Hezbollah keeping Assad regime from rapid contraction.

Link: Hezbollah assists regime forces to retake Syrian border city.

We have been noting for the past few months that recent losses to Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN) and the Islamic Front (IS) have effectively ended any regime threat in eastern Syria.  The Syrian Army still controls a few widely dispersed communities in the east (including Hasaka), but Assad's only real area of influence and control is far west Syria, from Aleppo down south to Damascus.  The regime continues to control the air (except when the U.S.-led, anti-IS air coalition is operational), which has limited recent attempts by the rebels to take Aleppo.  We have also noted that, along with a decreased regime presence in the east, Assad no longer seems to be receiving much support from Russia.  We opined that without his Russian benefactor, that Assad would eventually be obliged to throw in the towel.  I'm sorry to say that we didn't take into account the impact of increased aid from Hezbollah, and by proxy, Iran.  Hezbollah fighters were instrumental in the regime's capture of Zabadani, a town located on the Syria/Lebanon border that until recently was held by rebels. 

If Iranian support for the Assad regime continues (or increases), he will likely survive any offensive by JN or the IS to take Damascus or even Aleppo.  Hezbollah has no problem moving fighters from Lebanon to Syria, and former rebel supply lines that went through Lebanon have been eradicated.  It will be interesting to see if Hezbollah increases its military presence in Syria, or if we might start to see Iranian advisors among Assad's troops, as we have occasionally seen in Iraq.  Depending on how ambitious Iran wants to be, the IS is presently confronted by Iranian-backed regime elements in Syria, and Iranian-supported militia in Iraq.  Given that the IS is a Sunni-based movement, we note the extension of the conflict between Shi'a and Sunni.  Iran has already influenced the rise of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and the activities of the Shi'a militias in Iran.  With the involvement of Hezbollah and the increased support by Iran for the Assad regime, Iran seems intent on setting the stage for another Sunni-Shi'a conflict.  As this situation develops, the United States is faced with the difficult task of identifying who is the more dangerous enemy: the IS, with its growing conventional army and its network of affiliates around the globe, or Iran, which is bound and determined to develop a nuclear weapon capability, and can't seem to stop fomenting Shi'a unrest in various hotspots in the Middle East.

All things considered, this might be a good time for the United States to allow both the Shi'a extremists and the Sunni hot heads to "whittle" each other down a bit.  Not very long ago, the CIA might take the opportunity to create a covert "influence campaign", to utilize social media and other resources to agitate the two groups, and get them to go after each other.  It would certainly keep their focus away from sponsoring international terrorism for a while, or at least that would be the intention.  But those type of operations are a thing of the past.  The Obama Admnistration would never use the CIA to conduct an operation of that nature.  As things stand, we find ourselves supporting the Free Syrian Army, which when we last checked, was actively engaging regime elements, as opposed to the IS, and continuing this nebulous air campaign, that seems to generate no intelligence or news whatsoever.  How much are we spending on those two initiative?  When Bush was in office, didn't we hear a never-ending cacophony from the left about the taxpayers dollars being wasted?  Isn't this a bit of waste as well?  If not, then great, but I want to know the details: how hs it been a success?


(Separate Comment)

The Reality of Illegal Immigrant Felons in the U.S.

We have noticed a rash of news stories lately regarding illegal immigrant felons who have been allowed to stay in the United States after being released from jail, only to offend again.  Because sensational news gets more attention, the stories that involve children or loss of life will always be the priority.  Do you know what a "Sanctuary City is"?  For those who don't, a Sanctuary City is a community that purposely choses to NOT inform Federal Law Enforcement when a foreign national felon has served their time and is being released to the street.  The law requires the community local law enforcement to notify Homeland Security Deportations, so these felons can be returned to their country of nationality.  But some cities, including just about all the big ones on the west coast, allow for something called "Sanctuary" to exist in their cities, because they believe that it is cruel and wrong to deport these individuals, regardless of the crime or how many times that they have re-entered the U.S. illegally.

Statistics show that certain felons are very likely to re-offend, but this doesn't matter to the Sanctuary folks.  Who cares if a teenager is shot dead outside a grocery store, or a mother of two is raped and strangled to death on a bike path?  The only thing that matters are the INVISIBLE rights of the foreign national who presence in our country is predicated on the fact that broke our Immigration Law, and has since racked up a few more violations.  No doubt the groups opposed to Amnesty will use every one of these stories as a means to frighten and mobilize the population, but the truth is the truth.  We do have a problem in this country with an outrageously high number of illegal immigrant felons, the majority of which are not presently incarcerated.

Do you know where your children are?

Thoughts and observations on Iraq and Syria.

[ALink: Washington Post blames Iraq for ISIS success.


A quick read of the Washington Post's latest analysis of the conflict in Iraq has left me a bit disappointed.  The Post seems content on laying the blame for the disaster that is Iraq at the feet of the Iraqi government.  They would be absolutely correct in their assessment.  They would also be displaying a sad lack of journalistic integrity and follow-through.  Once the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) retook Iraq without the assistance of the Shi'a militia, the Obama Administration was quick to take as much credit as the press corps would allow.  Its probably accurate to opine that Tikrit would not have fallen as quickly if it weren't for the air support provided by the Obama Air Coalition.  The fact that Tikrit was retaken without the militias gave support to the idea that the ISF and the Air Coalition could successfully defeat the Islamic State (IS) alone.  All the while, analysts with a bit of experience and patience to their credit, were politely reminding the excited Administration folks that trouble was brewing in Anbar.  The truth is, trouble never stopped brewing in Anbar.  The IS had every intention of an offensive to take Ramadi and isolate Haditha and the al-Asad Air Base, long before the retaking of Tikrit.  If anything, it made the task easier by withdrawing the more experienced and reliable elements of the ISF (undeniably necessarily now that the militias have lost favor) from defensive positions in Anbar to the assault on Tikrit.  As we expected, Joe Biden's celebration of the fall of Tikrit was short-lived, as everything since has turned to shit.  Baiji will probably fall (the Obama Administration is already negating the importance of Baiji by reminding the press that the facility does not have the adequate professional staff on hand to properly function), as will other small pockets of ISF resistance, and Baghdad will begin to sense the noose.

