Link: Militia releases video of kidnapped Turkish workers.
A previously unknown Shi'a militia identifying itself as "Death Squads" has taken responsibility for the kidnapping of eighteen Turkish workers on September 2, and released a video of the captives. In all likelihood, this new group is a recently concocted cover for Kata'ib al-Hezbollah, the Shi'a militia which was strongly suspected from the beginning of being responsible for the kidnappings. In the video, the kidnappers demand a number of concessions on behalf of Turkey, in order to secure the release of the eighteen construction workers who were in Baghdad to complete the building of a new sports stadium. The "Death Squad" is demanding that Turkey "seize gunmen" who are transiting through Turkey to Iraq. Turkey is also required to halt the transfer of "stolen oil" from Iraqi Kurdistan through Turkey. The Shi'a militias and Iran are opposed to the Iraqi Kurds having access to oil and using it to develop an economy, as this might help legitimize and Kurdish claim to statehood. The last demand was the most interesting from my perspective. The kidnappers are demanding that the Turkish government end all support for Jaysh al-Fatah, a Syrian rebel coalition led by Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra. Recently, Jabhat al-Nusra has dealt a number of staggering military defeats on Syrian regime forces. In fact, in northwest Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra is expected to begin an offensive soon that will sweep down to the strategic al-Ghab Plain and put pressure on the Alawite community and Assad's hometown of Qardaha. In the past six months, Nusra has become much more effective at combating regime forces than the handful of other anti-regime military groups, which explains why the militias, who are directed from Tehran, would demand that Turkey stop aiding Nusra. I have yet to see direct proof that Turkey is aiding Jabhat al-Nusra, but it is possible, given Turkish President Erdogan's personal obsession with removing the Assad family from power in Syria.
The government has very little it can do to rescue the kidnapped workers. Most Special Police Units are fighting outside Ramadi, and the militias present a difficult target. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi can take solace in the continued support from Iraqi and Shi'a cleric the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has ordered the kidnappers to release their hostages, making note of the damage being done to the authority of the state, by those who are pledged to protect Iraq. Little good it did, as the kidnappers pray to the Ayatollahs sitting in Qom, Iran, not Najaf, Iraq. But Sistani's continued aggressive support of Abadi provides valuable bona fides to the reform movement in the eyes of the Iraqi Shi'a. It also puts other Shi'a leaders on the spot. For instance, Moqtadah al-Sadr, who is the titular head of the Mahdi Army, one of the larger Shi'a militias, has called for the government to immediately take action to free the hostages. During his public comments on the kidnapping issue, Sadr referred to some of the Shi'a groups as "brazen militias" that should be boycotted by the Popular Mobilization Committee. Sadr is no friend to Abadi or the reform movement, so he must either be feeling some pressure regarding the kidnapping, or he is using this opportunity to remove Nouri al-Maliki from the scene altogether. Its quite possible that Sadr, who has definite visions of future power and grandeur, considers Maliki a threat because of Maliki's previous good relationship with the Iranians.
These developments give us an opportunity to examine the animosity between Turkey and Iran, two militarily powerful Muslim nations who share a common border. Erdogan is aggravated to no end by Iran's use of Hezbollah in Lebanon as a proxy to provide extensive military support to Bashir al-Assad. The Iranians have always considered the Turks to be tainted through their historic and military ties to the United States, and in the 1990s, when the Turkish Armed Forces started conducting joint military maneuvers with the Israelis, you could just sense the Imams and Ayatollahs in Qom chewing on their turbans and crashing their flying carpets in to the walls. Now that the Russians have decided, very late in the game, that Assad is worth saving, Iran has an ally on the battlefields of Syria besides Hezbollah and the regime forces. The pro-Assad groups are relatively easy to distinguish, but the rest is one big stew of different names, individual ideologies, loyalties, intentions, and complaints. I'm not sure where Nusra fits in as opposed to the Syrian Kurds. And what about the free Syrian Army? And then there exists a handful of smaller groups, operating on their own agenda, including groups of former U.S. servicemen who have volunteered to go back to Mesopotamia to fight ISIS. Turkey may very well end up playing a large role in how this drama eventually plays itself out. Outside of Syria and Iraq, they have the most serious security concerns because of the conflict. If the Turks made the decision to commit themselves totally, they could probably destroy ISIS in Syria in a matter of weeks, although no guarantees about collateral casualties. Its the one question which troubles me the most: since everyone recognizes ISIS for the real threat to world peace that they hope to become, then why haven't we committed ourselves militarily to their rapid and total destruction? Heck, the Turks, Iranians, and even the Israelis could join the party. For now we watch developments in Iraq, to learn if the Abadi regime can survive both an assault by the anti-reform militias, and the possible failure of the Anbar offensive.
Showing posts with label Bashir al-Assad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bashir al-Assad. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2015
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Why Bashir al-Assad will not leave Syria on his own accord.
Link: New Syria peace plan focuses on ISIS, not Assad.
The reality of the situation obliges us to concur with the latest statement from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) regarding the current crisis in Syria. All groups involved in the Syrian conflict who are opposed to wanton slaughter and the execution of countless innocent men, women and children, must form a line behind one banner. The movement known as the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham has started developing long tentacles, which are reaching out of the Middle East and into Africa, South America, Asia and Europe. No doubt ISIS has its supporters in the United States as well, given that the freedoms and civil liberties that Americans hold so dear, can also put them at risk. Does ISIS have dangerous sleeper cells in position in U.S. cities, or are its supporters limited to the odd deranged individual with access to a firearm? I'm sure the FBI and CIA have opinions on the matter, but it may not make a difference. If ISIS continues to grow, then its presence in the United States will be only a question of time. In the past, the UNSC has connected the removal of Bashir al-Assad to the issue of peace in Syria, which gave serious heartburn to both China and Russia. I guess the UN decided that a united front in defeating ISIS is more important than Assad, and we agree. What has puzzled many people is why Assad hasn't already collected his family and his ill-gotten loot, and bugged out? The answer isn't very complicated.
Bashir al-Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, was Prime Minister of Syria from 1970 to 1971, and President from 1971 until his death in June, 2000. Hafez was the epitome of an Arab strongman, and he built a political support network that did not continence internal dissention. His tool of construction was the Syrian Arab Ba'ath Party, sister organization to Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Ba'ath Party, although the two eventually evolved into completely independent and disconnected movements. Anyone who wanted to be successful in Iraq needed to be a member of the Ba'ath Party. Hafez' son and successor, Bashir al-Assad, recognized a good thing, and continued to rely on the party. Today Damascus is choked with Ba'ath Party members, whose safety in other Syrian cities was jeopardized by the swift advance of ISIS. The number of Syrian civil servants and functionaries who belong to the Ba'ath Party must be in the thousands, and many of these individuals are retired, and still support their families on their pensions. Its no secret that both Hafez and Bashir controlled an effective intelligence service, which was quick to act against anything perceived to be a "threat to the state." Many Syrians, both innocent and guilty, fell victim to the aggressive actions of the Syrian police and intelligence service. If Bashir were to leave Syria, he wouldn't be able to fit all his remaining loyal subjects into his suitcase, and those that are forced to remain behind will no doubt suffer the vengeance of the wronged and their family members.
But as altruistic as Bashir al-Assad may be, I don't think his reason for staying put has anything to do with the thousands of Ba'ath Party folks left over from the good ol' days. Assad still controls Damascus, and if he were to leave, the city would probably be occupied by a United Nations peacekeeping force of some kind, at least until the situation in the rest of the country could be sorted out. I would hope that the UN wouldn't allow ISIS to sweep in uncontested and take control of the capital city. Now that we think about it, if Assad were to high-tale it out of Syria overnight, does the International Community have a plan of action to keep Damascus and its millions of innocent civilians safe from ISIS? Another question that we are unable to answer. But Assad has been hesitant to leave because of his family's connections to all parts of Syrian society. If a forensic team were allowed to review the financial habits of both Assad regimes, they would likely uncover theft that dwarfs what Mobutu Sese-Seko was able to accumulate in Zaire. And since the world and its financial markets and banks have become much more closely connected, the International Court in the Hague would undoubtedly move to freeze all the mysterious bank accounts registered to members of the extended Assad family. I assume that Bashir and his cronies have attempted to cover as much as they can, because sooner or later, he will have to leave. The freezing of international bank accounts would only be a part of the potentially disastrous results of a forensic audit of the Syrian Treasury, National Bank, and foreign investments. Assad would be powerless to stop the flow of information implicating his family in every kind of graft possible. In all seriousness, the Assad family ran Syria as if it were a family enterprise. Assad's family will have to live somewhere (I can't imagine any staying in Syria if he leaves), and they will be hounded forever by a legacy of greed and gluttony unparalleled in our time.
We believe that Assad continues to look for a solution that will allow him to keep some semblance of authority in Syria, so that his family dirty laundry is aired, and the international bank accounts confiscated. In the best interests of the Syrian people, some consideration should be given to an arrangement with Assad for the safe evacuation of his family, a retirement to some dacha in Russia and a life of comfort, in exchange for returning all the dough. Another factor to consider: Assad is a bit of a megalomaniac; he is missing his father's pragmatic nature, and he doesn't want to lose. I can't imagine that Bashir has ever lost at anything. If he takes a close look at a map, he mas to realize that his control is limited to a small stretch of land in far western Syria, and the area around the capital. We believe that Assad is playing a waiting game, hopeful that the United States, Europe, China and Russia will decide that he should be part of the solution to the ISIS problem. He is counting on Russia and China to save his neck. After today and the UNSC statement, he might just end up surviving after all.
The reality of the situation obliges us to concur with the latest statement from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) regarding the current crisis in Syria. All groups involved in the Syrian conflict who are opposed to wanton slaughter and the execution of countless innocent men, women and children, must form a line behind one banner. The movement known as the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham has started developing long tentacles, which are reaching out of the Middle East and into Africa, South America, Asia and Europe. No doubt ISIS has its supporters in the United States as well, given that the freedoms and civil liberties that Americans hold so dear, can also put them at risk. Does ISIS have dangerous sleeper cells in position in U.S. cities, or are its supporters limited to the odd deranged individual with access to a firearm? I'm sure the FBI and CIA have opinions on the matter, but it may not make a difference. If ISIS continues to grow, then its presence in the United States will be only a question of time. In the past, the UNSC has connected the removal of Bashir al-Assad to the issue of peace in Syria, which gave serious heartburn to both China and Russia. I guess the UN decided that a united front in defeating ISIS is more important than Assad, and we agree. What has puzzled many people is why Assad hasn't already collected his family and his ill-gotten loot, and bugged out? The answer isn't very complicated.
Bashir al-Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, was Prime Minister of Syria from 1970 to 1971, and President from 1971 until his death in June, 2000. Hafez was the epitome of an Arab strongman, and he built a political support network that did not continence internal dissention. His tool of construction was the Syrian Arab Ba'ath Party, sister organization to Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Ba'ath Party, although the two eventually evolved into completely independent and disconnected movements. Anyone who wanted to be successful in Iraq needed to be a member of the Ba'ath Party. Hafez' son and successor, Bashir al-Assad, recognized a good thing, and continued to rely on the party. Today Damascus is choked with Ba'ath Party members, whose safety in other Syrian cities was jeopardized by the swift advance of ISIS. The number of Syrian civil servants and functionaries who belong to the Ba'ath Party must be in the thousands, and many of these individuals are retired, and still support their families on their pensions. Its no secret that both Hafez and Bashir controlled an effective intelligence service, which was quick to act against anything perceived to be a "threat to the state." Many Syrians, both innocent and guilty, fell victim to the aggressive actions of the Syrian police and intelligence service. If Bashir were to leave Syria, he wouldn't be able to fit all his remaining loyal subjects into his suitcase, and those that are forced to remain behind will no doubt suffer the vengeance of the wronged and their family members.
But as altruistic as Bashir al-Assad may be, I don't think his reason for staying put has anything to do with the thousands of Ba'ath Party folks left over from the good ol' days. Assad still controls Damascus, and if he were to leave, the city would probably be occupied by a United Nations peacekeeping force of some kind, at least until the situation in the rest of the country could be sorted out. I would hope that the UN wouldn't allow ISIS to sweep in uncontested and take control of the capital city. Now that we think about it, if Assad were to high-tale it out of Syria overnight, does the International Community have a plan of action to keep Damascus and its millions of innocent civilians safe from ISIS? Another question that we are unable to answer. But Assad has been hesitant to leave because of his family's connections to all parts of Syrian society. If a forensic team were allowed to review the financial habits of both Assad regimes, they would likely uncover theft that dwarfs what Mobutu Sese-Seko was able to accumulate in Zaire. And since the world and its financial markets and banks have become much more closely connected, the International Court in the Hague would undoubtedly move to freeze all the mysterious bank accounts registered to members of the extended Assad family. I assume that Bashir and his cronies have attempted to cover as much as they can, because sooner or later, he will have to leave. The freezing of international bank accounts would only be a part of the potentially disastrous results of a forensic audit of the Syrian Treasury, National Bank, and foreign investments. Assad would be powerless to stop the flow of information implicating his family in every kind of graft possible. In all seriousness, the Assad family ran Syria as if it were a family enterprise. Assad's family will have to live somewhere (I can't imagine any staying in Syria if he leaves), and they will be hounded forever by a legacy of greed and gluttony unparalleled in our time.
