Links: A. Turkey unilaterally invades Iraq to launch attacks against Kurdish PKK militants.
B. Iraq claims to have retaken 60% of Ramadi City.
In a move that will no doubt escalate already dangerously high tensions in the area, Turkey deployed military units into northeastern Iraq, just outside of Mosul, in order to more effectively launch attacks against militants from the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). If Turkish President Erdogan was looking for the quickest way to unite the Kurds, and at the same time, bring the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities closer together, they found it. Turkey's actions are almost inexplicable, unless Erdogan is determine to make things difficult for Barack Obama as he tries to leave office gracefully. At the same time, the Pentagon is preparing to deploy roughly 200 U.S. Army Special Forces elements into Iraq, to act as a mobile "hit squad" to take out ISIS leaders, if you will. This policy seems to fly in the face of Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which prohibits any Agent or Representative of the United States Government from involvement in assassinations. I may be nit-picking here, especially since we already are aware of this Administration's perception of the Constitution and the laws of this nation. Either way, the arrival of this American Special Forces Unit has already come under heavy criticism in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Abadi is doing everything he can to keep the ship of state from sinking altogether. Abadi is under particular pressure from the Shi'a elements in the Council of Representatives, who are angling to bring a vote of no confidence against the Iraqi Prime Minister. Also, Iranians in Baghdad are as thick as fleas on a mongrel's back, and they are also putting pressure on the government, both to oppose the deployment of more U.S. troops, and to take action against the Turkish incursion northeast of Mosul. Abadi has been under fire before, but this time his administration may not survive.
One of the most appalling and embarrassing developments in the region has been the continued intransigence from the Iranians with regards to any U.S. diplomatic or military initiatives. I assume that following the nuclear treaty negotiations, the Obama Administration (the President, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Kerry in particular) expected the Iranian government to lighten the anti-U.S. rhetoric and to be less aggressive in opposing every U.S. action in the region. I knew better, and you knew better, but for some reason, the three men with the greatest access to intelligence on this planet, didn't see this coming. Or did they, and it just didn't matter? At the moment, events in Iraq and Syria need to be stabilized, before the Iraqi's end up at war with Turkey, or the Turks decide that the time is right to "ethnic-cleanse" northern Iraq of Kurds once and for all. The action ordered by the President and taken by the Pentagon to deploy Special Forces is way too little and way too late, and will cause more harm than good, especially if Abadi falls from power. It has been suggested (whispered more like) in DC that the Obama Administration is hesitant to take stronger military action against ISIS, because increased U.S. presence in the region will infuriate Iran, and put Obama's "legacy treaty" with Iran in jeopardy.
What we can expect is the Administration attempting to steer the media away from connecting the recent terror attack in San Bernardino to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Obama is bound and determined to avoid getting drawn into a full-scale war in Syria/Iraq. I'm not so reactionary that I don't see the ideological motivation; the United States has a tempestuous relationship with most of the governments in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and lets not forget that we invaded Iraq twice in the last thirty years. Our historical tradition of supporting unpopular governments in Egypt and Iran and our long-term, close relationship with Israel, have not endeared the U.S. to the people of the region, that's for sure. But the clock is ticking (excuse the cliché); ISIL/ISIS/Daesh or whatever you want to call them, have not been really impacted by the Russian intervention in Syria (probably because most of the Russian bombs were dropped on anti-government Syrian groups as opposed to ISIS). ISIS is increasing its activities in Africa and in the Far East, and I expect we will soon see a more regular pattern to domestic terror events (God forbid). Still today, on December 9, 2015, the United States is military capable of destroying ISIS on our own. But a serious effort at building a military coalition, to include our European allies and Russia (who should be told, bluntly, to "get on board or get out of the way"), would a tremendous advantage in eliminating this scourge once and for all. Why now? Because if ISIS continues to raise money and recruit, I have no idea how improved their conventional army will become (with modern weapons, tanks, artillery, and possibly and Air element), nor can we accurately gauge how complicated and dangerous the situation will be in the urban and residential areas of Europe and the United States. Some crusty old General once said, that when you go to war, you must use everything at your disposal, every weapon, no matter how heinous, and you must fight with the utmost aggression and determination. This is the formula for ending a war quickly, which will save countless lives on both sides, especially when compared to wars that drag on and on and on......
Showing posts with label ISIL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISIL. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Friday, September 18, 2015
The world needs a leader to stand up to ISIS; can Putin fill the role?
Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.
Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place. Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria. What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader. Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode. Whose left? What about Vladimir Putin? Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace. Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you. Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.
ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate. The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. What is a Caliph? A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority. At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops. Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan. The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals. The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States. Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant. As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder. The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear. Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus. How are they able to convince so many young people to join? ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope. For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home. And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr. For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.
Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS. In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well. Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS. There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys. But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job. Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS. Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast. If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS. But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?
In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious. I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends. I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor. I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS. I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish. The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state. Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand? Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago. Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now. Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job.
Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place. Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria. What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader. Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode. Whose left? What about Vladimir Putin? Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace. Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you. Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.
ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate. The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. What is a Caliph? A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority. At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops. Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan. The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals. The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States. Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant. As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder. The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear. Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus. How are they able to convince so many young people to join? ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope. For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home. And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr. For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.
Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS. In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well. Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS. There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys. But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job. Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS. Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast. If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS. But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?
In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious. I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends. I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor. I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS. I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish. The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state. Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand? Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago. Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now. Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Is This A Glimpse Of Obama's True Sympathies?
Link: A. Islamic State Executes Jordanian Pilot
B. Obama Compares Islamic State Terrorists To Crusaders
As I gave my internet news sources a quick scan before sitting down to write this post, a few articles caught my attention. It seems that the video clip of the unfortunate Jordanian pilot being burned to death may be a fake, or a hoax. I studied a couple of the claims, which both seemed legitimate. I have to say, though, that at the end of the video, the young man is dead. Whether he was burned, or executed first and then burned doesn't matter to me anymore. The actions of the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant (ISIL) have reached a level a barbarism not seen since the Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen in the Second World War. The treatment of women, children and the elderly in the hills of northern Iraq was as beastly and inhumane as anything I can recall. Not to mention the routine-like execution of rows and rows of Iraqi young men, whose only crime was to join the army in order to bring home a little money to help feed the family. The group ISIL is as bad as it gets. I am convinced that both ISIL and Al-Qaeda are working towards the same goals as part of the strategy of Islamic Extremism. We keep coming up with different names: Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, Khorasan, and ISIL, just to name a few. Boko Haram used to kidnap girls and force them to adopt their extreme conservative Islamic beliefs. Now they have started kidnapping all children that they come across, and the real fear is that Boko Haram is building an army of child soldiers, similar to what has been seen in Africa in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Rwanda, and with the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. Since President Obama took office and Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism have flourished. Its a dangerous word to use, but unfortunately its appropriate. During the Bush Administration, security officials frequently spoke of the fear that Al-Qaeda would spread into Africa. Al-Qaeda is not only present in Africa, it is expanding. Operatives in Mali are conducting raids in Niger and Boko Haram has carried out attacks from Nigeria into Cameroon. The West has not been spared, as we have witnessed attacks in Boston, London, Paris and Australia. And we have the Middle East; I can't remember a time that the Levant, the Holy Land and Mesopotamia were in such trouble.
