I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013. No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary. The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016. It hasn't turned out exactly as planned. Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed. I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep. But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth. Lets start from the beginning.
Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia. During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached. This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship. Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST). The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established. In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's. Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty! Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING. This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it. For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride". Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore. I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention. I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.
Let's get the Foundation out of the way. Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department. Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet. Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation. Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors. Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law. By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?
At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing. Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt. Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change. As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring. This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News. Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live. It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour. Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed. Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary. The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?
In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq. The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces. This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office. These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare. As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded. The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War. Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared. Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army. Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009? Because of politics, folks. The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq. Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't. ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.
What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy. The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment. Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements. There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans. Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people? We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died. Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault. We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya. I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again". Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.
Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State? Get back to me of you come up with something.
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Friday, September 9, 2016
Monday, November 9, 2015
Russia to host Syrian peace conference; any Assad opposition that the Russian's haven't killed will be invited to attend.
Links: A. ISIS considered strong suspect in downing of Russian passenger jet over Sinai.
B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.
Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS. Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane. Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt. In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash. This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS. As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary. Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched. This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start. This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives. If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.
Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference. Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference? How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks? As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater. No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive". Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran. The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf. Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli". How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal. The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region. Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism. The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS. Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur. Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS. Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer". Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS. By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.
The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin.
B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.
Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS. Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane. Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt. In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash. This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS. As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary. Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched. This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start. This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives. If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.
Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference. Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference? How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks? As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater. No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive". Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran. The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf. Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli". How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal. The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region. Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism. The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS. Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur. Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS. Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer". Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS. By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.
The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Russia masquerades a moderate international powerbroker, while the Obama Administration belatedly attempts to protect U.S. interests.
Links: U.S. troops "on the ground" have usual rules of engagement.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is aggressively pursuing a policy that is intended to re-mold Russia's international image. For the greater part of the Ukrainian crisis, Putin was faced with regular difficulties complicated by Russia's image as the aggressor in the conflict. When the Russians originally demonstrated their intention to militarily support de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the question was, to what extent? Russia has been a long-time ally of Assad, his predecessor father, former President Hafez al-Assad, and the Syrian Ba'ath Party apparatus, and Vladimir Putin's desire for a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean is no secret. How far would Russia go to prop up Assad? When considering this issue, I was missing out on the greater plan that Russia was putting into place. In order to understand Putin's motivations in Syria, it is necessary to understand Russia's international ambitions. First, lets examine Russia's diplomatic initiatives vis-à-vis some of the bit players in this drama.
Russia has softened it tone in all its diplomatic conversations, and is portraying itself as moderate and much less militarily focused as in the past. This may seem like a hard sell, given that Russian jets are currently pounding targets in Syria. But Putin has been successful in shifting world opinion to the idea that Russia is truly interested in destroying ISIS, and that support for Assad is secondary. Certainly no one would accuse Russia of wanting to annex Syria as they Crimea. Russia has targeted U.S. allies Jordan, Egypt and Iraq as part of its campaign to "co-opt" U.S. supporters in the region. Although the U.S. has recently made attempts to defend its traditional turf, the Russians had weeks to chip away at the pro-U.S. attitude in all three nations. In particular, Russia wants to perpetuate the idea that United States is no longer willing to support its allies in serious times of crisis. The knowledge that the Obama Administration is theoretically opposed to large-scale military action is no secret, and these "at risk" countries know that ISIS can only be defeated by a full-on, large scale military commitment, similar to the one the Russians are making in Syria. The comparison makes itself. In fact, the pronouncements of the last few days have come in response to Russian activity. The international community is catching on to something that many of us have known for a some time; that the Obama Administration, all the way back to the days of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is intent on being REACTIVE, as opposed to PROACTIVE.
In eastern Europe, Russia has also mended a few diplomatic fences and won some important electoral victories. A number of towns and communities in eastern Ukraine elected pro-Russian representatives, which was a blow to efforts by Kiev to take the electoral momemtum before any serious referendums are planned. The results also take pressure off Russia regarding the current ceasefire. If fighting breaks out again, Kiev won't be able to accuse Russia and its Donbas separatist allies from trying to refocus world attention after disappointing election results. Most important, and visible from the beginning of Russia's direct military involvement in Syria, is the creation of a Russian client-state in Iran. Everyday it becomes more apparent that these two former adversaries have become BFFs, with Iran going so far as to deploy volunteer "militia" members to fight alongside Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria. Russia successfully lobbied to have Iran invited to an upcoming major international conference on the conflict in Syria. This is the first time that Iran has been invited to a conference of this importance. The question is, why was Iran invited? They do not share a border with Syria, although they have been strong allies of Bashar al-Assad. An even more prescient question? Instead of an invitation to attend the conference, why wasn't Iran issued an invitation to remove its "militiamen" from Syria?
Russian President Vladimir Putin is aggressively pursuing a policy that is intended to re-mold Russia's international image. For the greater part of the Ukrainian crisis, Putin was faced with regular difficulties complicated by Russia's image as the aggressor in the conflict. When the Russians originally demonstrated their intention to militarily support de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the question was, to what extent? Russia has been a long-time ally of Assad, his predecessor father, former President Hafez al-Assad, and the Syrian Ba'ath Party apparatus, and Vladimir Putin's desire for a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean is no secret. How far would Russia go to prop up Assad? When considering this issue, I was missing out on the greater plan that Russia was putting into place. In order to understand Putin's motivations in Syria, it is necessary to understand Russia's international ambitions. First, lets examine Russia's diplomatic initiatives vis-à-vis some of the bit players in this drama.
Russia has softened it tone in all its diplomatic conversations, and is portraying itself as moderate and much less militarily focused as in the past. This may seem like a hard sell, given that Russian jets are currently pounding targets in Syria. But Putin has been successful in shifting world opinion to the idea that Russia is truly interested in destroying ISIS, and that support for Assad is secondary. Certainly no one would accuse Russia of wanting to annex Syria as they Crimea. Russia has targeted U.S. allies Jordan, Egypt and Iraq as part of its campaign to "co-opt" U.S. supporters in the region. Although the U.S. has recently made attempts to defend its traditional turf, the Russians had weeks to chip away at the pro-U.S. attitude in all three nations. In particular, Russia wants to perpetuate the idea that United States is no longer willing to support its allies in serious times of crisis. The knowledge that the Obama Administration is theoretically opposed to large-scale military action is no secret, and these "at risk" countries know that ISIS can only be defeated by a full-on, large scale military commitment, similar to the one the Russians are making in Syria. The comparison makes itself. In fact, the pronouncements of the last few days have come in response to Russian activity. The international community is catching on to something that many of us have known for a some time; that the Obama Administration, all the way back to the days of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is intent on being REACTIVE, as opposed to PROACTIVE.
In eastern Europe, Russia has also mended a few diplomatic fences and won some important electoral victories. A number of towns and communities in eastern Ukraine elected pro-Russian representatives, which was a blow to efforts by Kiev to take the electoral momemtum before any serious referendums are planned. The results also take pressure off Russia regarding the current ceasefire. If fighting breaks out again, Kiev won't be able to accuse Russia and its Donbas separatist allies from trying to refocus world attention after disappointing election results. Most important, and visible from the beginning of Russia's direct military involvement in Syria, is the creation of a Russian client-state in Iran. Everyday it becomes more apparent that these two former adversaries have become BFFs, with Iran going so far as to deploy volunteer "militia" members to fight alongside Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria. Russia successfully lobbied to have Iran invited to an upcoming major international conference on the conflict in Syria. This is the first time that Iran has been invited to a conference of this importance. The question is, why was Iran invited? They do not share a border with Syria, although they have been strong allies of Bashar al-Assad. An even more prescient question? Instead of an invitation to attend the conference, why wasn't Iran issued an invitation to remove its "militiamen" from Syria?
Friday, August 14, 2015
Link: ISIS stakes its claim to Libya.
Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration. As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control. What was so wrong with regime control, anyway? Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change? Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life? Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing. Libya didn't descend into hell overnight. The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists. As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all. Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya. Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end? Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder? The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances. To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans. What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya. We are supposed to support the good guys, remember? The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution? I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists. I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States. Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya. I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.
Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander. What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata. More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern. As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief. Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya? Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers. Nothing useful can be accomplished without force. In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy. But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers. But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe. Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers. By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis. We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?
Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya. The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans. May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted. How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development? Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself.
Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration. As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control. What was so wrong with regime control, anyway? Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change? Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life? Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing. Libya didn't descend into hell overnight. The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists. As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all. Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya. Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end? Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder? The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances. To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans. What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya. We are supposed to support the good guys, remember? The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution? I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists. I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States. Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya. I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.
Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander. What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata. More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern. As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief. Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya? Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers. Nothing useful can be accomplished without force. In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy. But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers. But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe. Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers. By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis. We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?
Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya. The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans. May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted. How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development? Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Is Hamas working with ISIS in Sinai?
Link: A. Is Hamas working with ISIS?
