List: Obama Orders Bombing of ISIL
Tonight, on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York City and Washington DC, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Air Force would be conducting bombing raids into both Syria and Iraq to downgrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group. ISIL is the direct descendant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terrorist organization that was almost destroyed by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006-2007. The remnants of AQI hunkered down in the deserts around Tikrit and Ramadi until they were strong enough to become active in the recent quagmire in Syria. Once the U.S. pullout in Iraq began in earnest, AQI stepped up its activities in northern Iraq. The ISIL discussed by President Obama this evening is stronger than ever, and militarily active in both Syria and Iraq (who are we kidding; I'm sure they are all over Jordan and Lebanon as well).
In his speech, President Obama outlined a multi-faceted approach to defeat ISIL, including providing support to allies already engaged on the ground. This is the place where we usually get into trouble. Who is it exactly that will be receiving U.S. military hardware and ammunition? I'm very curious which groups have been identified as "the good guys". Better yet, how did the administration (through the CIA more than likely) make that decision? It matters a great deal to me. We have made a habit lately of arming our enemies by arming our surrogates. No doubt its much more palatable for the administration to conduct a war without U.S. troops, but finding other folks to die on our behalf (maybe a bit harsh...it is their fight as well or they wouldn't be there) does not come without a price tag. In the late 1970s the CIA armed the Afghan Mujahedeen with all sorts of yummy killing accoutrement. I can tell you that on more than a few occasions, those same weapons have been used to kill young American soldiers. Then we decided to train and arm the Iraqi Army before pulling out recently, and where are those weapons? An unpleasant number were left on the battlefield by deserting Iraqi troops before a shot was even fired. And now, if this conflict does eventually require U.S. troops on the ground, ISIL will have American-made weapons to use. Recently I wrote a post in which I called for immediate military assistance to the Ukrainian Army. I did so safe with the belief that whatever we give the Ukrainians will not one day end up pointed at U.S. soldiers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Another group that gets my full approval for military support is the Kurdish Peshmerga.
If you've been reading my blog, you've probably already noted my affection for the Peshmerga. They may not look like much to the naked eye, but they are as disciplined and intelligent a military organization as you will find. They work well in smaller units, and can transport just about any piece of equipment great distances in no time. They have shown a tendency to avoid prisoners, and they are loyal to the Kurdish cause to the death. I've never known the Peshmerga to leave weapons on the battlefield because I've never known them to lose a battle. The Peshmerga enjoy fighting in conditions that others avoid, which is one of their best assets. The next time you are visiting Sulaymaniyah, have a walk through those rugged mountains where the Peshmerga train. You'll understand why they all seem to be in great physical shape. Oh, And they stink really bad...not big fans of deodorant.
President Obama's plan includes all the hallmarks of his foreign policy as we have come to know it. Once the air campaign begins (still no concrete date), the U.S. Air Force will target ISIL in both Syria and Iraq. One year ago today, this administration was contemplating an air campaign against ISIL's enemies, the repugnant Bashir al-Assad regime. Now we will be bombing Assad's opponents. There is no way that this will not tremendously help Assad and the Syrian military (let me see....the friend of my enemy is my friend, or my friend is my friends enemy, or is it my friend has an enemy who is also my friend, or....I quit!). As a traditionalist, I don't like war that is undeclared, and I don't like conflict that basically involves only one branch of the military. But I am all for ending blood sacrifices in this part of the world without a clear and bold strategy to turn the enemy into a pile of dust.
Basically, I appreciated the speech and I'm glad that we will be raining death upon these bastards somewhere. I understand that there was some concern about where exactly we would be dropping the bombs. I can assure everyone that the Air Force and our intel targeting guys and gals RARELY make mistakes, but someone will be inconvenienced (okay, so someone's house and goat herd may get blown to smithereens...we usually provide some sort of compensation). Also, be prepared for the bodies of innocent victims that will be paraded around. I remember one occasion in Iraq when the locals dug up a previously buried body and declared the corpse to be the victim of "American artillery". Unfortunately the body was roughly 100 yrs old, and when the arm fell off they realized the game was up. As for President Obama and the new strategy to attack ISIL, he has my full support. Again, I don't believe in "sorta" fighting a war. When you have identified that a foe has reached the point of being a deadly threat to the United States, then you utilize all of your resources to defeat the enemy in the quickest time frame possible. This strategy saves lives and makes the necessary point.