We believe that Assad continues to look for a solution that will allow him to keep some semblance of authority in Syria, so that his family dirty laundry is aired, and the international bank accounts confiscated. In the best interests of the Syrian people, some consideration should be given to an arrangement with Assad for the safe evacuation of his family, a retirement to some dacha in Russia and a life of comfort, in exchange for returning all the dough. Another factor to consider: Assad is a bit of a megalomaniac; he is missing his father's pragmatic nature, and he doesn't want to lose. I can't imagine that Bashir has ever lost at anything. If he takes a close look at a map, he mas to realize that his control is limited to a small stretch of land in far western Syria, and the area around the capital. We believe that Assad is playing a waiting game, hopeful that the United States, Europe, China and Russia will decide that he should be part of the solution to the ISIS problem. He is counting on Russia and China to save his neck. After today and the UNSC statement, he might just end up surviving after all.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Iraq update: militias, ISF continue to pressure ISIS in Anbar; ISIS causes more trouble in Diyala.
The central line of Iraq continues to be the heart and soul of the ongoing conflict between ISIS and the Iraqi government and it's allies. In a predictable effort to distract attention away from the Iraqi Security Forces' (ISF) offensive in Anbar to retake Ramadi and relieve Haditha, ISIS has stepped up SVBIED (Suicide Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device) and random free-fire attacks in Diyala Province. Not to be outdone, the ISF and militias/Popular Mobilization Units (UPMs) have stepped up the pressure on both Ramadi and Fallujah. The ISF pushed back a frontal attack just outside Ramadi, in which ISIS utilized its usual weapon of choice, the SVBIED (when are they going to use up their supply of suicidal morons?); simultaneously the ISF conducted moderately successful attacks to the north and south of Ramadi. With ISIS under siege by the ISF in Ramadi and the PMUs in Fallujah, it has become even more imperative that ISIS raise some hell close to Baghdad, which might cause enough of an outcry from the civilian population that the government is forced to transfer some of its troops from the Anbar offensive. Possibly because of its proximity to Iran, ISIS seems determined to make a statement in Diyala Province.
as we've pointed out, Diyala Province shares an eastern border with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Recently the Iranians have expressed a growing concern regarding what appears to be ISIS' growing strength in the Province. By conducting SVBIED attacks on military and police facilities, along with a variety of civilian targets, ISIS has Diyala Province suffering from its own kind of siege. The governorship, which is controlled by the Shi'a, loudly and repeatedly requested that troops pulled from Diyala for the Anbar offensive be returned to the Province. To add to the drama, a serious schism is developing between the Shi'a and Sunni, who have in the past lived as one community in most parts of Diyala. The Sunni leaders in Diyala claim that the governorship and the provincial administration is being run by the Shi'a Badr Corps/Organization, which was born in Iran and is seeded with all sorts of fun Iranian advisors and representatives. One positive move was the reinstatement of the Sunni Deputy Governor, the hope being that now the two groups can start working together again in opposition to ISIS. While the proximity of active ISIS units to the Iranian border is disturbing, the real threat (and probably part of ISIS' long-term strategy), is the encirclement of Baghdad. ISIS knows that it will lose some ground during this current offensive in Anbar. What they hope to achieve is to mitigate the amount of territory that they will undoubtedly be obliged to reconquer, in order to eventually complete the isolation of Baghdad itself. ISIS is also determined to successfully occupy Haditha, which has been under siege for months.
In Anbar and Salah ad-Din, intra-tribal conflict continues to be a problem in the Sunni community. Tribes and communities who forcefully opposed ISIS are calling out those that didn't,or even went so far as to provide the Islamic State fighters with support. The government in Baghdad is nervously calling on all its Sunni allies in Anbar to put some water on this dangerous spark.
Another interesting development to keep an eye on is the decision by Turkey to end a two-year informal ceasefire with the Kurdish PKK. Not surprisingly, the PKK has elected to retaliate, and three Turkish soldiers can be added to the fatalities list. What is of interest is the attitude of Iran to these developments. Iran continues to support beleaguered Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad, which is something that really gives Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a case of the red-ass. I'm not sure what really went down between these two, but Erdogan seems bound and determined to see Assad totally removed from power. Im sure the Iranians are thrilled with this possible miscalculation on Erdogan's part, and have already reached out to the PKK to express their "support". Just how far will Iran go to expand this new round of incidents between Turkey and the PKK?
as we've pointed out, Diyala Province shares an eastern border with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Recently the Iranians have expressed a growing concern regarding what appears to be ISIS' growing strength in the Province. By conducting SVBIED attacks on military and police facilities, along with a variety of civilian targets, ISIS has Diyala Province suffering from its own kind of siege. The governorship, which is controlled by the Shi'a, loudly and repeatedly requested that troops pulled from Diyala for the Anbar offensive be returned to the Province. To add to the drama, a serious schism is developing between the Shi'a and Sunni, who have in the past lived as one community in most parts of Diyala. The Sunni leaders in Diyala claim that the governorship and the provincial administration is being run by the Shi'a Badr Corps/Organization, which was born in Iran and is seeded with all sorts of fun Iranian advisors and representatives. One positive move was the reinstatement of the Sunni Deputy Governor, the hope being that now the two groups can start working together again in opposition to ISIS. While the proximity of active ISIS units to the Iranian border is disturbing, the real threat (and probably part of ISIS' long-term strategy), is the encirclement of Baghdad. ISIS knows that it will lose some ground during this current offensive in Anbar. What they hope to achieve is to mitigate the amount of territory that they will undoubtedly be obliged to reconquer, in order to eventually complete the isolation of Baghdad itself. ISIS is also determined to successfully occupy Haditha, which has been under siege for months.
In Anbar and Salah ad-Din, intra-tribal conflict continues to be a problem in the Sunni community. Tribes and communities who forcefully opposed ISIS are calling out those that didn't,or even went so far as to provide the Islamic State fighters with support. The government in Baghdad is nervously calling on all its Sunni allies in Anbar to put some water on this dangerous spark.
Another interesting development to keep an eye on is the decision by Turkey to end a two-year informal ceasefire with the Kurdish PKK. Not surprisingly, the PKK has elected to retaliate, and three Turkish soldiers can be added to the fatalities list. What is of interest is the attitude of Iran to these developments. Iran continues to support beleaguered Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad, which is something that really gives Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a case of the red-ass. I'm not sure what really went down between these two, but Erdogan seems bound and determined to see Assad totally removed from power. Im sure the Iranians are thrilled with this possible miscalculation on Erdogan's part, and have already reached out to the PKK to express their "support". Just how far will Iran go to expand this new round of incidents between Turkey and the PKK?
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Allies look to the U.S. to expand its military profile in the region; Turkish Air Force bombs both PKK and ISIS targets.
Links: A. Turkish Air Force hits both Kurdish/PKK and ISIS targets.
B. BBC comments on Turkish air strikes.
The current environment in the Middle East and the Levant (can't we just go back to using Mesopotamia?) has evolved so dramatically in the last month that regional players have been obliged to review, adjust, and re-apply strategies. The treaty drafted between Iranian officials and representatives from the United States and various European interested parties (the Foreign Minister of Austria was involved, and I swear to you that I have cans of corn older than he is) has been approved by the United Nations and now must be reviewed by the U.S. Congress and the Iranian Parliament. For the most part, the Iranians love this treaty, so the real test will be in the U.S. Congress. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (who, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, constitute the Gulf Monarchies) have unleashed their diplomats and foreign friends to investigate the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons without having a production facility. Being rich in fossil fuels, The Gulf Emirates have no need for nuclear power; but you can guarantee that they will be looking to purchase a nuclear weapon or three and a delivery system effective enough to at least act as a deterrent (how far are Tehran and Qom from King Khalid Air Force Base?). Not surprisingly, since the United States is responsible for the Iranian nuclear treaty, its allies in the region (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait and Iraq) fully expect the U.S. to strengthen its military presence and involvement in the region. The argument will be that since the U.S. took it upon itself to make the region all the more dangerous, then the U.S. needs to share in the security responsibility. Obviously the Administration agrees, as diplomats have been scurrying to various capitals, including Baghdad and Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, to discuss the possibility of new arms treaties.
Also, Turkey has decided to become more aggressive on the military front, bombing both PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) and ISIS (Islamic State) targets simultaneously. Turkey's attack on the PKK ended an unofficial truce between Ankara and the Kurdish independence organization that had existed since 2013. Before conducting the PKK raid, Turkey concluded an agreement with the United States for the use of the U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik, Turkey, by the allied air coalition currently active against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. Its obvious that Turkey timed its attack on the PKK only after placating U.S. efforts to use Incirlik. Also, Turkey sweetened the pot a bit by also bombing ISIS targets in Syria. We strongly suspect that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning to call for elections in the fall. His decision ratchet up military attacks on PKK targets after a two-year unofficial cease-fire is calculated to appeal to the Turkish voters, who are opposed to the PKK by a large percentage. At the same time, Turkish military action against ISIS, and the relaxation of opposition to the use of Incirlik, will no-doubt help to repair a damaged relationship with the United States, which is another issue that is very important to the average Turkish voter.
If Turkey were to decide to become one-hundred percent involved militarily in the efforts to defeat ISIS, the impact on the battlefield would be staggering. Similar to a full Iranian intervention in Iraq, the Turkish military would make short-order of ISIS, especially given that the Turks do not play with the same rule book as the United States. Turkey would have no hesitation using ISIS tactics to combat ISIS, which is one of the most effective ways to combat organizations of this nature. Any squeamishness or hesitance to act as barbarously as ISIS is automatically accepted as a sign of weakness, and used to ISIS' advantage, especially when utilizing the world press and social media. But Turkey will not be the agent of destruction for ISIS, because that result would leave Bashir al-Assad and his depleted regime military as the next biggest-fish in Syria. Erdogan despises Assad and will do nothing to aid the Syrian de-facto president and his Syrian Ba'ath Party cronies. Ideally, Iranian and Turkish diplomats and military leaders would convene a summit and create a military plan (with the U.S. and its European allies in full support) to destroy ISIS from two directions. Can you imagine two militarily powerful Muslim nations working together to destroy the world's worst terrorist threat of all time? It would send a tremendous message about the power of peace, and set an example for Christian nations to follow (Russia/Ukraine). Again, it won't happen, and not just because Erdogan hates Assad. The deep, ingrained prejudice that Sunnis and Shi'a have for one another will prevent any serious Muslim coalition. The best that can be hoped for is continued cooperation between the much smaller Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, and the Popular Mobilization Units/PMUs (Shi'a militias). The tripartite grouping of the supposed secular Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), and the Shi'a PMUs and Sunni tribal groups, has been kept in a very delicate balance up to now. The reason it has succeeded is because very little pressure has been exerted, i.e. the groups haven't been forced to merge as a fighting unit. Also, every effort is being made to keep one group from getting more credit for battlefield victories than the others. This effort has not always been successful.
B. BBC comments on Turkish air strikes.
The current environment in the Middle East and the Levant (can't we just go back to using Mesopotamia?) has evolved so dramatically in the last month that regional players have been obliged to review, adjust, and re-apply strategies. The treaty drafted between Iranian officials and representatives from the United States and various European interested parties (the Foreign Minister of Austria was involved, and I swear to you that I have cans of corn older than he is) has been approved by the United Nations and now must be reviewed by the U.S. Congress and the Iranian Parliament. For the most part, the Iranians love this treaty, so the real test will be in the U.S. Congress. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (who, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, constitute the Gulf Monarchies) have unleashed their diplomats and foreign friends to investigate the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons without having a production facility. Being rich in fossil fuels, The Gulf Emirates have no need for nuclear power; but you can guarantee that they will be looking to purchase a nuclear weapon or three and a delivery system effective enough to at least act as a deterrent (how far are Tehran and Qom from King Khalid Air Force Base?). Not surprisingly, since the United States is responsible for the Iranian nuclear treaty, its allies in the region (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait and Iraq) fully expect the U.S. to strengthen its military presence and involvement in the region. The argument will be that since the U.S. took it upon itself to make the region all the more dangerous, then the U.S. needs to share in the security responsibility. Obviously the Administration agrees, as diplomats have been scurrying to various capitals, including Baghdad and Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, to discuss the possibility of new arms treaties.
Also, Turkey has decided to become more aggressive on the military front, bombing both PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) and ISIS (Islamic State) targets simultaneously. Turkey's attack on the PKK ended an unofficial truce between Ankara and the Kurdish independence organization that had existed since 2013. Before conducting the PKK raid, Turkey concluded an agreement with the United States for the use of the U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik, Turkey, by the allied air coalition currently active against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. Its obvious that Turkey timed its attack on the PKK only after placating U.S. efforts to use Incirlik. Also, Turkey sweetened the pot a bit by also bombing ISIS targets in Syria. We strongly suspect that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning to call for elections in the fall. His decision ratchet up military attacks on PKK targets after a two-year unofficial cease-fire is calculated to appeal to the Turkish voters, who are opposed to the PKK by a large percentage. At the same time, Turkish military action against ISIS, and the relaxation of opposition to the use of Incirlik, will no-doubt help to repair a damaged relationship with the United States, which is another issue that is very important to the average Turkish voter.
If Turkey were to decide to become one-hundred percent involved militarily in the efforts to defeat ISIS, the impact on the battlefield would be staggering. Similar to a full Iranian intervention in Iraq, the Turkish military would make short-order of ISIS, especially given that the Turks do not play with the same rule book as the United States. Turkey would have no hesitation using ISIS tactics to combat ISIS, which is one of the most effective ways to combat organizations of this nature. Any squeamishness or hesitance to act as barbarously as ISIS is automatically accepted as a sign of weakness, and used to ISIS' advantage, especially when utilizing the world press and social media. But Turkey will not be the agent of destruction for ISIS, because that result would leave Bashir al-Assad and his depleted regime military as the next biggest-fish in Syria. Erdogan despises Assad and will do nothing to aid the Syrian de-facto president and his Syrian Ba'ath Party cronies. Ideally, Iranian and Turkish diplomats and military leaders would convene a summit and create a military plan (with the U.S. and its European allies in full support) to destroy ISIS from two directions. Can you imagine two militarily powerful Muslim nations working together to destroy the world's worst terrorist threat of all time? It would send a tremendous message about the power of peace, and set an example for Christian nations to follow (Russia/Ukraine). Again, it won't happen, and not just because Erdogan hates Assad. The deep, ingrained prejudice that Sunnis and Shi'a have for one another will prevent any serious Muslim coalition. The best that can be hoped for is continued cooperation between the much smaller Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, and the Popular Mobilization Units/PMUs (Shi'a militias). The tripartite grouping of the supposed secular Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), and the Shi'a PMUs and Sunni tribal groups, has been kept in a very delicate balance up to now. The reason it has succeeded is because very little pressure has been exerted, i.e. the groups haven't been forced to merge as a fighting unit. Also, every effort is being made to keep one group from getting more credit for battlefield victories than the others. This effort has not always been successful.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Developments in Iraq, Syria.