Today we learned that IS had taken Palmyra, and if the Islamic State follows its usual game plan, then antiquities from the time of the Old Testament are likely to be destroyed.  We've heard this refrain before, as every sacred archeological site in Mesopotamia seems to either be ruined on or the chopping block.  Call me uncaring and cold-hearted, but the loss of Nineveh, Babylon and Palmyra aren't what gives me a case of the Red-Ass.  What really burns me up learning about all the vehicles and equipment that the ISF left in Ramadi!  I want to know, was this equipment LOANED to Iraq, or was it sold to them?  We went through this once before, in the Battle for Tikrit Part I.  At that time, the equipment that was deserted on the battlefield and picked up by IS fighters, was all donated to the Iraqi military.  But this time around, I expect some accounting!  Anyone in the Democratic Party ever heard of financial accountability?  How about, "once-burned, twice shy"?  I know at least twenty Humvees were left for the IS to confiscate, but what really worries me is, what about artillery,  rocket launchers, mortars, ammunition?  Did the U.S. taxpayer AGAIN pay for equipping the IS?  From this point forward, I suggest we require payment UP-FRONT for any military equipment. 

Lets chat a bit about the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA).  That's all we can do, is chat a bit, because no one has ever really spoken about it.  True, the FSA has a nice introduction, which provided a narrative which the press corps was supposed to read between the lines.  The not-so discreetly hidden message in the narrative was that this FSA was supposed to act as the surrogate ground force that the Obama Administration was unwilling to introduce into the conflict.  Its my understanding that extensive training was undertaken in Jordan, with careful steps taken not to rush the issue.  Well, folks, the issue appears to have rushed itself.  I have no clue where the FSA is located and if they have actually seen any action.  In fact, I was relying on some form of engagement, so that I would have an idea what side they would be fighting.  We can assume that the FSA would not engage regime forces, so would IS forces be the main target?  Well, they might want to get moving, because the IS seems about ready to pin-the-tail on this donkey.

I wouldn't advise anyone to keep a lookout for the FSA.  I assume that given recent developments, it would be difficult to stop the IS and Jabhat al-Nusrah from finishing off the Assad regime.  Certainly the FSA, if it had the numbers, could cause all sorts of problems for the IS in the area south of Damascus and near the Jordan border and the Golan Heights, but I wouldn't advise getting too close to areas patrolled by the Israelis.  So yes, the FSA could cause trouble for the IS in the area of Damascus (and south), but what would be the point?  All it would accomplish is possibly provide a lifeline to Assad, although even that seems unlikely.  The smart move is to disband this army of modern-day mercenaries and give them a bit of cash for their troubles.  What worries would be some brilliant military strategist in the Administration making the argument that the FSA should be used in Iraq to fight the IS.  Ideally, forcing the IS to defend its western border in Anbar sounds like a smart move.  But I have always been opposed to surrogate armies.  If the cause isn't important enough to use U.S. troops, then it must be someone else's war.   

The Shit is About to Hit The Fan, Folks.

Links: A. Real-time situation report from the battlefields of Iraq.
           B. Real-time situation report from the battlefields of Syria.
           C. Real-time situation report from the battlefields of Ukraine.

Before we take a graceful swan-dive into the subject of today's post, I want to bring attention to the three links that I have provided.  All three links are generated from the same blog, "The Institute for the Study of War" (ISW).  At times I have praised certain websites and blogs, especially if I find myself becoming a regular visitor.  But I must truly take my hat off to the people behind this blog.  I am repeatedly amazed by the detail, accuracy, and familiarity with ground truth, that is so evident in ISW updates.  I am most impressed with ISW's ability to provide the same high-caliber reporting from three separate battlefields.  Personally, I'm already combining the Syrian and Iraqi zone of conflict, but Ukraine is entirely different nut altogether.  Everyday I wait for my email from ISW; kudos to whoever runs the show for turning me into and out-and-out ISW junkie!

After taking a few minutes to praise another blog, allow me to take a few more to praise my own.  We have been raising the warning flag regarding the Islamic State's (IS) ability to threaten Baghdad for some months now.  Yesterday, the IS launched a furious assault on Ramadi and also NW of Ramadi in the direction of al-Asad Air Base, a location that had received a great deal of attention from just about everyone.  It is likely that the IS will occupy Ramadi, at least most of it, and also probable that the ISF, and or a Shi'a militia, will snatch it back.  But this game of give-and-take is accomplishing something strategic and tremendously valuable to IS.  You see, the continued battles for the Sunni communities on the road to Jordan provide the IS with the opportunity to seed the bedroom communities of Baghdad with sympathizers, and eventually operatives.  The style of semi-urban warfare takes a page out of Vietnam.  One of the many reasons that the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were initially so successful in the Tet Offensive of 1968 was the pre-positioning of sympathizers and irregular forces in the close suburb communities outside Saigon, DaNang, and Hue.  We are convinced that the IS has been seeding various Sunni residential areas outside the capital with supporters and operatives, waiting for the order to become operational.  The IS also seeded the Yarmouk Refugee Camp just outside of Damascus, and they were so successful that analysts are already conceding that territory to the IS.  Its not rocket science.

We at Mukhabarat, Baby! are growing more concerned every day for the still-substantial number of American and European non-combatants in Baghdad.  Its my understanding that certain agencies have re-deployed officers back to Iraq after the Obama drawdown.  Here is a very important question: if the U.S. has non-combatants (intelligence officers, engineers, instructors, linguists, support staff, etc.) widely dispersed in places such as Basra, Erbil, Mosul, and Baghdad, who do these people look to for protection?  I'm not exactly sure how many U.S. troops are in Iraq and what their designation happens to be, by last November President Obama was given approval to send 1,500 troops (specifically in a training posture) to Iraq.  So whatever civilians the U.S. government and its contractors have in Iraq are relying upon the lightly-trained Iraqi Security Forces and possibly the odd Shi'a militia for protection.  Forgive me, but we find this arrangement unacceptable, given the IS' track record in dealing with prisoners.  We must be proactive, and either move our people out, or take steps to ensure their safety by the U.S. military.

