Revisiting the Iraq War.

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

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

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

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

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

As terrorism becomes part of our daily lives, President Obama is not even looking for the battlefield.

As much as possible, I try and keep the blog politics-free.  The truth is, that occasionally, its just not possible, nor should it be.  Politics impact every aspect of our lives, and it certainly plays a large part in the current events we address here at Mukhabarat, Baby!  The day of the San Bernardino shootings, I posted a blog that delivered a dire warning regarding the future.  I opined that if Islamic extremists had been able to develop a network of sleeper cells in cities across the United States, than we can expect not a rash of high profile attacks, but a monthly event to keep the issue in the news, and keep the fear alive in our communities.  The enemy doesn't want a body count as much as they want to change the way we live our lives.  An attack in this west coast location this week, and another incident in the southeast two weeks later, will be the modus operandi of a forward-thinking terrorist group.  As long as the newspapers and the media are talking about preparedness and the need to react by altering our schedules and lifestyles, then the bad guys are on track.  The attack in Philadelphia today, and other similar incidents have me very concerned that the enemy is taking this route, in its never-ending effort to see us abandon our hard-won freedoms and retreat behind locked doors and security systems.  I urge my readers to live your lives with a reasonable amount of caution ("no vacation to Damascus this spring, Mildred"), but to fight the enemy with the tools for which so many heroes over the years have made the ultimate sacrifice: enjoy the freedoms we have, spend time out with family and friends, and take that vacation to the Ozarks.  For those of us who can no longer carry a rifle on the battlefield, we have our own way of fighting back.  We must live free.

Last week, President Obama once again used Executive Authority to make law.  Executive Authority exists for a reason.  It provides the president with the tools necessary to make decisions in a time of great national crisis.  President Obama, taking full advantage of the raw emotions relating to the recent events in San Bernardino, signed an ideologically motivated law that will make it more difficult for persons who want to legally purchase a firearm.  Obama sees himself as a master of theater, but truly, he is an amateur.  We've seen the tears before, and bringing the kids on stage isn't a novel idea either.  The law that you passed using abusing Executive Action will not impact criminals and terrorists who want to repeat what occurred in San Bernardino.  Creating more laws to impede law-abiding citizens has been shown time-and-again to accomplish one thing: it strengthens the Black Market, which is where the bad guys usually get their weapons, anyways.  The shooters in San Bernardino allegedly convinced a friend to  buy the weapons.  Will Obama's new law prevent friends from buying firearms and then illegally selling them or giving them away?  I don't think so.  The point is, Obama is anxious to solidify his legacy as a progressive thinker who didn't let something as meaningless as our checks-and-balances system of government interfere with his obligation to help the American people who are too stupid to help themselves.

I've heard a number of Obama supporters screeching about the use of Executive Action by George Bush (oh, how they do still hate Bush! LOL.) and others.  If a president chooses to utilize Executive Action in  manner that does not threaten the separation of powers and our checks-and-balances system, then it is not an ABUSE.   Executive Action has been used in the past, but not for avoiding a confrontation with Congress that the Executive Branch is sure to lose.  Obama put Executive Action into effect because he would not be able to get Congress to pass gun-control legislation that was possibly unconstitutional and did nothing to address the actual problem.  While this issue is being slapped back-and-forth by commentators and analysts in the media, ISIS, Al-Qaida, and all the other party poopers continue to kill people.  I believe we have reached a point in the history of the United States in which domestic terrorism in the form of the activation of Islamic Extremist sleeper cells (not just groups but single operators as well) may very well become a part of our lives.  Our immigration system, built for a moderate level of security by a nation with a tradition and history of welcoming visitors, is not difficult to exploit. Not only would it be possible for the bad guys to set up shop through legal entry on tourist visas, but hiring an expensive and proven smuggler in Mexico is not Rocket Science; the enemy can enter illegally just as well.  But the real problem is our complete unwillingness to address the problem at its root.  If ISIS is destroyed (and we should take out Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, Khorasan, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Boko Haram simultaneously), then the cells in foreign countries, no longer having access to a support network and resources, dry up and disappear.  President Obama would be hard-pressed to declare war on Islamic terrorism, considering he has just sponsored a nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's greatest supporter of terrorism (you know Iran....the "death to America" bunch).

As things are, we can only hope that our superb law enforcement and intelligence organizations can keep a lid on things until we can have a change in the oval Office.  Actually, I'm predicting the use of Executive Action on Amnesty/Immigration Reform as well; President Obama does still have a year to work on that legacy, you know.

