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.

    

Update: Russian plans for an offensive in Syria using Iranian and militia troops and Russian air support.

Link: Russian airstrikes in Syria continue to target anti-Assad forces, not ISIS.

Everyday we get a better idea exactly what Vladimir Putin intends to do in Syria.  Normally, the Russians would attempt to be a bit discreet, but Putin realizes that he is experiencing a rare moment of complete freedom to do as he pleases.  The Russians are moving quickly, before someone in the international community decides to object and attempt to slow things down.  One would have thought that Putin would have been a bit more subtle with his intention to destroy the anti-Assad indigenous movement first, but he has decided it is more prudent to act quickly, before any real opposition can manifest itself.  During three days of bombing sorties, the Russians exclusively targeted anti-Assad forces, as the disinformation campaign went into gear, identifying the locations bombed as the "ISIS command center at Raqqah City".  Satellite imagery identifies the town of Al Latamneh in Hama Province as being the actual target.  The Russians will continue to spin a web of disinformation at every opportunity, as they have learned from the Ukraine crisis that disseminating false information is effective.  The worst tragedy is that it appears the majority of the casualties in three days of Russian airstrikes haven't even been anti-Assad combatants, but civilians.  Not that the Russians mind.  Killing civilians is a very useful motivational tool.  And to think just a few weeks ago, Europe and the United States were up in arms over the photograph of one drowned Syrian child.

For years, we have wondered what location on the relatively meager Syrian coastline would the Russians chose for their Mediterranean Naval Base.  I thought that Putin would want to build a shiny, new base in Latakia, but it appears from construction that has already started, that the base will be at Tartus instead.  Tartus, which is south of Latakia and a few kilometers north of the Lebanese border, has some existing port facilities, which are proving useful to the Russians, who are conducting naval and amphibious exercises just offshore.  It is believed that Putin will soon grant "combatant status" to the Russian troops already in Syria, and evidence strongly suggests that Russia is preparing for a broader military intervention than repeatedly claimed by Moscow.  With the announcement of the Iran/Iraq/Russia joint combat coordination center in Baghdad, we considered the possibility that the Iranian government would order full military intervention in Iraq, on the grounds of self defense, as ISIS attacks in Diyala Province are having an impact on neighboring Iran.  The persistent presence of ISIS in Diyala gives the Iranians the justification for greater involvement.  It seemed the ideal scenario for Iran, fighting alongside the militias and the Iraqi Security Forces, to pressure ISIS from the east, while Russian forces attacked from the west in Syria.  At this point, Putin no longer sees the battlefield as being separated by national boundaries, and he is prudent in his assessment.  ISIS must be dealt with on all available fronts, with as much pressure as can be applied.  Since Iranian troops, along with some militia units, have arrived in Syria, the fear that Iran will directly intervene in Iraq, although still a likely possibility, has lessened somewhat.

At the moment, the goal for Russia is to successfully re-introduce Bashar al-Assad to the international community as the legitimate president of Syria.  It is believed that the Russians are planning an operation to retake the ancient city of Palmyra, which will provide Assad with a tremendous publicity opportunity.  Ideally, the recapture of Palmyra (by Syrian regime forces, no doubt) will remind the Syrian people that Assad is a great warrior who will eventually outlast his enemies.  Why Putin insists on propping up Assad is still a bit of a mystery.  He could remove Assad, which would please the Turks and the Gulf Arabs immensely, and install another pro-Russian government.  But for the moment, Assad is experiencing a rejuvenation, as his forces are re-equipped and greatly assisted by the Russian air campaign.  The West must be very careful, that the anti-Assad groups that we have been supporting, don't turn to Al-Qaeda surrogate Jabhat al-Nusra for assistance.  Its a real possibility, as all they have seen since Russia's arrival on the scene, is typical diplomatic hyperbole.  U.S. Secretary of State has threatened that the U.S.-led air coalition might very well increase its anti-ISIS bombing sorties in Syria, as opposed to ending them altogether, as Russia has demanded.  If it is possible to increase the bombing sorties against ISIS, why weren't we doing so before the Russians arrived?

The Obama Administration continues to fail in all areas of diplomacy and foreign policy, and Putin works to build an anti-ISIS coalition.

Links: A. U.S. begins training anti-ISIS fighters in Syria.
           B. Obama spends 500 million to train 5 anti-ISIS operatives.
           C. Putin intentions in Syria.

It was only last May, that President Obama announced that the United States would begin training an "anti-ISIS" force to act as "boots on the ground" and supplement the U.S.-led allied air coalition.  Since then, there has been a remarkable dearth of information on the training program, although a few titles were tossed to the media, including "Free Syrian Army" and "New Syrian Army".  During the summer, while ISIS expanded its operations in Iraq, and increased its hold over Syrian territory, we wondered what had become of this expensive initiative.  Certainly someone needed to stand up to ISIS besides Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), who, aside from their direct affiliation with Al-Qaeda, at least had a decent record in combat with the Islamic State.  This week we learned that up-to-now, the first part of the training program was complete, and after spending $500 million, the U.S. had a grand total of five operatives ready to stand up to ISIS in Syria.  Granted, the Pentagon is quick to point out that over the next three faces of the program, another one-hundred twenty operatives will complete their training, but that leaves us with one-hundred twenty five, to take on roughly thirty thousand rugged, experienced ISIS members.  This Administration knows how to spend money like nobody's business; at least it gives us some idea how the United States went from $3 trillion in debt, to almost $20 trillion, in less than seven years.  But that is a subject for another day.

From a foreign policy perspective, this Administration hangs its hat on three accomplishments: the killing of bin-Laden, the signing of the New Start Treaty, and this new nuclear treaty with Iran that has yet to be ratified by Congress.  I would have added a fourth accomplishment, but the Obama Administration doesn't talk much anymore about the quick withdrawal of troops of Iraq, probably because ISIS dived right into the vacuum left behind.  The disaster known as the New Start Treaty has already been dissected on this blog, as has the nuclear treaty with Iran.  So how does the Obama Administration stack up, as diplomatic accomplishments go?  Obama began his term in office with what is affectionately known as "the apology tour" through the Middle East.  When the Arab Spring blossomed, we were nowhere to be seen.  We were in no position to respond effectively to any of the developments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.  We become totally reactive, trying to jump quickly as soon as something happened.  When Russia invaded Georgia, we had little response, and when Putin charged into Ukraine and swallowed up Crimea, Obama looked in someone else's ancient playbook and decided to lead our brave European allies in a new sanctions regime.  As the Russians increased their aggression, the sanctions grew, and we were told that the Russian economy would eventually crack.  I had to ask myself if ANYONE in this administration knew the slightest thing about the Russians.  If you want to intimidate or persuade the Russians to change their policy, don't waste your time on an economic approach.  The Russian people are insulted when someone tries to starve them into acquiescence; they understand what it means to cut back and do without, and if it means giving the finger to the U.S. and Europe, they will tell you to bring on your sanctions!  I understood this simple cultural quirk when the crisis began, here we are, over a year later, and those mighty sanctions have still not managed to bring the Russian bear to its knees.  In fact, I think the Russians are actually expanding their footprint internationally, sending troops and tanks to fight ISIS in Syria.  I guess they figured someone had to do it, and unless it can be wrapped up in a sanctions regime or dropped from a jet fighter high up in the sky, Obama and the United States are not going to step up to the plate.