I won't spend too much time on the parts of the speech that I found disturbing. Here we go again with the coalitions. How many are we talking about? We have NATO, which is more or less a living coalition. We have separate coalitions in both Bosnia and Kosovo and we have the coalition which has been working with us in Afghanistan. When Obama spoke of a coalition including the United States, and then mentioned a coalition of Arab nations, was he referring to the same coalition? First and foremost, coalitions involving Arab states don't usually achieve much. And if they had any inclination to get involved in this mess, wouldn't they have done so by now? Hell, most of them have internal elements that are raising money for ISIL. And just when President Obama had me warming up, he had to remind us that this conflict is not about religion, and that Islam is about peace. We've heard it ad nauseam, Mr. President. By repeating that same mantra, you enable the average, peace-loving Muslim to avoid getting involved. Regardless of the numbers, true, peaceful Muslims need to stand up and be heard! And not to yell at me, but to do something about these fanatics in our cities and in our own neighborhoods who are using bastardized versions of your holy book to recruit killers. No one gets a free pass anymore. Everyone has a part to play.
Showing posts with label Bosnia and Herzegovina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bosnia and Herzegovina. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
The Advent of the Functioning Failed State....
Link: Has the West Failed Eastern Europe?
The Balkans region is the national nursery of Europe. With the establishment of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, and the renewed attempts at economic and political rejuvenation in Albania, the Balkans seem to be alive with growth. South of Kosovo are Macedonia and Greece, and to the east you find Rumania and Bulgaria. The people of Kosovo recently celebrated their Declaration of Independence, with the hope that economic growth and political stability would follow. But Eastern Europe, regardless of the recent developments in Kosovo, is home to stagnating economies and political instability. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to identify a country in the region (possibly Serbia) that does not fit the description of a "failed state".
With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the subsequent collapse of totalitarian regimes in Rumania and Bulgaria, there was great excitement and hope for national rebirth. Unfortunately, both Rumania and Bulgaria suffered from an endemic type of corruption deluxe. Every branch of government seemed to function on a unique form of bribery and nepotism. It would take much more than a change in government to reform the corrupt judicial and administrative systems that had atrophied under communist rule. In order for Bulgaria and Rumania to succeed, it would be necessary to build from the ground up, and would require immediate sacrifice from every level of society. And many people were not willing to make the sacrifice. Since the fall of communism, both Bulgaria and Rumania have stuttered and staggered towards a pseudo-capitalist economic system, still fighting corruption in government, still dealing with the presence in power of some of the old communists that had been part of the original problem. The average person doesn't see the big picture. the average citizen realizes that their standard of living has no improved since the defeat of the communists. In fact, crime has increased and the trains don't always run on schedule anymore. They blame the political changes for all the problems they face today, long for the stability of the past, and vote communist. Both Bulgaria and Rumania are failed states. They function almost out of habit.
Greece is the country that wants to be European, but doesn't want to make the sacrifices and the reforms necessary for the long-term economic stability that exists in places like Austria and Denmark. The Greek people do not seem to understand why they are different. They refuse to examine their economic and political system, where lies the answers to their question. It was probably wishful thinking on behalf of the European Union that allowed for Greece's acceptance into the EU. The Greek economy was not structured to compete effectively with other European markets. Socialist governments in Greece had created so many loopholes and exceptions to the tax code, not to mention pension growth that far outweighed economic growth, that the Greek economic system bore very little resemblance to its European Union partners. The Greek economy is also dependent upon a vibrant tourist industry. When political problems (and the threat of terrorism) discourage tourism, the Greek government must look elsewhere to make up the lost income. The EU has been willing to bail out Greece, but repeated requests for permanent reform (including hated changes to the pension system and the tax code) have met with demonstrations, riots, and revolving-door governments. Greece has become a failed state. It also still functions, but at the end of the day the economic forecasts promise more conflict with the EU.