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

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

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

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

Interest in the weapons and explosives used in Paris attacks draws attention to smuggling networks and European black market.

Link: Paris attacks raises the issue of weapons smuggling in Europe.

Following last Friday's horrendous terror attacks in Paris, the issue plastered on most of the front pages of all the European newspapers is the Syrian refugee crisis.  Its a simple jump from Islamic extremists to the unknown factor of tens of thousands of basically unidentified Muslim refugees being resettled in Europe.  No doubt the number of terrorists or potential terrorists within the refugee population is miniscule.  Certainly its possible that ISIS or even Al -Qaida could hide operatives within the groups that arrived from Syria, but the sad reality is, these groups already have people who are willing to die for the cause.  There is no need to move operatives into Europe within the refugee pipeline, when it is possible to just put them on a plane.  Forging passports and related identity documents is a booming business.  Be that as it may, the timing of these attacks has European leaders revisiting the idea of large resettlement schemes.  ISIS carried out these attacks for a number of reasons.  First and foremost, they are intent on spreading fear in our communities and giving people reason to conduct their lives as usual.  ISIS dreams of the day that the towns roll up the streets at sundown, and parents stop sending their kids to school out of security concerns.  ISIS is also determined to sow confusion, not only with the attacks in urban, residential areas, but also by encouraging the movement of large numbers of refugees into Europe.  Its not a coincidence that this attack occurred as Europe and the United States were discussing the most humane method by which to address the refugee issue.  These attacks have reintroduced the issue for debate in the various European capitals; many EU states are asking for clarification regarding the EU policy on refugees, while many in the poorer states are asking why it is their responsibility to pay taxes to house and feed these people who aren't even European.  Confusion reigns in many corners, which gives ISIS another small victory.  At the end of the day, if the discussion leads some states to refuse refugees, then the label "racist" will return to everyday conversation, and ISIS will have won a more substantial victory.  ISIS realizes that they can't defeat us with the limited resources currently at their disposal.  Their goal is to pit us against ourselves until they are able to confront us in a conventional military capacity.

I have yet to hear a commentator or newscaster opine about the origins of the weapons and explosives used in the Friday evening attacks.  I have seen some thoughtful editorials on the subject, especially in the French press.  Given the strict weapons laws in place in the EU, how were these eight monsters able to arm themselves with Kalashnikovs and AK47s?  As for the suicide vests, any person with the proper training could probably find the parts and ingredients necessary to construct such a device at the local Walmart or Auchan, but my instincts tell me that the forensics people will determine that the origin of the parts and explosives used to build the suicide vests to be Syria.  The sad truth is that it is quite simple to smuggle just about anything through Europe.  The smuggling networks that exist in Europe are amazingly intricate and business-like.  Again, I will rely on my instincts when I say that the weapons used in these attacks probably made their way through the Balkans.  During the time that I spent in Kosovo in early 2000, I discovered that the people of Kosovo are tremendously honest, kind and hard-working.  Unfortunately, it is also the lynchpin location for the largest smuggling operations that feed Europe.  The Black Market dominates much of the economy of Kosovo, and probably of neighboring states as well.  When considering the issue of smuggling, most people consider the illegal transportation of goods such as alcohol and cigarettes.  Well, underneath the boxes of cigarettes are crates of weapons and ammunition.  It is a simple issue of supply and demand.  If people are willing to pay enough money, then these networks will find a way to smuggle the requested items.  We live in a world were women are still transported illegally across borders for the sex business; sneaking weapons into a country shouldn't be that difficult.  As for the suicide vests, I'm sure that the perpetrators were able to request/order exactly what they needed in the way of explosives.  The detailed and professional nature of organized smuggling in Europe should make it easier for European law enforcement agencies to disrupt the movement of illegal weapons into Europe.  The French police have started really focusing on this issue, which will hopefully result in one-less option for terrorists in their effort to obtain weapons.

How serious is the most recent resurgence of the Taliban?

Link: Taliban forces making gains in Kunduz.


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

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

Obama's treaty with Iran surpasses Neville Chamberlain in sacrificing international security in search of a political legacy.

Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
           B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.

So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations.  How quickly we forget who we are dealing with.  Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict.  Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight.  The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War.  Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia.  The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research.  But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend".  And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama.  And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.

