Link: Netanyahu voices concern over removal of sanctions.
Ever year our nation seems to become more politically partisan, with everyone claiming to be independent, but Independent candidates getting no traction whatsoever. No doubt if an Independent (meaning not Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) candidate arrived on the scene who had Donald Trump's bank account, we might see a very competitive election. But the system is built to support the two existing parties and the established methods for raising campaign funds. Independent candidates can never expect to come close to raising the kind of money that a serious Republican or Democrat can. Aside from that fact, we don't believe an Independent candidate would be representative of the United States electorate, anyways. In 2015, we are an opinionated nation, and people feel very strongly about the validity of their perspectives. w guess we're no different. When we hear someone expressing an opposite viewpoint, we do my best to give them a fair shake. But at the end of the day, after almost half-a-century on this planet, we have confidence in our opinions. And something important we've learned along the way: don't get mouthy and loud about issues in which you have no knowledge or experience. Here at "Mukhabarat, Baby!", we have made a point to avoid posting opinionated commentaries regarding the United States economy. Sure, we have opinions, but I'm not an economist. I do, however, consider myself to be knowledgeable on issues of diplomacy and foreign policy. Some readers may consider our site to be partisan, but you can be sure that we support our positions with evidence.
I recently read an article which introduced ten retired U.S. Army Generals who had come out in support of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Treaty with Iran. Its our understanding that the United States Army has hundreds of certified, true Generals among us, the vast majority of them retired. Something tells me, that if I made a bit of an effort (and you know, to protect this president, the media would make the effort), I could round up ten Generals who believe that the Reptilian People live amongst us. In other words, finding ten Generals to agree on something doesn't get you very far, especially when we are considering something as patently awful as this Treaty. The three issues that bother me the most about this treaty have nothing to do with the controversial subject of nuclear proliferation.
My first complaint has to do with a handful of U.S. citizens that are currently locked away in Iranian prisons. Not surprisingly, each one is being accused of having insulted Islam, being an enemy of the Islamic Republic, or a spy for the Zionists, or just a plain spy, period. The charges are bogus; they are in jail because they are U.S. citizens, and the Iranians thought that they might come in handy someday as bargaining chips of some sort. Normally, given the seriousness of the negotiations between the United States and Iran, you would have expected U.S. negotiators to have tried tooth-and-nail to make the release of our citizens part of any agreed-upon treaty. Can you believe that this president was so obsessed with the issue of his legacy that he allowed the Iranians to remove the subject of the prisoners/hostages from the negotiations, without the slightest complaint? How can a sitting U.S. president agree to a treaty with a foreign power that holds U.S. citizens in its jails, as hostages? The Administration has gone on record stating that the charges against the prisoners are false, and yet they were forsaken. What if that were your parent, or your sister, sitting in that Iranian jail? I wonder if they had promised to vote Democrat in the next election, if he might have tried a bit harder to have them included........
My second complaint: what steps has Iran taken that justify the lifting of weapons sanctions? A nation EARNS removal from a weapons embargo, at least that's the way it's been up to now. Does Iran continue to financially support terror groups around the world? Absolutely, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen (dumping the Houthis in with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch...we ask your indulgence). Iran also provides tremendously important support to the flailing regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Where else does Iran export weapons and warfare? Iraq is a good example; the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which have become so important in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq, include the Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Mahdi Army, and Kata'ib Hezbollah. Each group is trained and supplied by Iran. As for the Iranian Armed Forces, they are in serious need of updated materials. The Iranian Air Force is still flying a combination of ancient U.S.-made F5s (from the days of the Shah), and Migs that it stole from Iraq during the initial Gulf War. And unlike the Chinese, Indians, Israelis and South Africans, the Iranians have had little success utilizing older equipment, and creating an indigenous weapon by incorporating home-grown innovations and technologies. The Iranians need radar, jets, bombers, cargo planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, computerized targeting equipment, missiles, and artillery, and their navy needs submarines and frigates. Luckily, the economic sanctions will make it difficult for Iran to go on a shopping spree, now that the weapons-sanctions have been lifted. Wait....ALL sanctions are being lifted, aren't they? That means billions of dollars for Iran to buy what it wants. And once the Saudis and the U.A.E. realize that Iran is not only closer to a nuclear weapon, but that they are modernizing their Armed Forces as well, we will see a nice little arms race develop in the Persian Gulf. Its not Rocket Science, folks.