Links: A. Iraqi forces confront ISIS in Anbar.
B. Al-Qaeda celebrates as Assad regime collapses.
In a positive move, the Iraqi military has begun a well-supported effort to recapture the city of Ramadi and roll-up ISIS fighters in eastern Anbar Province. In a surprise development, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are fighting alongside the "Popular Mobilization" (Shi'a militia), and at the same time, enjoying air support from the allied coalition, which continues to wreck havoc with any ISIS attempts to operate during clear weather. Early indications are that the ISF is having success retaking neighborhood after neighborhood, and that ISIS forces in Ramadi are virtually surrounded. Since we've been down this road before, the Iraqis know to expect very few if any prisoners, and that the mopping up operation could take weeks. An important element of the effort to retake Ramadi, is that it is taking place concurrently with operations in Salah ad-Din Province, where the Shi'a militias Asa'aib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) and the Badr Organization have been successfully retaking territory northeast of Fallujah. In fact, the Popular Mobilization is active throughout Salah ad-Din Province, as Shi'a militias have retaken territory from ISIS south and southwest of Samarrah city. The key to current operations against ISIS is the joint-activity of the allied air campaign and the Popular Mobilization. At times, both the air coalition, led by the United States, and the Shi'a militias, backed by Iran, refused to participate in military operations as long as the other was involved. It was an odd situation, given that at the time, Iran and the United States were conducting negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. Be that as it may, the tide appears to be turning in Iraq (again), especially given that ISIS has been unable to gain complete control of the Baiji refinery, a piece of real estate that may appear to be worth more than it actually is. But it has become a bit of a rallying cry for the ISF, and they are very determined to relieve its defenders and remove the threat of ISIS control of the entire refinery. Once Ramadi has been relieved, and the ISF and its militia partners are able to consolidate gains in Salah ad-Din province and around Baiji, then ISIS may be obliged to re-evaluate its long-term strategy. Almost everyday brings more bad news for Bashir al-Assad in Syria, and its not necessarily ISIS that is causing the trouble. Jabhat al-Nusrah, considered by many analysts to by Al-Qaeda's "representative" in Syria, has been conducting one successful military operation after another. In reality, all the Islamic extremist groups who envision some form of a Sunni-based caliphate, are representing Al-Qaeda, including ISIS. That certainly does not imply that Assad is a friend to the west, it only means that the various Islamic Sunni extremist military groups around the world all have the same goal and the same motivation. At this point, keeping them separate no longer seems to serve a point.
News from northwest Syria is that Idlib Province has, for the most part, fallen to Jabhat al-Nusrah. Everyday, village by village, town by town, and province by province, the end draws nearer for Bashir Al-Assad; and once it comes, no doubt there will be a serious vengeance visited upon all those who were loyal to the regime. And as the situation becomes more desperate, the regime continues to make enemies by its use of weaponized chlorine gas attacks, barrel bombs, and indiscriminate air attacks on civilian areas. Sooner or later, the last handful of troops loyal to Assad will realize that he and his closest comrades will escape Damascus to end their days in luxury, probably in a villa on the Black Sea. Its no secret that the Assad family has treated the Syrian treasury as its own personal bank account, not to mention all the cash derived from all manner of bribes. So the Assad clan will be just fine, but what about the troops who have been loyal to the end? In Libya, the number of loyal troops disintegrated at the end, and I expect the same situation to happen in Syria. Assad will have a limited amount of time to decide when to leave, and if he misses the deadline by the smallest of margins, we might just see Bashir lit up like a Christmas tree, inside of a cage.
We have been monitoring the media reports regarding Syria, for any indication that the clocks are ticking in Paris, Moscow, Washington, London, etc., on Bashir al-Assad's Syria. The west was taken by surprise at the swift removal of Gaddafi (no doubt he was surprised by the swift removal of his head), and I wonder if the analysts aren't giving Assad a bit more staying power than he actually has. True, we had him practically written off once before and he bounced back. But the giant difference between then and now is Russia. We believe that Putin is willing to allow Assad and his flock of butchers and thieves to go into exile in Russia, but that's about it. He does not appear willing to expend anymore political capital or money on the Syrian Ba'ath movement. Assad's predicament isn't complicated; its simply a matter of diminishing returns. Unless the Syrian military is preparing some awe-inspiring major offensive (it would have to be out of Damascus) to turn the tide of battle, then everyday Assad can expect his loyalists to decrease in number. A few gone over here, and a few more missing over there. Don't be surprised to see a Syrian pilot asking for asylum soon, although I don't know if any are left that can pretend to have clean hands, i.e. never having targeted civilians. The truth is, we're getting a little impatient. We want to know what will happen "apres les deluge", so we are discreetly trying to nudge Assad in the right direction. "Hey Bashir, I understand that Black Sea caviar is the richest. Don't take any chances, Bashir; you already have no chin, how will you look with no head? Be careful, Bashir, I opened the refrigerator this morning only to find a frozen Jabhat al-Nusrah guy inside. Oh, that was your doing? Sorry....."
B. Al-Qaeda celebrates as Assad regime collapses.
In a positive move, the Iraqi military has begun a well-supported effort to recapture the city of Ramadi and roll-up ISIS fighters in eastern Anbar Province. In a surprise development, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are fighting alongside the "Popular Mobilization" (Shi'a militia), and at the same time, enjoying air support from the allied coalition, which continues to wreck havoc with any ISIS attempts to operate during clear weather. Early indications are that the ISF is having success retaking neighborhood after neighborhood, and that ISIS forces in Ramadi are virtually surrounded. Since we've been down this road before, the Iraqis know to expect very few if any prisoners, and that the mopping up operation could take weeks. An important element of the effort to retake Ramadi, is that it is taking place concurrently with operations in Salah ad-Din Province, where the Shi'a militias Asa'aib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) and the Badr Organization have been successfully retaking territory northeast of Fallujah. In fact, the Popular Mobilization is active throughout Salah ad-Din Province, as Shi'a militias have retaken territory from ISIS south and southwest of Samarrah city. The key to current operations against ISIS is the joint-activity of the allied air campaign and the Popular Mobilization. At times, both the air coalition, led by the United States, and the Shi'a militias, backed by Iran, refused to participate in military operations as long as the other was involved. It was an odd situation, given that at the time, Iran and the United States were conducting negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. Be that as it may, the tide appears to be turning in Iraq (again), especially given that ISIS has been unable to gain complete control of the Baiji refinery, a piece of real estate that may appear to be worth more than it actually is. But it has become a bit of a rallying cry for the ISF, and they are very determined to relieve its defenders and remove the threat of ISIS control of the entire refinery. Once Ramadi has been relieved, and the ISF and its militia partners are able to consolidate gains in Salah ad-Din province and around Baiji, then ISIS may be obliged to re-evaluate its long-term strategy. Almost everyday brings more bad news for Bashir al-Assad in Syria, and its not necessarily ISIS that is causing the trouble. Jabhat al-Nusrah, considered by many analysts to by Al-Qaeda's "representative" in Syria, has been conducting one successful military operation after another. In reality, all the Islamic extremist groups who envision some form of a Sunni-based caliphate, are representing Al-Qaeda, including ISIS. That certainly does not imply that Assad is a friend to the west, it only means that the various Islamic Sunni extremist military groups around the world all have the same goal and the same motivation. At this point, keeping them separate no longer seems to serve a point.
News from northwest Syria is that Idlib Province has, for the most part, fallen to Jabhat al-Nusrah. Everyday, village by village, town by town, and province by province, the end draws nearer for Bashir Al-Assad; and once it comes, no doubt there will be a serious vengeance visited upon all those who were loyal to the regime. And as the situation becomes more desperate, the regime continues to make enemies by its use of weaponized chlorine gas attacks, barrel bombs, and indiscriminate air attacks on civilian areas. Sooner or later, the last handful of troops loyal to Assad will realize that he and his closest comrades will escape Damascus to end their days in luxury, probably in a villa on the Black Sea. Its no secret that the Assad family has treated the Syrian treasury as its own personal bank account, not to mention all the cash derived from all manner of bribes. So the Assad clan will be just fine, but what about the troops who have been loyal to the end? In Libya, the number of loyal troops disintegrated at the end, and I expect the same situation to happen in Syria. Assad will have a limited amount of time to decide when to leave, and if he misses the deadline by the smallest of margins, we might just see Bashir lit up like a Christmas tree, inside of a cage.
We have been monitoring the media reports regarding Syria, for any indication that the clocks are ticking in Paris, Moscow, Washington, London, etc., on Bashir al-Assad's Syria. The west was taken by surprise at the swift removal of Gaddafi (no doubt he was surprised by the swift removal of his head), and I wonder if the analysts aren't giving Assad a bit more staying power than he actually has. True, we had him practically written off once before and he bounced back. But the giant difference between then and now is Russia. We believe that Putin is willing to allow Assad and his flock of butchers and thieves to go into exile in Russia, but that's about it. He does not appear willing to expend anymore political capital or money on the Syrian Ba'ath movement. Assad's predicament isn't complicated; its simply a matter of diminishing returns. Unless the Syrian military is preparing some awe-inspiring major offensive (it would have to be out of Damascus) to turn the tide of battle, then everyday Assad can expect his loyalists to decrease in number. A few gone over here, and a few more missing over there. Don't be surprised to see a Syrian pilot asking for asylum soon, although I don't know if any are left that can pretend to have clean hands, i.e. never having targeted civilians. The truth is, we're getting a little impatient. We want to know what will happen "apres les deluge", so we are discreetly trying to nudge Assad in the right direction. "Hey Bashir, I understand that Black Sea caviar is the richest. Don't take any chances, Bashir; you already have no chin, how will you look with no head? Be careful, Bashir, I opened the refrigerator this morning only to find a frozen Jabhat al-Nusrah guy inside. Oh, that was your doing? Sorry....."
Thursday, May 28, 2015
The rise of a terrorist superpower: the Islamic State in 2015.
Most analysts and military strategists in the United States have focused on the activities of Daesh (Islamic State) in Syria and Iraq. After all, our equities appear to be most at risk in those two particular theaters. We have been conducting an Allied Air Campaign in both areas of conflict for roughly a year, and today, for the first time, we have learned exactly how aggressive this Air Campaign has been. The Allied Air Campaign (which includes the United States, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain) is averaging fourteen missions per day against Daesh targets. In comparison, the U.S. Air Force averaged 800 missions per day against Iraqi and insurgency targets in Operation Enduring Freedom. When questioned about the low number of missions, the Pentagon pointed out that the targets are more complicated, and the coalition is determined to avoid hitting civilian targets in error. I will leave that comment to stand on its own. Recently, Daesh has become more visible in its efforts to expand into other countries. Saudi Arabia has started to suffer from internal bombings conducting by Daesh operatives, and the presence of Daesh has been noted in Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and Armenia (this includes countries with Islamic extremist groups who have declared their allegiance to Daesh). Currently, the Islamic State has the momentum in both Iraq and Syria. In fact, with only the remnants of the regime left to oppose their advance, Syria is beginning to look like a done deal, at least as far as Assad is concerned. Last week, Daesh operatives captured the Syrian/Iraqi border town of al-Tanf (al-Waleed in Iraq), which is a major victory for the extremist group. Controlling this entry point will allow Daesh to resupply its forces in Iraq more quickly, and vice versa. It solidifies their communication and transportation network between the two countries, and will undoubtedly bring more pressure on the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in Anbar Province.
Outside of Saudi Arabia and a few isolated incidents in other countries, Daesh has yet to conduct a major operation in a theater other than Syria and Iraq....at least as far as we know. This group continues to impress with its planning and patience, and its ability to transform financial support into military equipment and supplies. No doubt its recent successes on the battlefield have increased the flow of volunteers. Last summer, when the United States appeared to be taking this threat seriously, there was hope that the Daesh movement would be limited to Iraq and Syria. But the organization has executed a much more successful military strategy than the United States and its allies. We celebrated when the Kurds won a few victories in northern Syria, and we rejoiced when the ISF recaptured Tikrit. But each minor Daesh setback was followed by a major military operation against weak targets. Although Ramadi wasn't thought to be a weak target. It became one when the ISF deserted its positions and equipment/vehicles, and left the people of Ramadi to fend for themselves. The example that the Iraqi Army continues to set (with the exception of a modest-sized number of well-trained, disciplined troops that get deployed whenever the government in Baghdad needs a headlining-grabbing victory somewhere) is only encouraging scores of Sunni in Anbar and elsewhere to back the winner, which at this stage is Daesh. Each little step east, closer to Baghdad, allows Daesh to seed Sunni communities with locals who have become supporters. No doubt, actual Daesh operatives are already in place in the bedroom communities of Baghdad.