Macedonia was born on the rump of the former Yugoslavia. At birth, the Macedonian economy was in no position to support an entire nation. Efforts to build a diversified economy have resulted in less dependence on foreign imports for foodstuffs, but Macedonia is also in great need of improvements in infrastructure. Macedonia is landlocked, and all trade must be transported on a less-than adequate road network that was heavily damaged during the Kosovo conflict. Macedonia lives on loans, just like its neighbors. At least the possibility of a Civil War with Albanian separatists has diminished, and the political system seems to be vibrant. But Macedonia is a young, failed state. On the other hand, Albania has been a political entity for roughly a century. The Albanian people, God bless them, have suffered heroically through repeated corrupt administrations, both socialist and "democratic". It seems impossible to find an Albanian politician who isn't "on the take". The Black Market, smuggling cigarettes, booze, and women, functions much more effectively than the national economy. But the people, with a trust in traditional methods of subsistence, persevere. Albania functions, but it certainly fits the mold of a failed state.
The link I have provided questions the European commitment to Eastern Europe. When Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Rumania threw off the yoke of communist/socialist control, the diplomatic response was very supportive. But the money and the assistance (to rebuild infrastructure, train and educate workers, etc.) was either non-existent or slow in arriving. For all practical purposes these nations were left to their own devices. Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina both have the misfortune and the fortune of being temporary home to various European military elements. But both Kosovo and B-H have healthy, ingrained Black Markets that won't hesitate to compete with legitimate businesses. Kosovars benefit tremendously from an Ex-Pat community (particularly in the United States) that continues to pay for improvements in infrastructure (although power is a real concern). The EU has made its presence known (the Office of European Cooperation in particular) recently, in a Johnny-come-lately fashion. But it may be too little too late. The people of Eastern Europe have lost faith in the EU, and European taxpayers are growing weary of expenditures into "nowhere". The future is not bright for the functioning, failed states of Eastern Europe.
The Balkans region is the national nursery of Europe. With the establishment of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, and the renewed attempts at economic and political rejuvenation in Albania, the Balkans seem to be alive with growth. South of Kosovo are Macedonia and Greece, and to the east you find Rumania and Bulgaria. The people of Kosovo recently celebrated their Declaration of Independence, with the hope that economic growth and political stability would follow. But Eastern Europe, regardless of the recent developments in Kosovo, is home to stagnating economies and political instability. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to identify a country in the region (possibly Serbia) that does not fit the description of a "failed state".
With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the subsequent collapse of totalitarian regimes in Rumania and Bulgaria, there was great excitement and hope for national rebirth. Unfortunately, both Rumania and Bulgaria suffered from an endemic type of corruption deluxe. Every branch of government seemed to function on a unique form of bribery and nepotism. It would take much more than a change in government to reform the corrupt judicial and administrative systems that had atrophied under communist rule. In order for Bulgaria and Rumania to succeed, it would be necessary to build from the ground up, and would require immediate sacrifice from every level of society. And many people were not willing to make the sacrifice. Since the fall of communism, both Bulgaria and Rumania have stuttered and staggered towards a pseudo-capitalist economic system, still fighting corruption in government, still dealing with the presence in power of some of the old communists that had been part of the original problem. The average person doesn't see the big picture. the average citizen realizes that their standard of living has no improved since the defeat of the communists. In fact, crime has increased and the trains don't always run on schedule anymore. They blame the political changes for all the problems they face today, long for the stability of the past, and vote communist. Both Bulgaria and Rumania are failed states. They function almost out of habit.