B. Developments in Sinai.
The Islamic State has a new name, folks. First, we struggled with ISIS; then we were challenged with "The Islamic State for the Creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", which, I guess, could become "ISCOCIL". Thank goodness someone had better sense. As for the new name on the scene, it has been selected to identify the nascent establishment of an armed element of the Islamic State that has been active in the Sinai region, and its name is "Wilayat Sinai". I'm no Arabic scholar, but the name "Wilayat" reminds me of "Vilayet", a term used to describe communities in the Ottoman Empire. My superior skills of deduction tell me that "Wilayat Sinai" identifies what the Islamic State has decided is a part of its future Caliphate. When they organize an armed group for a part of Jordan, it may be named, "Wilayat Amman". This new group located in north Sinai, traditional home of Hamas, introduced itself with a bang last week, by attacking an Egyptian Army checkpoint and killing all the soldiers on duty. The attack was coordinated to coincide with vehicle/suicide attacks on other Egyptian military targets, but things didn't go exactly as planned. The Egyptians acquitted themselves admirably and gave hell to the Wilayat Sinai fighters. Interestingly enough, this action took place under the noses of the U.S. military, which currently has a presence in Sinai. Task Force Sinai, a regiment-sized U.S. Army contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers, the U.N. peacekeeping organization in pace in Sinai since 1982. Aside from the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Unit, what exactly are these U.S. troops doing in Sinai?
When I think of Sinai, I think of that large land-mass that separate Egypt and Israel. When I was a child, I used to imagine the plight of the poor Israelites, crossing the Sinai desert, with Moses at the lead, to escape Pharaoh and slavery. The Sinai has been the location of a number of recent terrorist attacks against Egyptian soldiers and police. Last week, the ISIS-baby Wilayat Sinai got in on the act. The attacks against the Egyptian military were obviously a probing operation, to test the reaction time and effectiveness of the Egyptian contingent. The Pentagon has estimated that the Islamic State has roughly 200 fighters in north Sinai. We estimate the number to be closer to 500, but this includes new recruits, some of whom were probably present in last week's attacks, and gained experience through one helluva baptism of fire. We know that ISIS is spreading, and has established branches as far away as Nigeria. Yesterday Barrack Obama publicly announced that ISIS was on is heels. This guy really has Chutzpah. Only a few years ago, he described ISIS as being a "JV" (junior varsity) organization. They now control most of Syria and Iraq. He's a keeper, that's for sure. We can only imagine how Israel is digesting this recent news of ISIS presenting itself so near Israel's southern border. ISIS in the north, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and now ISIS in the south. I have a degree in Geography, so when I say that Israel is looking a bit "boxed in", you can take it to the bank.
I wasn't so much shocked about the coming-out party for Wilayat Sinai as I was the rumors of cooperation between the Islamic State and Hamas. I would have thought that ideologically, there would be some problems with this relationship, not to mention that Hamas considers itself the sage of terrorist activity, with ISIS being the snot-nosed upstart. But it does appear as if some level of cooperation has taken place, which really complicates an already muddy picture. For the moment, though, my concern is with Task Force Sinai. Again, I'm really confused about the marching order for these young men and women. Are they armed? Do they patrol? If they're peacekeepers, are they under the command of a foreigner? It wasn't so long ago that Hamas had militarized Gaza, and turned schools and hospitals into missile depositories, forcing the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to enter Gaza. This is a dangerous place, folks. What kind of peacekeeping are our soldiers doing? For now, lets forget about yesterday and deal with today and tomorrow. If ISIS has decided to extend its war for the Caliphate to the Sinai, I demand that our troops be armed all the time, with orders to defend themselves as appropriate to any self-defense situation. If the Administration is going to insist that our troops be unarmed, then its time to pull back our soldiers and replace them with diplomats. That would be there function after all, n'est pas?
B. Developments in Sinai.
The Islamic State has a new name, folks. First, we struggled with ISIS; then we were challenged with "The Islamic State for the Creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", which, I guess, could become "ISCOCIL". Thank goodness someone had better sense. As for the new name on the scene, it has been selected to identify the nascent establishment of an armed element of the Islamic State that has been active in the Sinai region, and its name is "Wilayat Sinai". I'm no Arabic scholar, but the name "Wilayat" reminds me of "Vilayet", a term used to describe communities in the Ottoman Empire. My superior skills of deduction tell me that "Wilayat Sinai" identifies what the Islamic State has decided is a part of its future Caliphate. When they organize an armed group for a part of Jordan, it may be named, "Wilayat Amman". This new group located in north Sinai, traditional home of Hamas, introduced itself with a bang last week, by attacking an Egyptian Army checkpoint and killing all the soldiers on duty. The attack was coordinated to coincide with vehicle/suicide attacks on other Egyptian military targets, but things didn't go exactly as planned. The Egyptians acquitted themselves admirably and gave hell to the Wilayat Sinai fighters. Interestingly enough, this action took place under the noses of the U.S. military, which currently has a presence in Sinai. Task Force Sinai, a regiment-sized U.S. Army contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers, the U.N. peacekeeping organization in pace in Sinai since 1982. Aside from the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Unit, what exactly are these U.S. troops doing in Sinai?
When I think of Sinai, I think of that large land-mass that separate Egypt and Israel. When I was a child, I used to imagine the plight of the poor Israelites, crossing the Sinai desert, with Moses at the lead, to escape Pharaoh and slavery. The Sinai has been the location of a number of recent terrorist attacks against Egyptian soldiers and police. Last week, the ISIS-baby Wilayat Sinai got in on the act. The attacks against the Egyptian military were obviously a probing operation, to test the reaction time and effectiveness of the Egyptian contingent. The Pentagon has estimated that the Islamic State has roughly 200 fighters in north Sinai. We estimate the number to be closer to 500, but this includes new recruits, some of whom were probably present in last week's attacks, and gained experience through one helluva baptism of fire. We know that ISIS is spreading, and has established branches as far away as Nigeria. Yesterday Barrack Obama publicly announced that ISIS was on is heels. This guy really has Chutzpah. Only a few years ago, he described ISIS as being a "JV" (junior varsity) organization. They now control most of Syria and Iraq. He's a keeper, that's for sure. We can only imagine how Israel is digesting this recent news of ISIS presenting itself so near Israel's southern border. ISIS in the north, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and now ISIS in the south. I have a degree in Geography, so when I say that Israel is looking a bit "boxed in", you can take it to the bank.
I wasn't so much shocked about the coming-out party for Wilayat Sinai as I was the rumors of cooperation between the Islamic State and Hamas. I would have thought that ideologically, there would be some problems with this relationship, not to mention that Hamas considers itself the sage of terrorist activity, with ISIS being the snot-nosed upstart. But it does appear as if some level of cooperation has taken place, which really complicates an already muddy picture. For the moment, though, my concern is with Task Force Sinai. Again, I'm really confused about the marching order for these young men and women. Are they armed? Do they patrol? If they're peacekeepers, are they under the command of a foreigner? It wasn't so long ago that Hamas had militarized Gaza, and turned schools and hospitals into missile depositories, forcing the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to enter Gaza. This is a dangerous place, folks. What kind of peacekeeping are our soldiers doing? For now, lets forget about yesterday and deal with today and tomorrow. If ISIS has decided to extend its war for the Caliphate to the Sinai, I demand that our troops be armed all the time, with orders to defend themselves as appropriate to any self-defense situation. If the Administration is going to insist that our troops be unarmed, then its time to pull back our soldiers and replace them with diplomats. That would be there function after all, n'est pas?
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Why should the West be concerned with the intentions of the Islamic State in Africa? (Part I)
Links: A. The Islamic State in Africa
B. So this is the latest version of the Caliphate.....
We've already addressed the presence of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in Africa in a number of posts. FYI, I'm one of those bloggers who analyzes statistics, and I'm well-aware, that for my core audience, anything having to do with the continent of Africa is about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit. Its vital to me that my blog remain relevant; unfortunately, that requires continued efforts to increase my audience, but it also obligates me to discuss all theaters of conflict. No doubt this includes both North and Sub-Saharan Africa. North Africa is rather simple to break down, and I usually include it with the Middle East anyway.
Egypt. This particular piece of Mediterranean-bordered geography is important because Egypt shares a border with Israel, and has a huge, well-equipped and well-trained army. And in spite of the best efforts of the current government, Egyptian society is inundated with extremists. The Muslim Brotherhood, which commands a shockingly impressive number of supporters, is lurking around every corner. Egypt also borders Libya.
Lybia. When Libya started to crack at the edges, Muammar Gaddafi looked to the West, particularly to the United States, for assistance in creating some level of order. Gaddafi had recently taken the first step and reached out to the West and the United States. But the Department of State under Hillary Clinton never seemed prepared for any contingency. When she accepted the position of Secretary of State, the Department itself was meant to be a vehicle for her star-studded arrival at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in 2016. A review of foreign affairs during the Clinton tenure at Foggy Bottom makes it clear that the only events, issues or summits that were worth our attention were the ones that allowed Hillary to shine. It's as if the entire State Department morphed into her make-up closet. As for developments in the real world, our entire diplomatic posture was reactive. Again, except for the New Start Treaty, and a handful of other expertly-crafted engagements, the State Department just waited for things to happen, and then looked to the White House for direction. Gaddafi was left out in the cold, and the opportunity to create something positive for the Libyan people, from the people of the United States, never materialized. We sat back and watched Gaddafi get butchered, and a flock of nasty extremists move in to fight over what's left of Libya. The night of the Benghazi incident, the State Department claims that efforts were made to contact the Libyan government. WHICH ONE?