Syria also appears to be nearing the finishing line, but we've been beating this horse to death lately.  Because of the myriad of equities involved, the IS may not go in for the "coup de grace" for some time yet.  If Russia had given the slightest inclination of providing Assad the military support he needs, then possibly it would be best for the IS to strike while the iron's hot. But Russia seems solely interested in dumping its excess weaponry and equipment in eastern Ukraine, where it is greedily gobbled up by the various separatists groups. I saw a video clip last week that I haven't been able to relocate, otherwise I would have included it on my links.  It was a clip of a group of separatists trying to make heads or tails out of a relatively small missile or grenade launcher of some sort.  To cut to the chase, the evil guerilla driving accidentally ran over one of his guerilla buddies.  I haven't laughed so much since the photo of the Pakistani guy catching his arm on fire as he tries to ignite a U.S. flag.  Priceless.  Back to Syria.....certainly it appears that the IS is in position to pick off regime-held towns along the Anti-Lebanon mountain chain, until reaching Damascus.  If Assad were still in town, then the IS could seal up the place and starve him out.  But by then, Assad will have vacated the premises for more pleasant digs.  But the IS must eventually address a few political issues regarding the various factions that have been opposing Assad as well, some of them for a much longer period of time.  We have argued that the numerous groups, including Jabhat al-Nusrah, Khorasan, and the IS, are, at the end of the day, loyal to the Sunni cause and the leadership of Osama bin-Laden.  Would the IS share authority with the others?  And what of the Free Syrian Army?  Obviously they can't be abandoned after volunteering to fight as a proxy ground force for the Pentagon.  Something tells me that the lot of 'em, families in tow, will be receiving Resident Alien status.  And who am I to complain?  At least its something that this administration does well.

Of the three trouble spots that we've been examining (with the expert guidance of the ISW), Ukraine appears to be the one with the most staying power.  I can't imagine that the Russian Army will roll across the Ukrainian border, make short work of the Ukrainian Army, and then occupy the entire country.  This festering boil will continue to fester for some time to come.  Putin is obviously committed at some level.  Russian troops and tanks are in Ukraine, and Russian Migs and Sukhois are patrolling the skies in the east.  At one point, it appeared that Putin was attempting to use the Donbas region as a bargaining chip, to ensure that Kiev and the west recognize the Russian occupation of Crimea.  As Putin, who still thinks like an intelligence officer, sees it, a simple trade would have been sufficient.  We stop destabilizing Donbas, you forget about Crimea.  But we've moved quite a bit down the road since then.  The Ukrainian Army has shown itself to be far less effective than originally thought.  In fact, in many instances, it has been the separatists who have won the day in direct clashes with the Ukrainian Army.  Its possible that the government of Ukraine is holding back its major military resources in case a defense of Kiev of the heartland is necessary.  We can't say.  One thing is for sure...the Ukrainian Army currently in the field in the southeast, will be chewed up quickly if the anticipated offensive takes place as expected.  Its true that members of the U.S. military are currently in Ukraine, assisting in the training of the many new recruits that have poured into the recruitment offices in the west of the country.  But what the Ukrainian military needs more than anything else (short of western military intervention), is a dump of military weapons and equipment.  If the G.I. from Savannah, Georgia is going to tech the young Ukrainian private how to shoot an M16, it would be nice if an M16 were available for the private to use.  Back to the bigger picture....we still aren't convinced that Putin has in interest in swallowing up the entire Ukraine. It would be more trouble than its worth.  A struggling economy, reliance on Russia for energy, a vocal, agitated youth movement, and issues with NATO would be waiting for Vladimir if he managed to occupy the entire country.  Its possible that he simply wants to bring Ukraine back into the fold, and at the same time, annex both Donbas and Crimea.  Crimea is worth the hassle....but Donbas?     

Developments in Ukraine and Syria.

Links: A. U.S. Troops Training Ukrainian Army.
           B. Syrian War Nearing Conclusion?


No doubt the Ukrainian military is pleased that the United States has provided military trainers to prepare the growing number of Ukrainian Army recruits for combat, as all indications point to an escalation in hostilities.  Although I don't recall the legislation that allows for U.S. troops to be peripherally involved in the conflict, I'm glad that at least we have made it clear that we believe Russia to be the antagonist.  Like most of Congress, I urgently call for the Obama Administration to provide immediate military assistance to Ukraine.  Today I noticed a Reuters Article that quoted Vladimir Putin as identifying Ukraine as a "fascist state".  Not to be outdone, Reuters took the time to educate all of us idiots out here that the Ukrainian government and parliament were passing legislation that could be interpreted as "fascist".  News flash to Reuters (News Flash to a premier news organization?): Ukraine is under military assault by a nation with a much larger army and greater access to military resources.  What country does not rely on extreme internal measures during war, to protect the safety of the people and the integrity of the state?  Heck, Russia has draconian internal laws and they are always the aggressor in these instances.  By my history book, Russia has not been invaded since Hitler's Operation Barbarossa in 1941.  Since the dissolution of Communist Russia, the Russians have managed to be militarily aggressive towards Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine.  I'm waiting for Reuters to point out that "invading your neighbors under false pretenses" is a tad bit fascist, but I'm not holding my breath.