The point is, Islamic Extremism is on the move, and it is a real danger to the United States. I'm relieved to note that the current administration has excepted this reality. The murder of the Jordanian pilot was a horrific act, but no more horrific than any of the other beheadings and executions. The reaction of the Jordanian people was very encouraging. The population of Jordan consists of a majority of Palestinians; since the various wars with Israel, the native Hashemites have become a minority. There has been some concern that ISIL might find sympathizers within the Palestinian-Jordanian community, and within the more conservative Islamic circles. But I was pleased to see the entire nation of Jordan rise up in support of its brave and well-spoken King, Abdullah. For a time, Jordanian officials were negotiating with ISIL regarding the possibility of a prisoner swap. Once the tape was released, it became apparent that ISIL was not negotiating in good faith, and that the Jordanian pilot had probably been dead for days, if not longer. King Abdullah ordered the immediate execution of the two terrorists that had been of interest to ISIL, and unleashed twenty F16s from the Royal Jordanian Air Force to blast those ISIL assholes to bits. In a final salute, the same F16s flew over the home of the murdered pilot, and then flew over the capital Amman, to the joy of the hundreds of thousands of people who had gathered to express their opposition to ISIL. Abdullah has vowed to continue using the Jordanian military to harass ISIL at every opportunity. King Abdullah, like is father King Hussein, is good man, widely respected and admired for his leadership and wisdom. He understands the mentality of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The only language they speak is the language of strength. You can't defeat ISIL from a position of weakness, assuming your goal is to defeat them.
On Thursday, February 5, at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barrack Obama discussed the murder of the young Jordanian pilot in the context of the continuing conflict in Syria and Iraq. As he has done previously, President Obama introduced the subject of the Christian Crusades in the Holy Land, the last of which occurred in the year 1291. Just to make sure that no one missed the point, Obama added that, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ." I can't remember the last time I was so offended by something said by an elected official, let alone the President of the United States. "And lest we get on our high horse".....have you seen anyone getting on a high horse? Are we not allowed to express indignation and anger towards Islamic Extremists? What did I do to deserve a scolding? Hell, lets get right to the truth of the matter: why does the United States have to share the blame for all heinous acts, because of our history? No doubt we have some dark periods, but we face up to our legacy, good and bad, and with all the of the strength given us by God, we try and learn from it, and become better human beings. President Obama, I'm not ashamed of my country, and I see not connection whatsoever between the last crusade 724 years ago, and the actions of the Islamic State. A little advice, Mr. President. Read up a bit on the enemy. Al-Qaeda and ISIL are not trying to punish the United States (and the West, by proxy) for our past bad behaviors; you are the only one on that kick. Al-Qaeda and ISIL are interested in creating a world controlled by the word of the Quran. So please stop bringing slavery, and the Crusades, and Jim Crow into the discussion. Most importantly, Mr. President, stop apologizing for me. Over and out.
B. Obama Compares Islamic State Terrorists To Crusaders
As I gave my internet news sources a quick scan before sitting down to write this post, a few articles caught my attention. It seems that the video clip of the unfortunate Jordanian pilot being burned to death may be a fake, or a hoax. I studied a couple of the claims, which both seemed legitimate. I have to say, though, that at the end of the video, the young man is dead. Whether he was burned, or executed first and then burned doesn't matter to me anymore. The actions of the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant (ISIL) have reached a level a barbarism not seen since the Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen in the Second World War. The treatment of women, children and the elderly in the hills of northern Iraq was as beastly and inhumane as anything I can recall. Not to mention the routine-like execution of rows and rows of Iraqi young men, whose only crime was to join the army in order to bring home a little money to help feed the family. The group ISIL is as bad as it gets. I am convinced that both ISIL and Al-Qaeda are working towards the same goals as part of the strategy of Islamic Extremism. We keep coming up with different names: Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, Khorasan, and ISIL, just to name a few. Boko Haram used to kidnap girls and force them to adopt their extreme conservative Islamic beliefs. Now they have started kidnapping all children that they come across, and the real fear is that Boko Haram is building an army of child soldiers, similar to what has been seen in Africa in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Rwanda, and with the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. Since President Obama took office and Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism have flourished. Its a dangerous word to use, but unfortunately its appropriate. During the Bush Administration, security officials frequently spoke of the fear that Al-Qaeda would spread into Africa. Al-Qaeda is not only present in Africa, it is expanding. Operatives in Mali are conducting raids in Niger and Boko Haram has carried out attacks from Nigeria into Cameroon. The West has not been spared, as we have witnessed attacks in Boston, London, Paris and Australia. And we have the Middle East; I can't remember a time that the Levant, the Holy Land and Mesopotamia were in such trouble.
The point is, Islamic Extremism is on the move, and it is a real danger to the United States. I'm relieved to note that the current administration has excepted this reality. The murder of the Jordanian pilot was a horrific act, but no more horrific than any of the other beheadings and executions. The reaction of the Jordanian people was very encouraging. The population of Jordan consists of a majority of Palestinians; since the various wars with Israel, the native Hashemites have become a minority. There has been some concern that ISIL might find sympathizers within the Palestinian-Jordanian community, and within the more conservative Islamic circles. But I was pleased to see the entire nation of Jordan rise up in support of its brave and well-spoken King, Abdullah. For a time, Jordanian officials were negotiating with ISIL regarding the possibility of a prisoner swap. Once the tape was released, it became apparent that ISIL was not negotiating in good faith, and that the Jordanian pilot had probably been dead for days, if not longer. King Abdullah ordered the immediate execution of the two terrorists that had been of interest to ISIL, and unleashed twenty F16s from the Royal Jordanian Air Force to blast those ISIL assholes to bits. In a final salute, the same F16s flew over the home of the murdered pilot, and then flew over the capital Amman, to the joy of the hundreds of thousands of people who had gathered to express their opposition to ISIL. Abdullah has vowed to continue using the Jordanian military to harass ISIL at every opportunity. King Abdullah, like is father King Hussein, is good man, widely respected and admired for his leadership and wisdom. He understands the mentality of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The only language they speak is the language of strength. You can't defeat ISIL from a position of weakness, assuming your goal is to defeat them.