Tunisia. Tunisia is very important. The people of Tunisia fought and sacrificed to keep their nation from falling into the talons of extremists. The removal of the ruling family, which had become so corrupt that certain members of the ruling family actually considered the Gross National Product (GNP) of Tunisia to be their own personal ATM account, was absolutely essential. Since independence from France, the governments of Tunisia have always been at least a little corrupt, but they also exhibited a love of country that allowed for most of the GNP to be used for the good of the state. Because Tunisia had good roads, nice resorts, and well-maintained historic sites, revenue from tourism continued to support economic growth and job creation. But recently, things had begun to get a bit out of hand. Tunisia deserves an honest, Democratic government, and their relatively low population removes a major stress faced by many of Tunisia's neighbors. But one threat that won't go away without a fight, is the presence of Islamic extremists. Last week they shot up the Bardo Museum in Tunis and killed a bunch of European tourists. The government of Tunisia, fresh off free and fair elections, needs the support of the United States and the international community now more than ever.
Morocco & Algeria. At present, both Morocco and Algeria enjoy the security of effective, no-nonsense security forces. The military in both countries, which traditionally seconds the security forces, are both disciplined, well-equipped, well-trained, and loyal to the government. Hell, for all practical purposes, the military IS the government in Algeria. But don't quote me, please. I'm a huge fan of King Mohammed VI of Morocco. Like his father, he has a keen sense of politics in the Islamic world, and manages to avoid really pissing off anyone. Mohammed VI is as progressive as it gets for a Muslim regent, and he considers his inherited position to be a full-time job which he takes with the utmost seriousness. Algeria's economy can rely on oil for the foreseeable future, but Morocco imports $38.7 billion worth or goods every year, and exports only $16.8 billion. Thank goodness for the relatively low population growth rate and high revenues from tourism. But the pseudo-fascist government in Algiers and the monarchy in Rabat must look at the same map I have provided (link B). Both Morocco and Algeria are part of the Caliphate, baby. Realistically, the armies of either Morocco or Algeria could defeat the IS in a conventional war. But the trick is, the IS won't limit itself to a conventional war. The IS will engage in every type of warfare at its disposal. The tourists will stop coming to the beaches of Morocco after a few well-placed incendiary devices and blown people to pieces. And the Algerian government will lose its cash cow if the IS can successfully capture or blow up a refinery here and there. And if this conflict grows to the point of endangering Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, then the IS will have grown into a military force to be feared.
North Africa is very important to the conflict that currently is being waged in Iraq and Syria. The IS is in Egypt, it is in Libya, and it is in Tunisia. I guarantee you that operatives are in place in Algeria and Morocco, recruiting, reminding poor, jobless young men about the lifestyles of the rich diplomats and generals in Algiers, and the sinful lifestyle of the monarch in Rabat (it has long been suspected, and in fact, discreetly accepted that King Mohammed VI lived a homosexual lifestyle in Europe before the death of his father. He has since married and fathered and heir, which at this point is all anyone seems to care about).
Click here to continue to Part II of this post.
B. So this is the latest version of the Caliphate.....
We've already addressed the presence of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in Africa in a number of posts. FYI, I'm one of those bloggers who analyzes statistics, and I'm well-aware, that for my core audience, anything having to do with the continent of Africa is about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit. Its vital to me that my blog remain relevant; unfortunately, that requires continued efforts to increase my audience, but it also obligates me to discuss all theaters of conflict. No doubt this includes both North and Sub-Saharan Africa. North Africa is rather simple to break down, and I usually include it with the Middle East anyway.
Egypt. This particular piece of Mediterranean-bordered geography is important because Egypt shares a border with Israel, and has a huge, well-equipped and well-trained army. And in spite of the best efforts of the current government, Egyptian society is inundated with extremists. The Muslim Brotherhood, which commands a shockingly impressive number of supporters, is lurking around every corner. Egypt also borders Libya.
Lybia. When Libya started to crack at the edges, Muammar Gaddafi looked to the West, particularly to the United States, for assistance in creating some level of order. Gaddafi had recently taken the first step and reached out to the West and the United States. But the Department of State under Hillary Clinton never seemed prepared for any contingency. When she accepted the position of Secretary of State, the Department itself was meant to be a vehicle for her star-studded arrival at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in 2016. A review of foreign affairs during the Clinton tenure at Foggy Bottom makes it clear that the only events, issues or summits that were worth our attention were the ones that allowed Hillary to shine. It's as if the entire State Department morphed into her make-up closet. As for developments in the real world, our entire diplomatic posture was reactive. Again, except for the New Start Treaty, and a handful of other expertly-crafted engagements, the State Department just waited for things to happen, and then looked to the White House for direction. Gaddafi was left out in the cold, and the opportunity to create something positive for the Libyan people, from the people of the United States, never materialized. We sat back and watched Gaddafi get butchered, and a flock of nasty extremists move in to fight over what's left of Libya. The night of the Benghazi incident, the State Department claims that efforts were made to contact the Libyan government. WHICH ONE?
Tunisia. Tunisia is very important. The people of Tunisia fought and sacrificed to keep their nation from falling into the talons of extremists. The removal of the ruling family, which had become so corrupt that certain members of the ruling family actually considered the Gross National Product (GNP) of Tunisia to be their own personal ATM account, was absolutely essential. Since independence from France, the governments of Tunisia have always been at least a little corrupt, but they also exhibited a love of country that allowed for most of the GNP to be used for the good of the state. Because Tunisia had good roads, nice resorts, and well-maintained historic sites, revenue from tourism continued to support economic growth and job creation. But recently, things had begun to get a bit out of hand. Tunisia deserves an honest, Democratic government, and their relatively low population removes a major stress faced by many of Tunisia's neighbors. But one threat that won't go away without a fight, is the presence of Islamic extremists. Last week they shot up the Bardo Museum in Tunis and killed a bunch of European tourists. The government of Tunisia, fresh off free and fair elections, needs the support of the United States and the international community now more than ever.
Morocco & Algeria. At present, both Morocco and Algeria enjoy the security of effective, no-nonsense security forces. The military in both countries, which traditionally seconds the security forces, are both disciplined, well-equipped, well-trained, and loyal to the government. Hell, for all practical purposes, the military IS the government in Algeria. But don't quote me, please. I'm a huge fan of King Mohammed VI of Morocco. Like his father, he has a keen sense of politics in the Islamic world, and manages to avoid really pissing off anyone. Mohammed VI is as progressive as it gets for a Muslim regent, and he considers his inherited position to be a full-time job which he takes with the utmost seriousness. Algeria's economy can rely on oil for the foreseeable future, but Morocco imports $38.7 billion worth or goods every year, and exports only $16.8 billion. Thank goodness for the relatively low population growth rate and high revenues from tourism. But the pseudo-fascist government in Algiers and the monarchy in Rabat must look at the same map I have provided (link B). Both Morocco and Algeria are part of the Caliphate, baby. Realistically, the armies of either Morocco or Algeria could defeat the IS in a conventional war. But the trick is, the IS won't limit itself to a conventional war. The IS will engage in every type of warfare at its disposal. The tourists will stop coming to the beaches of Morocco after a few well-placed incendiary devices and blown people to pieces. And the Algerian government will lose its cash cow if the IS can successfully capture or blow up a refinery here and there. And if this conflict grows to the point of endangering Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, then the IS will have grown into a military force to be feared.
North Africa is very important to the conflict that currently is being waged in Iraq and Syria. The IS is in Egypt, it is in Libya, and it is in Tunisia. I guarantee you that operatives are in place in Algeria and Morocco, recruiting, reminding poor, jobless young men about the lifestyles of the rich diplomats and generals in Algiers, and the sinful lifestyle of the monarch in Rabat (it has long been suspected, and in fact, discreetly accepted that King Mohammed VI lived a homosexual lifestyle in Europe before the death of his father. He has since married and fathered and heir, which at this point is all anyone seems to care about).
Click here to continue to Part II of this post.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Why Won't Someone Help the Poor Palestinians? (Part I)
Links: A. Wikipedia Entry For Palestine
B. PLO Corruption
C. Endemic Corruption in Palestine
D. EU Audit Of PA Finds Billions Unaccounted For
E. Obama Releases 500 Million In Aid To PA
Now THIS is a tough subject to tackle in four paragraphs or less. Politically speaking, I do not apologize for the fact that I am a great admirer and supporter of the Israeli people. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you unless this is the first time you have visited the blog. Simply put, I tend to look at the history of the region with as little complication as possible. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British-occupied land known as Palestine, and divide it between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. The international Jewish community was still reeling from the damages of the Holocaust, and there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of the idea of a Jewish nation or homeland. Obviously consideration was given to the European survivors of the genocide, and the real possibility that they had no interest in returning to Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, or any other country that had either assisted the Nazis or turned a blind eye to the relocation of European Jews to concentration camps. Before the World Wars, and international Zionist organization existed for the sole purpose of finding a suitable location for a Jewish homeland (the Russian pogroms, miniature versions of the death camps, had sounded the alarm that trouble was on its way). If they had been successful, it would be interesting to know if Israel as we know it would have come into existence.
