True, you must wade through a passage or two of Lawrence's "boy-lust", but its not as bad as its made out to be. I strongly recommend Seven Pillars to everyone who will be serving in this part of the world, or who has an interest in Arabia.  I mention Lawrence and Seven Pillars because it provides great detail to the 1916 "Sykes-Picot Agreement" (I imagine if the Ottoman Empire and the Triple Alliance had gone on to win the war, Sykes-Picot would had become cage-liner for some Parakeet).  In a nutshell, Sykes-Picot was an agreement between France and the British, which defined "spheres of influence" (read: occupation) for each nation following the successful resolution of the war.  The Brits would get Palestine and Jordan, and the French would receive Syria and Lebanon.  The Treaty, which made Lawrence appear deceitful, was drafted without Lawrence's knowledge.  Lawrence had been preaching to the Arabs that their participation in defeating the Turks would result in freedom and independence.  Once the details of the treaty became public, the Arabs were incensed.  If you look close enough, you can always find some episode of western idiocy that stains the reputation of Europe and the United States indefinitely (the Chinese are still going on about the 1840s Opium Wars).  The point is, people in this part of the world do not trust westerners.  Every effort to win the "Hearts and Minds" has been unsuccessful.  The Obama Administration, alongside whatever coalition he is able to crochet together, must have a reasonable exit strategy that leaves the Syrian and Iraqi people in control of their own destiny.