On Thursday, February 5, at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barrack Obama discussed the murder of the young Jordanian pilot in the context of the continuing conflict in Syria and Iraq. As he has done previously, President Obama introduced the subject of the Christian Crusades in the Holy Land, the last of which occurred in the year 1291. Just to make sure that no one missed the point, Obama added that, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ." I can't remember the last time I was so offended by something said by an elected official, let alone the President of the United States. "And lest we get on our high horse".....have you seen anyone getting on a high horse? Are we not allowed to express indignation and anger towards Islamic Extremists? What did I do to deserve a scolding? Hell, lets get right to the truth of the matter: why does the United States have to share the blame for all heinous acts, because of our history? No doubt we have some dark periods, but we face up to our legacy, good and bad, and with all the of the strength given us by God, we try and learn from it, and become better human beings. President Obama, I'm not ashamed of my country, and I see not connection whatsoever between the last crusade 724 years ago, and the actions of the Islamic State. A little advice, Mr. President. Read up a bit on the enemy. Al-Qaeda and ISIL are not trying to punish the United States (and the West, by proxy) for our past bad behaviors; you are the only one on that kick. Al-Qaeda and ISIL are interested in creating a world controlled by the word of the Quran. So please stop bringing slavery, and the Crusades, and Jim Crow into the discussion. Most importantly, Mr. President, stop apologizing for me. Over and out.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part II)
Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
I know I'm not making friends by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler, but if I'm anything, I'm honest. I see too many similarities not to comment. And while the free world was distracted by the Soviet purges, pogroms and hostile military movement against the Baltic States and Finland, Hitler was able to rebuild his military and remove the last vestiges of opposition. Erdogan has his Soviet Union, and its calls itself The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL). As this first-of-its-kind, terrorist conventional army continues to defy Obama's air campaign, the Kurds, Assad's leftovers, and the newly-minted Free Syrian Army, the west tip-toes around Erdogan because he can be a deal-maker in this conflict, in one direction or the other. The Turkish military is in a similar position as the Iranian armed forces. An apparent threat to national security is snuggling right up their ass, and they need to decide to what extent they wish to get involved. In January, 2014, rumors were circulating that the Turks were providing arms to Al-Qaida through the Turkish border crossing with Syria. This last week, official documents were leaked that appear to corroborate that accusation. For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you know I have been on a bit of a rant regarding the media obsession with separating Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The end-receiver of the weapons and ammunition in question was Al-Qaida. Well, Al-Qaida in Syria has no need for that type of equipment, but ISIL does. The bad guys already know that Al-Qaeda and ISIL are two limbs connected to the same body, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better of we will be.
On the sixteenth of January, Turkish President Erdogan publicly commented on last week's deadly terror-attack in Paris. The first and second links contain the necessary details. I'm so offended by what he had to say, that I refuse to repeat it. But we must keep one thing in mind: Erdogan is a crafty politician. He has followed some framework up to this point that has left him as a virtual dictator, in command of one of the world's largest militaries. I know a Cuban leader, a Venezuelan, a North Korean and a crazy Argentinean hag named Christina who would love to be in his shoes. I believe every step he takes, every public announcement, is calculated. Hitler would make bold, sometimes irrational claims, just to see how far he could push the envelope. Erdogan is playing the same game. What can he get away with? Its no secret that he wants Assad out of Syria. Hell, if that's all he wanted in order to be team player, I'm sure Assad would be on ice by now. But Erdogan has his sights set higher. I worry about possession of the NATO weapons in Turkey, and I worry about the potential thousands of hostages our military and their families who are stationed in Turkey, would make. Erdogan as a wild-card comes at a terrible time for Obama, NATO and the EU. What they need more than anything is a successful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Until the U.S. decides to fully deploy in those war zones, the conflict will continue to escalate. The Iranians could be game-changers, if they gambles and fully mobilized into Iraq, but I just don't see it. I also don't see a way out of this mess for Obama, at least not during his term in office. As for Recep Erdogan, I believe he supports ISIL at the moment, because he wants Assad removed without having to make a military commitment. He has surreptitiously allowed arms and supplies to reach ISIL because he sees the organization as his surrogate "for-the-moment". I used to be concerned that Erdogan was a closet Islamist. I don't believe that anymore, even though it might have been true at one time. Erdogan has plans for Turkey, and he is in every picture. The removal of Assad is important because it provides validation of his authority, bona fides of his international influence, so to speak. I also don't think he is as patient as he once was. I expect he will lay his cards on the table sometime this year, at least as far as NATO missiles and U.S. bases are concerned. With the scourge of Terrorism more dangerous than ever, we live in scary times. Recep Erdogan only makes things scarier.
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
I know I'm not making friends by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler, but if I'm anything, I'm honest. I see too many similarities not to comment. And while the free world was distracted by the Soviet purges, pogroms and hostile military movement against the Baltic States and Finland, Hitler was able to rebuild his military and remove the last vestiges of opposition. Erdogan has his Soviet Union, and its calls itself The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL). As this first-of-its-kind, terrorist conventional army continues to defy Obama's air campaign, the Kurds, Assad's leftovers, and the newly-minted Free Syrian Army, the west tip-toes around Erdogan because he can be a deal-maker in this conflict, in one direction or the other. The Turkish military is in a similar position as the Iranian armed forces. An apparent threat to national security is snuggling right up their ass, and they need to decide to what extent they wish to get involved. In January, 2014, rumors were circulating that the Turks were providing arms to Al-Qaida through the Turkish border crossing with Syria. This last week, official documents were leaked that appear to corroborate that accusation. For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you know I have been on a bit of a rant regarding the media obsession with separating Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The end-receiver of the weapons and ammunition in question was Al-Qaida. Well, Al-Qaida in Syria has no need for that type of equipment, but ISIL does. The bad guys already know that Al-Qaeda and ISIL are two limbs connected to the same body, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better of we will be.
On the sixteenth of January, Turkish President Erdogan publicly commented on last week's deadly terror-attack in Paris. The first and second links contain the necessary details. I'm so offended by what he had to say, that I refuse to repeat it. But we must keep one thing in mind: Erdogan is a crafty politician. He has followed some framework up to this point that has left him as a virtual dictator, in command of one of the world's largest militaries. I know a Cuban leader, a Venezuelan, a North Korean and a crazy Argentinean hag named Christina who would love to be in his shoes. I believe every step he takes, every public announcement, is calculated. Hitler would make bold, sometimes irrational claims, just to see how far he could push the envelope. Erdogan is playing the same game. What can he get away with? Its no secret that he wants Assad out of Syria. Hell, if that's all he wanted in order to be team player, I'm sure Assad would be on ice by now. But Erdogan has his sights set higher. I worry about possession of the NATO weapons in Turkey, and I worry about the potential thousands of hostages our military and their families who are stationed in Turkey, would make. Erdogan as a wild-card comes at a terrible time for Obama, NATO and the EU. What they need more than anything is a successful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Until the U.S. decides to fully deploy in those war zones, the conflict will continue to escalate. The Iranians could be game-changers, if they gambles and fully mobilized into Iraq, but I just don't see it. I also don't see a way out of this mess for Obama, at least not during his term in office. As for Recep Erdogan, I believe he supports ISIL at the moment, because he wants Assad removed without having to make a military commitment. He has surreptitiously allowed arms and supplies to reach ISIL because he sees the organization as his surrogate "for-the-moment". I used to be concerned that Erdogan was a closet Islamist. I don't believe that anymore, even though it might have been true at one time. Erdogan has plans for Turkey, and he is in every picture. The removal of Assad is important because it provides validation of his authority, bona fides of his international influence, so to speak. I also don't think he is as patient as he once was. I expect he will lay his cards on the table sometime this year, at least as far as NATO missiles and U.S. bases are concerned. With the scourge of Terrorism more dangerous than ever, we live in scary times. Recep Erdogan only makes things scarier.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part I)
Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
The more President Recep Erdogan aligns Turkey with the cause of Radical Islam, the more I feel my heart breaking. You see, I am a Turkophile. I studied Ottoman history when I was younger, and have enjoyed a number of visits to Turkey. One of the most startling impressions I recall during my initial trip to Turkey, was that the Turkish people appeared to be much more European than "Middle Eastern" (forgive the use of that term). I had spent time in Jordan and the Gulf States, and also in Lebanon. I expected Turks to be similar in appearance and culture to Jordanians and Egyptians, but I was mistaken. I had no trouble imagining the Turkish people living in Greece, or the Balkans. In fact, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Turks do live in the Balkans, in Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. A substantial number of Turks also live in the Thrace region of Greece, although no where near the numbers who inhabited Thessaloniki at the turn of the century 1900. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its subsequent disposal in the bonfire of history (1922), Turkey's new leader was determined to steer a modern, secular path for new Turkish state. Kemal Ataturk was successful at just about every turn, as the people were more than ready for his message of peace, accountability and reform. Turkey managed to stay neutral during the Second World War (not declaring war on Germany until February 23, 1945). The Turkish people were in no position (or mood) for another World War, and they used peacetime to expand and diversify the Turkish economy, reform the educational system, and rewrite the tax codes. When first taking power, Ataturk decided to end the Turkish habit of wearing the Fez. He was successful, and it became acceptable for women to dress in the European style. Ataturk was so successful because basically the Turkish people were of one mind. They wanted to put the rigid, excessively conservative traditions of the Ottomans back into the seventeenth century, where they belonged. The economy of Turkey slowly began to resemble its European neighbors, as hard-work, determination and dedication became the keys to personal success. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Turkey took a hit in the international press because of the amount of hashish that was being grown and exported out of Turkey. As an Example, the Turkish Courts locked up a few European (and one very vocal American) smugglers and threw away the key. The Turks thought that they were responding appropriately, but instead, the curse of "The Midnight Express" continued to damage Turkey's international reputation and tourism for at least a decade.