For every international crisis that has occurred since 2008, the United States has failed miserably in its response.  It truly resembles amateur hour at Foggy Bottom.  All the while, the Russians have truly started stretching their wings.  No doubt Putin chose the Syrian city of Latakia as the arrival location of the first wave of Russian troops and equipment for a number of reasons.  Latakia is on the coast, and would make an ideal location for a Russian naval base to access the Mediterranean.  Also, NW Syria is home to Syria's influential Alawite minority, not to mention a number of other ethnic minorities including Christians.  Putin, as he embraces the mantle of "International Leader", will guise himself as the protector of all the various religious and ethnic minorities in Syria.  And what makes Putin's position so enviable, is that he is ready to back up his new role by putting Russian troops and tanks on the ground to confront ISIS.  The United States could have made the same choice, and would probably have been better equipped and experienced to wipe out ISIS in record-time.  But Obama doesn't appear to care much for the U.S. military, and makes use of our Armed Forces only in specific scenarios.  First and foremost, we must not put a soldier or pilot or sailor in harms way.  Military deaths do not translate well into Democratic votes.  Given how the leaders of Europe snivel at his feet whenever there is a joint appearance, there is no question that they would have directed their military to join an Obama coalition to destroy ISIS.  But Obama was not up to the task, regardless of how quickly the job could have been accomplished and how few casualties would have resulted.  So Putin has moved into the vacuum, and so far, is doing an admirable job.  Cheers to you, Vlad.  Take out a couple of those ISIS bastards for me, will ya?  

ISIS reaches new depths of barbarism and depravity, as jihadis and U.S. college students take notes.

Link: American Kayla Mueller assaulted by al-Baghdadi.

Recently, while walking through a University campus in Austin, Texas, I stumbled upon an anti-military demonstration involving students. The students were protesting a number of issues, including the presence of the ROTC program in public schools and the U.S. intelligence community's ongoing efforts to combat Islamic terrorism.  One young man with an opposing perspective was engaging the protesters in a polite discussion of the issues, so I stood around on the periphery and listened.  After roughly twenty minutes, I moved on to my appointment.  Honestly, I didn't hear anything new from either side.  But I continue to be amazed at the level of ignorance demonstrated by so many university-level young people today.  These thirty to forty protesters were arguing that the actions of the United States, both past and present, were the root cause of the violence committed by Al-Qaeda, ISIS, El Sendero Luminoso, Abu Sayyaf, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, and all the rest.  According to these scholars of American history, the United States had a pattern of aggressively exporting its own ideology to foreign lands, sometimes at the end of a gun barrel, and that we were reaping the fruits of prior Administration's efforts at economic colonialism.  What is "economic colonialism" as opposed to regular, ol' colonialism?  Economic colonialism occurs when the modern and wealthy nation with a huge military forces the smaller, developing country to welcome American business and companies.  Before you can say "Dole Pineapples and Bananas", these powerful American companies were exploiting the natural resources of the smaller nation and misusing its labor force.  In Bolivia, we supported the silver mines, which introduced child labor and chronic pulmonary illnesses in the local community.  In Colombia, Bolivia and Peru, our drug-addicted society forced these developing economies to become dependent upon exporting cocaine, until one day we changed our mind and demanded that the governments put the cocoa farmers in jail and burn their crops.  We all know about the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and of course our support of Israel has kept the Arab community from having any chance whatsoever of thriving.  Therefore, its no wonder that the terrorists want to kill us.

I am nobody's apologist, and this blog is not designed to tackle the heavy subject of "American Economic Imperialism".  I do believe, however, that any debt owed by the United States, has been paid in great excess by the blood sacrificed to rid the world of German, Italian and Japanese fascism.  I will also point out the tremendously positive impact of the technological advances pioneered by the United States, and the regular massive amount of international financial aid the is distributed in U.S. Dollars.  It has also been American intellect, ingenuity and money that put a man on the moon and a spacecraft traveling to the very edge of our own galaxy.  But this counts for nothing in the minds of certain people.  They exist solely to search for communal guilt in one form or another.  What really disturbs me is how out-of-touch so many young people are in the United States in Europe, when it comes to the inhuman and criminal actions of ISIS.  In fact, the under-20 years old generation doesn't remember the events of September 11, 2001, when almost three thousand innocent Americans were incinerated by terrorists no-doubt avenging some "wrong" committed against them by the United States.  I can forgive young people for not remembering 9-11, but all you need to do is turn on the news to get a dose of what has to be the most heinous displays of beheadings and executions that I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.  Everyday, the media wing of ISIS gets to work on its latest batch of video releases to the appalled but voyeuristic western nations.  The cancer that grew from the ashes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, pretends to be a political movement in search of an Islamic Caliphate.  In truth, it is a killing machine, that has learned how to turn subjugation and torture into an art form.  These people don't represent some "offended" or "abused" community; they exist to spread their brand of vile Islamic extremism to the entire world, not just the Levant.  If ISIS were only interested in the Levant, then why are they in Africa, and in Yemen, and Indonesia and the Philippines?  These students who were "ashamed" that our Air Force was leading the allied air coalition against ISIS, would be the first to lose their heads if ISIS had their way.  But not until they had been tortured as victimized in ways that until now were unknown to our species.

Apologists for terrorism love to compare the actions of Islamic Extremists to the Inquisition conducted by the Catholic Church so many centuries ago, and to the Crusades that were organized and financed for the purpose of keeping Jerusalem and its environs in the hands of Christians, not Muslims.  History is replete with examples of religious conflict in the Christian community. But the point is, we make the point to leave that barbarity in the past, and respect our fellow man's religious choices.  ISIS is attempting to take us back to the middle ages, when people were executed for their religious persuasion.  But lest you start to think that ISIS' motivation has to do with expanding the teachings of the Prophet, take a look at some of the extra curricular activities of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his flock of Himmlers and Heydrichs.  Anyone accused of homosexual activity will be tortured and executed, many times bring thrown from the roof of buildings.  Single pregnant females are also subject to execution.  All the while, al-Baghdadi and his thugs ignore all the basic tenets of Islam.  Both male and female prisoners and hostages are routinely raped, and the hashish pipe has been known to make an appearance or two during down time.  Any bit of luxury that can be obtained out in the middle of the Syrian desert, has found its way to al-Baghdadi's quarters.  The money that is raised to support ISIS comes from a variety of sources, including oil.  But is also comes from the smuggling of both women (girls, actually) and merchandise.  And there is nothing in the Koran about the continual mass-executions of thousands of innocent people.  There is no forgiveness with ISIS, or the opportunity for repentance, which is a major pillar of the Koran and Islam.