During the 9 May May Day celebrations in Donetsk and Luhansk, the separatists paraded all sorts of military gear in front of small of enthusiastic crowds.  Interestingly enough, much of the hardware on display was supposed to be removed from Ukraine according to the provisions of the 12 February Cease Fire signed in Minsk by Russia and Ukraine.  Of course, the Russians will claim that the military vehicles and weapons on display were removed according to the Cease Fire obligations, but had only recently been returned.  And those of us with a shred of common sense will chalk that claim up to another in a long list of outright Russian lies.  Here is a bit of free intelligence for everyone who hasn't caught on yet:  Vladimir Putin is a liar, and the Russian government cannot be trusted to fulfill a treaty requiring it to clean a litter box.  And yet, looking about as moronic as is humanly possible, here is Secretary of State John "Frankenstein" Kerry, discussing the possibility of a new Cease Fire with Putin.  What is congenitally wrong with these people, that they continue to go on trusting people who have proven time and again that they can't be trusted?  Has it been that long since the Russian separatists in Ukraine, misusing the latest in Russian military equipment, shot down a commercial jet full of innocent men, women and children?  Lets not forget that the Russian government disseminated every kind of bizarre "breaking news story" to try and blame the incident on everyone from the Ukrainians to the United States.  The Ukrainian front line in southeastern Ukraine is soon to be assaulted by Russian weapons, Russian warplanes, and probably even Russian troops.  The brave of ineffectual Ukrainian Army (and the undisciplined collection of foreign mercenaries they've contracted, who can walk off the battlefield at any moment, and will) will be no match for the firestorm that approaches, and when we all wake up a few weeks later, Kiev itself maybe in the Russian's gun sights.

Simply put, the only action that Putin will respect is a hard military response.  And you can bet your last ruble that he needn't worry about seeing one.

As we have been reporting over the last month, the pro-Assad military has suffered one strategic calamity after another, mostly at the hands of Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN).  In reality, aside from a few isolated and unimportant outposts out in the eastern desert, Assad's authority is limited to Syria "west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains.  He has lost both the border in the north to the Kurds, and the Jordanian border to a variety of opposition. Folks are beginning to grumble about chemical agents because the use of such unpredictable weapons is usually reserved for desperate times.  And lets be clear about one thing:  the clock is ticking on the Assad Presidency.  The key was the lack of real support from his usual sugar daddy, Russia.  We had expected the Russians to take advantage of last year's lull in fighting to rebuild Assad's armor capabilities and air force.  Aside from a few new helicopters, we see no indication that Russia has made any kind of effort to strengthen Assad's army.  Is it possible that Putin realized that his dream of a Russian naval port on the Mediterranean wasn't going to happen, at least not on the Syrian coast?  Is it possible that the situation in Ukraine demanded too much focus from the Russian military, so Assad was cut lose?  That would be highly unlikely, so the decision was more of a pragmatic, realistic choice on the part of Putin.  With the extremist armies growing in strength, and Turkey screaming for Assad's removal, Putin probably weighed his equities and decided that Assad would have to sink-or-swim on his own.  And the last few weeks have been all about swimming for Assad and his dwindling military.

Indications are that the Islamic State (IS), which had been quiet on the Syrian front as of late (and making lots of noise in Iraq), is about to launch a two-pronged offensive in Syria, exclusively targeting regime forces.  So let me scream this from the rafters, so those in Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon can hear: we need a proactive plan regarding what happens after Assad leaves.  The United States cannot find itself in a Libya, part II situation.  Even though the Free Syrian Army still hasn't made an impression on the battlefield, is it possible that they can be utilized to protect our interests and equities in Syria?  We didn't spend billions of dollars on training an army and leading an air campaign in order to have no say-so in post-Assad Syria.  But this is where my suggestions end. I have no idea what to do with this mess.  If it had been up to me, we would have mobilized the entire U.S. military to destroy the IS in both Syria and Iraq, and left a few useful military bases behind us.  But I guess I can be labeled as a bit of a "Hawk".  Both JN and IS have legitimate claim to rule in Syria, if we follow the law of the desert: he who stands last, stands tallest.  If the IS flushes Assad and his herd of cronies out of Damascus, have they not earned their "Caliphate"?  I have a sneaky feeling that the end of Assad will result in a "rapprochement" with JN, the IS, Khorasan, and all the other shitty little groups out here in the desert.  They all fight for the same goal: Islamic extremist hegemony, under the guise of Al-Qaeda.  So dealing with is may be all that will be needed.  Either way, do we try and negotiate with them, or do we go to war again?  Is there another option?  I guess we could just evacuate all of our folks and let Israel sort it out. 

The War Against ISIL Is Being Lost While Obama Vacations...Again

Links: A. Iranian Militia-Leader Killed In Iraq
           B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq 
           C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria


I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent.  I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology.  And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba.  Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion.  By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing.  No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail.  They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship.  Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent.  Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.

Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq.  Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria.  Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week).  Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL.  Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast.  What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers.  Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!).  I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL.  In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock.  Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems.  Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply.    As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy.  But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government.  Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.

Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq.  The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents.  Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province.  Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic.  I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq.  These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade.  C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together?  Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia.  At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation.  The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction.  After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period.  Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military  intervention in Iraq.  Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.

ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq.  What about our bombing campaign?  Where are the figures?  I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost.  You know the military has those figures at their fingertips.  Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity?  How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE?  Anyone?  I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out?  John Kerry should understand the policy.  Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?

On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles.  I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised.  Cuba isn't going to change, folks.  What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money.  The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA).  Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people.  If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat.  The goal isn't to change Cuba.  ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES.  More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred.  This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation.  And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions.  Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016.  I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote.  The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.    