Over the past three decades, the Turkish economy has experienced its share of highs and
lows. Fortunately, the highs outnumber the lows. At times, the Turkish economy has been a juggernaut. Even after the end of the Cold War, when the newly free economies of Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were expected to stand out, Turkey continued to double other European nations in percentage of GDP growth. The Turkish people do not shy away from hard work, and Turkey seems to be permanently poised on the precipice of developing a full-scale European style economy. The EU is waiting for just such an indication to move the Turks closer to EU membership. Roughly fifteen years ago, the Turkish government made a huge statement by normalizing relations with Israel and beginning a series of joint military exercises. The west and NATO were thrilled with this development, because it confirmed in their minds what they had hoped: that Turkey, regardless of its democratically-elected government, was still controlled by the pro-west, secular Military High Command. The Turkish Army had already exhibited its willingness to remove a democratically-elected government or two, if they weren't pleased with the direction of the country. For the most part, the Turkish people seemed content with the "backstop" provided by the Generals. The United States/NATO, with bases in Turkey and missiles on Turkish territory pointed at the USSR, were only too happy to train and equip what had become an outstanding armed forces.
Fast-forward to 2015. Sometime since the turn of the millennium, the Turkish people have become more comfortable with religion in their politics. When Recep Erdogan was first elected Prime Minister in 2003 (he had been mayor of Istanbul from 1994-98), everyone was aware that his political party was sympathetic to some of the groups on the
religious right. But Erdogan played his cards like a master. He was patient, and used the time to flirt with the west and the EU, all the while insulating the Turkish bureaucracy and military with his sycophants. Erdogan had a plan, and it required that he stay in office until 2014, at which time he would run for president (successfully). He didn't miss a beat; all the way, Erdogan loyalists started showing up in the police and intelligence agencies, on the bench, in the different branches of the military, and as political strong-men around Turkey proper. By 2010, Erdogan felt safe enough to speak ill of the west and the EU. The United States was next on his list, and the end of the good relations with Israel was only a matter of time. What a far cry from Erdogan at his initial inauguration in 2003, when he spoke so respectfully of the EU and Turkey's rightful place in the Union. Erdogan began to create a new foreign policy for Turkey: one that appears headed for the end of Turkish membership in NATO. It's safe to say that unless something happens very soon that changes the direction of Turkish politics, the idea of Turkey being a member of the EU is nothing more than a joke. What I find fascinating, is that Erdogan appears to be replicating what Hitler achieved in 1933-39. Erdogan is determined to create a strong Turkey, so strong that alliances can be made at the moment and discarded when no longer needed. He wants a rebirth of the nationalism that coincided with the Ottoman Empire at it's zenith, and he is to be the new Suleiman the Magnificent. Just as Hitler discreetly promoted anti-Jewish and anti-minority movements, Erdogan quietly (but obviously) encourages right-wing groups to attack U.S. sailors and march against foreign influence in Turkey. His lasting campaign has been internal, as he begins a determined assault on the traditionally non-aligned, vocal Turkish press. Last year, a scandal involving corruption and persons close to Erdogan, almost brought down the government. As I write this, the bill has come due. Journalists have been arrested, dailies shut down, and untold numbers of persons threatened. This pattern seems so familiar. In the past, the west and the Turkish people could have relied upon the military to return the balance by staging a coup and replacing now-President Erdogan. But that part of his plan has already gone into affect. Erdogan purged the military hierarchy in 2013, and today one in five Turkish Generals sit in prison (see Link C for details). The details concerning the prosecutor's case against hundreds of military officers is much too complicated for this blog. But I've read just about every document I can find, and this is without doubt a well-planned and flawlessly executed operation to neuter the Turkish military. The only Generals and Admirals left on the General Staff are cowed yes-men and Erdogan Sycophants. Again, just like Hitler. (End of Part I)
B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
C. Turkey Purges The Military
D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?
 |
| Turkish Flag |
Over the past three decades, the Turkish economy has experienced its share of highs and
 |
| Flag of NATO |
Fast-forward to 2015. Sometime since the turn of the millennium, the Turkish people have become more comfortable with religion in their politics. When Recep Erdogan was first elected Prime Minister in 2003 (he had been mayor of Istanbul from 1994-98), everyone was aware that his political party was sympathetic to some of the groups on the
 |
| Putin, Erdogan, and Berlusconi 2005; source: Kremlin.ru |
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
An Examination Of Al-Qaeda In 2015
Links: A. Who's Left To Lead Al-Qaeda?
B. Al-Qaeda (Arab. Peninsula) Attempts to Counter Drones
I can't recall who was chosen as Time magazine's "Person of the Year - 2014", but the Islamic State (IS) would have been as good a choice as any (as long as bad guys get to play as well). The frequent stories from northern Iraq about mass executions and starving children at least elevated IS to the "most despised" position. The stated goal of the Islamic State is the creation of a Caliphate somewhere in the Levant/Mesopotamia/North Africa/Arabian Peninsula, and in furtherance of that goal, the IS is engaged in a conventional war in both Syria and Iraq. It would appear that the IS has pushed Al-Qaeda not only from the front page, but all the way to the back next to Dear Abby. Our Air Force is in regular combat with the IS, and we are providing military aid to the Free Syrian Army, the Iraqis and the Kurds, so it only makes sense that 2014 came with a steady diet of news on the IS. For those of us who are obsessed with staying informed, the blogosphere is a miracle. I can hop over to www.longwarjournal.org at any time for an update on Al-Qaeda. The truth is, the death of Osama Bin Laden did not lead to the collapse of AQ. Long before Abbottabad, Bin Laden had restructured the Al-Qaeda network of communications and operations, to avoid dependence on any one leader. The virus that is Al-Qaeda is still very active in certain parts of the world. Let's take stock of Al-Qaeda as 2015 begins.