So if they really aren't representing Islam, then who are they?  ISIS is evil incarnate, my friends.  No matter how many years you have on this earth, you will never see anything so black and devoid of compassion and goodness.  I have so much empathy for the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, who have lived long enough to see the emergence of something worse.  The people who are driving the bus, al-Baghdadi and his supporters, want to see you and your entire family dead.  I'm taking this threat seriously, but is the Obama Administration?  Not by a longshot.  Its all about politics, and President Obama is strictly in "Legacy Mode" right now.  He's gearing up for his last, great use of Executive Action.  Before he leaves office, he will sign into law an Amnesty plan that allows the roughly twenty million ethnic Mexican illegal aliens living in the United States, the opportunity to become citizens.  Not Resident Aliens.  And why not?  Because Green Card Holders can't vote.  President Obama's lasting legacy will be his attempt to turn the United States into a one-party state.  So ISIS has kinda fallen off the radar.  Just let Hillary deal with it.

Link: ISIS stakes its claim to Libya.

Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration.  As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control.  What was so wrong with regime control, anyway?  Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change?  Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life?  Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing.  Libya didn't descend into hell overnight.  The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists.  As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all.  Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya.  Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end?  Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder?  The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances.  To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans.  What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya.  We are supposed to support the good guys, remember?  The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution?  I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists.  I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States.  Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya.  I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.

Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander.  What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda.  Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata.  More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern.  As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief.  Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya?  Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers.  Nothing useful can be accomplished without force.  In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy.  But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers.  But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe.  Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers.  By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis.  We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?

Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya.  The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans.  May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted.  How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development?  Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself. 

The expansion of ISIS and its intended future targets.

Link: A.  The expansion of The Islamic State.
          B.  Hamas aiding ISIS in Sinai?
      

This blog has regularly taken the opportunity to provide information regarding the recruitment efforts ands expansionist intentions of the extremist group, The Islamic State (ISIS).  From out perspective, the United States and its European and Arab allies have not been nearly proactive enough regarding the ISIS' ability to establish itself rapidly in almost any part of the world.  In fact, the allies haven't been proactive whatsoever.  Until now, that is.  We are beginning to see a bit more attention paid to the activities of ISIS, and more importantly, groups that have aligned themselves with the Islamic State.  June and July were pivotal months regarding the expansion of ISIS from within the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq, to Egypt, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, and possibly even the United States itself.  As detailed in our blog posting from July 8 (Link B), ISIS arrived with a bang in Sinai, taking out one Egyptian checkpoint before being dispatched themselves.  Although the international press had published occasional stories regarding certain established terrorist groups pledging allegiance to ISIS, it was the attack in Sinai that sounded the alarm.  From a strictly military perspective, the attack was a disaster.  The ISIS fighters, most of whom were local Palestinian recruits with a few veterans of Syria thrown in for good measure, managed to kill a handful of Egyptian soldiers, but they lost roughly two hundred of their own.  We know from a source on the scene that the Egyptian soldiers, especially the ones attacked at the original checkpoint, exhibited tremendous courage and determination.  No doubt their ability to keep ISIS from quickly moving through the checkpoint and on to larger targets, saved many lives.  In the end, though, the attack achieved its goals.  ISIS wanted to announce to the world that the conflict was no longer limited to Syria and Iraq, and also demonstrate its ability to recruit and utilize dedicated supporters was basically unlimited.

Since the early July events in Gaza, ISIS has not conducted anymore high-profile attacks outside Syria and Iraq, at least not of which we are aware.  In July, an Islamic extremist gunman opened fire on a U.S. military facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four Marines and a Sailor.  Was this deranged young man connected to ISIS?  Not according to the U.S. government.  He was a frequent visitor to ISIS-friendly websites, message boards and chat rooms, and he recently spent six months in Jordan, which makes the "lone-wolf" declaration by the Obama Administration seem to us to be bizarrely premature and suspiciously political.  We suspect that the shooter probably had some contact with ISIS agents while in Jordan, who ratcheted up the hate and anti-infidel message which was spinning in his head when he returned stateside.  The most difficult question to answer, is what kind of sleeper-cell network has ISIS, and Al-Qaeda beforehand, developed in North America?  From our optic, Al-Qaeda appears to favor the well-planned, highly trained, carefully chosen target, patient approach with regards to its cells, while ISIS seems to have no problem just handing someone a gun or a vehicle full of explosives, and telling them that when the signal comes in, just go out and kill people.  Interestingly enough, Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda loved a carefully planned, well-resourced operation, and al-Baghdadi and ISIS seem to prefer operations that result in the highest casualty list, regardless of cost.  In the end, though, all three were definite believers in the power of fear.  However the operation comes about, in the end, it must create enough fear in the target communities, to make people consider changing the way they and their families live life.

On a positive note, the new administration in Nigeria seems intent on destroying Boko Haram (BH)once and for all.  The terrorist group has basically been on the run for some weeks, as the joint military efforts of Chad, Nigeria, Benin and Cameroon have left BH very little room to maneuver.  BH achieved a great deal of attention with its announcement of allegiance to ISIS, but ISIS is smart enough to stay out of northern Nigeria, at least for the moment.  The same can't be said for Libya, which seems to become more of a complicated mess everyday.  The fact that Libya hasn't already been united under one Islamic extremist banner is a surprise in itself, because it certainly seems destined to happen.  But for the time being, the United States and Europe continue to utilize some form of diplomacy to effect positive change, while at the same time, ISIS does its business out in the desert, visiting one isolated community after another, and adding them to the cause.  I'm not sure if the current Libyan government sits in Benghazi or Tripoli, or if any government is currently being recognized by the United Nations.  But the U.N. and the United States have been aware of the delicate state of affairs in Libya, since long before the Benghazi incident which killed five Americans.  You could not plan a more advantageous situation for ISIS, as the people are desperate for someone to institute a bit of law and order, and maybe get the water turned back on.  As demonstrated in Iraq, ISIS has learned the art of local government, and is expanding its footprint in Libya by providing communities with some level of organization and relief.

ISIS has also become active in Yemen, but to what degree is still a mystery.  ISIS has also established itself in many of the large, urban township communities in central and southern Africa, which has the potential to be an unlimited source of recruits.  Has ISIS found its way to the townships of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo?  When young people see no future, the color of their skin makes no difference.  They will be a captive audience when the ISIS recruiters show up, with stories of glory on the battlefield, the holiness of killing infidels, and the providing of a wife (in this world, and forty additional ones in the next).  But one of the most important thing that ISIS can provide is something that the planners at the U.N. and the Pentagon haven't really started to notice: ISIS provides these young people with DIRECTION, a cause, a reason to get up in the morning.  One can never overestimate the value of "raison d'etre".  If the various governments in Africa are unable to solve endemic problems of unemployment and homelessness, then we should have a good idea from where the next batch of young recruits will originate.  Maybe the next Gaza-like statement will be in Pretoria, or Nakuru.  One thing is certain: the problem of global youth unemployment will only feed the fire of discontent that continues to provide extremists like ISIS with young people who are willing to die for the cause. 