For all practical purposes, our last major complaint has already been covered. We believe that the Iranians should have been obliged to disavow the exportation of terror and the support of terrorist groups. It may have been just show, but at least we could make them look a bit foolish on an international stage. In reality, Iran should have been required to limit its aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to strictly humanitarian goods. In the end, nothing was asked of Iran. They were not asked to disavow terror, and they were not asked to dismantle certain facilities in Iran whose sole function is the processing of weapons-grade nuclear material. They were asked to halt all research into nuclear weapons-related projects, and to permit regular inspections. The Iranians refused to agree to the inspections, until Secretary of State John Kerry took a knife and severed the last set of balls that existed in this treaty, which was the option for unannounced inspections. What did Kerry agree to instead? The inspectors must request the opportunity to inspect each respective site, and that request must be made three weeks in advance of the actual inspection. To add to the absurdity, the Iranians reserved the right to DENY the request. In truth, what would we do? If the Iranians said, "we don't give you permission to inspect that particular site", would we automatically re-apply the sanctions? Would be take back the money that would have poured into Iran by then? And what about all the new upgraded military hardware....do you think they will return it, no questions asked?
Previously, we were convinced that the 2010 New Start Treaty was the worst treaty ever negotiated by a U.S. Secretary of State. John Kerry has proved us wrong, and in the same administration, no less.
Showing posts with label Houthis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Houthis. Show all posts
Monday, August 31, 2015
Monday, July 20, 2015
Obama's treaty with Iran surpasses Neville Chamberlain in sacrificing international security in search of a political legacy.
Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations. How quickly we forget who we are dealing with. Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict. Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight. The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War. Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia. The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research. But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend". And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama. And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.
I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative. I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right? Fat chance. Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office. Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world. The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives. Now for a bit of simple, common-sense. ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida. Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf. The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala. Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire. There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon. It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities. But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections. Well, we saw how far that demand went.
Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race. Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool. This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents. Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart. In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base. I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago. Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike. On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets. This is the world we live in today, 2015. Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base? What an absurd law. I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed. I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader.....
B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations. How quickly we forget who we are dealing with. Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict. Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight. The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War. Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia. The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research. But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend". And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama. And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.
I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative. I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right? Fat chance. Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office. Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world. The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives. Now for a bit of simple, common-sense. ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida. Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf. The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala. Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire. There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon. It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities. But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections. Well, we saw how far that demand went.
Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race. Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool. This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents. Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart. In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base. I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago. Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike. On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets. This is the world we live in today, 2015. Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base? What an absurd law. I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed. I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader.....
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Is Yemen, 2015, a renewal of the Battle of Karbala, 680 AD?
Links: A. Saudi military on Yemeni border.
B. Is conflict in Yemen a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran?
No need to get out your history books or almanacs, unless you really want to. The Battle of Karbala was fought in central Iraq in 680 AD, with most religious scholars agreeing that the
violent clash went a long way to settling the question of The Prophet Mohammed's succession. This is important because the two opponents came to represent the Sunni and Shia elements within Islam. Until recently, the two groups seemed to co-exist within an awkward kind of avoidance, although on a few occasions, the international community has been given a glimpse of the emotions involved in the Sunni-Shia schism. Following the first Gulf War, once it became apparent that President George H. Bush was not going to force Saddam Hussein from power, Saddam fired-up what was left of his war machine and butchered thousands of Shia in areas south of Iraq. Saddam was legitimately concerned that the "Marsh Arabs", as these particular Shia were called, were rising up to possibly threaten his hold on power. This was the moment in life that I went over to an Encyclopedia and educated myself on the Sunni and the Shia. Having spent time in Iraq within the last decade, I became familiar with the two groups and the antagonism that basically defines their relationship. Simply put, since Karbala in 680 AD, the Shia have been looking for a little respect. For the most part, the Sunni are considered better educated, more intelligent, and wealthier. The Shia are more the "manual laborers and farmers" of Islam, and they have a tendency to carry a chip on their shoulder as big as Manhattan.
In the last fifty years, the Shia, who are the majority in only two countries (Lebanon being a plurality, folks), have fought fiercely for causes that they support. Following the revolution in Iran in 1979-1980, which deposed the Pahlavi Dynasty, the Shia-led government of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini threw everything but the kitchen sink at Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, the Shia seem to be more comfortable standing up for their interests. In Iraq in 2005, the Shia were quick to create militias to defend Shia communities and Holy Sites, when it became apparent that certain anti-U.S. groups were going to incite various causes to violence. The Iranians were more than happy to provide training and equipment to these militias, who are even more powerful and active today than they were during the insurgency. The Iranian government, and the Guardian Council in Qom, must be pleased by the expression of free will exhibited by the Shia Houthis of Yemen. The Houthis have been around for sometime, and to their credit, they tried a number of non-violent approaches to the former government over the years, in an attempt to end discrimination against the Houthi community. Eventually they were compelled to resort to violence, and the Yemeni government, already under siege from Al-Qaeda, was a bit of an easy target. Today, as April passes us by, The Houthis are in control of the capital city of Sana, and are strategically positioned to move against Yemen's second city (and port/economic lifeline), Aden. Interestingly enough, just to the east of Aden lies a reasonably large area which is controlled by (Sunni) Al-Qaeda. And just when things couldn't get any more confusing, the Royal Saudi Arabian Air Force, which continues to recognize the legitimacy of the recently removed Yemeni government, has started bombing Houthi forces.