Biden Humiliated By Turkey

Link: A. Biden Looking Foolish In Turkey
          B. Taliban On The Move

Please read the links before going any further.  I don't want to repeat the details which are included, and they are essential to the discussion today.  These two links bring the cold hard truth home to our doorstep.  Our foreign policy is a complete failure; and utter disaster.  I can't recall a foreign policy this opaque, weak, and self-defeating in the 238-year history of our Republic.  Vice President Joe Biden, unable to sit still for five minutes because in his mind he should be president, continues to expand the traditional role of the office.  Maybe I shouldn't blame Crazy Uncle Joe.  Instead of making the trip to Turkey himself, President Obama continued his weekly diet of executive actions, golf, and fund-raising.  After Biden insulted Turkish President Erdogan last month (and screwed up the less-than publicized apology which was only reported on Foxnews), he was the last person who should have making a trip to Turkey.  It provided all the U.S.-hating groups, including the one who abused our sailors last month, with an opportunity to take to the streets and protest this Great Satan.  The Turkish press had a field day.  And as usual, Crazy Uncle Joe had no clue what was going on, returning back to the United States to report that the trip had been a "tremendous success".  While Biden was describing his diplomatic coup to anyone who would listen (CNN, NPR, MSNBC, CNBC, and CBS, who combined don't equal the audience of Foxnews), Erdogan was openly and pointedly spewing egregious insults to the United States.  Erdogan stated that Turkey was "against impertinence, recklessness, and endless demands".  "Why is someone coming to this region from 12,000 kilometers away?", Erdogan asked rhetorically to a meeting of Turkish businessmen in Ankara.  The U.S. Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey has been denied permission to fly sorties against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq.  This makes the operation that much more expensive and complicated.  The Turks refused to allow the use of Incirlik during Operation Enduring Freedom as well, and President Bush was the first leader to bend over and touch toes for Erdogan.  What I would give for a leader in the White House! Ronald Reagan would have told the Turks that if you won't let us use our Air Base, then we will shut it.  No more rent, no more financial support to the local economy, no more U.S. military families supporting the Turkish tourist industry, and most important, no more sales of F16s or spare parts to the Turkish Air Force.  Instead, we allow tin-horn dictators like Putin, Erdogan and Assad to determine our foreign policy.  Erdogan had plenty of opportunities to intervene militarily in Syria and remove Assad before the beginning of the current anti-Islamic State air campaign.  Instead of facing the music for his lack of nerve, he just kicks more sand I our face. 

The Taliban is alive and well and establishing a military presence in Kabul.  Historically, this is the first step towards turning the capital city into a urban war zone, which will allow the Taliban, who are much more comfortable with guerilla-type tactics, to occupy the city one house, one street, one neighborhood at a time.  Before the Soviets departed in 1980, they installed a puppet government in Kabul which was supported by a reasonably sized and well-equipped army.  The fear was that this Soviet-back government was going to keep control of some of the larger cities while the Mujahideen took over the rest of the country.  Events didn't play out as expected, as the Mujahideen (we call them "The Taliban" nowadays) moved into the cities and began a campaign of destabilization of authority.  It happened so quickly that the Russians had no opportunity to evacuate the majority of their remaining resources in Kabul.  Deja vu, folks, deja vu.  The U.S. troops left in Afghanistan are under instructions to complete training assignments with the Afghan Army and also to protect remaining U.S. Bases as resources are evacuated back to Europe and the United States.  Is there any question that a year or so after the last U.S. soldier departs, the Taliban will be back in power?  Not to me there isn't.  President Obama will then have the honor of proudly declaring both Afghanistan and Iraq "free of the U.S. military".  Just how much does this guy hate the military? 

As for December 2014, Iraq is embroiled in a conflict against Islamic extremists, and the only real military support is coming from Iran.  The Iranians never met a vacuum that they didn't fill.  All the positive developments from Operation Enduring Freedom are either gone or in jeopardy.  Afghanistan is producing poppies for drug production again like nobodies business.  It is estimated that the Islamic State is benefitting financially from the opium trade.  While Iraq and the Kurds fight for survival against the Islamic State, and Syria continues to be ground zero for Islamic State strategic successes, the United States continues to lead an air campaign (with the support of the Saudis, the UAE, and Qatar) that is beginning to appear ineffectual.  As highlighted by a recent post, the Islamic State is so fat in resources that it has started the process of expansion into north Africa.  By the way, are we still training the New Syrian Army?  Has anyone heard an update recently?  I've been waiting patiently for some clarification on the alleged "defensive posture only" intentions of this army which is being trained and equipped by the U.S. taxpayer.

What is our foreign policy and military strategy in Syria?  Iraq?  What about Afghanistan?  When the Taliban retakes the country and all the teachers are shot, the little schoolgirls beaten and the schools burned to the ground, will we establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban?  What are we trying to achieve with the air campaign in Syria?  if we destroy the Islamic State, Bashir al-Assad and his recently refurbished army and air force will retake the country.  Putin will be thrilled, but is that in our best interest?  With regards to Turkey, will the administration have any response to the public insults, the physical assault of our sailors, and anti-U.S. speeches and demonstrations?

I invite any defender of this administration to address these questions here on my blog.  You will have the same amount of space that I use, and you will see no rebuttal for the entire day.  Please come and explain what we can expect in the next two years in the way of diplomacy.  And help us understand what exactly is going on with the New Syrian Army and the billions being spent to stand it up.  Have we written off Iraq and Afghanistan?  If not, what are our diplomatic options and initiatives to protect the freedoms and rights that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to enjoy for the past few years?  Those rights and freedoms were obtained with the blood and sweat of U.S. soldiers.  Doesn't that give us some equity in the evolving situation?      

Update On Troubles In Ukraine

Link: Russian Army Tank Column Crosses Border Into Ukraine

Its been a while since we visited Ukraine.  Syria, Iraq and West Africa have been a bit distracting as of late.  In all honesty, I was beginning to hope that cooler heads had prevailed in Moscow.  Putin had the opportunity to "magnanimously" withdraw all Russian units from eastern Ukraine, and invite the Ukrainians (alone) to join him at the negotiating table.  You know and I know that Russia will not be returning Crimea to Ukraine, and Putin's influence and reputation have suffered because of this unilateral annexation.  So a peace offensive on the part of Putin would provide a way out for those Europeans who have been looking for a way to forgive Russia, and to do so without losing face. While theoretically this could begin with a sign of good faith in form of the departure of Russian military units from eastern Ukraine, it isn't going to happen.  We now have clear and dangerous indications that Russian armor is on the move in eastern Ukraine.  Friday's actions remind me of the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and I fully expect to see a mobilization of sorts from the Russian Army (In the long run, Russia's less-than prepared Army and Airborne units invading Georgia resembled Mussolini's forces invading Greece in 1940).   Putin knows he doesn't need to play "peacemaker," and negotiate to keep Crimea.  He recognizes that Russia can tear off just as much of Ukraine as she pleases.  Merkel, Cameron and Hollande (is this little pipsqueak still around?) will go to lunch and toss a few more sanctions at Russia.  Putin is well aware that this is the only recourse for the European

Union.  Since I don't see much anti-Putin agitation in Moscow these days, we can assume that the sanctions haven't been much of a deterrent.