Spying in the 21st Century; counter-terrorism, diplomacy, and economic espionage.

Our world has changed dramatically in the last five decades.  We have enjoyed a renaissance in technology, with the internet changing lives and medical research making discoveries to help people will illnesses and injuries live a more productive, happy life.  Unfortunately the world has also become a much more dangerous place.  Terrorism made its original rude introduction in the early 1960's, and then tapered off a bit, before that eventful day in September of 2001.  Since then, the word, "terrorism" seems to be included in every newscast, and part of almost every travel advisory.  When terrorists were almost exclusively focused on Israel, the battle lines were simple to demarcate.  Today, we live in a world that is slowly being transformed by the actions of Islamic Extremists.  The Obama Administration is determined to not label the bad guys as Muslim Extremists, for fear of appearing "Islam phobic", an unfortunate complication in the efforts to combat groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.  At the moment, the United States is not technically at war, although our Air Force is heavily involved in the allied air coalition against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  Another danger we face in the world today is the rebirth of nationalist and expansionist Russia.  Although we support Ukraine diplomatically and have spearheaded the sanctions regime against Russia, our military has not been directly involved in that conflict.  So are we at peace?

The answer is no, and we haven't been for sometime.  You see, even when the soldiers are stateside and the diplomats are making nice with each other, another conflict is being waged in the shadows.  All nations are involved in espionage in one form or another, and the more industrialized, populous states are constantly looking for new ways to improve the art.  The United States is primarily interested in intelligence for national security purposes, which makes terrorism a priority target for the CIA, NSA, and the intelligence gathering apparati of the Departments of Defense and Justice.  Next on the list is probably China, who has created a tremendously advanced and complicated network of spying, utilizing scholars, businessmen, and researchers to both collect on and occasionally subvert the United States in numerous ways.  Russia is also a high-priority collecting target, especially since the arrival of Vladimir Putin and a return to cold-war type aggressive activities.  The U.S. government remains highly interested in information regarding narcotics and counter-intelligence.  A priority target that does not get its deserved share of attention is economics.  The major economies of the world, even the ones who appear to be very closely aligned, are all in the business of collecting confidential information regarding economics and international business. In fact, it makes complete sense.  The health of our nation's economy has to be included in national security concerns, and the Chinese in particular seem to be determined to outmaneuver everyone in this area.

Why are the Chinese so successful at espionage?  The truth is, they haven't always been good at spying.  But once China and the United States started regular bilateral relations, and Chinese university students and researchers were invited to the U.S. to study and do research, the Chinese saw an opportunity to exploit our openness to gather confidential and at times top secret information.  The larger, more prestigious U.S. colleges seem to compete for visiting Chinese scholars.  Unfortunately, many of these universities have received contracts from the Department of Defense to work on highly classified programs.  On more than one occasion, Chinese students have been discovered in possession of internet connections that are active only between the Chinese mainland and the student's personal laptop.  Our own experts have been unable to break into the conversation between the student and Beijing for a number of reasons, including the complexity/security firewalls of the program being used, and the opposition of the respective university's administration from what they perceive as being "action which will discourage future Chinese scholars from wanted to study here."  Can you imagine a student having access to a lab computer, downloading classified information onto a disk, then returning to their  dorm room to send the information to China, without us ever knowing exactly what was being transmitted?

Back to economic espionage.  Its not just a war between China and the United States; the European nations are also interested in getting a "heads-up" on the intentions of our international companies and investors.  For example, the European conglomerate "Airbus", which manufactures airliners with parts from a number of different EU countries, is in regular, fierce completion with Boeing for new airliner orders.  The United States has economic rivalries in the Defense Industry as well.  Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy and Spain all manufacture and export military hardware of one sort or another.  Even South Africa goes head to head with the U.S., when it comes to anti-riot vehicles and helicopters.  To have confidential information regarding a foreign competitor's progress on a competitive product can be invaluable, and nations have started training Intelligence Officers to be focused on the business community for the duration of their career.  Many times these Intelligence Officers will utilize Businessman cover in order to gain access to confidential information.  The United States and France wrote the book on this type of espionage, and they continue to this day to practice it more effectively than anyone else.

Espionage has evolved quite a bit in the last few years, let alone last five decades.  So much intelligence collection has been directed towards force protection, other typical areas of interest have suffered.  But the major powers still manage to cover all their bases and go after the terrorist target together.  The joint intel ops that are becoming more and more commonplace just might be the precursor to something much more meaningful: an Intelligence Service that represents more than just one nation.  I assume that the EU has already broken ground in that regard.

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.    

Iraq threatening to descend into all-out war, mirroring Syria.

Link: ISIS threatens water supply to Iraqi civilians.


Last year, the Islamic State (IS) used its control of certain dams to impact the Iraqi civilian population's access to water.  In the end, their actions led to the flooding of Ramadi and other smaller, nearby communities.  The IS is again threatening to use its control of dams to further its military objectives.  The IS has already closed the Warrar Dam, north of Ramadi, jeopardizing water supplies to Habaniya and Khalidiya, two towns east of Ramadi.  There is concern that the IS as also closed the Fallujah Dam, south of Fallujah.  These developments can only increase the pressure on the civilian population, and bring Iraq that much closer to a humanitarian crisis.  In the big picture, these events demonstrate the rapid break-down in civil authority throughout Iraq.  The central government in is control of maybe fifty percent of the country.  In fact, the Shi'a south, from Hillah and Najaf down to Basra (and east to the Iranian border), appears to be the only part of the country that has not been infiltrated by the IS.  Anbar and Salah al-Din Provinces are war zones, as is Diyala Province, which borders Iran.  Dohuk, Arbil, Kirkuk, and Nineveh Province in the west have been scenes of sporadic fighting and numerous SVBIED (suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device) for the past year.  Basically, whatever authority exists in the north is attributed to Kurdish forces.  As long as the IS occupies large parts of Anbar and continues to pressure the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in Diyala, Salah al-Din, Baiji, and numerous other strategic areas, the authority of the Iraqi central government is diminished.