Why do the Saudis care if the Houthis run the table in Yemen? Who knows, they may do a better job than the last few thugs that sat in Sana. Actually, the answer is simple: the Saudis cannot continence a Shia government on the Arabian Peninsula (Bahrain is an island, so it doesn't count), and certainly not with a common border. Publicly, the Saudis claim that they are only trying to restore peace and the democratically elected Yemeni government. The truth is, the Saudis and the Iranians can't stand each other, and the Houthis have been heavily supported by Iran since the beginning. Mark my word, the Saudis will do whatever is necessarily to guarantee that the Iranians do not have a presence on the Arabian Peninsula. Just as I was starting this post, I noticed a news report come across the wire (yes, folks...I'm so cool and important that I have one of those "news wires") that Iranian warships were headed for Yemen. Now that would be an
escalation along the lines of Kennedy and Khrushchev back in 1962. Then, as I was looking for an additional article, I came across The Times Of Israel piece titled, "Iran sends battleships to Yemen amid standoff with Saudis". I had to take a break, I was laughing so hard. A journalist actually WROTE that header, and then added a photo of a warship the size of a shrimp boat flying the Iranian flag! I guess "battleships" ain't what they used to be. Regardless of my welcome moment of humor, be assured that the Iranian navy only has a handful of ships that are capable of sailing as far as Yemen. The people of Aden need not lose any sleep; I can categorically guarantee that tomorrow morning when they wake up and look in the direction of the Indian Ocean, they will not see Iranian battleships on the horizon.
Which brings me to my next point of interest. This is something my friend Jennifer and I have been discussing for a few weeks now. Occasionally the media will release a story that mentions "Saudi ground forces", or "Saudi armor being moved to the Yemeni border". For the moment, this is the most important issue that comes to my mind. The Saudis have committed themselves to some level of conflict by conducting air operations against Houthi targets in Sana and other strategic locations. If the Houthis were to go head-to-head against the Saudi military, the result would be beyond ugly. It would be a monumental mismatch. As far as I know, what was the Yemeni Army is still making noise in and around Aden (Houthis on one side, Al-Qaeda on the other....one hell of a spot to be in). If so, then in all likelihood the Houthis have not taken possession of the most modern and useful military vehicles and equipment. So we are talking about Abrams tanks, state-of-the-art Artillery (trained in the Iraq war), fully-equipped infantry and special forces, support from helicopter gunships and guided missiles, etc., on one side, and the Houthis on the other. A few months back I commented that I had seen a video of the Houthis storming some government building in Sana, and actually saw a guy on a camel, with a musket. Holy Lawrence of Arabia, folks. Well, at least, historically, we are on the right continent.
The Saudis should make short work of the Houthis, and then what? Clean out Al-Qaeda from eastern Yemen? Now here is the potential complication that I have been discussing with Jennifer. Everyone keeps talking about a Saudi ground invasion as if its a simple operation. No way. The Saudi armor is normally home-based in the north of the country and around Riyadh (I'm sure some units are also deployed in the Mecca/Medina/Jeddah triangle). Would the Saudis transport their armor and artillery down west, to the coast, then down the coast road to Yemen? Or is there another route that skirts the Rub al-Khali? Whatever the case, for Saudi Arabia to relocate a military force large enough to finish the job at hand (the destruction of the Houthis), it would involve the mobilization of multiple divisions. All of this activity should be visible for the world to watch on satellite. I have yet to hear any media announce that a full-scale Saudi military build-up is taking place near Najran or Abu Arish. So if it hasn't been noted, then how can it be taking place? Now I'm taking a big chance with this post, because I'm writing it four days before it will see the light of day. Many things can happen since then which would resolve the issues I have pointed out. But as things stand today, from the perspective of this armchair general, I do not believe Saudi Arabia is preparing a full-out ground invasion of Yemen.