From a larger perspective, the EU and the United States had better recognize the danger of Daesh "sightings" in Africa and in other Middle East countries. This extremist group is nothing like we have seen before, with the exception of the Taliban, on a much smaller scale. It has brought a conventional military capability to an extremist agenda. These groups feed off the poverty and misery of the third world to recruit and spread a message of hate and blame. Sadly, in 2015, they have no shortage of expansion opportunities. We have been concerned for some time with the activities of Al-Shabaab in East Africa, and the potential for recruitment in the townships of Kenya. There is no doubt that Al-Shabaab and Daesh are in regular communication, and that Daesh is already considering ways to tap into the mountain of discontent that exists in East African townships. Another troubling development is the easy manner in which Daesh seems to co-opt existing guerilla movements, sometimes even groups that are not Sunni in affiliation. One would have though that the mass executions and beheadings would have damaged the brand at least to some extent. But the reality is, at the end of the day, what really impresses is success, which at the moment, Daesh is enjoying in Spades. Anyone that is able to make the United States appear reactionary and unresolved will always attract a certain element of bad guys, but Daesh has managed to force the United States, Saudi Arabia, the EU, the Emirates, and even the Assad regime, stand behind the same target. As far as Daesh is concerned, they have one enemy that just happens to speak different languages and wear different uniforms. It would be in our best interest if we also adopted the same approach, instead of continuing with this obsession of separating the motivations of various extremist groups that all share the same goal: the expansion of Islamic extremism and the destruction of the western way of life.
Outside of Saudi Arabia and a few isolated incidents in other countries, Daesh has yet to conduct a major operation in a theater other than Syria and Iraq....at least as far as we know. This group continues to impress with its planning and patience, and its ability to transform financial support into military equipment and supplies. No doubt its recent successes on the battlefield have increased the flow of volunteers. Last summer, when the United States appeared to be taking this threat seriously, there was hope that the Daesh movement would be limited to Iraq and Syria. But the organization has executed a much more successful military strategy than the United States and its allies. We celebrated when the Kurds won a few victories in northern Syria, and we rejoiced when the ISF recaptured Tikrit. But each minor Daesh setback was followed by a major military operation against weak targets. Although Ramadi wasn't thought to be a weak target. It became one when the ISF deserted its positions and equipment/vehicles, and left the people of Ramadi to fend for themselves. The example that the Iraqi Army continues to set (with the exception of a modest-sized number of well-trained, disciplined troops that get deployed whenever the government in Baghdad needs a headlining-grabbing victory somewhere) is only encouraging scores of Sunni in Anbar and elsewhere to back the winner, which at this stage is Daesh. Each little step east, closer to Baghdad, allows Daesh to seed Sunni communities with locals who have become supporters. No doubt, actual Daesh operatives are already in place in the bedroom communities of Baghdad.
From a larger perspective, the EU and the United States had better recognize the danger of Daesh "sightings" in Africa and in other Middle East countries. This extremist group is nothing like we have seen before, with the exception of the Taliban, on a much smaller scale. It has brought a conventional military capability to an extremist agenda. These groups feed off the poverty and misery of the third world to recruit and spread a message of hate and blame. Sadly, in 2015, they have no shortage of expansion opportunities. We have been concerned for some time with the activities of Al-Shabaab in East Africa, and the potential for recruitment in the townships of Kenya. There is no doubt that Al-Shabaab and Daesh are in regular communication, and that Daesh is already considering ways to tap into the mountain of discontent that exists in East African townships. Another troubling development is the easy manner in which Daesh seems to co-opt existing guerilla movements, sometimes even groups that are not Sunni in affiliation. One would have though that the mass executions and beheadings would have damaged the brand at least to some extent. But the reality is, at the end of the day, what really impresses is success, which at the moment, Daesh is enjoying in Spades. Anyone that is able to make the United States appear reactionary and unresolved will always attract a certain element of bad guys, but Daesh has managed to force the United States, Saudi Arabia, the EU, the Emirates, and even the Assad regime, stand behind the same target. As far as Daesh is concerned, they have one enemy that just happens to speak different languages and wear different uniforms. It would be in our best interest if we also adopted the same approach, instead of continuing with this obsession of separating the motivations of various extremist groups that all share the same goal: the expansion of Islamic extremism and the destruction of the western way of life.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
What can we expect if Bashir al-Assad is forced to abandon Damascus?
Links: A. Assad forces losing more ground in Syria.
B. Assad's weaknesses being exploited.
Everyday the headlines bring news of more territory lost to pro-government forces, as the hodge-podge of various anti-Assad groups push closer and closer to Damascus. In recent weeks, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), a well-organized group that many identify as Al-Qaeda's proxy in the Syrian conflict, has taken the lead, and delivered a string of defeats to the regular Syrian Army near the northwest town of Idlib. Syria's second-largest city of Aleppo, which is just north of Idlib, presently is not controlled by either side. Within the last year, regime forces have suffered losses in every corner of the country. The Iraqi border area is controlled by the Islamic State, while the northeast border with Turkey appears to be under mostly Kurdish control. The Jordanian border area in the southwest has seen a successful push by Jabhat al-Nusrah as of late, with the regime no longer able to claim control of any of the towns.
Although I have argued on numerous occasions that the IS, JN, and the Khorosan group were basically separate digits connected to the same hand, the hand of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda. I have always based my opinion on the strong historic links between all the groups and Al-Qaeda, and the usefulness of having the enemy imagine ten separate opponents on the battlefield as opposed to one. In truth, I'm sure these groups do have certain issues of ideology or ceremony that aren't the same, but at the end of the day, they share they same basic goal: creating an Islamic Extremist state in Syria (and the entire Levant, for that matter). Interestingly enough, now that the Kurds have solidified their defensive positions in the north eastern border region, all of these groups can focus exclusively on regime military targets. I would imagine that if they truly were opposed to each other, then we would eventually see some sign of conflict; it's human nature. Even the nebulous "Free Syrian Army", equipped and trained by the United States, appears to be focused on Syrian military units. In a nutshell, Its all against one.
If the regime is unable to respond effectively, what can be expected? Right now, Assad's control basically is limited to everything west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountain Range, which includes the entire Mediterranean coast, and the area around Damascus, although the Yarmouk refugee camp just outside Damascus has apparently been co-opted by the IS. As difficult as it is to imagine, Assad controls roughly one-eighth of Syria, the enemy is collecting at the gates. No doubt, when it becomes necessary, Assad and his family will be able to find asylum in Iran, Oman, or some friendly country, and plenty of money has been squirrelled away in various banks to keep him and his henchmen living comfortably for the remainder of their days. The question is, will Assad recognize the moment, when the time has come to abandon ship? He has shown a great deal of determination in the past, and he has stayed in Damascus when many others would have left.
Who picks up the pieces? Will it be Jabhat al-Nusrah? Or possibly Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State? Don't put your hopes on the Free Syrian Army. As soon as the U.S. money goes away, these guys will disappear into the hills. I believe that the Islamic State will take charge, and the experts will begin to consider that maybe these groups weren't so far apart after all. While the IS solidifies its position, maybe Angela Merkel and President Obama and convene a summit to enact sanctions. One thing is certain; whatever military resources that will be made available because of the end of hostilities in Syria, will quickly make their way to the battlefields of Iraq.
B. Assad's weaknesses being exploited.
Everyday the headlines bring news of more territory lost to pro-government forces, as the hodge-podge of various anti-Assad groups push closer and closer to Damascus. In recent weeks, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), a well-organized group that many identify as Al-Qaeda's proxy in the Syrian conflict, has taken the lead, and delivered a string of defeats to the regular Syrian Army near the northwest town of Idlib. Syria's second-largest city of Aleppo, which is just north of Idlib, presently is not controlled by either side. Within the last year, regime forces have suffered losses in every corner of the country. The Iraqi border area is controlled by the Islamic State, while the northeast border with Turkey appears to be under mostly Kurdish control. The Jordanian border area in the southwest has seen a successful push by Jabhat al-Nusrah as of late, with the regime no longer able to claim control of any of the towns.
Although I have argued on numerous occasions that the IS, JN, and the Khorosan group were basically separate digits connected to the same hand, the hand of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda. I have always based my opinion on the strong historic links between all the groups and Al-Qaeda, and the usefulness of having the enemy imagine ten separate opponents on the battlefield as opposed to one. In truth, I'm sure these groups do have certain issues of ideology or ceremony that aren't the same, but at the end of the day, they share they same basic goal: creating an Islamic Extremist state in Syria (and the entire Levant, for that matter). Interestingly enough, now that the Kurds have solidified their defensive positions in the north eastern border region, all of these groups can focus exclusively on regime military targets. I would imagine that if they truly were opposed to each other, then we would eventually see some sign of conflict; it's human nature. Even the nebulous "Free Syrian Army", equipped and trained by the United States, appears to be focused on Syrian military units. In a nutshell, Its all against one.
If the regime is unable to respond effectively, what can be expected? Right now, Assad's control basically is limited to everything west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountain Range, which includes the entire Mediterranean coast, and the area around Damascus, although the Yarmouk refugee camp just outside Damascus has apparently been co-opted by the IS. As difficult as it is to imagine, Assad controls roughly one-eighth of Syria, the enemy is collecting at the gates. No doubt, when it becomes necessary, Assad and his family will be able to find asylum in Iran, Oman, or some friendly country, and plenty of money has been squirrelled away in various banks to keep him and his henchmen living comfortably for the remainder of their days. The question is, will Assad recognize the moment, when the time has come to abandon ship? He has shown a great deal of determination in the past, and he has stayed in Damascus when many others would have left.
Who picks up the pieces? Will it be Jabhat al-Nusrah? Or possibly Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State? Don't put your hopes on the Free Syrian Army. As soon as the U.S. money goes away, these guys will disappear into the hills. I believe that the Islamic State will take charge, and the experts will begin to consider that maybe these groups weren't so far apart after all. While the IS solidifies its position, maybe Angela Merkel and President Obama and convene a summit to enact sanctions. One thing is certain; whatever military resources that will be made available because of the end of hostilities in Syria, will quickly make their way to the battlefields of Iraq.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part II)
Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
I know I'm not making friends by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler, but if I'm anything, I'm honest. I see too many similarities not to comment. And while the free world was distracted by the Soviet purges, pogroms and hostile military movement against the Baltic States and Finland, Hitler was able to rebuild his military and remove the last vestiges of opposition. Erdogan has his Soviet Union, and its calls itself The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL). As this first-of-its-kind, terrorist conventional army continues to defy Obama's air campaign, the Kurds, Assad's leftovers, and the newly-minted Free Syrian Army, the west tip-toes around Erdogan because he can be a deal-maker in this conflict, in one direction or the other. The Turkish military is in a similar position as the Iranian armed forces. An apparent threat to national security is snuggling right up their ass, and they need to decide to what extent they wish to get involved. In January, 2014, rumors were circulating that the Turks were providing arms to Al-Qaida through the Turkish border crossing with Syria. This last week, official documents were leaked that appear to corroborate that accusation. For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you know I have been on a bit of a rant regarding the media obsession with separating Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The end-receiver of the weapons and ammunition in question was Al-Qaida. Well, Al-Qaida in Syria has no need for that type of equipment, but ISIL does. The bad guys already know that Al-Qaeda and ISIL are two limbs connected to the same body, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better of we will be.
On the sixteenth of January, Turkish President Erdogan publicly commented on last week's deadly terror-attack in Paris. The first and second links contain the necessary details. I'm so offended by what he had to say, that I refuse to repeat it. But we must keep one thing in mind: Erdogan is a crafty politician. He has followed some framework up to this point that has left him as a virtual dictator, in command of one of the world's largest militaries. I know a Cuban leader, a Venezuelan, a North Korean and a crazy Argentinean hag named Christina who would love to be in his shoes. I believe every step he takes, every public announcement, is calculated. Hitler would make bold, sometimes irrational claims, just to see how far he could push the envelope. Erdogan is playing the same game. What can he get away with? Its no secret that he wants Assad out of Syria. Hell, if that's all he wanted in order to be team player, I'm sure Assad would be on ice by now. But Erdogan has his sights set higher. I worry about possession of the NATO weapons in Turkey, and I worry about the potential thousands of hostages our military and their families who are stationed in Turkey, would make. Erdogan as a wild-card comes at a terrible time for Obama, NATO and the EU. What they need more than anything is a successful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Until the U.S. decides to fully deploy in those war zones, the conflict will continue to escalate. The Iranians could be game-changers, if they gambles and fully mobilized into Iraq, but I just don't see it. I also don't see a way out of this mess for Obama, at least not during his term in office. As for Recep Erdogan, I believe he supports ISIL at the moment, because he wants Assad removed without having to make a military commitment. He has surreptitiously allowed arms and supplies to reach ISIL because he sees the organization as his surrogate "for-the-moment". I used to be concerned that Erdogan was a closet Islamist. I don't believe that anymore, even though it might have been true at one time. Erdogan has plans for Turkey, and he is in every picture. The removal of Assad is important because it provides validation of his authority, bona fides of his international influence, so to speak. I also don't think he is as patient as he once was. I expect he will lay his cards on the table sometime this year, at least as far as NATO missiles and U.S. bases are concerned. With the scourge of Terrorism more dangerous than ever, we live in scary times. Recep Erdogan only makes things scarier.
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
I know I'm not making friends by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler, but if I'm anything, I'm honest. I see too many similarities not to comment. And while the free world was distracted by the Soviet purges, pogroms and hostile military movement against the Baltic States and Finland, Hitler was able to rebuild his military and remove the last vestiges of opposition. Erdogan has his Soviet Union, and its calls itself The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL). As this first-of-its-kind, terrorist conventional army continues to defy Obama's air campaign, the Kurds, Assad's leftovers, and the newly-minted Free Syrian Army, the west tip-toes around Erdogan because he can be a deal-maker in this conflict, in one direction or the other. The Turkish military is in a similar position as the Iranian armed forces. An apparent threat to national security is snuggling right up their ass, and they need to decide to what extent they wish to get involved. In January, 2014, rumors were circulating that the Turks were providing arms to Al-Qaida through the Turkish border crossing with Syria. This last week, official documents were leaked that appear to corroborate that accusation. For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you know I have been on a bit of a rant regarding the media obsession with separating Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The end-receiver of the weapons and ammunition in question was Al-Qaida. Well, Al-Qaida in Syria has no need for that type of equipment, but ISIL does. The bad guys already know that Al-Qaeda and ISIL are two limbs connected to the same body, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better of we will be.