Following the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was determined to provide the Jewish diaspora some place to claim as their own. Palestine seemed like as good a place as any. the population was very rural, much of it nomadic. It was home to two large urban areas, Jerusalem and Haifa, but otherwise, the UN probably assumed no one would complain about their choice. Certainly the Jews were happy, because Palestine was the land of David and the home of the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem. In truth, the Arab community was not happy, because for as long as anyone could recall, the land was Arab land (occupied by Ottoman Turks from the 14th century until the end of the First World War). The UN and the British expected them to share with the Jews but why should they have to share anything that belongs to them? The Arab countries in the region rose in revolt and invaded the nascent state of Israel. the Israelis, against all odds, prevailed, just as they did in the Six-Day war (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). In each instance Israel was heavily outnumbered in tanks, planes and troops (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, sometimes Lebanon against Israel), but managed to win and occupy formerly Egyptian and Jordanian territory. This is the crux of the problem: Israel's continued occupation of land that the Palestinians claim is their homeland.
Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel militarily occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River (Jordan). Each location was strategic and was used as the invasion route chosen by the Arab armies, so Israel felt justified it keeping this land. The Sinai, which is sparsely populated, was eventually returned to Egypt, but the West Bank, heavily populated, and the Golan Heights, were not returned. When Israel won its war of Independence in 1947, the Arabs that were living in Israel or in territory that was now occupied by Israeli forces, picked up and moved, mostly to Jordan. After the next two wars, Israel assumed possession of the part of Jordan known as the West Bank, which was home to almost three million Arabs, who rightly identified themselves as Palestinians. Initially Israel considered annexing the West Bank permanently, and construction began on Jewish settlements. its possible that the leaders of Israel at the time thought it might encourage the Palestinians to leave the West Bank, but they didn't. Then the Jewish settlements became a hot-button issue in internal Israeli politics. The moderates and the left in the Knesset demanded at least an end to construction, and at best, an evacuation of Israeli Jews. On the other hand, the right-wing coalition not only refused to stop existing construction, they announced intentions to start new developments. The occupying Palestinians were left to consider that three decades previously, the entire land was Arab; they were forced to move in 1947, then again in 1967. There would not be another move. The Golan heights of Syria did not develop into an issue of settlements; instead, it would flare-up every few years when the Syrians would demand Israeli withdrawal, and in response Israel would gas up the tanks for a nice Golan parade.
One very small section of the Egyptian Sinai was heavily populated. The Gaza Strip borders the Mediterranean on the west, Israel on the north and east, and Egypt on the south. The small piece of land (139 square miles) is home to almost two million Palestinians, another example of people being moved from one place to the next because of war. At least Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. It is administered by Hamas, a political party that is recognized as a terrorist organization in the west. In total, roughly five million Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank. They have been demanding independence for as long as I can remember. Gaza is independent, but its economy is controlled by Israel and Egypt, who can shut its borders on a whim. Interestingly enough, the majority of Palestinians (and descendants of the original occupants of Palestine) have probably settled and put down roots in other countries, including the United States, various European nations, Lebanon, and the Gulf States. In a sad aside note, in some of the wealthier Arab countries, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and find it difficult to qualify for anything but manual labor jobs and cleaning up after people. While screaming about how Israel mistreats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, wealthy Arab families in Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE do just the same in their own homes to their Palestinian maids and garden workers. Back to the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. Since we are talking about almost five million souls, the resolution of this issue needs to be a priority. When it became clear that Gaza was going to achieve some level of self-governance, the call went out to the west for financial support. The hope was that Gaza would become a peaceful, economically successful (albeit crowded) nation, able to decide it own affairs. Once the money started flowing in, everything changed. The original political representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat, eventually renounced terrorism when they realized how much money would be donated from the west to help build schools, infrastructure, etc. Arafat and his PLO collected billions of dollars from the west, and managed to steal just about every penny. When Arafat died, the number of bank accounts in his name (many in Paris), and the amount of money that would be inherited by his widow, was nothing short of staggering. After the PLO, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was born to represent the interests of the Palestinian People. Following the renouncing of terror by the PLO, two groups in the region picked up the mantle of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas seated itself right in the middle of the Palestinian "occupied territories", while Hezbollah, addicted to financial support from Iran and Syria, chose Lebanon as a safe place from which to lob the odd missile into northern Israeli settlements. Once financial aid started to flow into Gaza, The PA and Hamas decided to fight for the title of "official political representative of the Palestinian community of Gaza". Hamas won the most recent election, so they are currently the legitimate government in Gaza. And they are also still on just about everyone's short list of nasty terrorist organizations.
B. PLO Corruption
C. Endemic Corruption in Palestine
D. EU Audit Of PA Finds Billions Unaccounted For
E. Obama Releases 500 Million In Aid To PA
Now THIS is a tough subject to tackle in four paragraphs or less. Politically speaking, I do not apologize for the fact that I am a great admirer and supporter of the Israeli people. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you unless this is the first time you have visited the blog. Simply put, I tend to look at the history of the region with as little complication as possible. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British-occupied land known as Palestine, and divide it between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. The international Jewish community was still reeling from the damages of the Holocaust, and there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of the idea of a Jewish nation or homeland. Obviously consideration was given to the European survivors of the genocide, and the real possibility that they had no interest in returning to Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, or any other country that had either assisted the Nazis or turned a blind eye to the relocation of European Jews to concentration camps. Before the World Wars, and international Zionist organization existed for the sole purpose of finding a suitable location for a Jewish homeland (the Russian pogroms, miniature versions of the death camps, had sounded the alarm that trouble was on its way). If they had been successful, it would be interesting to know if Israel as we know it would have come into existence.
Following the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was determined to provide the Jewish diaspora some place to claim as their own. Palestine seemed like as good a place as any. the population was very rural, much of it nomadic. It was home to two large urban areas, Jerusalem and Haifa, but otherwise, the UN probably assumed no one would complain about their choice. Certainly the Jews were happy, because Palestine was the land of David and the home of the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem. In truth, the Arab community was not happy, because for as long as anyone could recall, the land was Arab land (occupied by Ottoman Turks from the 14th century until the end of the First World War). The UN and the British expected them to share with the Jews but why should they have to share anything that belongs to them? The Arab countries in the region rose in revolt and invaded the nascent state of Israel. the Israelis, against all odds, prevailed, just as they did in the Six-Day war (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). In each instance Israel was heavily outnumbered in tanks, planes and troops (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, sometimes Lebanon against Israel), but managed to win and occupy formerly Egyptian and Jordanian territory. This is the crux of the problem: Israel's continued occupation of land that the Palestinians claim is their homeland.
Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel militarily occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River (Jordan). Each location was strategic and was used as the invasion route chosen by the Arab armies, so Israel felt justified it keeping this land. The Sinai, which is sparsely populated, was eventually returned to Egypt, but the West Bank, heavily populated, and the Golan Heights, were not returned. When Israel won its war of Independence in 1947, the Arabs that were living in Israel or in territory that was now occupied by Israeli forces, picked up and moved, mostly to Jordan. After the next two wars, Israel assumed possession of the part of Jordan known as the West Bank, which was home to almost three million Arabs, who rightly identified themselves as Palestinians. Initially Israel considered annexing the West Bank permanently, and construction began on Jewish settlements. its possible that the leaders of Israel at the time thought it might encourage the Palestinians to leave the West Bank, but they didn't. Then the Jewish settlements became a hot-button issue in internal Israeli politics. The moderates and the left in the Knesset demanded at least an end to construction, and at best, an evacuation of Israeli Jews. On the other hand, the right-wing coalition not only refused to stop existing construction, they announced intentions to start new developments. The occupying Palestinians were left to consider that three decades previously, the entire land was Arab; they were forced to move in 1947, then again in 1967. There would not be another move. The Golan heights of Syria did not develop into an issue of settlements; instead, it would flare-up every few years when the Syrians would demand Israeli withdrawal, and in response Israel would gas up the tanks for a nice Golan parade.
One very small section of the Egyptian Sinai was heavily populated. The Gaza Strip borders the Mediterranean on the west, Israel on the north and east, and Egypt on the south. The small piece of land (139 square miles) is home to almost two million Palestinians, another example of people being moved from one place to the next because of war. At least Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. It is administered by Hamas, a political party that is recognized as a terrorist organization in the west. In total, roughly five million Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank. They have been demanding independence for as long as I can remember. Gaza is independent, but its economy is controlled by Israel and Egypt, who can shut its borders on a whim. Interestingly enough, the majority of Palestinians (and descendants of the original occupants of Palestine) have probably settled and put down roots in other countries, including the United States, various European nations, Lebanon, and the Gulf States. In a sad aside note, in some of the wealthier Arab countries, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and find it difficult to qualify for anything but manual labor jobs and cleaning up after people. While screaming about how Israel mistreats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, wealthy Arab families in Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE do just the same in their own homes to their Palestinian maids and garden workers. Back to the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. Since we are talking about almost five million souls, the resolution of this issue needs to be a priority. When it became clear that Gaza was going to achieve some level of self-governance, the call went out to the west for financial support. The hope was that Gaza would become a peaceful, economically successful (albeit crowded) nation, able to decide it own affairs. Once the money started flowing in, everything changed. The original political representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat, eventually renounced terrorism when they realized how much money would be donated from the west to help build schools, infrastructure, etc. Arafat and his PLO collected billions of dollars from the west, and managed to steal just about every penny. When Arafat died, the number of bank accounts in his name (many in Paris), and the amount of money that would be inherited by his widow, was nothing short of staggering. After the PLO, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was born to represent the interests of the Palestinian People. Following the renouncing of terror by the PLO, two groups in the region picked up the mantle of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas seated itself right in the middle of the Palestinian "occupied territories", while Hezbollah, addicted to financial support from Iran and Syria, chose Lebanon as a safe place from which to lob the odd missile into northern Israeli settlements. Once financial aid started to flow into Gaza, The PA and Hamas decided to fight for the title of "official political representative of the Palestinian community of Gaza". Hamas won the most recent election, so they are currently the legitimate government in Gaza. And they are also still on just about everyone's short list of nasty terrorist organizations.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Islamic State Expanding Into North Africa
Link: Islamic State Pushes Into North Africa
For decades, north Africa and the Sahel have always been Al-Qaeda territory, at least as far as butchers and beheaders are concerned. But as the Islamic State (IS) continues to
exhibit a potent growth rate, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) had better make sure they've collected their dues this month; the IS is the new extremist bad-boy club on the block, and they intend on co-opting everyone within range of a bullet. In the link above, I paid particular attention to comments made by Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who believes that we should expect the IS to become more active in north Africa. Joscelyn is a treasure trove of knowledge regarding events in the Near East, and his real-time analysis is always spot-on. He is the main reason I am such a devotee of The Long War Journal (www.longwarjournal.org).