B. Is conflict in Yemen a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran?
No need to get out your history books or almanacs, unless you really want to. The Battle of Karbala was fought in central Iraq in 680 AD, with most religious scholars agreeing that the
In the last fifty years, the Shia, who are the majority in only two countries (Lebanon being a plurality, folks), have fought fiercely for causes that they support. Following the revolution in Iran in 1979-1980, which deposed the Pahlavi Dynasty, the Shia-led government of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini threw everything but the kitchen sink at Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, the Shia seem to be more comfortable standing up for their interests. In Iraq in 2005, the Shia were quick to create militias to defend Shia communities and Holy Sites, when it became apparent that certain anti-U.S. groups were going to incite various causes to violence. The Iranians were more than happy to provide training and equipment to these militias, who are even more powerful and active today than they were during the insurgency. The Iranian government, and the Guardian Council in Qom, must be pleased by the expression of free will exhibited by the Shia Houthis of Yemen. The Houthis have been around for sometime, and to their credit, they tried a number of non-violent approaches to the former government over the years, in an attempt to end discrimination against the Houthi community. Eventually they were compelled to resort to violence, and the Yemeni government, already under siege from Al-Qaeda, was a bit of an easy target. Today, as April passes us by, The Houthis are in control of the capital city of Sana, and are strategically positioned to move against Yemen's second city (and port/economic lifeline), Aden. Interestingly enough, just to the east of Aden lies a reasonably large area which is controlled by (Sunni) Al-Qaeda. And just when things couldn't get any more confusing, the Royal Saudi Arabian Air Force, which continues to recognize the legitimacy of the recently removed Yemeni government, has started bombing Houthi forces.
Why do the Saudis care if the Houthis run the table in Yemen? Who knows, they may do a better job than the last few thugs that sat in Sana. Actually, the answer is simple: the Saudis cannot continence a Shia government on the Arabian Peninsula (Bahrain is an island, so it doesn't count), and certainly not with a common border. Publicly, the Saudis claim that they are only trying to restore peace and the democratically elected Yemeni government. The truth is, the Saudis and the Iranians can't stand each other, and the Houthis have been heavily supported by Iran since the beginning. Mark my word, the Saudis will do whatever is necessarily to guarantee that the Iranians do not have a presence on the Arabian Peninsula. Just as I was starting this post, I noticed a news report come across the wire (yes, folks...I'm so cool and important that I have one of those "news wires") that Iranian warships were headed for Yemen. Now that would be an
 |
| Yemen |
Which brings me to my next point of interest. This is something my friend Jennifer and I have been discussing for a few weeks now. Occasionally the media will release a story that mentions "Saudi ground forces", or "Saudi armor being moved to the Yemeni border". For the moment, this is the most important issue that comes to my mind. The Saudis have committed themselves to some level of conflict by conducting air operations against Houthi targets in Sana and other strategic locations. If the Houthis were to go head-to-head against the Saudi military, the result would be beyond ugly. It would be a monumental mismatch. As far as I know, what was the Yemeni Army is still making noise in and around Aden (Houthis on one side, Al-Qaeda on the other....one hell of a spot to be in). If so, then in all likelihood the Houthis have not taken possession of the most modern and useful military vehicles and equipment. So we are talking about Abrams tanks, state-of-the-art Artillery (trained in the Iraq war), fully-equipped infantry and special forces, support from helicopter gunships and guided missiles, etc., on one side, and the Houthis on the other. A few months back I commented that I had seen a video of the Houthis storming some government building in Sana, and actually saw a guy on a camel, with a musket. Holy Lawrence of Arabia, folks. Well, at least, historically, we are on the right continent.
The Saudis should make short work of the Houthis, and then what? Clean out Al-Qaeda from eastern Yemen? Now here is the potential complication that I have been discussing with Jennifer. Everyone keeps talking about a Saudi ground invasion as if its a simple operation. No way. The Saudi armor is normally home-based in the north of the country and around Riyadh (I'm sure some units are also deployed in the Mecca/Medina/Jeddah triangle). Would the Saudis transport their armor and artillery down west, to the coast, then down the coast road to Yemen? Or is there another route that skirts the Rub al-Khali? Whatever the case, for Saudi Arabia to relocate a military force large enough to finish the job at hand (the destruction of the Houthis), it would involve the mobilization of multiple divisions. All of this activity should be visible for the world to watch on satellite. I have yet to hear any media announce that a full-scale Saudi military build-up is taking place near Najran or Abu Arish. So if it hasn't been noted, then how can it be taking place? Now I'm taking a big chance with this post, because I'm writing it four days before it will see the light of day. Many things can happen since then which would resolve the issues I have pointed out. But as things stand today, from the perspective of this armchair general, I do not believe Saudi Arabia is preparing a full-out ground invasion of Yemen.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Western Christianity More Determined Than Ever to Self-Destruct
Link: Christians Attacking Christians
"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."