Last month, I hypothesized that Putin was really only interested in Crimea, because of its strategic location on the Black Sea.  I believe he stirred up the shit pot among the substantial Russian minority  in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Dnipropetrovsk (why do I like saying "Dnipropetrovsk" so much?) in order to create a problem that only he could solve.  I assumed that Putin was planning to offer peace and the departure of Russian forces from eastern Ukraine, in exchange for an acknowledgement of Russia's Crimean annexation.  It's really simple, when you think about it.  If you want something that belongs to someone else, you take it, along with something else of value.  In order to return the second item of value, they must accept that you are keeping the first item.  If not, they risk losing both.  I believe that Putin's original intention was to maneuver his way into receiving European and Ukrainian acceptance of Russian Crimea.  For the life of me I couldn't find a reason why Putin would want eastern Ukraine.  Forgive the rudeness, but have you been to Donetsk? Its not Vienna or Paris, that's for sure.  Hell, its not even Des Moines.  But Putin did not need to find justification for invading eastern Ukraine.  All Putin needed to do was CONVINCE THE WEST that he had reason for invading eastern Ukraine (all those poor, abused ethnic Russians).  Then when the mercenary slugs hired by Putin in the Donetsk region accidentally shot down a civilian jet full of totally innocent folks, I imagine that Putin was obliged to review his escape strategy.  But, as it is with most things, if you wait awhile, people will forget.  I can't remember the last time I heard mention of the Malaysian Airlines jet that was shot down.

The truth is, Putin realizes that he doesn't have to order the departure of Russian forces from eastern Ukraine.  The typically weak line of diplomacy offered up by Obama, Merkel, Hollande and Kirk Cameron has allowed Putin to annex Crimea and absorb the Ukrainian Navy.  And to Putin's surprise, it looks like he gets to keep as much of the Ukraine as he chooses.  It's no longer about Crimea.  The presence of a column of what appears to be functioning (nothing is guaranteed) Russian armor tooling around in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine is a clear indication to me that Putin has decided to "up the ante".  It is in Putin's nature to take advantage of as many opportunities as possible, which includes the west being distracted by events on Syria, Iraq and Liberia.  These distractions, and Obama's continued mantra about "no ground troops" (which is an example to be followed by everyone....except France), have given Putin the opportunity to decide just how much of

A horse with two asses . . .

Ukraine to keep.  Interestingly enough, while Putin dances diplomatic circles around Obama and the Europeans, he has had plenty of time to send equipment, supplies and possibly air units to his buddy Bashir al-Assad in Damascus.  I'm guessing that Vlad is trying to get as much accomplished as possible before 2016, when its likely that the White House will be home to someone "with a pair".  I can just imagine what the map of Ukraine will look like in 2016.  Eastern Ukraine does have a number of lovely forested regions, perfect for a topless Putin to go on lots of horseback excursions.  I only ask, for the sake of decency, Vlad: either find a training bra or put your shirt back on.

What's Up With The Republic Of Turkey Nowadays?

Links: War Moves Into Turkey


Wikipedia On Turkey



Where have you been, Turkey?  Every few days I am obliged to create a post about the struggle against the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIS, ISIL or IS); bad news seldom takes a holiday.  How did we get to this place?  Following the ritualistic beheading of two Americans, President Obama announced that the United States was taking military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria.  Obama added that the United States would, under no circumstances, introduce ground forces into the conflict.  Instead, the U.S. Air Force would bomb the IS into the Stone Age.  For good measure, we are training and arming a surrogate army to finish off the IS with a ground campaign (but not for four, maybe five months because that's how long it takes to train and equip a surrogate army in 2014).  The surrogate element identifies itself as the "Free Syrian Army", and consists of many Syrian Army former officers and front-line troops.  President Obama was able to enlist France, The United Kingdom, and the Arab Gulf monarchies to join his "Coalition of the Unwilling to use Ground Troops", but some enormously important questions remain unanswered.  What will the Free Syrian Army do after the IS has been defeated?  Will it turn its weapons on the regular Syrian Army, which is heavily supported by Vladimir Putin and Russia?  What about all the other groups the Administration has parade by during press conferences (Al-Nusra Front, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda)?  Are they also targets of the Free Syrian Army? And if not, how does the IS tell them apart?

To repeat myself, where are you, Turkey?  The Turks share a southern border with both Iraq and Syria.  (A large part of that geographical piece is considered by the Kurds to be part of Kurdistan).  For centuries, back to the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks and the Kurds have struggled for control of this part of the world (since its not Asia Minor, and its not really Mesopotamia, I will just refer to it as "Asia Minopotamia").  Some of the blackest pages in Turkey's personal history book have to do with Kurdistan.  On more than a few occasions over the past two centuries, the Turks have committed acts of genocide against the Kurds.  I realize that by saying this, I royally piss off a number of very close Turkish friends, but it is my interpretation of history; believe me, I wish it weren't so.  The Kurds have always been a thorn in Turkey's side, and when historically bad famines and droughts hit Turkey, the Kurds were last to receive help.  I won't spend anymore time on the subject, especially since there is so much open source material available.  Fast forward to 2014, the Kurds are fighting for their lives not against the Turks or famine, or even Saddam Hussein, but against the IS.  At present, its not really possible to draw a static map of who-occupies-what.  The Kurds are in possession of some territory in northern Syria, but the main theater of war at the moment is in Iraq.  In the north, the Kurds are fighting the IS, and the central part of Iraq, the Iraqi Army and Shia Brigades are opposing the IS.  Back in Syria, the regular Syrian Army continues to occasionally engage IS forces.  For the time being, though, all eyes seem to be on very north central Syria and the town of Kobani.