The operational execution of the IS forces continues to impress.  There is an obvious long-term focus on all offensive maneuvers, and every opportunity to exploit the lack of training and discipline of the ISF is exploited to the furthest degree.  The maturity exhibited by the strategic planning and decision making conflicts with the unnecessary civilian executions, although some will argue that the brutalization of the civilian population is intended to create a pliable and easy to govern people.  The IS is not a typical terrorist organization by any stretch.  With the exception of the Taliban (and this claim is open for discussion), the IS is the first terrorist organization with a true conventional military capability.  This fact is one of the reasons that we suspect a much more cordial relationship exists with Al-Qaeda than what has been demonstrated for the media.  President George Bush was determined to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional military confrontation in Afghanistan and (eventually) Iraq.  Once Saddam was defeated, it was imperative that Al-Qaeda not sit idly by as an infidel army occupied an Islamic nation.  Al-Qaeda took the bait, and from 2005 to 2008, was surprisingly resilient.  But in the end, George Bush was able to expose a flaw in the Al-Qaeda structure: it was not built for conventional combat.  By 2010 (thanks to the Sunni "Great Awakening" and the ultimate sacrifice of over 3,000 American heroes), Iraq was well on its way to building a middle class and reviving from decades of totalitarianism.  The one development which could torpedo all the progress, would be the rash and speedy withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.  You see, the ISF was not yet prepared to defend Iraq.  The U.S. military was following a timetable that they had been led to believe, was "in stone".  The plan was to train the Iraqi security forces, police and special ops folks included, until they showed the capacity to protect their own people.  Instead, we announced to the world (and the IS, who were sitting in Syria, licking their chops, so to speak) that the U.S. military was leaving the security of Iraq to the ISF and departing Iraq on a fast timetable.

Even before the IS moved into Iraq, the organization had shown its ability to conduct conventional military operations. Syria was the ideal location to try out the world's first conventional terrorist army.  The most important factor for the IS is discipline.  Second is resources.  The IS does not seem to have any problem attracting volunteers, but, like any army, they can't be useful until they are trained and equipped.  The IS trains its recruits, and uses them where they are most useful.  Language is considered a valuable tool, especially in the media war.  The IS enjoys nothing more than shocking the folks sitting down to tea in London, with the image of a beheading carried out by a young man with a striking Cockney accent.  One of the factors that continues to impress us is the IS' ability to access and deliver resources to its units stretched out all over Syria and Iraq, and in the middle of an Allied Air Campaign, no less.    At least the IS has lost the element of surprise; they won't be sneaking up on anyone anymore, with "ISIS" being a dirty word in just about every language.  As it exists, the IS really is nothing but an army, fighting a conflict in Syria and Iraq.  The IS does not occupy the Executive Mansion of any particular country, nor does it have a representative political party that dominates a parliament somewhere.  Aside from sycophants and recruiters, ISIS is whatever we have before us in Iraq and Syria.  Which begs the question, with the dastardly and evil deeds they have committed, why haven't they been destroyed?  With the entire U.N. condemning their actions, and their every move likened to "terrorism", why are they still hanging around?

What can we expect if Bashir al-Assad is forced to abandon Damascus?

Links: A. Assad forces losing more ground in Syria.
           B. Assad's weaknesses being exploited.


Everyday the headlines bring news of more territory lost to pro-government forces, as the hodge-podge of various anti-Assad groups push closer and closer to Damascus. In recent weeks, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), a well-organized group that many identify as Al-Qaeda's proxy in the Syrian conflict, has taken the lead, and delivered a string of defeats to the regular Syrian Army near the northwest town of Idlib.  Syria's second-largest city of Aleppo, which is just north of Idlib, presently is not controlled by either side.  Within the last year, regime forces have suffered losses in every corner of the country.  The Iraqi border area is controlled by the Islamic State, while the northeast border with Turkey appears to be under mostly Kurdish control.  The Jordanian border area in the southwest has seen a successful push by Jabhat al-Nusrah as of late, with the regime no longer able to claim control of any of the towns.

Although I have argued on numerous occasions that the IS, JN, and the Khorosan group were basically separate digits connected to the same hand, the hand of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda.  I have always based my opinion on the strong historic links between all the groups and Al-Qaeda, and the usefulness of having the enemy imagine ten separate opponents on the battlefield as opposed to one.  In truth, I'm sure these groups do have certain issues of ideology or ceremony that aren't the same, but at the end of the day, they share they same basic goal: creating an Islamic Extremist state in Syria (and the entire Levant, for that matter).  Interestingly enough, now that the Kurds have solidified their defensive positions in the north eastern border region, all of these groups can focus exclusively on regime military targets.  I would imagine that if they truly were opposed to each other, then we would eventually see some sign of conflict; it's human nature.  Even the nebulous "Free Syrian Army", equipped and trained by the United States, appears to be focused on Syrian military units.  In a nutshell, Its all against one.

If the regime is unable to respond effectively, what can be expected?  Right now, Assad's control basically is limited to everything west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountain Range, which includes the entire Mediterranean coast, and the area around Damascus, although the Yarmouk refugee camp just outside Damascus has apparently been co-opted by the IS.  As difficult as it is to imagine, Assad controls roughly one-eighth of Syria, the enemy is collecting at the gates.  No doubt, when it becomes necessary, Assad and his family will be able to find asylum in Iran, Oman, or some friendly country, and plenty of money has been squirrelled away in various banks to keep him and his henchmen living comfortably for the remainder of their days.  The question is, will Assad recognize the moment, when the time has come to abandon ship?  He has shown a great deal of determination in the past, and he has stayed in Damascus when many others would have left. 

Who picks up the pieces?  Will it be Jabhat al-Nusrah?  Or possibly Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State?  Don't put your hopes on the Free Syrian Army.  As soon as the U.S. money goes away, these guys will disappear into the hills.  I believe that the Islamic State will take charge, and the experts will begin to consider that maybe these groups weren't so far apart after all.  While the IS solidifies its position, maybe Angela Merkel and President Obama and convene a summit to enact sanctions. One thing is certain; whatever military resources that will be made available because of the end of hostilities in Syria, will quickly make their way to the battlefields of Iraq.  

Is Yemen, 2015, a renewal of the Battle of Karbala, 680 AD?

Links: A. Saudi military on Yemeni border.
           B. Is conflict in Yemen a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran?

No need to get out your history books or almanacs, unless you really want to.  The Battle of Karbala was fought in central Iraq in 680 AD, with most religious scholars agreeing that the

violent clash went a long way to settling the question of The Prophet Mohammed's succession.  This is important because the two opponents came to represent the Sunni and Shia elements within Islam.  Until recently, the two groups seemed to co-exist within an awkward kind of avoidance, although on a few occasions, the international community has been given a glimpse of the emotions involved in the Sunni-Shia schism.  Following the first Gulf War, once it became apparent that President George H. Bush was not going to force Saddam Hussein from power, Saddam fired-up what was left of his war machine and butchered thousands of Shia in areas south of Iraq.  Saddam was legitimately concerned that the "Marsh Arabs", as these particular Shia were called, were rising up to possibly threaten his hold on power.  This was the moment in life that I went over to an Encyclopedia and educated myself on the Sunni and the Shia.  Having spent time in Iraq within the last decade, I became familiar with the two groups and the antagonism that basically defines their relationship.  Simply put, since Karbala in 680 AD, the Shia have been looking for a little respect.  For the most part, the Sunni are considered better educated, more intelligent, and wealthier.  The Shia are more the "manual laborers and farmers" of Islam, and they have a tendency to carry a chip on their shoulder as big as Manhattan.