Greece is the country that wants to be European, but doesn't want to make the sacrifices and the reforms necessary for the long-term economic stability that exists in places like Austria and Denmark. The Greek people do not seem to understand why they are different. They refuse to examine their economic and political system, where lies the answers to their question. It was probably wishful thinking on behalf of the European Union that allowed for Greece's acceptance into the EU. The Greek economy was not structured to compete effectively with other European markets. Socialist governments in Greece had created so many loopholes and exceptions to the tax code, not to mention pension growth that far outweighed economic growth, that the Greek economic system bore very little resemblance to its European Union partners. The Greek economy is also dependent upon a vibrant tourist industry. When political problems (and the threat of terrorism) discourage tourism, the Greek government must look elsewhere to make up the lost income. The EU has been willing to bail out Greece, but repeated requests for permanent reform (including hated changes to the pension system and the tax code) have met with demonstrations, riots, and revolving-door governments. Greece has become a failed state. It also still functions, but at the end of the day the economic forecasts promise more conflict with the EU.
Macedonia was born on the rump of the former Yugoslavia. At birth, the Macedonian economy was in no position to support an entire nation. Efforts to build a diversified economy have resulted in less dependence on foreign imports for foodstuffs, but Macedonia is also in great need of improvements in infrastructure. Macedonia is landlocked, and all trade must be transported on a less-than adequate road network that was heavily damaged during the Kosovo conflict. Macedonia lives on loans, just like its neighbors. At least the possibility of a Civil War with Albanian separatists has diminished, and the political system seems to be vibrant. But Macedonia is a young, failed state. On the other hand, Albania has been a political entity for roughly a century. The Albanian people, God bless them, have suffered heroically through repeated corrupt administrations, both socialist and "democratic". It seems impossible to find an Albanian politician who isn't "on the take". The Black Market, smuggling cigarettes, booze, and women, functions much more effectively than the national economy. But the people, with a trust in traditional methods of subsistence, persevere. Albania functions, but it certainly fits the mold of a failed state.
The link I have provided questions the European commitment to Eastern Europe. When Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Rumania threw off the yoke of communist/socialist control, the diplomatic response was very supportive. But the money and the assistance (to rebuild infrastructure, train and educate workers, etc.) was either non-existent or slow in arriving. For all practical purposes these nations were left to their own devices. Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina both have the misfortune and the fortune of being temporary home to various European military elements. But both Kosovo and B-H have healthy, ingrained Black Markets that won't hesitate to compete with legitimate businesses. Kosovars benefit tremendously from an Ex-Pat community (particularly in the United States) that continues to pay for improvements in infrastructure (although power is a real concern). The EU has made its presence known (the Office of European Cooperation in particular) recently, in a Johnny-come-lately fashion. But it may be too little too late. The people of Eastern Europe have lost faith in the EU, and European taxpayers are growing weary of expenditures into "nowhere". The future is not bright for the functioning, failed states of Eastern Europe.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Independence Movements in Europe
Link: Is South Tyrol Austrian or Italian?
I was a bit surprised when I recently stumbled upon a news program highlighting the various independence movements active in Europe today. This is just the kind of interesting topic that gets my blogging blood flowing. As a form of disclaimer, let me say up front that if I so chose, I could write about active independence movements in almost every country in Europe. But with my post dangerously long as it is, I wisely decided to comment on only the Independence Movements that have gained the highest media profile.
I chose this particular link because it details the European identity crisis with which I am most familiar. In 1918, just after the end of the first World War, the winning Allies detached South Tyrol from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and sewed it on to the Italian province of Alto Adige. This decision continues to ruffle feathers 96 years later. South Tyrol is one of a number of independence movements that are presently being debated in Europe. The people of Scotland will actually have the opportunity to vote in a few weeks on the issue of independence from the United Kingdom. Where else, you ask? The folks in Barcelona, Spain want their province of Catalonia (Cataluña) to become a separate Republic; Catalans already speak their own language, which gives them a bit of a head-start. In Belgium, the Flemish in the north and west would like separation from the Walloons in the south. The status quo in Belgium is quite unique: On the left side of Belgium (as you are looking down at the map in front of you), all the road signs are in Flemish. On the right side of Belgium, all the road signs are in French. Brussels, the capital and one of the most important cities in the world, accommodates both Flemish and French. Since the Flemish constitute roughly 50 percent of the population and the French speakers are closer to 35 percent (I have no idea what the other 15 percent are speaking; maybe Zulu), the Flemish are understandably a bit miffed at the arrangement.