I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.  All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative.  I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right?  Fat chance.  Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office.  Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world.  The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives.  Now for a bit of simple, common-sense.  ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida.  Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf.  The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence.  Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala.  Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire.  There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon.  It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities.  But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections.  Well, we saw how far that demand went.

Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race.  Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool.  This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents.  Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart.  In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base.  I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago.  Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike.  On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets.  This is the world we live in today, 2015.  Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves.  Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base?  What an absurd law.  I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed.  I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader..... 

Sure, the Islamic State has its share of Ex-Ba'athists; but its still a religiously motivated organization at heart.

Links: A. ISIS fighters in Ramadi are ex-Ba'ath Party members.
           B. Ex-Ba'athists helping organize ISIS.

In the past few weeks, I have repeatedly heard a bit of information that is taking on a life of its own.  I have been told by persons I respect and persons whose news sources are dubious at best, that the Islamic State/ISIS, is being controlled and run by ethnic Iraqi former Saddam loyalists and Ba'ath Party members.  Last year I had a long conversation with a good friend who happens to be a retired Iraqi General and a former Ba'ath Party member (his brother and father, now deceased, were both party representatives from Baghdad).  He informed me, almost off-handedly, that some of his former colleagues were involved with ISIS.  He elaborated that these individuals were assisting in the creation and expansion of different departments within the organization, including intelligence and recruitment.  He laughed as he pointed out that like many Iraqis, they were desperate to bring home a paycheck, and at least someone was willing to compensate them for their skills.  So the demographic that is the Islamic State now includes a number of former Ba'ath Party hacks, I thought.  It only strengthened my existing opinion that the Islamic State is determined to develop the characteristics of a conventional military force.  When George Bush (and more importantly Donald Rumsfeld) was considering the best way to defeat Al-Qaeda, the decision was made to force the terrorist organization to fight a conventional war, something it was not designed to do.  Although the insurgency and the Abu Ghraib fiasco dragged things out way longer than should have been necessary, the strategy actually worked, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Al-Qaida and the Taliban just did not have the personnel, the equipment, the resources, or the infrastructure to combat the U.S. military.  Interestingly enough, the Islamic State has been successful since it started behaving more as a legitimate armed forces, which requires a plan for resupply and reinforcements, and also must include a transportation and communication network.  When Al-Qaeda works in small units, transportation and communication are much simpler.  But the Islamic State now commands tens of thousands of personnel, and it can be no surprise that former regime elements, Sunni no doubt, have joined the cause, and that ISIS, which had a definite need for that expertise, welcomed them with open arms.

But this development can be easily misunderstood.  In no way does the motivation expressed by the Islamic State dovetail with the Socialist manifesto of the Arab Ba'ath Party that at one time controlled both Iraq and Syria.  Do not read too much into the fact that the intelligence branch of the Islamic State is run in the same manner as the intelligence branch of the Iraqi Army.  Certainly Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, is ethnic Iraqi.  But he was not a supporter of Saddam Hussein.  Because the roots of the ISIS movement can be traced to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", it should be no surprise that a number of Iraqis are prominent in the organization.  But I am beginning to see this perspective take root that the ghost of Saddam and Ba'ath Party adherents are dictating policy for the Islamic State.  Do not be distracted by this red herring.  Do not forget what the Islamic State represents and exactly what methods it has used to achieve its ends. No doubt Saddam did some heinous things, but is always attempted to cover-up or deny the existence of such government-sanctioned activity.  The Islamic State WANTS you as a first-row witness to its execution of persons because of religious persuasion.  More importantly, don't forget that the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein were interested in political motivation as opposed to religious.  Saddam (and his buddy Bashir al-Assad) were in fear of the Islamic Extremist movement, and directed their security forces to deal with it harshly.  In its inception and at the height of its popularity, the Ba'ath movement was inherently political.  It sought to enfranchise the Arab worker in all nations and create a political movement with Socialist leanings that would sweep the party into power in places like Egypt and Turkey.  The Islamic State exists for the purpose of the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, a nation ruled by a Caliph (religious leader) with the Quran as the law of the land. 

The former Iraqi Ba'ath Party members who are active in the Islamic State are the ones being co-opted, not vice versa.  And that should have been expected.  When the U.S. arrived in Iraq in 2003 and the Iraqi military has ceased to exist, everyone wanted to become a part of the U.S. military force that now appeared to hold the reigns of power.  In reality, its just a circumstance of survival.  People have families to provide for, and they  will do what is necessary to reach that goal.  What would I do to feed my family?  Just about anything.