So the IS has decided to expand westward. I'm assuming that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has his own version of Manifest Destiny. The truth is, the ground is ripe for seeding, especially in the Sudan and Libya. But lets start in Egypt. The IS has a variety of scapegoats to drag out in this country, including the traditional whipping boy: the Coptic Christians. For the life of me I can't fathom how there can be any Christians left in Egypt, let alone Coptic Christians. They can jump on the "anti-military" bandwagon, but I think that bus is full. Personally, I don't see the IS finding a receptive audience in Egypt. I think Morsi was as a religious of a leader as the Egyptian people would like. Egypt is a country with a modern communications infrastructure. The people understand the difference between progress and trading in the used Renault for a camel. I believe the people of Egypt, the vocal young populace in particular, want both a democratic system of government and economic progress. The IS stands for neither. On the other hand, Libya is the perfect breeding ground for giant fleas (like the folks we refer to as the IS). When authority has broken down, and I mean packed up and completely left town, people will look to just about anyone for leadership. The IS has recently become the governing body for the town of Darna. What the hell is Darna? It's a start, that's what it is; and the Islamic State will take measures in Darna that will be observed by other communities. We all know that the Islamic State is well-funded. All they have to do is feed the people of Darna, maybe get the power turned back on, and keep the muggers and rapists off the streets (and back in the IS camp where they belong). The IS has used this recipe to co-opt communities in Syria and Iraq, and the formula will work just fine in Libya. What absolutely amazes me is that western companies are still able to keep their petroleum operations functioning. I imagine that a huge amount of money is being paid to private security armies, but just how much longer are these operations going to be feasible? And here comes the IS. Let Mookie make a prediction. In roughly six months or less, Libya is going to return to the headlines. No one wants the IS to take possession of the petroleum set-ups in Libya anymore than the ones they fight for in Baiji, Iraq, where the battle continues on currently.
Let move south to the Sudan. The government currently sitting in Khartoum would make great badminton partners for al-Baghdadi and his herd. President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Court in the Hague, loves to send his minions on "Christian
slaughtering" expeditions. The Sudan (force of habit...I say "the Sudan" and "the Cameroon" and a few other left-over examples of colonial bad manners) is no longer what it used to be. We now have a South Sudan, but don't ask me who is President, or even the name of the capital city (Juba, maybe?). I believe that the IS would find a warm welcome in Khartoum, as al-Bashir and al-Baghdadi seem to adhere to the same brand of extreme Islam. I can't imagine that the IS would stretch its Caliphate map to include the Sudan, and al-Bashir would welcome any opportunity to stick his finger in the eye of the EU and the United States. Khartoum would be an ideal staging ground for an IS expansion into Chad, Niger and Mali. The people of Saharan Africa would probably welcome the IS, since no one else seems to give a damn about them. Mali is already dealing with a re-emergence of AQIM (who, interestingly enough, keep stirring up shit in Niger). With the west focused almost exclusively on Ebola, and AQIM a shadow of its former self, a bit of a vacuum does exist. North of Boko Haram in Nigeria, west of Khartoum, and east of Mauritania is where the IS will find its most fertile recruitment locations. Folks will look at the map and say, "Mookie, have you lost your mind? The only thing east of Mauritania is the Sahara Desert!" Believe it or not, people live in that desert. But its the communities on the very periphery of the Sahara that cause me concern. A strict form of Islam is enforced, which promotes reliance on family ties and inter-dependence. In many ways, adherence to strict principles of Islam have helped many of these villages and communities survive. Al Qaeda had no trouble taking route here, and I can't imagine that the IS will either. The bunch of filthy rich investors with money in the gold and diamond mines of west Africa had better keep an eye on this potential problem.
For decades, north Africa and the Sahel have always been Al-Qaeda territory, at least as far as butchers and beheaders are concerned. But as the Islamic State (IS) continues to
So the IS has decided to expand westward. I'm assuming that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has his own version of Manifest Destiny. The truth is, the ground is ripe for seeding, especially in the Sudan and Libya. But lets start in Egypt. The IS has a variety of scapegoats to drag out in this country, including the traditional whipping boy: the Coptic Christians. For the life of me I can't fathom how there can be any Christians left in Egypt, let alone Coptic Christians. They can jump on the "anti-military" bandwagon, but I think that bus is full. Personally, I don't see the IS finding a receptive audience in Egypt. I think Morsi was as a religious of a leader as the Egyptian people would like. Egypt is a country with a modern communications infrastructure. The people understand the difference between progress and trading in the used Renault for a camel. I believe the people of Egypt, the vocal young populace in particular, want both a democratic system of government and economic progress. The IS stands for neither. On the other hand, Libya is the perfect breeding ground for giant fleas (like the folks we refer to as the IS). When authority has broken down, and I mean packed up and completely left town, people will look to just about anyone for leadership. The IS has recently become the governing body for the town of Darna. What the hell is Darna? It's a start, that's what it is; and the Islamic State will take measures in Darna that will be observed by other communities. We all know that the Islamic State is well-funded. All they have to do is feed the people of Darna, maybe get the power turned back on, and keep the muggers and rapists off the streets (and back in the IS camp where they belong). The IS has used this recipe to co-opt communities in Syria and Iraq, and the formula will work just fine in Libya. What absolutely amazes me is that western companies are still able to keep their petroleum operations functioning. I imagine that a huge amount of money is being paid to private security armies, but just how much longer are these operations going to be feasible? And here comes the IS. Let Mookie make a prediction. In roughly six months or less, Libya is going to return to the headlines. No one wants the IS to take possession of the petroleum set-ups in Libya anymore than the ones they fight for in Baiji, Iraq, where the battle continues on currently.
Let move south to the Sudan. The government currently sitting in Khartoum would make great badminton partners for al-Baghdadi and his herd. President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Court in the Hague, loves to send his minions on "Christian
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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Whats Up with Syrian President Assad And His Moscow Handlers?
Links: Russia And The Syrian Civil War
What Are Assad And Putin Up To?
Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, it seems that the Soviet Union/Russia has always sided with the Arabs while the United States sides with the Jewish nation. To be
fair, the Soviet Union voted in favor of the UN resolution that partitioned Palestine and created two separate states (the Palestinian state never really got off the ground; the Jewish half became Israel). Given its strong support of a Jewish state following World War II, it's no surprise that the United States supported Israel from the beginning (I'm not saying a word about the politically influential Jewish lobby). However once Cold War tensions elevated, the Soviets sided with the Arab regimes in the Arab-Israeli conflicts in order to maintain thier position in opposition to the United States, Israel's strongest ally. Conflict between Israel and the Palestinians/Arab states brings to mind three separate military engagements: the War of Independence (1947-1949), the Six Day War (June 1967), and the Yom Kippur War (October 1973). In truth, my earliest memory as a child was my father celebrating President Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972; my family lived on U.S. Army Bases in Germany (Bad Kreuznach, Kaiserslautern, and Bad Hersfeld). But I can still recall the attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. I was barely out of diapers but I remember being so confused at how easy it was for some people to hurt others. As I sit here in 2014, it seems as if Israel and the Palestinians have never really taken a break in their conflict.
The Soviet Union seldom went in for "half-measures". They supported the Arab states both diplomatically and militarily. Egypt's Presidents Nasser and then Sadat were dependent upon the Soviets for a never-ending stream of tanks and jet fighters. The Soviets kept flying the tanks in, the Egyptians and Syrians kept rushing them into battle, and the Israelis kept creating bombed-out crematoriums for their crews. I'm sure that Egypt, Syria and Iraq paid what they could, but there is not doubt in my mind that most of the military equipment that the Arabs lost came gratis from Moscow. To the Soviets it was a necessary expenditure: Syria and Egypt gave the Reds access to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. I don't think that the Russians had a particular dislike for Israel; more than anything else it was a strategic issue (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Its been some years since Syria, Egypt and Israel actually met on the battlefield. The Egyptians are now equipped with modern U.S. military hardware (and training), but the Syrians have stayed loyal to Mother Russia. A number of times in the last two decades there was some concern that Turkey and Syria might duke it out (once over a territorial dispute, and once over the flow of a river). The Turkish military would have humiliated old man Hafez al-Assad and his outdated weaponry.