I assume most Americans, like myself, were unaware that an independence movement existed in the northern Italian province of Alto Adige. My close friend Marco Scherer, a member of the Austrian Army and a lifelong resident of the north Tyrol village of Schlitters, explained the issue to me in simple terms. Italy was rewarded for ignoring its mutual-defense pact with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War One. Because Italy joined the Allies, the Italians were given a big slice of Tyrol. It made no difference that the land annexed by Italy was at the time over 90 percent Austrian in ethnicity and German in language. In most instances, the population would have assimilated to a large degree after 96 years. But that isn't the case in south Tyrol. Most folks still speak German and consider themselves Austrian. Certainly there are many ethnic Italians as well, and the two groups do seem to get along. But the issue has at times led to bloodshed. To this day it is a very difficult subject with many Austrians (and all Tyrolians). They consider the Italian annexation of south Tyrol to be Fascism at it worst and Imperialism at its best. Its a fair, simple question to ask: in 2014, why is Italy governing a territory that is ethnically, linguistically, traditionally, and historically tied to Austria?
France has had an independence movement in the province of Brittany for some time. The central government in Paris has worked with representatives of the movement, and a good deal of governance and authority has been transferred to local officials and departments. I understand that recently the French government has discovered a budding Catalonian succession effort on the French side of the border (Catalonia is in northeastern Spain, separated from France by the Pyrenees Mountains). Because France has a history of being sympathetic to the Basque separatists of north central Spain, I'm sure the Spanish are enjoying the irony. Speaking of the Basque Independence Movement, the Basque people, with their own language and customs, have been seeking independence from Spain since the mid-19th century (or earlier). Following the second World War, the movement became more aggressive in its activities, encouraging the Basque people to commit various acts of civil disobedience. The terrorist group "ETA" (Homeland), has committed many acts of violence in support of Basque Independence, including the murder of judges, politicians, soldiers, police, and former ETA members. Since the turn of the last century, there has been positive movement towards a peaceful resolution, with the Basque people renouncing violence to a large degree. The Spanish government in Madrid has given recognition to the Basque language and culture, and taken steps to provide local authorities with more control. I do not think I will live to see the day that the Basque region becomes a separate nation from Spain. I'm not going to tackle the subjects of Corsica (France), or Cyprus (Greece and Turkey); these two beautiful Mediterranean islands have violent histories which have been covered many times in all forms of media, and do not really fit into the category addressed in this post.
I was going to end this less-than cohesive post with a discussion on Bosnia-Herzegovina. But similar to Cyprus and Corsica (and Kosovo), it deserves a post all to itself. What were they thinking? Lets have Croatians living next to Bosnians and Slovenians next to Serbs, when all they want to do is kill each other? Well, hope springs eternal, and I have a soft spot in my heart for Bosnia (and Herzegovina). A few facts that no one familiar with the Balkans will dispute: the Bosnians are a determined, hard-working people, and over the years they have suffered numerous episodes of tremendous suffering. I think I will close on that note, as tomorrow I will be writing on the current state of affairs in the Balkans (pending other more important developments). Cheers.
I was a bit surprised when I recently stumbled upon a news program highlighting the various independence movements active in Europe today. This is just the kind of interesting topic that gets my blogging blood flowing. As a form of disclaimer, let me say up front that if I so chose, I could write about active independence movements in almost every country in Europe. But with my post dangerously long as it is, I wisely decided to comment on only the Independence Movements that have gained the highest media profile.