Pakistan/Afghanistan - it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Al-Qaeda is stronger anywhere else in the world than Pakistan and Afghanistan. For reasons of simplification, I consider the Taliban to be "Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". Does the Pakistani government expect the American people to believe that no one in the Pakistani Intelligence Service or military was aware that Bin Laden and his immediate family were living in Abbottabad? Bullshit. The Pakistani Intelligence Service has a number of very dedicated, decent officers, many of whom are pro-West in political orientation. But it also contains a traditional, deep-rooted vein of support for both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. More importantly, it appears that the people of Pakistan support AQ. How long has it been since an international sampling/polling company like Gallup has provided numbers on the sympathies of the Pakistani people? No need to take a poll....just listen to the people on the street. They hate the British (even though it seems as if half of London is Pakistani), hate the United States and REALLY hate India. Lots of hate going around, which isn't surprising, given the perpetual state of endemic poverty the Pakistani people wake up to every morning. Sadly, I'm losing my sympathy in old age. Stop having so many damn kids, stop electing thieves, and stop spending over fifty percent of the nation's budget on nuclear research and weapons to aim at India. As is my habit, I've gotten off-topic; my apologies. The point is, Al-Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At times over the past ten years, we were close to eradicating AQ in Afghanistan. But the draw-down and the confusing policy of the Obama Administration has allowed for a full rejuvenation of AQ influence and control.
Iraq - I don't believe that AQ has any current interest in Iraq, although I have seen reports of recruiting efforts in the Sunni community and also training bases in the far west of the country. As MB pointed out last summer, the IS was actually born of an AQ parent. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began to lose steam in 2007-2008, as the Sunni people grew tired of the violence and constant warfare, and withdrew support. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually ended up in Syria and re-emerged with a different name and a different mission. But make no mistake - the IS is a Sunni-based group with numerous similarities to AQ. I have always suspected that the lines of communication between the IS and AQ are much more active than people are willing to admit. It behooves both organizations to make the west believe that the IS and AQ are two separate, very distinct groups working towards a different agenda. It leaves the impression that Islamic Extremism is a growing umbrella movement with room for many, many more, and that agreement on all issues is not required.
Yemen - Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been active for over a decade, trying to remove the current government and replace it with...well, AQAP. The conflict in Yemen is a microcosm of the conflict in Iraq. Not only are the Sunni fighting amongst themselves (the secular government against AQAP), but the large Shia population has armed itself and made its presence known. And in the middle is the United States, with a substantial military footprint in Yemen and drones flying around everywhere, looking for AQAP to blow to bits. I understand that the Shia are determined to keep AQAP from succeeding in Yemen, just as the continued presence of U.S. military in Yemen (that includes the U.S. Navy) will keep AQAP pissed off enough to stay in the fight. Yemen has provided Al-Qaeda with the perfect environment to train its new recruits, as AQAP has demonstrated that it is in possession of the latest weaponry (although I'm not sold on the Jiffy-Pop tablecloth as the best way to avoid a drone strike...see link #2).
Africa - Al-Qaeda is very active in Africa, and, unfortunately, very healthy. AQ has a definite presence in Libya, but I am guessing they are playing the same game as us; waiting for the dust to clear. Al-Qaeda has proven to be a very patient organization, which I believe is more the philosophy of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the crusty old psychopath who took over after Bin Laden took a couple bullets to the front right side of his head. Dr. Zawahiri is all about the methodology (he is a physician, after all), and he is probably the one who has orchestrated the "sleeper cell" operation, if one exists (scary thought). Al-Qaeda in Africa is most active under the moniker "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb", with the Maghreb being that hard-to-define area that is basically west of Egypt and north of Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Chad. Actually, I consider the northern half of Mali, Niger and Chad to be part of the Maghreb. Al-Qaeda has used Islam to propel its message from oasis to oasis and campsite to campsite. In some of the struggling communities they have found a receptive audience. Al-Qaeda's most receptive audiences, though, are in the northern parts of Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger. These people have been forsaken by their governments for one reason or another (usually because the president and the ruling party are from a tribe of economically successful southerners). Boko Haram, for all its radical ideas, and the Lord's Resistance Army, for all its insanity, have found recruits around every corner. Africa presents an opportunity for AQ to recruit heavily and to create a second base of security (after Afghanistan).
Southeast Asia - Al-Qaeda has always been comfortable in Indonesia and the Philippines, where the government is always in the midst of some new effort to root out the communist insurgency that has been active since Karl Marx was in short pants (or at least seems like it). Indonesia is another country which provides AQ the opportunity to spread its message through the mosques and Islamic educational centers on Java. In the last two decades, the transportation network in this part of the world has grown by leaps and bounds. Flying from Malaysia to Australia, or Singapore to Beijing, or Vientiane to Manila, is as simple as buying a ticket, and the arrival of the no-frills airlines (AirAsia being a good example) has made air travel affordable. This complicates matters for security personnel in every country. Its as if even Al-Qaeda can have conference calls in 2015. Indonesia also presents fertile ground for recruitment, and the mosques have a bad reputation for preaching some really nasty, anti-U.S., anti-Aussie propaganda.
My next post will focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda on Africa, with other geographic locations to follow. I consider Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic State, be the number one international terror threat to the United States.
B. Al-Qaeda (Arab. Peninsula) Attempts to Counter Drones
I can't recall who was chosen as Time magazine's "Person of the Year - 2014", but the Islamic State (IS) would have been as good a choice as any (as long as bad guys get to play as well). The frequent stories from northern Iraq about mass executions and starving children at least elevated IS to the "most despised" position. The stated goal of the Islamic State is the creation of a Caliphate somewhere in the Levant/Mesopotamia/North Africa/Arabian Peninsula, and in furtherance of that goal, the IS is engaged in a conventional war in both Syria and Iraq. It would appear that the IS has pushed Al-Qaeda not only from the front page, but all the way to the back next to Dear Abby. Our Air Force is in regular combat with the IS, and we are providing military aid to the Free Syrian Army, the Iraqis and the Kurds, so it only makes sense that 2014 came with a steady diet of news on the IS. For those of us who are obsessed with staying informed, the blogosphere is a miracle. I can hop over to www.longwarjournal.org at any time for an update on Al-Qaeda. The truth is, the death of Osama Bin Laden did not lead to the collapse of AQ. Long before Abbottabad, Bin Laden had restructured the Al-Qaeda network of communications and operations, to avoid dependence on any one leader. The virus that is Al-Qaeda is still very active in certain parts of the world. Let's take stock of Al-Qaeda as 2015 begins.