Syria has had great difficulty keeping its Soviet-era equipment up-to-specs. Before the start
of the Syrian Civil War, the army still laid claim to 2,000 T-55 tanks, for goodness sake. The only way to keep a few of those old junks running would be to cannibalize some of the others. At one time Syria had a healthy number of T-62S, T-72S, and T-72Ms in its arsenal. I have no clue how many have been destroyed in the war, how many have been captured, or how many just don't run anymore; the Soviets were not known for their weapons craftmanship (ever fired an AK-47?). As for the Syrian Air Force, the great majority of its jet fighters were aged Mig 21s, 23s, and 25s. They also have a handful of Sukhois and Mig 29s. It was rumored that Russia has been hesitant to supply Syria with the new model Mig 31 because of pressure from the west. The truth is, for offensive purposes, the Syrian Air Force no longer exists. I realize that the media puts out the odd report of Syrian government Helicopter Gunships shooting up civilian areas, but if the Syrian Air Force had any real offensive capability, they would be laying it to the Islamic State (safe to assume?). Interestingly enough, I have seen more conversation lately regarding the Islamic State and Migs than I have the Syrian Air Force.
Over the past month, the Islamic State has been forced into the dreaded two-front war. It's fighting the Iraqi Army in Anbar Province and in north central Iraq it's waging war on the
Kurds in Kurdistan. Additionally the IS is attacking the Kurds full-force in north central Syria (Kobani) all the while under a regular barrage of death from the sky (Carl von Clausewitz is spinning in his grave). What is most amazing is that the Islamic State continues to have the initiative on all fronts. Be that as it may, Bashir al-Assad could not be happier, as the Americans and their allies (some are hated enemies of Assad and his Ba'ath Party) degrade the fighting ability of the Islamic State forces (I'm being optimistic). No doubt Assad has used this respite to reorganize his army, repair and upgrade his armor, train new recruits, and prepare the West for an inevitable diplomatic offensive, sponsored by Putin. I just hope Bashir has had a few extra minutes to try and locate his missing chin. Seriously. Never in my life have a seen such a "chinless" person. Too bad he doesn't live in Beverly Hills; he could've bought a chin and had it installed over lunch.
Speaking of the upcoming charm offensive, I predict that Assad will try to stay in power by reminding the west of what happens in a vacuum in this part of the world. Can we afford
another Libya? Assad knows that Obama can't support a coup orchestrated by the U.S.-trained New Syrian Army. It would be to much meddling for Obama to stomach, and would also infuriate Russia. If the New Syrian Army defeats the Islamic State, they will probably make a play for control in Damascus. However, Obama can't let that happen, and Assad is aware of this fact. I expect that the New Syrian Army and the regular Syrian Army will actually be fighting side-by-side against the Al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State, Khorasan, and all the other baddies. Assad may offer blanket amnesty to the Syrian military officers who originally deserted to form the New Syrian Army. When the time comes, Assad will have many Aces up his sleeve, and will have Vladimir Putin to watch his back. It's not difficult to imagine Assad making amends with the leaders of the New Syrian Army, and presenting a fait accompli to the United States and its allies. So from my optic, Assad is in the cat bird's seat. The chair is a bit wobbly, though. He needs to continue do everything possible to reconstitute his military, especially the Air Force. I started this post pointing out the historic ties between the Russians and the Arabs, and I want to end it on a similar note. Why is Putin so intent on keeping Assad in power? Because Syria has a bit of land that serves as a coastline to the Mediterranean Sea. Putin has visions of Russian Navy ships and, more importantly, submarines, having a home away from home in the Levant. How the Obama Administration deals with this evolving situation will be a fascinating piece of the puzzle.
What Are Assad And Putin Up To?
Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, it seems that the Soviet Union/Russia has always sided with the Arabs while the United States sides with the Jewish nation. To be
.png) |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict |
The Soviet Union seldom went in for "half-measures". They supported the Arab states both diplomatically and militarily. Egypt's Presidents Nasser and then Sadat were dependent upon the Soviets for a never-ending stream of tanks and jet fighters. The Soviets kept flying the tanks in, the Egyptians and Syrians kept rushing them into battle, and the Israelis kept creating bombed-out crematoriums for their crews. I'm sure that Egypt, Syria and Iraq paid what they could, but there is not doubt in my mind that most of the military equipment that the Arabs lost came gratis from Moscow. To the Soviets it was a necessary expenditure: Syria and Egypt gave the Reds access to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. I don't think that the Russians had a particular dislike for Israel; more than anything else it was a strategic issue (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Its been some years since Syria, Egypt and Israel actually met on the battlefield. The Egyptians are now equipped with modern U.S. military hardware (and training), but the Syrians have stayed loyal to Mother Russia. A number of times in the last two decades there was some concern that Turkey and Syria might duke it out (once over a territorial dispute, and once over the flow of a river). The Turkish military would have humiliated old man Hafez al-Assad and his outdated weaponry.
Syria has had great difficulty keeping its Soviet-era equipment up-to-specs. Before the start
 |
| Syrian T-55 ARV armored recovery vehicle (http://www.armyrecognition.com/News) |
Over the past month, the Islamic State has been forced into the dreaded two-front war. It's fighting the Iraqi Army in Anbar Province and in north central Iraq it's waging war on the
 |
| Bashir al-Assad |
Speaking of the upcoming charm offensive, I predict that Assad will try to stay in power by reminding the west of what happens in a vacuum in this part of the world. Can we afford
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part II)
Link: The Crusades
The Birth Of Israel
Part II
How does a short history lesson relate to the seemingly eternal disagreements between East versus West, Europe/United States against the Arab nations? First and foremost, the Arab community has always believed that the United Nations (and Great Britain in particular) betrayed them with the creation of Israel. The argument has some merit, when the demographics of Palestine in 1947 are examined. From a universal perspective, though, many felt that the Jewish people had suffered enough, with Russian pogroms, European anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust; it was time to unilaterally act in favor of the Jewish community, regardless of the consequences to the Arab Palestinians. The truth is, an effort was made to create two separate states. No effort to work within the United Nations declaration was ever really attempted, which is the real tragedy. Both states could have very easily learned to work and grow together, building symbiotic relationships that encourage friendship as opposed to animosity. Be that as it may, in 1947, the Arab and Muslim communities of the world decided that the West (and Christian nations) unfairly supported Israel. Every conflict since the original war in 1948 has only encouraged this opinion, as the United States strongly supported Israel (while the Soviet Union became the patron of the Arab nations).
Herein lies the root of the issue. The United States and the West are seen by Arab and Muslim states as being unfairly supportive of Israel. During the various internal Israeli conflicts (West Bank, Intifada, Gaza) the United States is always first to declare its support for the state of Israel. If the Palestinians and the Arab states would make two decisions in good faith, they would go along way to improving their image and relations with the United States. Firstly, Israel's right to exist must be acknowledged. Second, terrorist groups cannot be anointed as political representation. It is difficult to criticize the United States for supporting Israel when both Hamas and Hezbollah have been involved in the brutal murder of American civilians. Most Americans see Israel as our most loyal ally, but the desire for an end to this conflict is beginning to affect U.S./Israeli relations. When an American traveling internationally is targeted by terrorists, it usually will be connected in some way to the U.S. unilateral support of Israel. Its true that terror groups like Al-Qaeda have expanded the list of complaints against the United States, but somewhere on this list will be Israel. Many expected that the Obama Administration would slacken the U.S. support for Israel, but the Palestinian cause is a difficult one to embrace. One minute after watching in horror on TV an Israeli tank destroying a Palestinian house, the news broadcast switches to a scene of rockets being launched into Israeli neighborhoods. I want to see this mess come to end in my lifetime. I'm not optimistic. The saddest part of this entire circumstance is that Arabs and Jews are cousins, for goodness sake. I had a cousin once who used to beat me senseless, but afterwards she always apologized. We can't even get to that point with these two.
The Birth Of Israel
Part II
How does a short history lesson relate to the seemingly eternal disagreements between East versus West, Europe/United States against the Arab nations? First and foremost, the Arab community has always believed that the United Nations (and Great Britain in particular) betrayed them with the creation of Israel. The argument has some merit, when the demographics of Palestine in 1947 are examined. From a universal perspective, though, many felt that the Jewish people had suffered enough, with Russian pogroms, European anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust; it was time to unilaterally act in favor of the Jewish community, regardless of the consequences to the Arab Palestinians. The truth is, an effort was made to create two separate states. No effort to work within the United Nations declaration was ever really attempted, which is the real tragedy. Both states could have very easily learned to work and grow together, building symbiotic relationships that encourage friendship as opposed to animosity. Be that as it may, in 1947, the Arab and Muslim communities of the world decided that the West (and Christian nations) unfairly supported Israel. Every conflict since the original war in 1948 has only encouraged this opinion, as the United States strongly supported Israel (while the Soviet Union became the patron of the Arab nations).