I chose this particular link because it details the European identity crisis with which I am most familiar. In 1918, just after the end of the first World War, the winning Allies detached South Tyrol from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and sewed it on to the Italian province of Alto Adige. This decision continues to ruffle feathers 96 years later. South Tyrol is one of a number of independence movements that are presently being debated in Europe. The people of Scotland will actually have the opportunity to vote in a few weeks on the issue of independence from the United Kingdom. Where else, you ask? The folks in Barcelona, Spain want their province of Catalonia (Cataluña) to become a separate Republic; Catalans already speak their own language, which gives them a bit of a head-start. In Belgium, the Flemish in the north and west would like separation from the Walloons in the south. The status quo in Belgium is quite unique: On the left side of Belgium (as you are looking down at the map in front of you), all the road signs are in Flemish. On the right side of Belgium, all the road signs are in French. Brussels, the capital and one of the most important cities in the world, accommodates both Flemish and French. Since the Flemish constitute roughly 50 percent of the population and the French speakers are closer to 35 percent (I have no idea what the other 15 percent are speaking; maybe Zulu), the Flemish are understandably a bit miffed at the arrangement.
I assume most Americans, like myself, were unaware that an independence movement existed in the northern Italian province of Alto Adige. My close friend Marco Scherer, a member of the Austrian Army and a lifelong resident of the north Tyrol village of Schlitters, explained the issue to me in simple terms. Italy was rewarded for ignoring its mutual-defense pact with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War One. Because Italy joined the Allies, the Italians were given a big slice of Tyrol. It made no difference that the land annexed by Italy was at the time over 90 percent Austrian in ethnicity and German in language. In most instances, the population would have assimilated to a large degree after 96 years. But that isn't the case in south Tyrol. Most folks still speak German and consider themselves Austrian. Certainly there are many ethnic Italians as well, and the two groups do seem to get along. But the issue has at times led to bloodshed. To this day it is a very difficult subject with many Austrians (and all Tyrolians). They consider the Italian annexation of south Tyrol to be Fascism at it worst and Imperialism at its best. Its a fair, simple question to ask: in 2014, why is Italy governing a territory that is ethnically, linguistically, traditionally, and historically tied to Austria?
France has had an independence movement in the province of Brittany for some time. The central government in Paris has worked with representatives of the movement, and a good deal of governance and authority has been transferred to local officials and departments. I understand that recently the French government has discovered a budding Catalonian succession effort on the French side of the border (Catalonia is in northeastern Spain, separated from France by the Pyrenees Mountains). Because France has a history of being sympathetic to the Basque separatists of north central Spain, I'm sure the Spanish are enjoying the irony. Speaking of the Basque Independence Movement, the Basque people, with their own language and customs, have been seeking independence from Spain since the mid-19th century (or earlier). Following the second World War, the movement became more aggressive in its activities, encouraging the Basque people to commit various acts of civil disobedience. The terrorist group "ETA" (Homeland), has committed many acts of violence in support of Basque Independence, including the murder of judges, politicians, soldiers, police, and former ETA members. Since the turn of the last century, there has been positive movement towards a peaceful resolution, with the Basque people renouncing violence to a large degree. The Spanish government in Madrid has given recognition to the Basque language and culture, and taken steps to provide local authorities with more control. I do not think I will live to see the day that the Basque region becomes a separate nation from Spain. I'm not going to tackle the subjects of Corsica (France), or Cyprus (Greece and Turkey); these two beautiful Mediterranean islands have violent histories which have been covered many times in all forms of media, and do not really fit into the category addressed in this post.
I was going to end this less-than cohesive post with a discussion on Bosnia-Herzegovina. But similar to Cyprus and Corsica (and Kosovo), it deserves a post all to itself. What were they thinking? Lets have Croatians living next to Bosnians and Slovenians next to Serbs, when all they want to do is kill each other? Well, hope springs eternal, and I have a soft spot in my heart for Bosnia (and Herzegovina). A few facts that no one familiar with the Balkans will dispute: the Bosnians are a determined, hard-working people, and over the years they have suffered numerous episodes of tremendous suffering. I think I will close on that note, as tomorrow I will be writing on the current state of affairs in the Balkans (pending other more important developments). Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)