Galatians 5:15
I'm sure it happens all year long, but for some reason, I seem to notice it more during Lent. And there is no doubt I experience it more in the United States than anywhere else. I'm referring to the obsession Christians have with bashing each other. Up front, let me say that I have no intention of "being fair". I promise to be as honest as my life experience's allow. I will call it as I've seen it. But first, let's have a look at the Islamic community at war with itself. At present, the Christian world is being given a front-row seat into the eternal conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Internationally, the Sunni greatly outnumber the Shi'a, and consider themselves to be more enlightened, more educated and more refined. The Shi'a have endured a type of prejudice within the Muslim community which assumes them to be less-educated and backward. In the last few decades, the Shi'a have become much more vocal and aggressive, especially in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The Shi'a Houthi group in Yemen has recently removed the Sunni government from power, and is threatening to draw Saudi Arabia into a conventional conflict in the streets of Sana'a. All the while, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and inflicted repeated strategic defeats on the Islamic State forces in and around Tikrit. Why is this worth mentioning? Because for months, the ISF has been equipped and trained by the United States, and the U.S.-led air coalition has been attempting to provide air cover for operations against the IS; unfortunately for the U.S., during these months, the ISF had its ass handed to them. It was only after Iran provided military advisors and the Shi'a militia became more effective that the tide of battle changed.
Not surprisingly, Iran has received the credit for this change in fortune. An "Intro to Islamic Studies" course will teach even the most rudimentary student that Iran is a majority Shi'a nation, and the flag-bearer internationally and diplomatically for the Shi'a community. The Iranians freely admit to providing support to the Houthis, who were locked in a battle with both the Sunni-Yemeni government and Sunni-based Al-Qaeda, who controls a good part of southern Yemen, along the coast and right up to Aden. I have recently become convinced that Sunni Islamic extremist groups send new recruits to Yemen to receive training for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. At present, the experience to be gained in Yemen is much more similar to Syria than the experience of fighting in Afghanistan. The established Sunni governments of the Middle East, especially the monarchies, are very disturbed by the spread of Iranian (read: Shi'a) influence and authority, and the timing couldn't be worse. Any day now, the Obama Administration will announce the successful negotiation of a Treaty with Iran, that allows the Iranians to peacefully pursue Nuclear research. No doubt the treaty will call for inspections, but something tells me that the Iranians will be inspecting themselves. So Iran seems to be hitting the crest of a wave, and now the world waits to see if they can successfully surf it on home.
In one form or another, I believe the organized religions of the world are going to have a confrontation. I am hoping it will be a diplomatic engagement that results in greater understanding and peace in our lifetime. If we look at the glass as half-empty, then we must consider a major military confrontation with forces that are attempting to forcibly convert the world to (Sunni) Islam. For practical purposes, the Muslims need to resolve their own issue between Sunni and Shi'a. But lets take look at the other side of the coin, the Christian West. Even though the hearts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in Europe, I can't speak for the European Christian community. I realize that pockets of devout believers exist in Eastern Europe, but let's face it, the European Christian actually seems ashamed of their beliefs. If Christianity is going to regenerate itself, in light of the potential threat of an organization like the Islamic State, it will have to take place in the United States. And this is where the real tragedy takes shape. In Europe, you can't find a full congregation anywhere in France, Spain, England or Sweden. Young people no longer get married, and the secular aspect of once-Christian holidays now dominate. Christmas is about Santa Claus and Rudolph, not the Christ-child. Further west, the Obama Administration appears to be hostile to the American Christian community, but they have been careful in their actions. The African-American community, which supports this Administration with over ninety-five percent of its vote, considers religion to be an important part of the family and daily life. So the attacks on Christianity have been subtle and infrequent, except, of course, for the ongoing "Gay Marriage" debate. But when I take a good look at what is taking shape in Syria, in Libya, In Nigeria, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Egypt, and in Somalia, I shudder for the future of my faith. Regardless of what the left and the ACLU tell you, the United States was founded on Christian values. That is the reason you find God mentioned in the Constitution, and most other legal documents of the time. The founding fathers were not opposed to religion, they were opposed to a "STATE RELIGION". But in the last three to four decades, we have allowed this tiny minority of uber-left Christophobes to remove any mention of Christian values from our schools and from any building that has U.S. government affiliation. The Constitution speaks clearly about a separation of Church and State, which in my mind simply means we cannot have a state religion. The beginning of the war against Christianity in the United States really picked up steam with the campaign against prayer in school. The slippery slope has come into play in force, as now we can't pray for no injuries in H.S. sporting events, or allow religious based groups to make use of school facilities (library for meetings for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) after school hours. Prepare to spend the night in jail of you attempt to put a Nativity Scene in front of a public school in December.