In the last fifty years, the Shia, who are the majority in only two countries (Lebanon being a plurality, folks), have fought fiercely for causes that they support.  Following the revolution in Iran in 1979-1980, which deposed the Pahlavi Dynasty, the Shia-led government of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini threw everything but the kitchen sink at Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War.  Since then, the Shia seem to be more comfortable standing up for their interests.  In Iraq in 2005, the Shia were quick to create militias to defend Shia communities and Holy Sites, when it became apparent that certain anti-U.S. groups were going to incite various causes to violence.  The Iranians were more than happy to provide training and equipment to these militias, who are even more powerful and active today than they were during the insurgency.  The Iranian government, and the Guardian Council in Qom, must be pleased by the expression of free will exhibited by the Shia Houthis of Yemen.  The Houthis have been around for sometime, and to their credit, they tried a number of non-violent approaches to the former government over the years, in an attempt to end discrimination against the Houthi community.  Eventually they were compelled to resort to violence, and the Yemeni government, already under siege from Al-Qaeda, was a bit of an easy target.  Today, as April passes us by, The Houthis are in control of the capital city of Sana, and are strategically positioned to move against Yemen's second city (and port/economic lifeline), Aden.  Interestingly enough, just to the east of Aden lies a reasonably large area which is controlled by (Sunni) Al-Qaeda.  And just when things couldn't get any more confusing, the Royal Saudi Arabian Air Force, which continues to recognize the legitimacy of the recently removed Yemeni government, has started bombing Houthi forces. 

Why do the Saudis care if the Houthis run the table in Yemen?  Who knows, they may do a better job than the last few thugs that sat in Sana.  Actually, the answer is simple: the Saudis cannot continence a Shia government on the Arabian Peninsula (Bahrain is an island, so it doesn't count), and certainly not with a common border.  Publicly, the Saudis claim that they are only trying to restore peace and the democratically elected Yemeni government.  The truth is, the Saudis and the Iranians can't stand each other, and the Houthis have been heavily supported by Iran since the beginning.  Mark my word, the Saudis will do whatever is necessarily to guarantee that the Iranians do not have a presence on the Arabian Peninsula.  Just as I was starting this post, I noticed a news report come across the wire (yes, folks...I'm so cool and important that I have one of those "news wires") that Iranian warships were headed for Yemen.  Now that would be an

Yemen

escalation along the lines of Kennedy and Khrushchev back in 1962.  Then, as I was looking for an additional article, I came across The Times Of Israel piece titled, "Iran sends battleships to Yemen amid standoff with Saudis".  I had to take a break, I was laughing so hard.  A journalist actually WROTE that header, and then added a photo of a warship the size of a shrimp boat flying the Iranian flag!  I guess "battleships" ain't what they used to be.  Regardless of my welcome moment of humor, be assured that the Iranian navy only has a handful of ships that are capable of sailing as far as Yemen.  The people of Aden need not lose any sleep; I can categorically guarantee that tomorrow morning when they wake up and look in the direction of the Indian Ocean, they will not see Iranian battleships on the horizon.

Which brings me to my next point of interest.  This is something my friend Jennifer and I have been discussing for a few weeks now.  Occasionally the media will release a story that mentions "Saudi ground forces", or "Saudi armor being moved to the Yemeni border".  For the moment, this is the most important issue that comes to my mind.  The Saudis have committed themselves to some level of conflict by conducting air operations against Houthi targets in Sana and other strategic locations.  If the Houthis were to go head-to-head against the Saudi military, the result would be beyond ugly.  It would be a monumental mismatch.  As far as I know, what was the Yemeni Army is still making noise in and around Aden (Houthis on one side, Al-Qaeda on the other....one hell of a spot to be in).  If so, then in all likelihood the Houthis have not taken possession of the most modern and useful military vehicles and equipment.  So we are talking about Abrams tanks, state-of-the-art Artillery (trained in the Iraq war), fully-equipped infantry and special forces, support from helicopter gunships and guided missiles, etc., on one side, and the Houthis on the other.  A few months back I commented that I had seen a video of the Houthis storming some government building in Sana, and actually saw a guy on a camel, with a musket. Holy Lawrence of Arabia, folks.  Well, at least, historically, we are on the right continent.

The Saudis should make short work of the Houthis, and then what?  Clean out Al-Qaeda from eastern Yemen?  Now here is the potential complication that I have been discussing with Jennifer.  Everyone keeps talking about a Saudi ground invasion as if its a simple operation.  No way.  The Saudi armor is normally home-based in the north of the country and around Riyadh (I'm sure some units are also deployed in the Mecca/Medina/Jeddah triangle).  Would the Saudis transport their armor and artillery down west, to the coast, then down the coast road to Yemen?  Or is there another route that skirts the Rub al-Khali?  Whatever the case, for Saudi Arabia to relocate a military force large enough to finish the job at hand (the destruction of the Houthis), it would involve the mobilization of multiple divisions.  All of this activity should be visible for the world to watch on satellite.  I have yet to hear any media announce that a full-scale Saudi military build-up is taking place near Najran or Abu Arish.  So if it hasn't been noted, then how can it be taking place?  Now I'm taking a big chance with this post, because I'm writing it four days before it will see the light of day.  Many things can happen since then which would resolve the issues I have pointed out.  But as things stand today, from the perspective of this armchair general, I do not believe Saudi Arabia is preparing a full-out ground invasion of Yemen.     

Al-Shabab Makes A Statement.

Link: Al-Shabab Attacks University in Eastern Kenya.


On Thursday of last week, Somalian-based terror group Al-Shabab orchestrated an attack against unarmed, innocent students and teachers at Garissa University (College) in Garissa, Kenya.  To date, authorities state that 148 persons died in the attack, along with many if not all of the gunmen.  Since the attack included the taking of hostages (with Muslims and non-Muslims being separated), and some students are still listed as missing, Kenyan officials are hesitant to provide an exact number of gunmen.  I have received a bit of flack from visitors to my blog, because of the amount of attention I give to Africa.  I don't deny that I'm an Africaphile, but my focus on the continent as far as the blog is concerned, is solely related to the issue of terrorism.  To be more precise, I am concerned about the spread of the Islamic extremist message, and also the potential for recruitment of operatives.  It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to recognize that young men who have no jobs and very little hope for the future, are prime candidates for recruitment by these groups.  And young men looking for work is something that Africa, unfortunately, has way too many of.

The blog has addressed the increased presence of Al-Shabab in Kenya in numerous postings during the previous three months.  The International Media noted that Al-Shabab had taken a huge hit in their home country of Somalia, and an attitude seemed to creep in that maybe, just maybe, Al-Shabab was finished.  You can separate terrorist groups into countless sub-categories, but for the sake of this post, lets point out that there are two types of terror organizations: the ones who fight solely for the cause; and the ones that use their actions to also make a living.  Al-Shabab was never going to disappear, because they fit into the second category.  Too many members of Al-Shabab had found a way to feed themselves and their families, at a time and place where food is scarce.  Besides, Al-Shabab has too many operatives and too much equipment and too many friends to no longer be considered useful by Al-Qaeda.  Hence to move away from Somalia and into Kenya.  Analysts have been expecting a minor explosion in terrorist activity in Kenya for some time, probably because of its proximity to Somalia combined with the permanent state of economic stagnation.  I have been more concerned with the probability of recruitment in the vast townships outside Nairobi.  Whatever the vehicle, it is imperative that the Kenyan authorities realize that Al-Shabab is in the midst of relocating from Somalia to Kenya.