On the sixteenth of January, Turkish President Erdogan publicly commented on last week's deadly terror-attack in Paris. The first and second links contain the necessary details. I'm so offended by what he had to say, that I refuse to repeat it. But we must keep one thing in mind: Erdogan is a crafty politician. He has followed some framework up to this point that has left him as a virtual dictator, in command of one of the world's largest militaries. I know a Cuban leader, a Venezuelan, a North Korean and a crazy Argentinean hag named Christina who would love to be in his shoes. I believe every step he takes, every public announcement, is calculated. Hitler would make bold, sometimes irrational claims, just to see how far he could push the envelope. Erdogan is playing the same game. What can he get away with? Its no secret that he wants Assad out of Syria. Hell, if that's all he wanted in order to be team player, I'm sure Assad would be on ice by now. But Erdogan has his sights set higher. I worry about possession of the NATO weapons in Turkey, and I worry about the potential thousands of hostages our military and their families who are stationed in Turkey, would make. Erdogan as a wild-card comes at a terrible time for Obama, NATO and the EU. What they need more than anything is a successful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Until the U.S. decides to fully deploy in those war zones, the conflict will continue to escalate. The Iranians could be game-changers, if they gambles and fully mobilized into Iraq, but I just don't see it. I also don't see a way out of this mess for Obama, at least not during his term in office. As for Recep Erdogan, I believe he supports ISIL at the moment, because he wants Assad removed without having to make a military commitment. He has surreptitiously allowed arms and supplies to reach ISIL because he sees the organization as his surrogate "for-the-moment". I used to be concerned that Erdogan was a closet Islamist. I don't believe that anymore, even though it might have been true at one time. Erdogan has plans for Turkey, and he is in every picture. The removal of Assad is important because it provides validation of his authority, bona fides of his international influence, so to speak. I also don't think he is as patient as he once was. I expect he will lay his cards on the table sometime this year, at least as far as NATO missiles and U.S. bases are concerned. With the scourge of Terrorism more dangerous than ever, we live in scary times. Recep Erdogan only makes things scarier.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part I)
Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
The more President Recep Erdogan aligns Turkey with the cause of Radical Islam, the more I feel my heart breaking. You see, I am a Turkophile. I studied Ottoman history when I was younger, and have enjoyed a number of visits to Turkey. One of the most startling impressions I recall during my initial trip to Turkey, was that the Turkish people appeared to be much more European than "Middle Eastern" (forgive the use of that term). I had spent time in Jordan and the Gulf States, and also in Lebanon. I expected Turks to be similar in appearance and culture to Jordanians and Egyptians, but I was mistaken. I had no trouble imagining the Turkish people living in Greece, or the Balkans. In fact, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Turks do live in the Balkans, in Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. A substantial number of Turks also live in the Thrace region of Greece, although no where near the numbers who inhabited Thessaloniki at the turn of the century 1900. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its subsequent disposal in the bonfire of history (1922), Turkey's new leader was determined to steer a modern, secular path for new Turkish state. Kemal Ataturk was successful at just about every turn, as the people were more than ready for his message of peace, accountability and reform. Turkey managed to stay neutral during the Second World War (not declaring war on Germany until February 23, 1945). The Turkish people were in no position (or mood) for another World War, and they used peacetime to expand and diversify the Turkish economy, reform the educational system, and rewrite the tax codes. When first taking power, Ataturk decided to end the Turkish habit of wearing the Fez. He was successful, and it became acceptable for women to dress in the European style. Ataturk was so successful because basically the Turkish people were of one mind. They wanted to put the rigid, excessively conservative traditions of the Ottomans back into the seventeenth century, where they belonged. The economy of Turkey slowly began to resemble its European neighbors, as hard-work, determination and dedication became the keys to personal success. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Turkey took a hit in the international press because of the amount of hashish that was being grown and exported out of Turkey. As an Example, the Turkish Courts locked up a few European (and one very vocal American) smugglers and threw away the key. The Turks thought that they were responding appropriately, but instead, the curse of "The Midnight Express" continued to damage Turkey's international reputation and tourism for at least a decade.
Over the past three decades, the Turkish economy has experienced its share of highs and
lows. Fortunately, the highs outnumber the lows. At times, the Turkish economy has been a juggernaut. Even after the end of the Cold War, when the newly free economies of Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were expected to stand out, Turkey continued to double other European nations in percentage of GDP growth. The Turkish people do not shy away from hard work, and Turkey seems to be permanently poised on the precipice of developing a full-scale European style economy. The EU is waiting for just such an indication to move the Turks closer to EU membership. Roughly fifteen years ago, the Turkish government made a huge statement by normalizing relations with Israel and beginning a series of joint military exercises. The west and NATO were thrilled with this development, because it confirmed in their minds what they had hoped: that Turkey, regardless of its democratically-elected government, was still controlled by the pro-west, secular Military High Command. The Turkish Army had already exhibited its willingness to remove a democratically-elected government or two, if they weren't pleased with the direction of the country. For the most part, the Turkish people seemed content with the "backstop" provided by the Generals. The United States/NATO, with bases in Turkey and missiles on Turkish territory pointed at the USSR, were only too happy to train and equip what had become an outstanding armed forces.
Fast-forward to 2015. Sometime since the turn of the millennium, the Turkish people have become more comfortable with religion in their politics. When Recep Erdogan was first elected Prime Minister in 2003 (he had been mayor of Istanbul from 1994-98), everyone was aware that his political party was sympathetic to some of the groups on the
religious right. But Erdogan played his cards like a master. He was patient, and used the time to flirt with the west and the EU, all the while insulating the Turkish bureaucracy and military with his sycophants. Erdogan had a plan, and it required that he stay in office until 2014, at which time he would run for president (successfully). He didn't miss a beat; all the way, Erdogan loyalists started showing up in the police and intelligence agencies, on the bench, in the different branches of the military, and as political strong-men around Turkey proper. By 2010, Erdogan felt safe enough to speak ill of the west and the EU. The United States was next on his list, and the end of the good relations with Israel was only a matter of time. What a far cry from Erdogan at his initial inauguration in 2003, when he spoke so respectfully of the EU and Turkey's rightful place in the Union. Erdogan began to create a new foreign policy for Turkey: one that appears headed for the end of Turkish membership in NATO. It's safe to say that unless something happens very soon that changes the direction of Turkish politics, the idea of Turkey being a member of the EU is nothing more than a joke. What I find fascinating, is that Erdogan appears to be replicating what Hitler achieved in 1933-39. Erdogan is determined to create a strong Turkey, so strong that alliances can be made at the moment and discarded when no longer needed. He wants a rebirth of the nationalism that coincided with the Ottoman Empire at it's zenith, and he is to be the new Suleiman the Magnificent. Just as Hitler discreetly promoted anti-Jewish and anti-minority movements, Erdogan quietly (but obviously) encourages right-wing groups to attack U.S. sailors and march against foreign influence in Turkey. His lasting campaign has been internal, as he begins a determined assault on the traditionally non-aligned, vocal Turkish press. Last year, a scandal involving corruption and persons close to Erdogan, almost brought down the government. As I write this, the bill has come due. Journalists have been arrested, dailies shut down, and untold numbers of persons threatened. This pattern seems so familiar. In the past, the west and the Turkish people could have relied upon the military to return the balance by staging a coup and replacing now-President Erdogan. But that part of his plan has already gone into affect. Erdogan purged the military hierarchy in 2013, and today one in five Turkish Generals sit in prison (see Link C for details). The details concerning the prosecutor's case against hundreds of military officers is much too complicated for this blog. But I've read just about every document I can find, and this is without doubt a well-planned and flawlessly executed operation to neuter the Turkish military. The only Generals and Admirals left on the General Staff are cowed yes-men and Erdogan Sycophants. Again, just like Hitler. (End of Part I)
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
 |
| Turkish Flag |
Over the past three decades, the Turkish economy has experienced its share of highs and
 |
| Flag of NATO |
Fast-forward to 2015. Sometime since the turn of the millennium, the Turkish people have become more comfortable with religion in their politics. When Recep Erdogan was first elected Prime Minister in 2003 (he had been mayor of Istanbul from 1994-98), everyone was aware that his political party was sympathetic to some of the groups on the
 |
| Putin, Erdogan, and Berlusconi 2005; source: Kremlin.ru |
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
The Islamic State: Have We Lost Our Opportunity?
Links: A. Jihadists Building Training Camps In Iraq & Syria
B. IS Kills Iranian Revolutionary Guard General In Iraq
C. Leader Of Shia Militia Killed By IS In Iraq
We all have our routines. In the morning, before I take a shower or have anything to eat, I hop online and read email and a bit of news. I usually scan the Drudgereport, which is very effective at relaying certain "trends" in the U.S. media. For instance, lately I can't find any news about our involvement in Syria and Iraq. Thank goodness for the Long War Journal, which not only has the pulse of every hot spot, but keeps relevant stories accessible chronologically. As for the mainstream media, the issue has dropped off the face of the earth. When President Obama announced a U.S.-led air campaign against Islamic State (IS) targets in Iraq and Syria, the media was giddy. Even I expected daily stories of bombing sorties and missions to cripple the IS supply network. Respected military strategists, and probably the Pentagon itself, were quietly not optimistic that an air campaign not operating in concert with ground forces would ultimately fail. The knee-jerk reaction on behalf of the administration was loud enough to shatter glass, and on September 10, President Obama announced a continuation of the air campaign alongside an effort to train, equip, and stand-up an ethnic Syrian army, which would ideally become the missing "ground forces". Since that announcement on September 10, the details released by the administration on this force have been scant, confusing and sometimes contradictory. We were told by the Pentagon that this ethnic Syrian force would be led by former Syrian Army officers, whose goals were a secular, free political society in Syria. Later we were told that it would take three, possibly four months to stand-up this army, which eventually adopted the moniker "Free Syrian Army". The strangest announcement I recall claimed that the Free Syrian Army would not be allowed to engage in offensive operations, that it would be limited to defensive actions only. About the same time, a news report from Agency France Press announced that an effort by forces opposed to the IS, including the Free Syrian Army, had been soundly defeated after attempting an ambush. An ambush stretches the limits of defensive action about as far as it can be stretched, I think.
For those of you familiar with the term, the U.S. involvement in Syria and Iraq has become a complete Goat Rope. In other words, its a mess. Two months ago I asked a set of questions that weren't answered. I repeated those questions last month, and it appears I will be going for month number three. Reports from both Iraq and Syria appear to indicate that the IS in on the offensive. In Iraq, the IS has chosen to solidify its hold on Fallujah (and Ramadi?) and continues to swallow up town after town in the greater Baghdad area. I half-expected an IS attack on Baghdad by now, but the bad guys are obviously thinking a bit more strategically that I am. As the Iranians become increasingly involved, the IS has stepped up its presence in Diyala Province, which borders Iran. No doubt the Ayatollahs and the Muftis and the Grand Poobahs in Qom are freaking out that these Sunni Apostates are just a cow patty toss away from Iran, and will demand that Iranian resources be coalesced to meet the threat. This will leave the Shia militias leaderless (a few are already leaderless, as detailed in links 2 and 3), not to mention a militia or two may scurry over to Diyala as well. The Iraqi Army has been relying on the Shia militias, which have been instrumental in the defense of the Baiji Refinery and the Iraqi Army's efforts to defend greater Baghdad. Without Iranian assistance, the Iraqi Army doesn't stand a chance against the IS.
I had predicted that Syrian de-facto President Bashir al-Assad would take full advantage of the allied bombing campaign against the IS, to repair and re-equip the regular Syrian Army. I opined about the reconstitution of armor (heavy tanks) units and even the possibility of a few new helicopter gunships, courtesy of Assad's best buddy, Vlad Putin. Instead, I continue to read story after story of IS units kicking the shit out of regime forces in the far east provinces and also near Aleppo and even Damascus. I assumed that the dream of having a Russian naval base in the Mediterranean would inspire Putin to throw in all his chips behind Assad. Ideally, the Russians should have taken the break provided by the commencement of the allied air campaign (and the headline-grabbing Kobane struggle) to resupply and equip Assad's regular army, which would then be in a position to defeat a weakened IS and keep control of Syria. I know this will come as a surprise to many in the west, but the urban populations of Syria (Christian, Muslim, and whatever else) actually support Assad. But once Turkish President Erdogan decided that Assad wasn't his "cup of tea", many regional leaders jumped on Erdogan's bandwagon. This explains why the local media refuses to broadcast the fact that urban Syrians, including the majority of Christians, support Assad and believe he has taken positive steps to protect them throughout his time in office.