Herein lies the root of the issue. The United States and the West are seen by Arab and Muslim states as being unfairly supportive of Israel. During the various internal Israeli conflicts (West Bank, Intifada, Gaza) the United States is always first to declare its support for the state of Israel. If the Palestinians and the Arab states would make two decisions in good faith, they would go along way to improving their image and relations with the United States. Firstly, Israel's right to exist must be acknowledged. Second, terrorist groups cannot be anointed as political representation. It is difficult to criticize the United States for supporting Israel when both Hamas and Hezbollah have been involved in the brutal murder of American civilians. Most Americans see Israel as our most loyal ally, but the desire for an end to this conflict is beginning to affect U.S./Israeli relations. When an American traveling internationally is targeted by terrorists, it usually will be connected in some way to the U.S. unilateral support of Israel. Its true that terror groups like Al-Qaeda have expanded the list of complaints against the United States, but somewhere on this list will be Israel. Many expected that the Obama Administration would slacken the U.S. support for Israel, but the Palestinian cause is a difficult one to embrace. One minute after watching in horror on TV an Israeli tank destroying a Palestinian house, the news broadcast switches to a scene of rockets being launched into Israeli neighborhoods. I want to see this mess come to end in my lifetime. I'm not optimistic. The saddest part of this entire circumstance is that Arabs and Jews are cousins, for goodness sake. I had a cousin once who used to beat me senseless, but afterwards she always apologized. We can't even get to that point with these two.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part I)
Link: The Crusades
The Birth of Israel
Part I
Trying to explain the genesis and motivations behind the Arab/European/Jewish conflicts in the Middle East is probably a bit much for my modest little blog. But my dear friend Jennifer's brilliant, inquisitive 10-year old daughter Amanda asked her mother for an explanation, and I decided to give it a shot. Not that Jennifer didn't respond to Amanda; I'm sure her answer made complete sense (Jennifer is fluent in the reasoning of young people....she is a teacher). But if Jennifer is brave enough to give it a shot, I will as well.
The link I provided is the typical Wikipedia (I keep typing Wikileaks by accident...Freudian?) collection of useful and streamlined details regarding the various European Crusades during the High and Late Middle Ages. My explanation begins earlier, at the time of Roman occupation of Judea. The Romans were originally allied to the Jewish state, but under Pompey, absorbed it into the Empire in 6 CE. In 66 CE the Jews rose in revolt, and the entire population was either wiped out or sold into slavery (give or take...). The area we know as Palestine was occupied by various Muslim nation-states for almost ten centuries (with times of conflict involving the Byzantine Empire), with Christians usually welcomed as pilgrims to the Holy Land. This changed in 1096, with the occurrence of the First Crusade. At the time, Palestine was occupied by Seljuq Turks. The Crusaders were successful in capturing both Antioch and Jerusalem (the city of Jerusalem was defended by both Muslims and Jews against the Crusaders, and together the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem were put to the sword). The First Crusade established what came to be known as the Crusader states- the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I would love nothing more than to dive head-first into the history of the Crusades, but I've already taken up too much time.
Over the next two centuries, eight more Crusades would be attempted (the last in 1272); the former rulers were not happy with the Christian occupation of land that was just as Holy in their religion as it was to the Christians. Eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sacked, and the land reverted to Muslim control. Lets fast-forward to 1914, with Palestine as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Then in World War One, the Ottomans chose the wrong side and ended up losing control of Palestine. The entire area we now know as the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan) was occupied by France and Great Britain until the conclusion of the Second World War (see Sykes-Picot Treaty for a taste of European land-grabbing at its best). At first, with the Balfour Declaration, it appeared that the British government was seriously considering establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. The opposition of the Arab Palestinian community ended any such plans. During this time, attempts were made to locate land for the creation of a Jewish state in other areas, including Africa (the Jews of Europe and Russia had suffered great hardships even before the Holocaust). The displacement of so many European Jews by the Nazis left many without a home. In 1947, a United Nations partitioned Palestine into two-separate nations, one for a Jewish state and one for a Palestinian state. The Arab nations bordering Palestine (Egypt, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops) declared war against the nascent Jewish state. The war was completely one-sided, as have been the two wars since that were fought to destroy Israel. The Israeli Armed Forces earned a reputation from the very beginning of being disciplined, courageous, cunning and formidable in the methods of war. That reputation exists today. The history lesson is complete. Now on to the difficult part.
The Birth of Israel
Part I
Trying to explain the genesis and motivations behind the Arab/European/Jewish conflicts in the Middle East is probably a bit much for my modest little blog. But my dear friend Jennifer's brilliant, inquisitive 10-year old daughter Amanda asked her mother for an explanation, and I decided to give it a shot. Not that Jennifer didn't respond to Amanda; I'm sure her answer made complete sense (Jennifer is fluent in the reasoning of young people....she is a teacher). But if Jennifer is brave enough to give it a shot, I will as well.
The link I provided is the typical Wikipedia (I keep typing Wikileaks by accident...Freudian?) collection of useful and streamlined details regarding the various European Crusades during the High and Late Middle Ages. My explanation begins earlier, at the time of Roman occupation of Judea. The Romans were originally allied to the Jewish state, but under Pompey, absorbed it into the Empire in 6 CE. In 66 CE the Jews rose in revolt, and the entire population was either wiped out or sold into slavery (give or take...). The area we know as Palestine was occupied by various Muslim nation-states for almost ten centuries (with times of conflict involving the Byzantine Empire), with Christians usually welcomed as pilgrims to the Holy Land. This changed in 1096, with the occurrence of the First Crusade. At the time, Palestine was occupied by Seljuq Turks. The Crusaders were successful in capturing both Antioch and Jerusalem (the city of Jerusalem was defended by both Muslims and Jews against the Crusaders, and together the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem were put to the sword). The First Crusade established what came to be known as the Crusader states- the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I would love nothing more than to dive head-first into the history of the Crusades, but I've already taken up too much time.
Over the next two centuries, eight more Crusades would be attempted (the last in 1272); the former rulers were not happy with the Christian occupation of land that was just as Holy in their religion as it was to the Christians. Eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sacked, and the land reverted to Muslim control. Lets fast-forward to 1914, with Palestine as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Then in World War One, the Ottomans chose the wrong side and ended up losing control of Palestine. The entire area we now know as the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan) was occupied by France and Great Britain until the conclusion of the Second World War (see Sykes-Picot Treaty for a taste of European land-grabbing at its best). At first, with the Balfour Declaration, it appeared that the British government was seriously considering establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. The opposition of the Arab Palestinian community ended any such plans. During this time, attempts were made to locate land for the creation of a Jewish state in other areas, including Africa (the Jews of Europe and Russia had suffered great hardships even before the Holocaust). The displacement of so many European Jews by the Nazis left many without a home. In 1947, a United Nations partitioned Palestine into two-separate nations, one for a Jewish state and one for a Palestinian state. The Arab nations bordering Palestine (Egypt, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops) declared war against the nascent Jewish state. The war was completely one-sided, as have been the two wars since that were fought to destroy Israel. The Israeli Armed Forces earned a reputation from the very beginning of being disciplined, courageous, cunning and formidable in the methods of war. That reputation exists today. The history lesson is complete. Now on to the difficult part.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Obama's speech on the crisis in Ukraine and the threat posed by ISIS/ISIL
Link: Obama's Sept. 3, 2014 speech on Ukraine and ISIS/ISIL
(In the Spring of 2010 I had a conversation with my dear friend Lindsay Moran regarding my impending retirement and ongoing medical challenges. Lindsay suggested that as a form of therapy I should write a book. She correctly surmised that it would be both cathartic and possibly of interest to other folks. Lindsay is an author herself and had tremendous success with her 2002 publication Blowing My Cover. After I realized that the book I was writing was evolving into something more than therapy, we discussed the difficulties in getting books published. Not to mention, a review of the genre shows no lack of "CIA memoirs" available on Amazon. We decided that because of the original focus, my book would be very different from the numerous espionage-related non-fiction books that can be found at Barnes & Noble. For me personally it was important that my book be as non-political as possible. I wrote about people, and it takes quite a few personalities to fill up a room full of Case Officers, Analysts and Linguists. I saw no point in excluding anyone just because I didn't agree with their politics. I have tried to mirror my blog with the same effort in mind. That being said, I have some critical observations to make about President Obama's speech today. It's the nature of the business he is in and I will not tip-toe around in an attempt to not offend someone. I would approach any speech by President Bush with the same perspective.)
President Obama began his first term with a whirlwind visit to Europe, Mexico and the Near East. In particular, I recall visits to Cairo, Egypt and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It was the speech he gave in Cairo that appealed to many Americans who had hopes of building a
better relationship with the Islamic world. My recollection of the speech is that it was an apology, which should not have been surprising given the disagreement within the United States and in the International Community regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many Americans, I'm sure President Obama included, believed that U.S. diplomacy must move in a different direction in order to build peaceful, long-lasting relationships with the Arab world. I would have been thrilled to see this Administration succeed in their efforts. It would be nice if 6 years of Obama foreign policy would have resulted in no more beheadings of innocent Americans or conflict in Iraq. But this has not been the case. The Obama Administration has failed in its efforts to build a successful policy in the Near East (I say Near East vs. Middle East). Libya is a political quagmire with the future leaders of that country almost guaranteed to be Islamic fundamentalists, Egypt teeters on the edge of a civil war, Jordan is overrun with terrorist groups, Syria is a complete battleground between repressive fascist Bashir al-Assad and Islamic terrorists, Iraq has split into spheres of Kurdish, Sunni, Shia, and ISIS/ISIL control, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hasn't been this bloody since the Intifada.