Many folks in Europe and the United States will automatically assume that by attacking shopping malls and college campuses, Al-Shabab is crippling its image among all the people of Kenya.  Unfortunately, that's not the case.  Forgive me if my comment appears to be ethnocentric (I don't believe it is), but sub-Saharan Africans don't automatically adopt the same perspective as westerners.  In many cases, they approach issues very differently.  By conducting the operation in Garissa, Al-Shabab was providing an example of its strength and power.  Likewise for the attack at the shopping center in Nairobi.  Where was the government?  Where were the police and the military?  Authorities in Nigeria have had a real problem dealing with the same predicament.  Some northerners (Muslims, to be sure) were beginning to support Boko Haram, because they certainly were looking like a winner.  Al-Shabab can provide a hungry, disillusioned young man with three essential things: food, a weapon, and a cause.

An important factor that should never be far from any discussion of Al-Shabab, is Al-Qaeda.  Just how close are these two groups?  I guarantee you that the analysts in Langley know.  If we take a quick look at Al-Qaeda's modus operandi regarding relations with other organizations, it would appear to be always be a one-sided relationship.  I think we will soon discover, though, that the "new" Al-Qaeda, under Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a bit more willing to be interactive with like-minded groups.  In the last few years of Osama bin-Ladin's life, the organization became very isolated and secretive, and for good reason.  I believe that Zawahiri believes in the philosophy of the struggle, just as much as he does the actions being taken.  I think we will see more instances of Al-Qaeda communicating with the Boko Harams and the Al-Shababs, and trying to lay the groundwork for a uniting message.  I believe a great deal has already been accomplished along this path, and the various groups on the ground in Syria are not nearly as separate from each other as they would lead the western media to believe.  Nothing lives forever.  Even Al-Qaeda will eventually disappear.  The key is the message.  It must resonate and be strong enough to live forever.  The message can survive long journeys across mountain ranges and oceans, when men cannot.  The message can survive the battles when all the combatants lie dead on the field.  Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda will depend upon the Boko Harams, and the Al-Qaeda in Magrebs, and the Al-Shababs, to be the caretaker and delivery system for that message.  And the message never changes.  it continues to be about domination, intolerance, hatred and bigotry.  It would behoove us to take down the caretakers before they really get a handle on the message.

Western Christianity More Determined Than Ever to Self-Destruct

Link: Christians Attacking Christians

"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."
Galatians 5:15

I'm sure it happens all year long, but for some reason, I seem to notice it more during Lent.  And there is no doubt I experience it more in the United States than anywhere else.  I'm referring to the obsession Christians have with bashing each other.  Up front, let me say that I have no intention of "being fair".  I promise to be as honest as my life experience's allow.  I will call it as I've seen it.  But first, let's have a look at the Islamic community at war with itself.  At present, the Christian world is being given a front-row seat into the eternal conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.  Internationally, the Sunni greatly outnumber the Shi'a, and consider themselves to be more enlightened, more educated and more refined.  The Shi'a have endured a type of prejudice within the Muslim community which assumes them to be less-educated and backward.  In the last few decades, the Shi'a have become much more vocal and aggressive, especially in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon.  The Shi'a Houthi group in Yemen has recently removed the Sunni government from power, and is threatening to draw Saudi Arabia into a conventional conflict in the streets of Sana'a.  All the while, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and inflicted repeated strategic defeats on the Islamic State forces in and around Tikrit.  Why is this worth mentioning?  Because for months, the ISF has been equipped and trained by the United States, and the U.S.-led air coalition has been attempting to provide air cover for operations against the IS; unfortunately for the U.S., during these months, the ISF had its ass handed to them.  It was only after Iran provided military advisors and the Shi'a militia became more effective that the tide of battle changed. 

Not surprisingly, Iran has received the credit for this change in fortune.  An "Intro to Islamic Studies" course will teach even the most rudimentary student that Iran is a majority Shi'a nation, and the flag-bearer internationally and diplomatically for the Shi'a community.  The Iranians freely admit to providing support to the Houthis, who were locked in a battle with both the Sunni-Yemeni government and Sunni-based Al-Qaeda, who controls a good part of southern Yemen, along the coast and right up to Aden.  I have recently become convinced that Sunni Islamic extremist groups send new recruits to Yemen to receive training for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  At present, the experience to be gained in Yemen is much more similar to Syria than the experience of fighting in Afghanistan.  The established Sunni governments of the Middle East, especially the monarchies, are very disturbed by the spread of Iranian (read: Shi'a) influence and authority, and the timing couldn't be worse.  Any day now, the Obama Administration will announce the successful negotiation of a Treaty with Iran, that allows the Iranians to peacefully pursue Nuclear research.  No doubt the treaty will call for inspections, but something tells me that the Iranians will be inspecting themselves.  So Iran seems to be hitting the crest of a wave, and now the world waits to see if they can successfully surf it on home.

In one form or another, I believe the organized religions of the world are going to have a confrontation.  I am hoping it will be a diplomatic engagement that results in greater understanding and peace in our lifetime.  If we look at the glass as half-empty, then we must consider a major military confrontation with forces that are attempting to forcibly convert the world to (Sunni) Islam.  For practical purposes, the Muslims need to resolve their own issue between Sunni and Shi'a.  But lets take  look at the other side of the coin, the Christian West.  Even though the hearts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in Europe, I can't speak for the European Christian community.  I realize that pockets of devout believers exist in Eastern Europe, but let's face it, the European Christian actually seems ashamed of their beliefs.  If Christianity is going to regenerate itself, in light of the potential threat of an organization like the Islamic State, it will have to take place in the United States.  And this is where the real tragedy takes shape.  In Europe, you can't find a full congregation anywhere in France, Spain, England or Sweden.  Young people no longer get married, and the secular aspect of once-Christian holidays now dominate.  Christmas is about Santa Claus and Rudolph, not the Christ-child.  Further west, the Obama Administration appears to be hostile to the American Christian community, but they have been careful in their actions.  The African-American community, which supports this Administration with over ninety-five percent of its vote, considers religion to be an important part of the family and daily life.  So the attacks on Christianity have been subtle and infrequent, except, of course, for the ongoing "Gay Marriage" debate.  But when I take a good look at what is taking shape in Syria, in Libya, In Nigeria, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Egypt, and in Somalia, I shudder for the future of my faith.  Regardless of what the left and the ACLU tell you, the United States was founded on Christian values.  That is the reason you find God mentioned in the Constitution, and most other legal documents of the time.  The founding fathers were not opposed to religion, they were opposed to a "STATE RELIGION".  But in the last three to four decades, we have allowed this tiny minority of uber-left Christophobes to remove any mention of Christian values from our schools and from any building that has U.S. government affiliation.  The Constitution speaks clearly about a separation of Church and State, which in my mind simply means we cannot have a state religion.  The beginning of the war against Christianity in the United States really picked up steam with the campaign against prayer in school.  The slippery slope has come into play in force, as now we can't pray for no injuries in H.S. sporting events, or allow religious based groups to make use of school facilities (library for meetings for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) after school hours.  Prepare to spend the night in jail of you attempt to put a Nativity Scene in front of a public school in December.