Back to my simple list of questions:
B. IS Kills Iranian Revolutionary Guard General In Iraq
C. Leader Of Shia Militia Killed By IS In Iraq
We all have our routines. In the morning, before I take a shower or have anything to eat, I hop online and read email and a bit of news. I usually scan the Drudgereport, which is very effective at relaying certain "trends" in the U.S. media. For instance, lately I can't find any news about our involvement in Syria and Iraq. Thank goodness for the Long War Journal, which not only has the pulse of every hot spot, but keeps relevant stories accessible chronologically. As for the mainstream media, the issue has dropped off the face of the earth. When President Obama announced a U.S.-led air campaign against Islamic State (IS) targets in Iraq and Syria, the media was giddy. Even I expected daily stories of bombing sorties and missions to cripple the IS supply network. Respected military strategists, and probably the Pentagon itself, were quietly not optimistic that an air campaign not operating in concert with ground forces would ultimately fail. The knee-jerk reaction on behalf of the administration was loud enough to shatter glass, and on September 10, President Obama announced a continuation of the air campaign alongside an effort to train, equip, and stand-up an ethnic Syrian army, which would ideally become the missing "ground forces". Since that announcement on September 10, the details released by the administration on this force have been scant, confusing and sometimes contradictory. We were told by the Pentagon that this ethnic Syrian force would be led by former Syrian Army officers, whose goals were a secular, free political society in Syria. Later we were told that it would take three, possibly four months to stand-up this army, which eventually adopted the moniker "Free Syrian Army". The strangest announcement I recall claimed that the Free Syrian Army would not be allowed to engage in offensive operations, that it would be limited to defensive actions only. About the same time, a news report from Agency France Press announced that an effort by forces opposed to the IS, including the Free Syrian Army, had been soundly defeated after attempting an ambush. An ambush stretches the limits of defensive action about as far as it can be stretched, I think.
For those of you familiar with the term, the U.S. involvement in Syria and Iraq has become a complete Goat Rope. In other words, its a mess. Two months ago I asked a set of questions that weren't answered. I repeated those questions last month, and it appears I will be going for month number three. Reports from both Iraq and Syria appear to indicate that the IS in on the offensive. In Iraq, the IS has chosen to solidify its hold on Fallujah (and Ramadi?) and continues to swallow up town after town in the greater Baghdad area. I half-expected an IS attack on Baghdad by now, but the bad guys are obviously thinking a bit more strategically that I am. As the Iranians become increasingly involved, the IS has stepped up its presence in Diyala Province, which borders Iran. No doubt the Ayatollahs and the Muftis and the Grand Poobahs in Qom are freaking out that these Sunni Apostates are just a cow patty toss away from Iran, and will demand that Iranian resources be coalesced to meet the threat. This will leave the Shia militias leaderless (a few are already leaderless, as detailed in links 2 and 3), not to mention a militia or two may scurry over to Diyala as well. The Iraqi Army has been relying on the Shia militias, which have been instrumental in the defense of the Baiji Refinery and the Iraqi Army's efforts to defend greater Baghdad. Without Iranian assistance, the Iraqi Army doesn't stand a chance against the IS.
I had predicted that Syrian de-facto President Bashir al-Assad would take full advantage of the allied bombing campaign against the IS, to repair and re-equip the regular Syrian Army. I opined about the reconstitution of armor (heavy tanks) units and even the possibility of a few new helicopter gunships, courtesy of Assad's best buddy, Vlad Putin. Instead, I continue to read story after story of IS units kicking the shit out of regime forces in the far east provinces and also near Aleppo and even Damascus. I assumed that the dream of having a Russian naval base in the Mediterranean would inspire Putin to throw in all his chips behind Assad. Ideally, the Russians should have taken the break provided by the commencement of the allied air campaign (and the headline-grabbing Kobane struggle) to resupply and equip Assad's regular army, which would then be in a position to defeat a weakened IS and keep control of Syria. I know this will come as a surprise to many in the west, but the urban populations of Syria (Christian, Muslim, and whatever else) actually support Assad. But once Turkish President Erdogan decided that Assad wasn't his "cup of tea", many regional leaders jumped on Erdogan's bandwagon. This explains why the local media refuses to broadcast the fact that urban Syrians, including the majority of Christians, support Assad and believe he has taken positive steps to protect them throughout his time in office.
Back to my simple list of questions:
- What is the status of the Free Syrian Army?
- Has the FSA been stood up?
- Does the FSA have the option to undertake offensive operations or is it intended exclusively for defense?
- What is the status of the air campaign?
- What percentage of missions has been flown by our allies, compared to the number of missions flown by the U.S. Air Force?
- If the IS occupies Baghdad, will this trigger greater military involvement on behalf of the United States?
- If the IS were defeated in Syria, and the FSA and regular Syrian began a struggle for control of the country, would the U.S. military get involved?
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Weapons Of Mass Destruction...Revisited.
Link: Chemical Weapons In Iraq
Anyone in Iraq in 2003-2004 would have come across evidence that the Saddam Hussein regime was not only in possession of chemical weapons, but that they were preparing to use them against U.S. forces. The truth is, Saddam had a number of nasty little ambushes planned for our brave soldiers, but our victory was so total and engulfing that he and his coward sons were obliged to leave town before any of their "surprises" could be visited on our young men and women in uniform. The Iraqi army disappeared from the battlefield almost as quickly as they did recently outside of Tikrit. Let's face it, no one wanted to die for Saddam, which was fortunate for everyone because the end result was fewer casualties on either side. The fact is Iraq had compiled a frightening arsenal of chemical weapons which were stored at various locations around the country. There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq was developing less complicated, easy to deliver batches of biological agents as well. It's not difficult to keep these labs simple and mobile, and we have yet to get satisfactory clarification on what exactly the Iraqis were transporting in convoys from central Iraq to Syria in the dead of the night. Who was surprised when Syrian de facto President Bashir al-Assad began using chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition?
I'm not writing this post in support of the argument that the Bush Administration went to war against Iraq because Iraq was a threat to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). I won't make that argument because I don't believe that Operation Enduring Freedom had anything to do with Iraq's weapons initiatives, be they chemical, biological, nuclear or all three. I believe the intention was to force the war onto a battlefield that was less comfortable for Al-Qaida (AQ): away from U.S. population centers and into AQ's backyard. Bringing the conflict to Iraq and Afghanistan forced the enemy to fight a conventional war in which he would be totally ill-suited. Iraq would be freed from the rule of a bloodthirsty despot and would be rebuilt; the Taliban would be destroyed once and for all; and both nations would embrace the promise of democracy, education, and free trade. I believe the idea was to create a long-term military presence in this part of the world, possibly in the form of an Army and Air Force Base to compliment the current U.S. Naval facilities in the Gulf States. I don't think the Bush Administration was prepared for the scope and the breadth of the Sunni Insurgency coupled with the Sunni-Shia conflict purposely exacerbated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI). A change in the White House and a definite change in policy ended any hope of achieving the original goals of Operation Enduring Freedom. But this is all conjecture, which is a nice way of saying bullshit. I have no proof for my supposition, nor do I care anymore. The discussion today focuses on the claim by the left that Iraq did not possess WMD when we invaded in 2003.
After the decision by George Bush Sr. to leave Saddam Hussein in power (following the first Gulf War in 1991), Saddam showed his appreciation by using chemical weapons against the rebellious Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Saddam's appreciation of chemical weapons did not end with his collection of a nice supply, tucked away in various bunkers. Iraqi scientists continued to do research with both chemical and biological agents. Initially, because the U.S. Army chose not to get involved in the controversy, the discovery of cache upon cache of chemical weapons went unreported in the U.S. press. Granted, the Iraqi Survey Group was in place for the express purpose of locating WMD, but they were focused on locating mobile and stationary labs for creating biological and chemical agents. Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, the "smoking gun" was either never discovered or never revealed.
For the simple point of argument about the presence of WMD in Iraq, anyone who says that Iraq was not in possession of WMD is mistaken at best. The latest version of the conversation from the left, is that the chemical weapons discovered by the U.S. Army were caches dating back to 1991 and before. Even though I don't believe that all the chemical agents discovered in Iraq (and they're still digging stuff up, folks) have a birthdate of 1991 and before, I think the argument is absurd. The United Nations Security Council Resolutions did not specify if Iraq was currently cooking up chemical agents, it was addressing Iraq's possession of chemical agents. Saddam Hussein did indeed have WMDs; in fact, he had a proverbial butt-load of WMD. If you want to argue that the real reasons for going to war had nothing to do with WMDs, then I won't stand in your way. But to continue the false narrative that Iraq did not possess WMD and was not a threat to its neighbors (including, with an adequate delivery system, Israel) is to ignore real evidence. A decade after the fact, poor souls are still stumbling into Saddam's stash of unconventional weapons. We may yet uncover a well-buried mobile biological laboratory. I've given you my opinion regarding the true motivation for the war, which is certainly open to debate. But the caches of chemical weapons found in Iraq isn't.
Anyone in Iraq in 2003-2004 would have come across evidence that the Saddam Hussein regime was not only in possession of chemical weapons, but that they were preparing to use them against U.S. forces. The truth is, Saddam had a number of nasty little ambushes planned for our brave soldiers, but our victory was so total and engulfing that he and his coward sons were obliged to leave town before any of their "surprises" could be visited on our young men and women in uniform. The Iraqi army disappeared from the battlefield almost as quickly as they did recently outside of Tikrit. Let's face it, no one wanted to die for Saddam, which was fortunate for everyone because the end result was fewer casualties on either side. The fact is Iraq had compiled a frightening arsenal of chemical weapons which were stored at various locations around the country. There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq was developing less complicated, easy to deliver batches of biological agents as well. It's not difficult to keep these labs simple and mobile, and we have yet to get satisfactory clarification on what exactly the Iraqis were transporting in convoys from central Iraq to Syria in the dead of the night. Who was surprised when Syrian de facto President Bashir al-Assad began using chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition?
I'm not writing this post in support of the argument that the Bush Administration went to war against Iraq because Iraq was a threat to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). I won't make that argument because I don't believe that Operation Enduring Freedom had anything to do with Iraq's weapons initiatives, be they chemical, biological, nuclear or all three. I believe the intention was to force the war onto a battlefield that was less comfortable for Al-Qaida (AQ): away from U.S. population centers and into AQ's backyard. Bringing the conflict to Iraq and Afghanistan forced the enemy to fight a conventional war in which he would be totally ill-suited. Iraq would be freed from the rule of a bloodthirsty despot and would be rebuilt; the Taliban would be destroyed once and for all; and both nations would embrace the promise of democracy, education, and free trade. I believe the idea was to create a long-term military presence in this part of the world, possibly in the form of an Army and Air Force Base to compliment the current U.S. Naval facilities in the Gulf States. I don't think the Bush Administration was prepared for the scope and the breadth of the Sunni Insurgency coupled with the Sunni-Shia conflict purposely exacerbated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI). A change in the White House and a definite change in policy ended any hope of achieving the original goals of Operation Enduring Freedom. But this is all conjecture, which is a nice way of saying bullshit. I have no proof for my supposition, nor do I care anymore. The discussion today focuses on the claim by the left that Iraq did not possess WMD when we invaded in 2003.
After the decision by George Bush Sr. to leave Saddam Hussein in power (following the first Gulf War in 1991), Saddam showed his appreciation by using chemical weapons against the rebellious Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Saddam's appreciation of chemical weapons did not end with his collection of a nice supply, tucked away in various bunkers. Iraqi scientists continued to do research with both chemical and biological agents. Initially, because the U.S. Army chose not to get involved in the controversy, the discovery of cache upon cache of chemical weapons went unreported in the U.S. press. Granted, the Iraqi Survey Group was in place for the express purpose of locating WMD, but they were focused on locating mobile and stationary labs for creating biological and chemical agents. Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, the "smoking gun" was either never discovered or never revealed.
For the simple point of argument about the presence of WMD in Iraq, anyone who says that Iraq was not in possession of WMD is mistaken at best. The latest version of the conversation from the left, is that the chemical weapons discovered by the U.S. Army were caches dating back to 1991 and before. Even though I don't believe that all the chemical agents discovered in Iraq (and they're still digging stuff up, folks) have a birthdate of 1991 and before, I think the argument is absurd. The United Nations Security Council Resolutions did not specify if Iraq was currently cooking up chemical agents, it was addressing Iraq's possession of chemical agents. Saddam Hussein did indeed have WMDs; in fact, he had a proverbial butt-load of WMD. If you want to argue that the real reasons for going to war had nothing to do with WMDs, then I won't stand in your way. But to continue the false narrative that Iraq did not possess WMD and was not a threat to its neighbors (including, with an adequate delivery system, Israel) is to ignore real evidence. A decade after the fact, poor souls are still stumbling into Saddam's stash of unconventional weapons. We may yet uncover a well-buried mobile biological laboratory. I've given you my opinion regarding the true motivation for the war, which is certainly open to debate. But the caches of chemical weapons found in Iraq isn't.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Just How Evil Has Russia Become?
Links: A. Problems with New START Treaty
B. Russia's Support for Syria's Bashir al-Assad
C. Russia Assisting Iran's Nuclear Program
D. Russia Launches New UK Channel
Today's post will probably be broken up into two segments, as much as I despise "Part I and Part II" reading selections. This subject can't be addressed with only a handful of paragraphs. Recently we've discussed Iran, the resurgence of Al-Qaeda in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Ebola crisis. All of these issues deserve serious attention. In fact, as we dither, I'm assuming the Iranians have been making tremendous progress in their efforts to enrich Uranium. In the mind of President Obama, though, the real threat to the liberty and safety of the American people is......the need to "legalize" persons who are living in this country sin documentos. Hey, we all have out priorities. I won't be tackling that issue in my blog, at least not anytime soon. Let's take another look at Mother Russia.
In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got to work negotiating a Nuclear Reduction Treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (of course we actually mean Prime Minister Vladimir Putin). Many analysts questioned the timing and the need for this treaty, and once the guts were on the table for us to examine, the United States did not come off well (I won't drop this pile of manure squarely on Hillary's doorstep; thirteen GOP Senators voted in favor of the treaty; of course, that was during the days when we had separate branches of government). If you want to know what is wrong with the treaty, have a quick look at the first link above. More than anything else, any treaty with Russia is a roll of the dice because the Russians lie, hide and cheat. Ask any of the officials who have previously been involved in weapons reduction verification. And yet we trust them with our Nuclear Security on a handshake. In a case of terrible timing for Hillary, the Russians are not winning any philanthropy awards this year. It will be very difficult not only bragging about the New START Treaty in her 2016 Presidential Campaign; it is something she will have to defend (at least from questions by the Fox News folks). My personal question to candidate Hillary: "As Secretary of State, you undoubtedly knew of Russian assistance in Iran's efforts to enrich Uranium. How could you agree to sign a Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty with a nation that was actually helping to create another third-world country with nuclear weapons?"