There is great strength in unity; I know this, and I'm no rocket scientist. The various Christian denominations in the U.S. are perfectly suited to rising together in opposition to the long-term plans of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and setting the needed example. Where religion is concerned, the American people give generously of their time and money. We should be able to expect Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, et al), Protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Anglicans), Mormons, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelicals of all shapes and sizes, Seventh Day Adventists, and whoever I've left out, to come together and meet this threat, united in our faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins. I guarantee you, ALREADY someone has a problem with what I've just written. Argh. Recently, I attended a Sunday service of a denomination that is a bit of a mystery to me. They spend most of their Sundays in worship, which is great, and they constitute one of the larger Christian denominations in the United States. And as I listened to the sermon, I heard many things that were familiar to me. In fact, nothing seemed to conflict with what I had been taught as a Catholic. But then it happened. The commentary from the pulpit began to include negative observations about another Christian denomination. Things got back on track, but then it happened again. During the day, in between sermons and during, I noticed a certain amount of comfort in openly criticizing the beliefs/traditions/practices of other Christian denominations (heck, they probably don't even consider these other groups to be true Christians). Now I can tell you in complete honesty that in my entire life as a Church-going Catholic, I can't remember the Priest EVER mentioning another denomination. In fact, in times like these, I think its about time we started discussing Islamic extremism during Catholic services. But what I heard that Sunday, I've never heard in a Catholic Church, although I'm sure it happens. There is no doubt that every Christian denomination in the United States, will occasionally point out what the other "Christians" are doing wrong, "according to scripture". Now if we the opposing side were allowed to defend themselves, no doubt they would interpret that same bit of scripture differently. Its no big surprise that different people interpret religious text differently. No one wants to consider the possibility that all along, they've been thinking the wrong thing. The real nightmare begins when people start arguing about the multiple translations, and should be only translate Aramaic, or also Greek? Now is the time that I stand up in the middle of everyone, and just scream at the top of my lungs, to get everyone to shut up and listen to me.
When did we, as Christians, turn away from the many things that united us, and start focusing exclusively on the few things on which we don't agree? All of the groups I mentioned in the paragraph above (well, almost all) agree on the most important basic tenets of our faith. We believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he is the son of God and that he suffered and died for us on the cross. We believe in the resurrection; that he will return. Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God is Love. Its wrong to lie, and to steal from your neighbor. Can we agree on that? Murder is arguably the worst crime that a person can commit, although rape and sexual assault is right up there. Are we still on the same page? The age of adulthood, for legal purposes, is eighteen, and we have a Constitution that we use to guide and protect us in our everyday social interaction with each other. We abhor discrimination of any kind, and believe a family is the best place in which to raise a child. See how easy this is? Am I on the right track? Our common beliefs are the glue that hold us together, and one day we very well may have that bond tested by the evil we are watching in Syria and Iraq today. There is no doubt in my mind that both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State organization are evil. As such, they will use our own bad habits against us, which include our own intolerance of each other. "I don't like Baptists, they don't dance." "Catholics worship false idols". "Pentecostals speak in tongues and don't translate it properly". The list goes on, and on, and on. We have managed to live with each other, to marry one another, and to build families together, all these differences notwithstanding. And we built this country together. We are the only ones that can allow for this destructive process to be reversed. What we are required to do, for the love of our faith, our families and our country, is to search out our commonalities, our special bonds, and when the time comes, we must bring each other close together, so that, united, Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or whoever, will find no quarter here, not as long as they seek to divide.
"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."
Galatians 5:15
I'm sure it happens all year long, but for some reason, I seem to notice it more during Lent. And there is no doubt I experience it more in the United States than anywhere else. I'm referring to the obsession Christians have with bashing each other. Up front, let me say that I have no intention of "being fair". I promise to be as honest as my life experience's allow. I will call it as I've seen it. But first, let's have a look at the Islamic community at war with itself. At present, the Christian world is being given a front-row seat into the eternal conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Internationally, the Sunni greatly outnumber the Shi'a, and consider themselves to be more enlightened, more educated and more refined. The Shi'a have endured a type of prejudice within the Muslim community which assumes them to be less-educated and backward. In the last few decades, the Shi'a have become much more vocal and aggressive, especially in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The Shi'a Houthi group in Yemen has recently removed the Sunni government from power, and is threatening to draw Saudi Arabia into a conventional conflict in the streets of Sana'a. All the while, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and inflicted repeated strategic defeats on the Islamic State forces in and around Tikrit. Why is this worth mentioning? Because for months, the ISF has been equipped and trained by the United States, and the U.S.-led air coalition has been attempting to provide air cover for operations against the IS; unfortunately for the U.S., during these months, the ISF had its ass handed to them. It was only after Iran provided military advisors and the Shi'a militia became more effective that the tide of battle changed.