Pakistan/Afghanistan - it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Al-Qaeda is stronger anywhere else in the world than Pakistan and Afghanistan. For reasons of simplification, I consider the Taliban to be "Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". Does the Pakistani government expect the American people to believe that no one in the Pakistani Intelligence Service or military was aware that Bin Laden and his immediate family were living in Abbottabad? Bullshit. The Pakistani Intelligence Service has a number of very dedicated, decent officers, many of whom are pro-West in political orientation. But it also contains a traditional, deep-rooted vein of support for both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. More importantly, it appears that the people of Pakistan support AQ. How long has it been since an international sampling/polling company like Gallup has provided numbers on the sympathies of the Pakistani people? No need to take a poll....just listen to the people on the street. They hate the British (even though it seems as if half of London is Pakistani), hate the United States and REALLY hate India. Lots of hate going around, which isn't surprising, given the perpetual state of endemic poverty the Pakistani people wake up to every morning. Sadly, I'm losing my sympathy in old age. Stop having so many damn kids, stop electing thieves, and stop spending over fifty percent of the nation's budget on nuclear research and weapons to aim at India. As is my habit, I've gotten off-topic; my apologies. The point is, Al-Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At times over the past ten years, we were close to eradicating AQ in Afghanistan. But the draw-down and the confusing policy of the Obama Administration has allowed for a full rejuvenation of AQ influence and control.
Iraq - I don't believe that AQ has any current interest in Iraq, although I have seen reports of recruiting efforts in the Sunni community and also training bases in the far west of the country. As MB pointed out last summer, the IS was actually born of an AQ parent. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began to lose steam in 2007-2008, as the Sunni people grew tired of the violence and constant warfare, and withdrew support. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually ended up in Syria and re-emerged with a different name and a different mission. But make no mistake - the IS is a Sunni-based group with numerous similarities to AQ. I have always suspected that the lines of communication between the IS and AQ are much more active than people are willing to admit. It behooves both organizations to make the west believe that the IS and AQ are two separate, very distinct groups working towards a different agenda. It leaves the impression that Islamic Extremism is a growing umbrella movement with room for many, many more, and that agreement on all issues is not required.
Yemen - Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been active for over a decade, trying to remove the current government and replace it with...well, AQAP. The conflict in Yemen is a microcosm of the conflict in Iraq. Not only are the Sunni fighting amongst themselves (the secular government against AQAP), but the large Shia population has armed itself and made its presence known. And in the middle is the United States, with a substantial military footprint in Yemen and drones flying around everywhere, looking for AQAP to blow to bits. I understand that the Shia are determined to keep AQAP from succeeding in Yemen, just as the continued presence of U.S. military in Yemen (that includes the U.S. Navy) will keep AQAP pissed off enough to stay in the fight. Yemen has provided Al-Qaeda with the perfect environment to train its new recruits, as AQAP has demonstrated that it is in possession of the latest weaponry (although I'm not sold on the Jiffy-Pop tablecloth as the best way to avoid a drone strike...see link #2).
Africa - Al-Qaeda is very active in Africa, and, unfortunately, very healthy. AQ has a definite presence in Libya, but I am guessing they are playing the same game as us; waiting for the dust to clear. Al-Qaeda has proven to be a very patient organization, which I believe is more the philosophy of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the crusty old psychopath who took over after Bin Laden took a couple bullets to the front right side of his head. Dr. Zawahiri is all about the methodology (he is a physician, after all), and he is probably the one who has orchestrated the "sleeper cell" operation, if one exists (scary thought). Al-Qaeda in Africa is most active under the moniker "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb", with the Maghreb being that hard-to-define area that is basically west of Egypt and north of Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Chad. Actually, I consider the northern half of Mali, Niger and Chad to be part of the Maghreb. Al-Qaeda has used Islam to propel its message from oasis to oasis and campsite to campsite. In some of the struggling communities they have found a receptive audience. Al-Qaeda's most receptive audiences, though, are in the northern parts of Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger. These people have been forsaken by their governments for one reason or another (usually because the president and the ruling party are from a tribe of economically successful southerners). Boko Haram, for all its radical ideas, and the Lord's Resistance Army, for all its insanity, have found recruits around every corner. Africa presents an opportunity for AQ to recruit heavily and to create a second base of security (after Afghanistan).
Southeast Asia - Al-Qaeda has always been comfortable in Indonesia and the Philippines, where the government is always in the midst of some new effort to root out the communist insurgency that has been active since Karl Marx was in short pants (or at least seems like it). Indonesia is another country which provides AQ the opportunity to spread its message through the mosques and Islamic educational centers on Java. In the last two decades, the transportation network in this part of the world has grown by leaps and bounds. Flying from Malaysia to Australia, or Singapore to Beijing, or Vientiane to Manila, is as simple as buying a ticket, and the arrival of the no-frills airlines (AirAsia being a good example) has made air travel affordable. This complicates matters for security personnel in every country. Its as if even Al-Qaeda can have conference calls in 2015. Indonesia also presents fertile ground for recruitment, and the mosques have a bad reputation for preaching some really nasty, anti-U.S., anti-Aussie propaganda.
My next post will focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda on Africa, with other geographic locations to follow. I consider Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic State, be the number one international terror threat to the United States.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The War Against ISIL Is Being Lost While Obama Vacations...Again
Links: A. Iranian Militia-Leader Killed In Iraq
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Extremists On The Offensive In Syria
Links: A. Al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham Advance In Syria
B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour
Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria. Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize. I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force. The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized. It appears that I was mistaken. Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere.
For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria. Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda? And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria. I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past. Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families. Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets. If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know. Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).
What a mess. We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour. Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor. Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists? Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States? Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus. I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly. I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces. But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces. Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army"). If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad. Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army. In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch. The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only. Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it. Was this a "defensive only" engagement?
If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably. What is the state of the Free Syrian Army? Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only? Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL? If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition? I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front. The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed? Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL. The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down. At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources. When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict. But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.
B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour
Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria. Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize. I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force. The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized. It appears that I was mistaken. Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere.
For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria. Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda? And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria. I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past. Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families. Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets. If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know. Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).
What a mess. We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour. Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor. Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists? Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States? Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus. I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly. I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces. But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces. Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army"). If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad. Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army. In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch. The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only. Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it. Was this a "defensive only" engagement?
If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably. What is the state of the Free Syrian Army? Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only? Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL? If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition? I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front. The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed? Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL. The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down. At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources. When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict. But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Turkey, Where Do You Stand?
Links: A. U.S. Sailors Attacked In Turkey
B. Erdogan Cleans Out The Turkish General Staff
The diplomatic mess that has been created by our semi-military entry into the Syrian conflict is something to behold. The main reason we are mired in this mess is because we do not have a clear policy in the region. Turkey is a beast to try and understand politically.