At times I find it difficult to accept that Syria and Turkey share such a continuous, strategic border. For many centuries, the border did not exist, as Syria and Turkey were both part of the Ottoman Empire.  Now, for all practical purposes, the border separates wealth from poverty, Europe from the Levant, and West from East.  I know many will disagree, and argue (effectively, I'm sure) that Asia Minor is not Europe and that Turkey is not a first-world country.  I make my call through personal experience.  I was obsessed with Turkey in my younger days, and loved every chance I had to visit.  The Turks are a friendly, proud people; you will rarely see beggars or hungry children in Turkey.  But the Turkey of my youth is disappearing.  Secular Turkey (with its handful of generals ready to take charge if the civilians get too ambitious) has seen a rise in Islamist political activities and a movement to strengthen Turkey's Islamic cultural heritage and traditions.  President Recep Erdogan, who was elected in August 2014 with a 51% to 38% margin over his nearest competitor, is not fan of the Army.  During the later half of the last century, the Turkish military did not hesitate to remove elected leaders at the slightest sign of movement away from secularism.  I believe Erdogan is too popular for the military to act against, so I just keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't allow Turkey to suffer an Islamic revolution like the one that swallowed Iran in 1979.

Regarding the situation in Syria and Iraq, where does Turkey stand?  One thing to keep in mind: Turkey has a FORMIDABLE Armed Forces.  There was a time when Turkey was only interested in keeping an army larger than Greece's, but membership in NATO changed everything.  For all practical purposes, Turkey's military was created, nursed and raised to adulthood by the United States military.  Because of the all-important NATO missile sites located in Turkey (and aimed at Russia, I believe, although there may be one aimed at the Eifel Tower), The United States was more than willing to train and equip the Turkish Army.  Roughly 15 years ago, the Turkish military took the surprising step of conducting joint operations with Israel (the advent of Erdogan has cooled relations between Ankara and Jerusalem).  In equipment, size, and readiness, I believe that the Turkish military is en par with France, the UK and Germany (Greece who?).  Where does Turkey stand?  Why haven't the Turks taken a stand against the IS, which is about as nasty a group as there is?  Allegedly, Erdogan offered to join the Coalition and use the Turkish Army if Obama would guarantee the removal of Assad in Damascus.  Obama does not have the testicular fortitude for such a call, which would piss off Putin to no end.  At the moment, Turkey sees no strategy that benefits Turkey, with the exception of waiting until the dust settles.  If Turkey mobilizes, they would sweep the IS from the face of the earth in a matter of days (Turkish Special Forces....Bad Ass).

 But what good does that do if Assad, the thorn in Turkey's backside, stays in power?  Maybe Erdogan is thinking that an IS government in Damascus is preferable to the Ba'athists and Assad?  Wouldn't that be something...Turkey joins the conflict ON THE SIDE of the IS!  Its just a thought; it can't happen.  Turkey is a functioning Democracy with a Tiger of an economy (which is headed for a fall, say many forecasters...hope not), a thriving tourist industry and a military that would make Suleyman the Magnificent jealous.  An on its southern border Turkey nurses two recurring boils; Kurdistan and the civil war in Syria.  Although Erdogan has been willing to snuggle up to the Kurds for political expediency, I don't think he feels compelled to resolve the issue of Kurdistan at the moment.  Besides, the Kurds have proven to be reasonable.  The IS conflict, though, threatens to spill over into Turkey proper (not to mention the steady flow of refugees).  Surprisingly, the Turks have yet to really mobilize militarily.  What would happen if one of the combatants (count 'em again, folks: Al-Nusra Front, IS, Khorasan, Kurds, regular Syrian Army, and the free Syrian Army) began using Turkish territory as a staging point for military operations?  Unfortunately, I don't see Erdogan acting proactively in this situation.  He is content to let the circumstances come to him.

Are We Comfortable Paying Others To Confront Our Threats?

Link: What Is The Free Syrian Army?

House Votes to Arm "Free Syrian Army".


We are living in fascinating times.  The President of the United States has declared that the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group (which was originally Al-Qaeda in Iraq, then morphed into Islamic State of Al-Sharm, followed by Islamic State of the Levant) is a threat to the security of the United States, and that the United States will not use ground forces to combat IS.  Apparently IS has become too organized and prolific to destroy by bombing alone, so the United States decides to fund, train and equip the "New Syrian Army" (NSA; see first link).  I assume that the Administration huddled with intel folks to determine which anti-IS element in Syria would be the most palatable to the American people.  The Administration chose the group that was less likely to morph into an Islamic fundamentalist movement on down the road.  NSA traces it roots to a few disgruntled members of the Syrian Army officer cadre.  They have had success recruiting not only former Syrian soldiers, but also Kurds, Alawis, Palestinians, Turkmens, and Druze.  Considering the majority of members (and the leadership) are Sunni Muslims, the inclusion of other ethnic and religious fighters is an important element.  IS conducts itself as a functioning army, and has occupied a number of cities throughout Syria.  On a whole, the territory controlled by the NAS pales in comparison to areas occupied by IS and regular Syrian Army.  This fact demonstrates the traditional military perspective of NAS.  It is more important to control the transportation and communication nodes (read: cities) than it is to possess large swaths of desert.  Up to this point, the NAS does not appear to have a religious motive.  The goal has always been the removal from power of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'ath Party.  Numerous human rights groups claim that NAS has participated in war crimes, but finding someone in this mess who hasn't would be an impossible task.