Not surprisingly, Iran has received the credit for this change in fortune. An "Intro to Islamic Studies" course will teach even the most rudimentary student that Iran is a majority Shi'a nation, and the flag-bearer internationally and diplomatically for the Shi'a community. The Iranians freely admit to providing support to the Houthis, who were locked in a battle with both the Sunni-Yemeni government and Sunni-based Al-Qaeda, who controls a good part of southern Yemen, along the coast and right up to Aden. I have recently become convinced that Sunni Islamic extremist groups send new recruits to Yemen to receive training for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. At present, the experience to be gained in Yemen is much more similar to Syria than the experience of fighting in Afghanistan. The established Sunni governments of the Middle East, especially the monarchies, are very disturbed by the spread of Iranian (read: Shi'a) influence and authority, and the timing couldn't be worse. Any day now, the Obama Administration will announce the successful negotiation of a Treaty with Iran, that allows the Iranians to peacefully pursue Nuclear research. No doubt the treaty will call for inspections, but something tells me that the Iranians will be inspecting themselves. So Iran seems to be hitting the crest of a wave, and now the world waits to see if they can successfully surf it on home.
In one form or another, I believe the organized religions of the world are going to have a confrontation. I am hoping it will be a diplomatic engagement that results in greater understanding and peace in our lifetime. If we look at the glass as half-empty, then we must consider a major military confrontation with forces that are attempting to forcibly convert the world to (Sunni) Islam. For practical purposes, the Muslims need to resolve their own issue between Sunni and Shi'a. But lets take look at the other side of the coin, the Christian West. Even though the hearts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in Europe, I can't speak for the European Christian community. I realize that pockets of devout believers exist in Eastern Europe, but let's face it, the European Christian actually seems ashamed of their beliefs. If Christianity is going to regenerate itself, in light of the potential threat of an organization like the Islamic State, it will have to take place in the United States. And this is where the real tragedy takes shape. In Europe, you can't find a full congregation anywhere in France, Spain, England or Sweden. Young people no longer get married, and the secular aspect of once-Christian holidays now dominate. Christmas is about Santa Claus and Rudolph, not the Christ-child. Further west, the Obama Administration appears to be hostile to the American Christian community, but they have been careful in their actions. The African-American community, which supports this Administration with over ninety-five percent of its vote, considers religion to be an important part of the family and daily life. So the attacks on Christianity have been subtle and infrequent, except, of course, for the ongoing "Gay Marriage" debate. But when I take a good look at what is taking shape in Syria, in Libya, In Nigeria, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Egypt, and in Somalia, I shudder for the future of my faith. Regardless of what the left and the ACLU tell you, the United States was founded on Christian values. That is the reason you find God mentioned in the Constitution, and most other legal documents of the time. The founding fathers were not opposed to religion, they were opposed to a "STATE RELIGION". But in the last three to four decades, we have allowed this tiny minority of uber-left Christophobes to remove any mention of Christian values from our schools and from any building that has U.S. government affiliation. The Constitution speaks clearly about a separation of Church and State, which in my mind simply means we cannot have a state religion. The beginning of the war against Christianity in the United States really picked up steam with the campaign against prayer in school. The slippery slope has come into play in force, as now we can't pray for no injuries in H.S. sporting events, or allow religious based groups to make use of school facilities (library for meetings for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) after school hours. Prepare to spend the night in jail of you attempt to put a Nativity Scene in front of a public school in December.