During the speech he gave on September 3, President Obama stated that the United States must "organize" the Arab nations in an effort to combat terrorism, defeat ISIS/ISIL, and bring peace to the region. He continues to avoid any implication that the United States might be obliged to intervene military (excluding the bombing raids in Iraq). According to Obama, peace can be achieved in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and Gaza, through diplomacy and through the use of sanctions. You cannot convince me that he sincerely still believes this argument. In both Ukraine and in the various Near East hot spots, none of the players involved seem predisposed to a peaceful resolution. How do you force the kids fighting on the playground to put down their sticks, especially when your own stick is not nearly as big as it used to be? In a previous blog, I made the argument that the sanctions regime enacted by the United States and the European Union against Russia, was going to hurt two groups that Vladimir Putin appeared to have under his complete control: the super-rich and the poor. I'm sure the sanctions have impacted all members of Russian society to some extent, but I don't see even a hint of demonstrations in Red Square, how about you? (Except for the demonstrations in support of Putin's policy.) Providing direct military assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces is long overdue. I'm not sure that we have decided to take that step. Time will tell. I'm still convinced that the Russian Army is not prepared for a full invasion of Ukraine, or that Putin wants to re-attach the entire country to Mother Russia. I believe Putin is hoping for the pieces to fall together that will allow him to annex Crimea and he is willing to give up eastern Ukraine in the bargain. This development has given the Poles (and Byelorus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) the opportunity to review military planning and policy, which in this case is a good thing.
Back to the organizing of Arab states to fight Islamic-based terrorism: Luckily I'm not afraid to say "ISLAMIC-BASED TERRORISM" or "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM". The misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran is at the heart of the problem. It's true that the huge majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives in peace and at peace with their neighbors. But the bad guys have become an international crisis not because they willed it, but because they have found plenty of wealthy donors who secretly agree with their misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran. The first thing these groups need are sponsors. Secondly they need recruits. You can't have the second without the first because someone has to pay the bills. President Obama will not be successful in his effort to organize Arab states against terrorism because it is elements within these same Arab states that are supporting terrorism. In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabi movement has long been a source of conservative and anti-western dogma. The size of the royal family and its wealthy acolytes makes it impossible to accurately follow the money that flows out of the Kingdom. The same can be said for Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. I'm giving Oman and Jordan's King Abdallah, who seems to be a truly decent man, the benefit of the doubt. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are a true mystery. At one time the UAE were known as the Trucial States and did most of their diplomacy through Great Britain. Once oil became a huge commodity and the Brits granted independence, the seven separate emirates (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Um al-Quwain, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah) smartly banded together and formed the UAE. Europeans see the UAE as a great holiday destination and the place to see the latest monumental skyscraper. The Emiratis have some amazing accomplishments to their credit. They have turned desert into shiny cities and have pioneered desalinization research. Wealthy Emiratis love horse (and camel) racing and enjoy the ancient sport of falconry. Each of the seven families controls tremendous wealth, created by the oil they sit upon. Again, we have no real idea whether any of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists. The point is, while agreeing to tow the line diplomatically, the Arab states have no obligation to open their books to us or anyone else, and it is tremendously difficult determining if any particular player is funding terrorist activities. Some evidence does exist that money from the various royal families of the Gulf region has found its way to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the like. In fact, various humanitarian organizations active throughout the Near East have been discovered laundering money on behalf of terrorist groups, and that money certainly must originate somewhere.
President Obama finds himself in a difficult position. For continuity's sake, he must stress the need for diplomatic solutions to the various problems in Ukraine and the Near East. But the reality is, the United States does not have the diplomatic influence to impact any of the current crises. Once it was obvious to ISIS/ISIL that the United States military would be out of Iraq by such and such date, they began to re-establish themselves in the rural communities and stepped up attacks on Iraqi government targets. Considering the cost paid for what was achieved in Iraq (establishment of an electoral process, rebuilt refining capacity, new schools, rebuilt transportation infrastructure, rebuilt economy, etc.), I don't think it would have been too much to ask for the United States to have an Army base and an Air Force base in Iraq. It would have made a huge difference to the folks around Mosul, Arbil, and Tikrit, I can assure you. I do understand that the Administration is pressed to continue searching for diplomatic solutions to the conflicts we are discussing, but I for one can't help but focus on the real opportunities we have (which are not necessarily diplomatic in nature). We need to give the Ukrainian Armed Forces full military support (short of feet on the ground). The current exercises in Ukraine involving elements of the U.S. Army is a very smart move. As for ISIS/ISIL, we must combat the recruitment efforts in the United States and Europe, and we must disrupt their supply/resources network, which includes tracking and cutting off financial support. But sooner or later, I believe the U.S. military will have to engage ISIS/ISIL. And when that day comes, ISIS/ISIL will pay the bill in full.
(In the Spring of 2010 I had a conversation with my dear friend Lindsay Moran regarding my impending retirement and ongoing medical challenges. Lindsay suggested that as a form of therapy I should write a book. She correctly surmised that it would be both cathartic and possibly of interest to other folks. Lindsay is an author herself and had tremendous success with her 2002 publication Blowing My Cover. After I realized that the book I was writing was evolving into something more than therapy, we discussed the difficulties in getting books published. Not to mention, a review of the genre shows no lack of "CIA memoirs" available on Amazon. We decided that because of the original focus, my book would be very different from the numerous espionage-related non-fiction books that can be found at Barnes & Noble. For me personally it was important that my book be as non-political as possible. I wrote about people, and it takes quite a few personalities to fill up a room full of Case Officers, Analysts and Linguists. I saw no point in excluding anyone just because I didn't agree with their politics. I have tried to mirror my blog with the same effort in mind. That being said, I have some critical observations to make about President Obama's speech today. It's the nature of the business he is in and I will not tip-toe around in an attempt to not offend someone. I would approach any speech by President Bush with the same perspective.)
President Obama began his first term with a whirlwind visit to Europe, Mexico and the Near East. In particular, I recall visits to Cairo, Egypt and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It was the speech he gave in Cairo that appealed to many Americans who had hopes of building a
 |
| 2009 Speech at Cairo Univesity |
 |
| Speech at Nordea Concert Hall in Tallin, Estonia Sept. 3, 2014 |
Back to the organizing of Arab states to fight Islamic-based terrorism: Luckily I'm not afraid to say "ISLAMIC-BASED TERRORISM" or "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM". The misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran is at the heart of the problem. It's true that the huge majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives in peace and at peace with their neighbors. But the bad guys have become an international crisis not because they willed it, but because they have found plenty of wealthy donors who secretly agree with their misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran. The first thing these groups need are sponsors. Secondly they need recruits. You can't have the second without the first because someone has to pay the bills. President Obama will not be successful in his effort to organize Arab states against terrorism because it is elements within these same Arab states that are supporting terrorism. In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabi movement has long been a source of conservative and anti-western dogma. The size of the royal family and its wealthy acolytes makes it impossible to accurately follow the money that flows out of the Kingdom. The same can be said for Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. I'm giving Oman and Jordan's King Abdallah, who seems to be a truly decent man, the benefit of the doubt. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are a true mystery. At one time the UAE were known as the Trucial States and did most of their diplomacy through Great Britain. Once oil became a huge commodity and the Brits granted independence, the seven separate emirates (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Um al-Quwain, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah) smartly banded together and formed the UAE. Europeans see the UAE as a great holiday destination and the place to see the latest monumental skyscraper. The Emiratis have some amazing accomplishments to their credit. They have turned desert into shiny cities and have pioneered desalinization research. Wealthy Emiratis love horse (and camel) racing and enjoy the ancient sport of falconry. Each of the seven families controls tremendous wealth, created by the oil they sit upon. Again, we have no real idea whether any of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists. The point is, while agreeing to tow the line diplomatically, the Arab states have no obligation to open their books to us or anyone else, and it is tremendously difficult determining if any particular player is funding terrorist activities. Some evidence does exist that money from the various royal families of the Gulf region has found its way to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the like. In fact, various humanitarian organizations active throughout the Near East have been discovered laundering money on behalf of terrorist groups, and that money certainly must originate somewhere.
President Obama finds himself in a difficult position. For continuity's sake, he must stress the need for diplomatic solutions to the various problems in Ukraine and the Near East. But the reality is, the United States does not have the diplomatic influence to impact any of the current crises. Once it was obvious to ISIS/ISIL that the United States military would be out of Iraq by such and such date, they began to re-establish themselves in the rural communities and stepped up attacks on Iraqi government targets. Considering the cost paid for what was achieved in Iraq (establishment of an electoral process, rebuilt refining capacity, new schools, rebuilt transportation infrastructure, rebuilt economy, etc.), I don't think it would have been too much to ask for the United States to have an Army base and an Air Force base in Iraq. It would have made a huge difference to the folks around Mosul, Arbil, and Tikrit, I can assure you. I do understand that the Administration is pressed to continue searching for diplomatic solutions to the conflicts we are discussing, but I for one can't help but focus on the real opportunities we have (which are not necessarily diplomatic in nature). We need to give the Ukrainian Armed Forces full military support (short of feet on the ground). The current exercises in Ukraine involving elements of the U.S. Army is a very smart move. As for ISIS/ISIL, we must combat the recruitment efforts in the United States and Europe, and we must disrupt their supply/resources network, which includes tracking and cutting off financial support. But sooner or later, I believe the U.S. military will have to engage ISIS/ISIL. And when that day comes, ISIS/ISIL will pay the bill in full.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)