I don't have to spend too much ink on Russia's support for Syrian de facto President Bashir al-Assad. During the dark days of the Soviet Union, Russia supported Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad (at least daddy had a chin, for goodness sake), and anyone else who was willing to oppose Israel. I have a challenge to all of you armchair generals out there. Lets try and determine just how many Russian tanks have been laid waste in Sinai, Golan, and the West Bank over the past five decades? What used to fascinate me was the Soviet's willingness to replace the tanks that the IDF destroyed. And most of the time, it was an upgrade: T-54/55 to 7-62 to T-72 to T-80; what a bargain. Assad in Damascus still has as many as 1600 T-72/T-72Ms, not to mention 2000 T-54/55 clunkers and 1000 T-62s. I have no idea how Assad's armor has been reduced, but you can be sure he has taken full advantage of the recent international focus on ISIL to get his front-line units in shape. Why do the Russians continue the Soviet policy of support for Assad and the Syrian Ba'ath Party? It all boils down to location and strategy. Syria sits in a very strategic location, south of Turkey, north of Saudi Arabia and Israel, and west of Iraq. Having Syria as a close ally has been advantageous to Russia in the past, and the opportunity to create a Mediterranean Russian Naval Base at Tartus is a tempting inducement. Russian patronage of Assad is paying off. It gives Russia a seat at the Syria/ISIL/Iraq table, wherever that table may be.
Why are the Russians so anxious to create additional member of the nuclear weapons club? It has to be more than an issue of money, although I'm sure the Iranians are willing to pay. Russia has its own oil, so petroleum can't be the reason for assisting Iran's Nuclear efforts. Historically, the Chinese have also been willing to share their knowledge of all things nuclear (most of it stolen from our labs and universities), but with Beijing it was always about money. And Iran has contracted with Russia to build a number of reactors. Heaven only knows where the payment for all of this "help" will end up...probably in a Cyprus Bank Account under a Russian name. Iran claims to be solely interested in peaceful use of nuclear energy, but the reality is, the Iranians are only interested in enrichment of uranium. In fact, the Iranians have been using laser technology to create weapons-grade Uranium, which takes less time and is more difficult to detect, therefore encourages proliferation. It would be such a welcome change if a Russian government would make a decision based on the notion that "its simply the right thing to do".
We have discussed the situation in Ukraine ad nauseam, and I refuse to send the few readers I have left, running for the exits. My original suspicion was that in order to punish Ukraine for removing a pro-Russian president, Putin decided to annex Crimea and swallow up the modest Ukrainian Navy (poor Ukrainian Navy; I'm the only blogger who gives them any face time). Putin created the "independence" movement in eastern Ukraine as a bargaining chip; if Ukraine accepts the annexation of Crimea, then Russia will withdraw their criminals and thugs from the streets of Luhansk, Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk. After the fourth or fifth round of punishing sanctions (and one jetliner full of passengers, shot right out of the sky), Putin was reminded of the complete lack of nerve in Washington DC and the EU, and decided to keep mixing things up in the Ukraine. Lets face it, what does he have to lose? Putin could order a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Moldova, and what would President Obama's response be? Noodle on that one for a while.
The reason I decided to discuss Russia today was the news of a new Russian UK television channel and a new Russian international news service, ostensibly to "combat western propaganda". One can only hope that people won't pay attention to this new news service called "Sputnik", unless it becomes an outlet for comic relief. Last week, some Russian news service (probably all of them) highlighted a video clip showing a Ukrainian jet shooting a missile at Malaysian Airlines MH 17. If it weren't so disgusting and vile, it would have been funny, because the clip was obviously fabricated. These gross morons don't seem to understand that if the Ukrainians wanted to shoot down that jetliner, they could have done so from at least a few miles away. The absurdities regarding this alleged photo of a military jet shooting a missile at a civilian jetliner go on and on and on. And this is the kind of honest reporting that we can expect from Sputnik and the new UK-based Russian television channel.
When the Iron Curtain fell, I was so excited for the future. I have always been fascinated by Russia, and I was thrilled with the idea of an entirely new relationship between Washington DC and Moscow. I'm not sure how, but things have fallen completely off the rails. The Russian people don't seem to be happy unless they have an oppressive, militaristic government. Can you imagine if Gorbachev had come to power instead of Putin? But we are stuck with Vlad, and everyday he finds a way to remind me that he is nothing more than a sociopathic bucket of shit with serious homosexual tendencies (nothing personal, Gay folks), who managed to be at the right place and at the right time. Putin used his KGB and Russian Mafia connections to elbow his way into the power vacuum that was left over after Boris Yeltsin. And we are all suffering for it. One fact is becoming more and more apparent all the time; the United States needs a leader who is proud of his/her country and is prepared to stand up to the bullies of the world. 2016 can't come fast enough.......
B. Russia's Support for Syria's Bashir al-Assad
C. Russia Assisting Iran's Nuclear Program
D. Russia Launches New UK Channel
Today's post will probably be broken up into two segments, as much as I despise "Part I and Part II" reading selections. This subject can't be addressed with only a handful of paragraphs. Recently we've discussed Iran, the resurgence of Al-Qaeda in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Ebola crisis. All of these issues deserve serious attention. In fact, as we dither, I'm assuming the Iranians have been making tremendous progress in their efforts to enrich Uranium. In the mind of President Obama, though, the real threat to the liberty and safety of the American people is......the need to "legalize" persons who are living in this country sin documentos. Hey, we all have out priorities. I won't be tackling that issue in my blog, at least not anytime soon. Let's take another look at Mother Russia.
In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got to work negotiating a Nuclear Reduction Treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (of course we actually mean Prime Minister Vladimir Putin). Many analysts questioned the timing and the need for this treaty, and once the guts were on the table for us to examine, the United States did not come off well (I won't drop this pile of manure squarely on Hillary's doorstep; thirteen GOP Senators voted in favor of the treaty; of course, that was during the days when we had separate branches of government). If you want to know what is wrong with the treaty, have a quick look at the first link above. More than anything else, any treaty with Russia is a roll of the dice because the Russians lie, hide and cheat. Ask any of the officials who have previously been involved in weapons reduction verification. And yet we trust them with our Nuclear Security on a handshake. In a case of terrible timing for Hillary, the Russians are not winning any philanthropy awards this year. It will be very difficult not only bragging about the New START Treaty in her 2016 Presidential Campaign; it is something she will have to defend (at least from questions by the Fox News folks). My personal question to candidate Hillary: "As Secretary of State, you undoubtedly knew of Russian assistance in Iran's efforts to enrich Uranium. How could you agree to sign a Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty with a nation that was actually helping to create another third-world country with nuclear weapons?"
I don't have to spend too much ink on Russia's support for Syrian de facto President Bashir al-Assad. During the dark days of the Soviet Union, Russia supported Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad (at least daddy had a chin, for goodness sake), and anyone else who was willing to oppose Israel. I have a challenge to all of you armchair generals out there. Lets try and determine just how many Russian tanks have been laid waste in Sinai, Golan, and the West Bank over the past five decades? What used to fascinate me was the Soviet's willingness to replace the tanks that the IDF destroyed. And most of the time, it was an upgrade: T-54/55 to 7-62 to T-72 to T-80; what a bargain. Assad in Damascus still has as many as 1600 T-72/T-72Ms, not to mention 2000 T-54/55 clunkers and 1000 T-62s. I have no idea how Assad's armor has been reduced, but you can be sure he has taken full advantage of the recent international focus on ISIL to get his front-line units in shape. Why do the Russians continue the Soviet policy of support for Assad and the Syrian Ba'ath Party? It all boils down to location and strategy. Syria sits in a very strategic location, south of Turkey, north of Saudi Arabia and Israel, and west of Iraq. Having Syria as a close ally has been advantageous to Russia in the past, and the opportunity to create a Mediterranean Russian Naval Base at Tartus is a tempting inducement. Russian patronage of Assad is paying off. It gives Russia a seat at the Syria/ISIL/Iraq table, wherever that table may be.
Why are the Russians so anxious to create additional member of the nuclear weapons club? It has to be more than an issue of money, although I'm sure the Iranians are willing to pay. Russia has its own oil, so petroleum can't be the reason for assisting Iran's Nuclear efforts. Historically, the Chinese have also been willing to share their knowledge of all things nuclear (most of it stolen from our labs and universities), but with Beijing it was always about money. And Iran has contracted with Russia to build a number of reactors. Heaven only knows where the payment for all of this "help" will end up...probably in a Cyprus Bank Account under a Russian name. Iran claims to be solely interested in peaceful use of nuclear energy, but the reality is, the Iranians are only interested in enrichment of uranium. In fact, the Iranians have been using laser technology to create weapons-grade Uranium, which takes less time and is more difficult to detect, therefore encourages proliferation. It would be such a welcome change if a Russian government would make a decision based on the notion that "its simply the right thing to do".
We have discussed the situation in Ukraine ad nauseam, and I refuse to send the few readers I have left, running for the exits. My original suspicion was that in order to punish Ukraine for removing a pro-Russian president, Putin decided to annex Crimea and swallow up the modest Ukrainian Navy (poor Ukrainian Navy; I'm the only blogger who gives them any face time). Putin created the "independence" movement in eastern Ukraine as a bargaining chip; if Ukraine accepts the annexation of Crimea, then Russia will withdraw their criminals and thugs from the streets of Luhansk, Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk. After the fourth or fifth round of punishing sanctions (and one jetliner full of passengers, shot right out of the sky), Putin was reminded of the complete lack of nerve in Washington DC and the EU, and decided to keep mixing things up in the Ukraine. Lets face it, what does he have to lose? Putin could order a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Moldova, and what would President Obama's response be? Noodle on that one for a while.
The reason I decided to discuss Russia today was the news of a new Russian UK television channel and a new Russian international news service, ostensibly to "combat western propaganda". One can only hope that people won't pay attention to this new news service called "Sputnik", unless it becomes an outlet for comic relief. Last week, some Russian news service (probably all of them) highlighted a video clip showing a Ukrainian jet shooting a missile at Malaysian Airlines MH 17. If it weren't so disgusting and vile, it would have been funny, because the clip was obviously fabricated. These gross morons don't seem to understand that if the Ukrainians wanted to shoot down that jetliner, they could have done so from at least a few miles away. The absurdities regarding this alleged photo of a military jet shooting a missile at a civilian jetliner go on and on and on. And this is the kind of honest reporting that we can expect from Sputnik and the new UK-based Russian television channel.
When the Iron Curtain fell, I was so excited for the future. I have always been fascinated by Russia, and I was thrilled with the idea of an entirely new relationship between Washington DC and Moscow. I'm not sure how, but things have fallen completely off the rails. The Russian people don't seem to be happy unless they have an oppressive, militaristic government. Can you imagine if Gorbachev had come to power instead of Putin? But we are stuck with Vlad, and everyday he finds a way to remind me that he is nothing more than a sociopathic bucket of shit with serious homosexual tendencies (nothing personal, Gay folks), who managed to be at the right place and at the right time. Putin used his KGB and Russian Mafia connections to elbow his way into the power vacuum that was left over after Boris Yeltsin. And we are all suffering for it. One fact is becoming more and more apparent all the time; the United States needs a leader who is proud of his/her country and is prepared to stand up to the bullies of the world. 2016 can't come fast enough.......
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Forget Crimea And The Black Sea...What About Russian Naval Bases In The Mediterranean?
Link: A. Russian Naval Plans In The Mediterranean
B. Yes Virginia, There Is A Syrian Navy
I spend so much time reading and thinking about the conflict in Syria, I have allowed myself to fall into a two-dimensional trap. The United States and allies are conducting an air campaign in Syria in an attempt to diminish the fighting capacity of certain Islamic terrorist groups. Concurrently, efforts are underway to train and equip the "Free Syrian Army", which will serve as the closest thing to a ground element that the United States and her allies have. I have heard rumors that we've already trained non-U.S. ground units who are now already in combat. This would make sense, given that the Free Syrian Army has orders to only engage the enemy from a defensive posture. Another rumor is making the rounds of various U.S. military bases and facilities around the world, and this one dwarfs anything we have heard to date (no, they are not bringing back Little House On the Prairie). Allegedly, the Administration has accepted the need for U.S. ground forces in Iraq in order to prevent the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL or IS) from eventually occupying
both Baghdad and the vital oil refinery at Baiji. I have been hearing this rumor for some time, and it is evolving into a whispered roar. As far as I am concerned, there is not a shred of truth to the rumor. However, the small person I had hired to hide up Biden's ass and take discreet notes during Cabinet meetings, was discovered and promoted to the new Ebola Czar. So your guess is as good as mine. To be honest, I can't imagine the Administration engaging in such an obvious about-face. But hey, politics is bizarre. President Obama may get kudos for allowing his policy to evolve. With regard to the Syrian campaign, I believed that the conflict was permanently limited to a ground and air conflict. I realize Syria has a small coast (193 kilometers) which includes two decent sized cities, Tartus and Latakia. It's my
understanding that the area around Tartus and Latakia is littered with ruins from the days of ancient Sparta, Athens and Troy. Soon the tourists may hear a new language be spoken among the sightseers: Russian.
Let me clarify an important point: I do not expect the Syrian conflict to become a three-dimensional with an attack on Tartus by the three pedalos that make up the IS Navy.