Internally, President Tayyip Erdogan has won the battle with the military and no longer has to sweat under the constant fear of a coup. There can be no doubt that Erdogan is the driving force behind the slow, methodical creep of Turkey towards Islamization. Erdogan gained the respect of European liberals when he apologized for the Armenian massacres of the past, and in 2009, it appeared that Turkey might actually be prepared to co-exist with a Kurdish nation. But understanding the reality of Turko-politics requires an almost day-to-day study of the subject matter. Simply put, Turkey is interested in developing a relationship with a Kurdish group that has access to Iraqi/Kurdish oil. Turkey will pretend to support the idea of Kurdish statehood as long as it has access to Kurdish oil. Once things start to get serious, Turkey switches allegiances to another Kurdish political group and the process starts all over. If allowed, the Turks will play this game all day. The reality is, Ankara will never agree to the creation of a legitimate Kurdish state that shares a border with Turkey. The Turks have absolutely no good will towards the Kurdish people and they never will. Additionally, Erdogan is determined to see Syria's Bashir al-Assad removed from power. The whispers that Turkey secretly supports the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) probably has more to do with Erdogan's hatred of Assad than anything else. I have no clue what Erdogan's long-term strategy is towards the Kurds, although he has made his economic interest quite clear. And something I do know: Erdogan wants out from under Gazprom (Russian natural gas exporter) and Vladimir Putin's finger.
In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, Turkey made its position clear by limiting the use of our own Air Force Bases (albeit in Turkey). At the time, President George W. Bush, who could be supremely naïve at times, assumed that Erdogan wanted to support the U.S. efforts, but couldn't because of internal issues. Bullshit. Erdogan was sending the message that "business as usual" was no longer the acceptable. Erdogan does not want Turkey to be allied to the United States. In fact, I don't think Erdogan wants EU membership. Has anyone noticed that Erdogan played the same, "well, I can't be Prime Minister anymore, so I might as well be President" game that Putin invented? Erdogan sees himself as a latter-day Sultan, who will usher in a new age of international Turkish power and influence. He sees Turkey as being ideally situated to lead a group of moderate
Islamic states into the next century. What makes Erdogan so dangerous is the size and strength of the Turkish military (built by the U.S.). For many years, the Turks were solely interested in keeping abreast militarily of their historic enemy, Greece. Turkey always needed one more Frigate, one more F-16 squadron, or one more tank batallion, than Greece. The times have changed. Turkey became a huge customer of U.S. military equipment (some of which arrived as part of aid packages); and the U.S. military always obliges when a friend requests training. The United States has equipped and trained the Turkish military, which is now one of the world's elite. Behind the scenes, the U.S. was always happy to provide whatever the Turks wanted, because we thought we were feeding the "safety valve": the Turkish General Staff. When Erdogan and his AKP party took power, the Pentagon whispered, "as soon as he starts preaching Islamic mumbo-jumbo, the Army will have him under arrest". However, Tayyip was smarter than the crusty old birds at the Pentagon. He played the role of moderate reformer, until he was in a position to stage a reverse-coup (see the second link). The four top Generals who bit the dust, I mean "resigned", were examples of Turkey's move away from the threat of military intervention in civilian politics. But it left the Pentagon asking, "who is driving that expensive Turkish Lamborghini that we've spent decades paying for?"
I have always loved Turkey and the Turks. Istanbul is an amazing place full of mystery, intrigue and danger. And once you get out of the city and into the countryside, you will never find a friendlier, more generous people than the Turks. If you don't believe me, then take a trip to Turkey yourself . . . but hurry. I remember as a young boy going to the Judson 4 Drive-In Theater with my family, and watching the movie "Midnight Express" (not a kids movie for sure, but my parents had to get some culture sometime). After seeing this movie, I remember that being frightened out of my wits by all things "Turkish". The film did a tremendous disservice to the Turkish nation and to this day still causes bad feelings. The truth is, the young American Billy Hayes got caught trying to board a Pan Am flight to New York with a load of Hashish taped to his stomach. Turkey felt the need to make an example out of Hayes, and the rest is history. For the record, Hayes has since apologized to the Turkish people for the negative image of Turkey that his book encouraged. The new Turkey, though, has negative emotions about the United States that have nothing to do with a 1970's movie. Turkey has taken a decided step towards Islamization. Although Erdogan has driven the chariot, the entire blame for this movement can't be laid on him. For some reason, the Turkish people, who for so many years proudly embraced the secular legacy of Kemal Ataturk, started looking towards their Islamic heritage for direction. At the same time, a smaller, less influential movement is encouraging young Turks to embrace the image of Turkey as a political leader of nations, not tied to any religious ideology or diplomatic obligations. It was supporters of this perspective who, this week, attacked the three U.S. sailors dressed in their civilian clothes and who were hoping to do a bit of sightseeing on their day of leave. This attack, which was videotaped, is very disturbing if only for the fear you can imagine these young men must have been feeling. As I have pointed out ad nauseam: we currently have no influence diplomatically anywhere in the world. So it came as no surprise that the Turkish authorities simply released the persons responsible for this assault. Oh, I yearn for the days of Ronald Reagan, when these punks would have been hung out to dry.
So this is the Turkey of 2014. Lumbering towards Islamization, no longer an ally of the United States, hostile to the Kurds, the Israelis, Assad, and the Iraqi government (is the Iraqi government still there? I haven't checked yet today), and brandishing a military that
would make Mehmet II proud. Recently, I had a Turkish friend of mine ask me to explain the United States policy regarding Syria, Iraq and the ISIL. All I could say is that we have collected a few Qatari and Emirati friends, and alongside our Air Force, we are in the process of bombing the shit out of the ISIL. Oh, and we are also training the Free Syrian Army to be defensive when the time comes. In other words, I had no answer. True that I'm no fan of the current administration, but as an American I wish I could have given a better response. What really frightens me is that Joe Biden is heading to Ankara for talks with Erdogan, after recently insulting Erdogan and having to issue an apology. Erdogan must be salivating, waiting for this opportunity to embarrass this ASS of a Vice President. How did we end up with such amateurs in the White House? Eventually, something is going to give. Either the ISIL is going to sack Baghdad, or Assad is going to retake the initiative militarily and piss off the Turks to no end (then it will be our fault for degrading ISIL). Hey, at least it won't be boring.
B. Erdogan Cleans Out The Turkish General Staff
The diplomatic mess that has been created by our semi-military entry into the Syrian conflict is something to behold. The main reason we are mired in this mess is because we do not have a clear policy in the region. Turkey is a beast to try and understand politically.