There is great strength in unity; I know this, and I'm no rocket scientist.  The various Christian denominations in the U.S. are perfectly suited to rising together in opposition to the long-term plans of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and setting the needed example.  Where religion is concerned, the American people give generously of their time and money.  We should be able to expect Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, et al), Protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Anglicans), Mormons, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelicals of all shapes and sizes, Seventh Day Adventists, and whoever I've left out, to come together and meet this threat, united in our faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins. I guarantee you, ALREADY someone has a problem with what I've just written.  Argh.  Recently, I attended a Sunday service of a denomination that is a bit of a mystery to me.  They spend most of their Sundays in worship, which is great, and they constitute one of the larger Christian denominations in the United States.  And as I listened to the sermon, I heard many things that were familiar to me.  In fact, nothing seemed to conflict with what I had been taught as a Catholic.  But then it happened.  The commentary from the pulpit began to include negative observations about another Christian denomination.  Things got back on track, but then it happened again. During the day, in between sermons and during, I noticed a certain amount of comfort in openly criticizing the beliefs/traditions/practices of other Christian denominations (heck, they probably don't even consider these other groups to be true Christians).  Now I can tell you in complete honesty that in my entire life as a Church-going Catholic, I can't remember the Priest EVER mentioning another denomination.  In fact, in times like these, I think its about time we started discussing Islamic extremism during Catholic services.  But what I heard that Sunday, I've never heard in a Catholic Church, although I'm sure it happens.  There is no doubt that every Christian denomination in the United States, will occasionally point out what the other "Christians" are doing wrong, "according to scripture".  Now if we the opposing side were allowed to defend themselves, no doubt they would interpret that same bit of scripture differently.  Its no big surprise that different people interpret religious text differently.  No one wants to consider the possibility that all along, they've been thinking the wrong thing.  The real nightmare begins when people start arguing about the multiple translations, and should be only translate Aramaic, or also Greek?  Now is the time that I stand up in the middle of everyone, and just scream at the top of my lungs, to get everyone to shut up and listen to me.

When did we, as Christians, turn away from the many things that united us, and start focusing exclusively on the few things on which we don't agree?  All of the groups I mentioned in the paragraph above (well, almost all) agree on the most important basic tenets of our faith.  We believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he is the son of God and that he suffered and died for us on the cross.  We believe in the resurrection; that he will return.  Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God is Love.  Its wrong to lie, and to steal from your neighbor.  Can we agree on that?  Murder is arguably the worst crime that a person can commit, although rape and sexual assault is right up there.  Are we still on the same page?  The age of adulthood, for legal purposes, is eighteen, and we have a Constitution that we use to guide and protect us in our everyday social interaction with each other.  We abhor discrimination of any kind, and believe a family is the best place in which to raise a child.  See how easy this is?  Am I on the right track?  Our common beliefs are the glue that hold us together, and one day we very well may have that bond tested by the evil we are watching in Syria and Iraq today.  There is no doubt in my mind that both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State organization are evil.  As such, they will use our own bad habits against us, which include our own intolerance of each other.  "I don't like Baptists, they don't dance."  "Catholics worship false idols".  "Pentecostals speak in tongues and don't translate it properly".  The list goes on, and on, and on.  We have managed to live with each other, to marry one another, and to build families together, all these differences notwithstanding.  And we built this country together.  We are the only ones that can allow for this destructive process to be reversed.  What we are required to do, for the love of our faith, our families and our country, is to search out our commonalities, our special bonds, and when the time comes, we must bring each other close together, so that, united, Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or whoever, will find no quarter here, not as long as they seek to divide.

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

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

I believe that Yemen and Iraq, and possibly locations in Pakistan and Africa, are currently being utilized as training locations for the IS foot soldier.  Intelligence services have already located a number of locations in Iraq which are suspected of being training centers of IS, but I believe that Yemen should be added to the list.  Those who disagree with me with point out that AQ already uses Yemen as a "breaking-in" location for its members.  No doubt AQ continues to conduct certain types of training in Yemen, alongside the IS.  In fact, I believe that they are one and the same.  We will know soon enough.  Eventually a few IS prisoners of war from the Iraq and Syria conflict will, during interrogation, mention travel to Yemen for training purposes.  If I'm correct, hopefully this will be the catalyst for the west to stop the damaging and wasteful routine of differentiating between these Sunni Muslim extremist groups.  I do not buy into the narrative that the leader of Khorasan is angry at al-Baghdadi, so the IS and Khorasan can't be friends, or that AQ is embarrassed by the number of young men who were decapitated by IS this week, so AQ can't be tainted by association.  Believe me, at the end of the day, that AK47 will be pointed at you and I and our children, it will not be pointed at another extremist.  I might be a bit more sympathetic to the argument that major rifts exist between various Sunni Muslim extremist groups, if I could be presented with hard evidence.  Social media captures aren't worth a bucket of shit, and neither are rumors that someone from one group shot up a few people from another group.

Islamic extremism is a giant of a beast, but at present, it has only one head, and that is Ayman al-Zawahiri.  Beneath that head, a number of phalanges are jockeying, positioning themselves to move into the void once the sixty-three year old Zawahiri finally floats off to meet his virgins (we might just find him as well).  For anyone who argues that these groups are not fighting together with a unique, singular goal in mind, I would ask them to please have look at the state of affairs in the world today.  I cannot recall a time in my life when terrorism was so rampant and so conventional.  Our military is handicapped by an Administration made up of political appointees and outright amateurs, and every move we make is reactive.  Not surprisingly, the same can be said for our efforts and strategy in the Ukraine.  When IS originally became aggressive in Iraq, our attempt at being an ally resulted in an entire Iraqi Army Corps deserting the field of battle, and people scurrying out of Baghdad as if it were Atlanta before Sherman came to town.  The Iranians step in, and IS appears to be in retreat.  The case is different in Syria, which is almost impossible to evaluate effectively.  The IS (and AQ) are active in Tunisia, Libya, and various other countries in Africa.  Its interesting to note that the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram recently declared its allegiance to the IS.  Well guess what folks; Boko Haram has already declared its loyalty to AQ.  Really, what is the difference?  Both groups are working in the same arena towards the same goal: the destruction of the west and Israel.  You can put all that Caliphate bullshit into the backseat.  No doubt Mr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi envisions himself as the Caliph in such a manifestation, but Zawahiri sees it for what it is: just another story in a sea of distractions, that keep the infidels from unifying their aim at the singular target.

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.