But I needed a smooth avenue on which to introduce the subject of Russian interest in Mediterranean ports. We have spent some time commenting on the Russian desire to turn the Black Sea into Lake Putin, but the specter of Russian warships with a home on the Mediterranean is much closer to reality. In fact, the Russians have already started to use the reasonably modern facilities at Tartus. I have opined that one of the handful of reasons why Putin will not allow Bashir al-Assad to fall from power is the Russian's need for an ally with a port large enough for expansion. Tartus certainly fits the bill, although other locations have been mentioned as well. Occasionally someone will mention the possibility of a Russian naval facility in Libya, but who knows when the camel traders, with AK-47s under one arm and Qurans under the other, will grow tired of creating martyrs. Alexandria, in Egypt, was looking like a promising destination before Mohamed Morsi was whisked away to jail. For many years I waited, expecting the Algerian military (Algeria's true boss) to fall totally into the lap of Russia (the Algerians have traditionally purchased Russian-made military equipment). I was being very naïve. The Algerian government has contracts with half the oil companies in Europe and the United States, and lately has actually started purchasing more U.S. military equipment. Malta might as well be a Channel Island, alongside Jersey and the Isle of Man, and the rest are non-starters: Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, France, Italy, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel. Most of the countries on the preceding
list have very little love for Russia, and the others do not have the right harbor for what the Russian Navy requires. Cyprus though, is a bit of a mystery. Until recently Cypriot banks were awash with laundered Russian cash, and the Russians really seem to enjoy the little island full of Greeks and Turks who really, REALLY hate each other. Cyprus has a number of locations that would suit the Russian navy to a tee, but it is unlikely that the UK, who for some reason continues to act as stepfather to the Cypriots, would allow Russian submarines in Larnaka.
I never second-guess Putin's ingenuity (or his ability to blackmail and bribe), and he very well might negotiate himself into a naval port facility in one of the above-named locations. But for the moment, it isn't necessary. Assad has given the Russians the keys to the port of Tartus. The modest, but well-maintained, Syrian Navy keeps its few Russian-made frigates, missile craft and patrol boats at Tartus, which provide an invaluable opportunity for the Syrian naval personnel to work together with the Russians (watch out, Syrian naval commanders: the last time the Russians showed up wearing smiles, the entire Ukrainian navy was swallowed up overnight). If Assad manages to keep his job (or another Ba'athist butthole takes it), the Russian Navy should have a free hand to construct a modern naval port facility at Tartus, complete with both Marines and a land-based naval air detachment. Although the Russians have had friends all over the middle east for more than the past half-century, this is the first time that I can recall the Russians openly stating their intention to make full naval use of Tartus. The presence of all those Russian nuclear submarines does not sit well with me, and you can only imagine the hissy fit being thrown by the Green Party political representatives throughout EU countries. However, a full-blown Russian fleet in the Levant will accomplish something positive for us over here in the West: Whoever takes the White House in 2016 won't be able to ignore the reconstituting of the Russian war machine.
B. Yes Virginia, There Is A Syrian Navy
I spend so much time reading and thinking about the conflict in Syria, I have allowed myself to fall into a two-dimensional trap. The United States and allies are conducting an air campaign in Syria in an attempt to diminish the fighting capacity of certain Islamic terrorist groups. Concurrently, efforts are underway to train and equip the "Free Syrian Army", which will serve as the closest thing to a ground element that the United States and her allies have. I have heard rumors that we've already trained non-U.S. ground units who are now already in combat. This would make sense, given that the Free Syrian Army has orders to only engage the enemy from a defensive posture. Another rumor is making the rounds of various U.S. military bases and facilities around the world, and this one dwarfs anything we have heard to date (no, they are not bringing back Little House On the Prairie). Allegedly, the Administration has accepted the need for U.S. ground forces in Iraq in order to prevent the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL or IS) from eventually occupying
Let me clarify an important point: I do not expect the Syrian conflict to become a three-dimensional with an attack on Tartus by the three pedalos that make up the IS Navy.
I never second-guess Putin's ingenuity (or his ability to blackmail and bribe), and he very well might negotiate himself into a naval port facility in one of the above-named locations. But for the moment, it isn't necessary. Assad has given the Russians the keys to the port of Tartus. The modest, but well-maintained, Syrian Navy keeps its few Russian-made frigates, missile craft and patrol boats at Tartus, which provide an invaluable opportunity for the Syrian naval personnel to work together with the Russians (watch out, Syrian naval commanders: the last time the Russians showed up wearing smiles, the entire Ukrainian navy was swallowed up overnight). If Assad manages to keep his job (or another Ba'athist butthole takes it), the Russian Navy should have a free hand to construct a modern naval port facility at Tartus, complete with both Marines and a land-based naval air detachment. Although the Russians have had friends all over the middle east for more than the past half-century, this is the first time that I can recall the Russians openly stating their intention to make full naval use of Tartus. The presence of all those Russian nuclear submarines does not sit well with me, and you can only imagine the hissy fit being thrown by the Green Party political representatives throughout EU countries. However, a full-blown Russian fleet in the Levant will accomplish something positive for us over here in the West: Whoever takes the White House in 2016 won't be able to ignore the reconstituting of the Russian war machine.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Its Time To Get To Know Jabhat al-Nusrah
Links: A. Al-Nusrah Claims That U.S. Has Bombed Its Territory
B. Al-Nusrah Front, Jun al-Aqsa Terrorist Groups In Idlib
C. Al-Nusrah Forces U.S.-Backed Group From Idlib
We've managed to dissect just about every player in Syria except Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front), the regular Syrian Army, and the Free Syrian Army.
support, the army had lost its eyes and was finding itself caught in one ambush after another. But the regular Syrian Army has been given the opportunity to retreat behind the front lines and lick its wounds, while the Kurds struggle against the IS in Kobani and forces supported by the U.S.(?) are driven out of Idlib (were the elements that were routed in Idlib connected to the Free Syrian Army?). Make no mistake, when the time is most advantageous to Assad, his military will return to the battlefield, and don't be surprised if Putin has assisted in rebuilding the Syrian Air Force.
Back to Jabhat al-Nusrah. This group announced its formation in Syria in January 2012, and states that its end goal is the creation of a Pan-Islamic State under Sharia Law and ruled by a Caliph. If we switched out "Jabhat al-Nusrah" with "Islamic State of the Levant", who would know the difference? And yet, according to Twitter, the international media, and the Pentagon, the two groups are at each other's throats. It is believed that many of the original members of Al-Nusrah are Syrians who were fighting with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) group during Operation Enduring Freedom. The members of Al-Nusrah are believed to be the best trained and the best equipped of all the Sunni Extremist groups in the Syria/Iraq theater. Al-Nusrah is known for conducting suicide attacks. The leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the head of Al-Nusrah, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, appear to have had numerous discussions about the merging of the two groups. According to Al-Jazeera, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the only remaining leader of Al-Qaeda without two bullet holes in his forehead (so far), instructed the two groups not to merge. Al-Baghdadi ignored this instruction and continued to publicly declare a merger between the two. Since they appear to be separate today, I'm assuming al-Julani won that argument. But lets be honest; who really gives a shit about any of the back-and-forth that I just repeated (direct from Wikipedia)? Al-Nusrah is on the battlefield in Syria, its fighters are well-trained, disciplined, and like to blow themselves up for Allah. Much of the same can be said for the Islamic State, so as far as I see it, we are looking at two peas in a pod. When the bullets start to fly, I guarantee that these two groups (and any other Sunni-affiliated armed extremist groups) will join ranks. To be honest, the war in Syria means very little to me. The Russians will find a way to protect their interests in the end, so I am forced to accept that Assad isn't going anywhere. My interest is in Iraq, where we have easily identified allies in the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga/Kurdish regular forces. Actually, it becomes more apparent everyday that Iranian military units have been participating in the war against IS. From Assad in Syria to the Iranians in Iraq, we keep ending up with the strangest of bedfellows! I recognize that the Iraqi Army has been strengthened by groups of both Shia militia and Sunni tribal fighters. I see a real opportunity in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda/IS, solidify the Kurdish homeland, and greatly improve Sunni/Shia relations. Insha'Allah!
B. Al-Nusrah Front, Jun al-Aqsa Terrorist Groups In Idlib
C. Al-Nusrah Forces U.S.-Backed Group From Idlib
We've managed to dissect just about every player in Syria except Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front), the regular Syrian Army, and the Free Syrian Army.
The Regular Syrian Army
The regular Syrian Army consists of whatever Syrian President Bashir al-Assad has been able to patch together from the pre-war Syrian Army. The Syrian Air Force has been decimated and will have to be rebuilt from scratch (which isn't necessarily that difficult if you have the cash to buy new jets from Russia), but the Army, which has basically been inactive over the past few months, really only needs reorganizing and a strong leader who can inspire men to fight. Syria continues to have an absurd advantage in armor over all the players in this drama, and I imagine a great deal has been done to repair vehicles/tanks and train new soldiers. For Assad, the allied air intervention was like water to the man in the desert dying of thirst. He has been given a reprieve, and I have no doubt that he has been making the most of this down-time. We can't forget that Russia continues to support the Syrian government in Damascus. Vlad Putin is also grateful of the allied air campaign because the situation in Syria was becoming dire for Assad and his Ba'athist buddies. The IS was making preparations for an assault on Aleppo, which would have only been the precursor to an attack on Damascus itself. The Syrian Air Force, with most of its Air Bases overrun by the IS and other Islamic terrorist groups, had basically collapsed (with the exception of a few helicopter gunships, which Assad loves to call into action). Without airThe Free Syrian Army
What about the Free Syrian Army (forgive me; for some time I was referring to this group as the "New Syrian Army")? We digested news reports last week from Idlib (see link C) that detailed the rout of U.S.-backed fighters. Were these fighters part of the Free Syrian Army that we are supposed to be training and wasn't supposed to be operational for at least another month? And what about the statement from the Pentagon that the Free Syrian Army would be deployed in a defensive capacity only. Were "our" fighters in Idlib in a defensive posture before they were run out of town? Maybe this is a different group, and this is an indication that we are training other military elements that will have a more "offensive" plan of action. I find this hypothesis to be the most hard to believe, because until now the Obama Administration has been very generous sharing every last detail of its intentions. I see no reason to believe that the leopard has changed his spots; why train others as offensive pieces on the board, but leave the main body of your forces, the Free Syrian Army, in a purely defensive posture? I am surprised that we don't have more information regarding the Free Syrian Army, especially regarding its timetable. I can't help but wonder if this Free Syrian Army, in its effort to be "defensive", is going to get caught between the various Islamic groups in the east, and a reconstituted regular Syrian military in the west.Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front)
The first two links I chose to share provide important details regarding Jabhat al-Nusrah, or the Nusrah Front. The press, in its daily effort to retweet all the propaganda fed to it by the terrorist groups via social media, continues to remind us that al-Nusrah is the Al-Qaeda representative in Syria and that they are not friends with the IS whatsoever. Common sense, and a career of working against Islamic terror groups, leads me to suspect that someone is falling hook, line and sinker for the most obvious of disinformation campaigns. Khorasan hates al-Nusrah and al-Nusrah hates the Islamic State and since al-Nusrah is the representative of Al-Qaeda in Syria (?), then Al-Qaeda must also hate the Islamic State. Please, folks....listen carefully and try to see the truth in all its simplicity. All of these groups are Sunni affiliated and all have historic Al-Qaeda connections of one type or another. The Islamic State of the Levant was called Al-Qaeda in Iraq not to long ago, for goodness sake. I think the decision by the Qatari Air Force to only bomb targets selectively (no Al-Nusrah targets, please) was part of the effort to convince us that there is freedom of thought and movement in its each individual group. I don't accept this; as far as I'm concerned they are all Sunni terrorist groups who prey upon the weak and helpless. In fact, our military would be best served by keeping all these groups under one header: "THE ENEMY", and let the CTC analysts at Langley worry about the personalities within.Back to Jabhat al-Nusrah. This group announced its formation in Syria in January 2012, and states that its end goal is the creation of a Pan-Islamic State under Sharia Law and ruled by a Caliph. If we switched out "Jabhat al-Nusrah" with "Islamic State of the Levant", who would know the difference? And yet, according to Twitter, the international media, and the Pentagon, the two groups are at each other's throats. It is believed that many of the original members of Al-Nusrah are Syrians who were fighting with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) group during Operation Enduring Freedom. The members of Al-Nusrah are believed to be the best trained and the best equipped of all the Sunni Extremist groups in the Syria/Iraq theater. Al-Nusrah is known for conducting suicide attacks. The leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the head of Al-Nusrah, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, appear to have had numerous discussions about the merging of the two groups. According to Al-Jazeera, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the only remaining leader of Al-Qaeda without two bullet holes in his forehead (so far), instructed the two groups not to merge. Al-Baghdadi ignored this instruction and continued to publicly declare a merger between the two. Since they appear to be separate today, I'm assuming al-Julani won that argument. But lets be honest; who really gives a shit about any of the back-and-forth that I just repeated (direct from Wikipedia)? Al-Nusrah is on the battlefield in Syria, its fighters are well-trained, disciplined, and like to blow themselves up for Allah. Much of the same can be said for the Islamic State, so as far as I see it, we are looking at two peas in a pod. When the bullets start to fly, I guarantee that these two groups (and any other Sunni-affiliated armed extremist groups) will join ranks. To be honest, the war in Syria means very little to me. The Russians will find a way to protect their interests in the end, so I am forced to accept that Assad isn't going anywhere. My interest is in Iraq, where we have easily identified allies in the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga/Kurdish regular forces. Actually, it becomes more apparent everyday that Iranian military units have been participating in the war against IS. From Assad in Syria to the Iranians in Iraq, we keep ending up with the strangest of bedfellows! I recognize that the Iraqi Army has been strengthened by groups of both Shia militia and Sunni tribal fighters. I see a real opportunity in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda/IS, solidify the Kurdish homeland, and greatly improve Sunni/Shia relations. Insha'Allah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)