The Obama Administration does not expect NAS to ratchet up its activities until equipment has been delivered and training has been conducted (I assume the training will be conducted by elements of both the CIA and the U.S. Army).  A high percentage of NAS troops are former military or have military training already, so this should accelerate the process.  It appears that the "four month" mark is when we should expect to see an increase in NAS activity.  Until then, the United States Air Force and France's Armee de l'Air (and whoever else Obama can convince to join his coalition) will be bombing the shit out of IS targets. Military strategy argues that a focused bombing campaign should prioritize supply routes, but I think we will have enough firepower to hit the enemy everywhere.  If we stay committed and manage to round up a few allies, the NAS can be molded into a first-rate military force.  No doubt that if the Obama Administration had taken the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and stayed in Iraq long enough to complete the training of the Iraqi military, we wouldn't have to take this "Mujahideen"-like risk.  When a decision is made to arm a foreign element with weapons paid for by the U.S. people, we assume the responsibility of those weapons.  Its a different circumstance altogether when military equipment from a U.S. company is purchased by another nation (such as F16 to Taiwan and Black Hawk Helicopters to Austria).  In reality, we have no idea what will become of the equipment we provide to the NAS (I for one was not expecting the Iraqi Army to desert in mass exodus prior to its first engagement, leaving tons of U.S.-supplied military hardware for IS to pick up).  I am also concerned about what the NAS will become if it succeeds in toppling Assad.  The leaders of the NAS are all former Syrian military officers and during their careers, must have been exposed to all sorts of corruption and nepotism. 

Are we involved with the NAS to destroy the IS or to topple the Assad regime?  Will IS have two enemies on the battlefield?  Does the Obama Administration intend to fund the NAS until both Assad and IS are defeated?  Why haven't these legitimate questions been addressed?  As is the habit with this Administration, we seem to be diving head-long into something with no real end-game strategy.  Would we recognize an NAS government, or would we demand elections?  What if the NAS says, screw your elections, we are the government now (which is what will happen if we fund the NAS enough to defeat both IS and the regular Syrian Army).  Has anyone in the Administration or Congress commented on how much this effort will cost the American taxpayer?  In recent months (with help from Hillary's buddy Vlad Putin in Moscow, no doubt) the regular Syrian Army has reconstituted itself.  Assad's Army has aggressively and ruthlessly fought for every inch of ground, and shows no sign of internal conflict.  I can only assume that the Administration, in choosing to back the NAS, envisions a scenario in which elements of the Syrian Army desert and join the NAS.  As this conflict grows, the NAS must formulate a plan to combat both the regular Syrian Army and IS.  Of course, Washington DC is only concerned with destroying IS.  Has the NAS agreed to focus exclusively on OUR enemy (IS), or will the weapons we provide be aimed at elements of the regular Syrian Army?  Will the U.S. Air Force also target regular Syrian Army positions?  What if a NAS unit is surrounded by regular Syrian Army forces.  Will the U.S. (and coalition) air elements intervene?  If we do, then I can assure you, the Russians will have something to say.  Will the NAS pursue IS targets into Iraq?  The decision to use NAS as surrogate ground forces in our war against IS comes with a nightmare collection of "what ifs".

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union faced-off in many locations around the world.  On more than one occasion that United States and the Soviets came to near-blows over issues in the Near East.  The U.S. supported Israel and the Russians provided arms to the Syrians and the Egyptians.  Although the Cold War has ended (per se), Russia continues to view Syria as a close ally.  Sooner or later our involvement in the Syrian conflict will compel Putin to increase Russian support for the Assad regime.  Arming NAS has the real possibility of bringing us into conflict with Russia.  The Administration has gone to great lengths not to antagonize the Russians in eastern Europe (sanctions only-still no military aid for Ukraine).  If the Russians stand aside and allow the NAS to form a government, with the Israelis be comfortable with another militarized Syria on its border?  In a worst-case scenario, we could see U.S. equipment handled by NAS being used against Israelis, who might also be carrying U.S. military hardware.

It must be apparent that I do not support the arming of NAS to combat the IS.  Too many times we have provided equipment that seems to fall into the hands of our enemies (or our friends become our enemies, as in the case of the Afghani Mujahideen).  Also I am offended to the core that we would consider paying others to do our dirty work.  If the IS is a threat to the security of the United States, then the IS should be destroyed by the U.S. military.  Isn't that the raison d'etre of our armed forces? Have we reached the point of decadence in our society that we feel others should be paid to die in proxy?  Here's a novel idea: why not take all the money that we spend to fund defense, and use it to pay others to fight our wars?  I believe IS is a threat to our national security, as Al-Qaeda continues to be.  But once we have made the decision that a group is a direct threat to our freedom, then we need to utilize every resource we have at our disposal to destroy the enemy quickly.  Wars must be fought to the fullest, and brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.  History shows us that this method of approach to war will result in the fewest collateral casualties.  When conflicts are drawn out, people suffer.  I believe we should use ground forces to attack IS from all directions, including Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan.  We should use as many troops as necessary, in concert with our military air elements, to finish the job quickly.  IS must be obliterated.  If we attack the IS target full-force, with our NAS and Kurdish allies, we would destroy all remnants of IS and Al-Qaeda.  The fact that we did not completely destroy Al-Qaeda in Iraq is why we must now deal with the IS.  In fact, we are pulling out of Afghanistan while Al-Qaeda hides in Pakistan.  Once we are gone, the Taliban will welcome al-Qaeda back, and Afghanistan will join Iraq as diplomatic failures of the U.S. government.  Our young men and women in uniform did an outstanding job in both Iraq and Afghanistan, only to be let-down by the fat politicians back in Washington DC.

The use of NAS to combat IS is nothing more than the contracting out of mercenaries to fight our conflict.  If NAS is successful against IS, will they return the equipment we provided, or will it be used to strengthen their hold on Syria?  Will a NAS government in Damascus be hostile to Israel?  There is no doubt in my mind.  As was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have no way of determining what kind of government we are helping to create.  I don't like the NAS.  As recent members of the regular Syrian Army, they can be no strangers to lobbing rounds of ammunition down on Israeli Kibbutz settlements in northern Israel.  Arming the NAS is a textbook example of  "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  I have three critical questions for the Obama Administration.  Will NAS be continuing its campaign against the Assad regime while also attacking the IS?  Will the U.S. (and coalition) Air Force be targeting regular Syrian Army elements?  What is the diplomatic strategy for the Levant after IS has been defeated?