There is great strength in unity; I know this, and I'm no rocket scientist. The various Christian denominations in the U.S. are perfectly suited to rising together in opposition to the long-term plans of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and setting the needed example. Where religion is concerned, the American people give generously of their time and money. We should be able to expect Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, et al), Protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Anglicans), Mormons, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelicals of all shapes and sizes, Seventh Day Adventists, and whoever I've left out, to come together and meet this threat, united in our faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins. I guarantee you, ALREADY someone has a problem with what I've just written. Argh. Recently, I attended a Sunday service of a denomination that is a bit of a mystery to me. They spend most of their Sundays in worship, which is great, and they constitute one of the larger Christian denominations in the United States. And as I listened to the sermon, I heard many things that were familiar to me. In fact, nothing seemed to conflict with what I had been taught as a Catholic. But then it happened. The commentary from the pulpit began to include negative observations about another Christian denomination. Things got back on track, but then it happened again. During the day, in between sermons and during, I noticed a certain amount of comfort in openly criticizing the beliefs/traditions/practices of other Christian denominations (heck, they probably don't even consider these other groups to be true Christians). Now I can tell you in complete honesty that in my entire life as a Church-going Catholic, I can't remember the Priest EVER mentioning another denomination. In fact, in times like these, I think its about time we started discussing Islamic extremism during Catholic services. But what I heard that Sunday, I've never heard in a Catholic Church, although I'm sure it happens. There is no doubt that every Christian denomination in the United States, will occasionally point out what the other "Christians" are doing wrong, "according to scripture". Now if we the opposing side were allowed to defend themselves, no doubt they would interpret that same bit of scripture differently. Its no big surprise that different people interpret religious text differently. No one wants to consider the possibility that all along, they've been thinking the wrong thing. The real nightmare begins when people start arguing about the multiple translations, and should be only translate Aramaic, or also Greek? Now is the time that I stand up in the middle of everyone, and just scream at the top of my lungs, to get everyone to shut up and listen to me.
When did we, as Christians, turn away from the many things that united us, and start focusing exclusively on the few things on which we don't agree? All of the groups I mentioned in the paragraph above (well, almost all) agree on the most important basic tenets of our faith. We believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he is the son of God and that he suffered and died for us on the cross. We believe in the resurrection; that he will return. Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God is Love. Its wrong to lie, and to steal from your neighbor. Can we agree on that? Murder is arguably the worst crime that a person can commit, although rape and sexual assault is right up there. Are we still on the same page? The age of adulthood, for legal purposes, is eighteen, and we have a Constitution that we use to guide and protect us in our everyday social interaction with each other. We abhor discrimination of any kind, and believe a family is the best place in which to raise a child. See how easy this is? Am I on the right track? Our common beliefs are the glue that hold us together, and one day we very well may have that bond tested by the evil we are watching in Syria and Iraq today. There is no doubt in my mind that both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State organization are evil. As such, they will use our own bad habits against us, which include our own intolerance of each other. "I don't like Baptists, they don't dance." "Catholics worship false idols". "Pentecostals speak in tongues and don't translate it properly". The list goes on, and on, and on. We have managed to live with each other, to marry one another, and to build families together, all these differences notwithstanding. And we built this country together. We are the only ones that can allow for this destructive process to be reversed. What we are required to do, for the love of our faith, our families and our country, is to search out our commonalities, our special bonds, and when the time comes, we must bring each other close together, so that, united, Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or whoever, will find no quarter here, not as long as they seek to divide.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
How effective are the Armed Forces of the Persian Gulf? (Part II)
Links A. Global Firepower Ranks the Armed Forces of the World
B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies
I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue. Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile. The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor). The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced. Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti. The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage. If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right. The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles. Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems. The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training. The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter. The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations. The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s. The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days. I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military. In a way, the comment is accurate. If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off. All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country. Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about. I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside. The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.
The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia. Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf? Try Oman.) The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels. If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai. The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services. The UAE Air Force is exceptional. The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import. Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware. The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability. The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies. In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams. The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me). The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations. The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's. Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations. Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area. The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential. If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible. Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph. I'm sure its not the first time. Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military. Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again. Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks. to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems. Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait? More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces. Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree). Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force. The standing army is somewhere near 13,000. Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown). The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters. Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services. If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks. Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft.
Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time. The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. The Houthis are in hardly better shape. The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with. I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer. The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country. Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment. I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here? I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it. The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda. the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way. 11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements. The Omani Army is built to suit its environment. The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability. Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon. More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles. The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel. The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern.
B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies
I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue. Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile. The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor). The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced. Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti. The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage. If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right. The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles. Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems. The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training. The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter. The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations. The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s. The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days. I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military. In a way, the comment is accurate. If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off. All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country. Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about. I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside. The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.
The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia. Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf? Try Oman.) The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels. If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai. The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services. The UAE Air Force is exceptional. The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import. Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware. The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability. The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies. In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams. The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me). The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations. The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's. Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations. Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area. The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential. If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible. Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph. I'm sure its not the first time. Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military. Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again. Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks. to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems. Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait? More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces. Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree). Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force. The standing army is somewhere near 13,000. Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown). The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters. Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services. If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks. Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft.
Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time. The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. The Houthis are in hardly better shape. The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with. I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer. The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country. Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment. I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here? I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it. The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda. the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way. 11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements. The Omani Army is built to suit its environment. The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability. Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon. More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles. The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel. The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)