 |
| Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey |
In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, Turkey made its position clear by limiting the use of our own Air Force Bases (albeit in Turkey). At the time, President George W. Bush, who could be supremely naïve at times, assumed that Erdogan wanted to support the U.S. efforts, but couldn't because of internal issues. Bullshit. Erdogan was sending the message that "business as usual" was no longer the acceptable. Erdogan does not want Turkey to be allied to the United States. In fact, I don't think Erdogan wants EU membership. Has anyone noticed that Erdogan played the same, "well, I can't be Prime Minister anymore, so I might as well be President" game that Putin invented? Erdogan sees himself as a latter-day Sultan, who will usher in a new age of international Turkish power and influence. He sees Turkey as being ideally situated to lead a group of moderate
I have always loved Turkey and the Turks. Istanbul is an amazing place full of mystery, intrigue and danger. And once you get out of the city and into the countryside, you will never find a friendlier, more generous people than the Turks. If you don't believe me, then take a trip to Turkey yourself . . . but hurry. I remember as a young boy going to the Judson 4 Drive-In Theater with my family, and watching the movie "Midnight Express" (not a kids movie for sure, but my parents had to get some culture sometime). After seeing this movie, I remember that being frightened out of my wits by all things "Turkish". The film did a tremendous disservice to the Turkish nation and to this day still causes bad feelings. The truth is, the young American Billy Hayes got caught trying to board a Pan Am flight to New York with a load of Hashish taped to his stomach. Turkey felt the need to make an example out of Hayes, and the rest is history. For the record, Hayes has since apologized to the Turkish people for the negative image of Turkey that his book encouraged. The new Turkey, though, has negative emotions about the United States that have nothing to do with a 1970's movie. Turkey has taken a decided step towards Islamization. Although Erdogan has driven the chariot, the entire blame for this movement can't be laid on him. For some reason, the Turkish people, who for so many years proudly embraced the secular legacy of Kemal Ataturk, started looking towards their Islamic heritage for direction. At the same time, a smaller, less influential movement is encouraging young Turks to embrace the image of Turkey as a political leader of nations, not tied to any religious ideology or diplomatic obligations. It was supporters of this perspective who, this week, attacked the three U.S. sailors dressed in their civilian clothes and who were hoping to do a bit of sightseeing on their day of leave. This attack, which was videotaped, is very disturbing if only for the fear you can imagine these young men must have been feeling. As I have pointed out ad nauseam: we currently have no influence diplomatically anywhere in the world. So it came as no surprise that the Turkish authorities simply released the persons responsible for this assault. Oh, I yearn for the days of Ronald Reagan, when these punks would have been hung out to dry.
So this is the Turkey of 2014. Lumbering towards Islamization, no longer an ally of the United States, hostile to the Kurds, the Israelis, Assad, and the Iraqi government (is the Iraqi government still there? I haven't checked yet today), and brandishing a military that
 |
| Mehmet II, Ottoman Sultan 1441-1446, 1451-1481 |
Monday, November 17, 2014
What is wrong with our President?
Link: A. Obama Refers To Peter Kassig as "Abdul Rahman"
Today the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) released information and evidence that confirmed the murder of American hostage and former soldier Peter Kassig. After serving his time in the military, Kassig dedicated his life to helping victims of war. He was a wonderful man who was only happy when he was helping other people.
It's true that Kassig showed an interest in Islam, and one year he even observed Ramadan in an effort to better understand the religion. I have also observed Ramadan a few times, and read the Quran enough times to have a very basic understanding of its contents. Believe me, I am NOT a Muslim, but if my life were at risk I would do whatever I could to survive. Life is God's greatest gift, and He expects me to use all of my skills (manipulation and deception included) to STAY ALIVE. Like Peter Kassig, I have a healthy interest in religion in general. And if I were taken hostage, I would have no problem becoming Oumar all-American in order to survive. Then, if the bad guys killed me anyway, I can only pray that the administration would have the common sense to recognize my desperation and not reward the enemy with one last insult to my memory by addressing me by a name taken under duress.
President Obama issued a statement today in response to the murder by ISIL of Peter Kassig. During the statement, Obama referred to Kassig as "Abdul Rahman". I don't need to express much indignation: if you are reading this and you find nothing wrong with this detail, then respectfully I have no interest in you ever reading my blog again. Abdul Rahman is a name which is overly used in the extremist and radical community. The idea that the President of the United States would use the name "Abdul Rahman" to identify Peter Kassig is an outrage. We have no idea if Kassig voluntarily took this name, and until we get such validation, then the President should have referred to Kassig by his birth name.
I have to shut this post down early because my level of anger is likely to result in a commentary that I will regret. I don't want to insult anyone, but what President Obama did was insult an American hero even in the moment of his greatest sacrifice.
Note to the President:
Your name may be Barrack Hussein Obama, but that does not give you the insight nor the authority to assume that Peter Kassig voluntarily chose the name Abdul Rahman after his alleged conversion. It is common for rescued hostages to later admit to Islamic conversion and the adoption of Islamic names only as a means of survival. As President of the United States, you should have given the benefit of the doubt to his personal history and heritage and referred to him as Peter Kassig and only as Peter Kassig. By referring to Kassig as "Abdul Rahman", you are engaging in the murder of his American heritage and identification, alongside the crime committed by ISIL. Why do you have so much contempt for my country and my heritage?
Today the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) released information and evidence that confirmed the murder of American hostage and former soldier Peter Kassig. After serving his time in the military, Kassig dedicated his life to helping victims of war. He was a wonderful man who was only happy when he was helping other people.
President Obama issued a statement today in response to the murder by ISIL of Peter Kassig. During the statement, Obama referred to Kassig as "Abdul Rahman". I don't need to express much indignation: if you are reading this and you find nothing wrong with this detail, then respectfully I have no interest in you ever reading my blog again. Abdul Rahman is a name which is overly used in the extremist and radical community. The idea that the President of the United States would use the name "Abdul Rahman" to identify Peter Kassig is an outrage. We have no idea if Kassig voluntarily took this name, and until we get such validation, then the President should have referred to Kassig by his birth name.
I have to shut this post down early because my level of anger is likely to result in a commentary that I will regret. I don't want to insult anyone, but what President Obama did was insult an American hero even in the moment of his greatest sacrifice.
Note to the President:
Your name may be Barrack Hussein Obama, but that does not give you the insight nor the authority to assume that Peter Kassig voluntarily chose the name Abdul Rahman after his alleged conversion. It is common for rescued hostages to later admit to Islamic conversion and the adoption of Islamic names only as a means of survival. As President of the United States, you should have given the benefit of the doubt to his personal history and heritage and referred to him as Peter Kassig and only as Peter Kassig. By referring to Kassig as "Abdul Rahman", you are engaging in the murder of his American heritage and identification, alongside the crime committed by ISIL. Why do you have so much contempt for my country and my heritage?
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Its Time To Get To Know Jabhat al-Nusrah
Links: A. Al-Nusrah Claims That U.S. Has Bombed Its Territory
B. Al-Nusrah Front, Jun al-Aqsa Terrorist Groups In Idlib
C. Al-Nusrah Forces U.S.-Backed Group From Idlib
We've managed to dissect just about every player in Syria except Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front), the regular Syrian Army, and the Free Syrian Army.
support, the army had lost its eyes and was finding itself caught in one ambush after another. But the regular Syrian Army has been given the opportunity to retreat behind the front lines and lick its wounds, while the Kurds struggle against the IS in Kobani and forces supported by the U.S.(?) are driven out of Idlib (were the elements that were routed in Idlib connected to the Free Syrian Army?). Make no mistake, when the time is most advantageous to Assad, his military will return to the battlefield, and don't be surprised if Putin has assisted in rebuilding the Syrian Air Force.
Back to Jabhat al-Nusrah. This group announced its formation in Syria in January 2012, and states that its end goal is the creation of a Pan-Islamic State under Sharia Law and ruled by a Caliph. If we switched out "Jabhat al-Nusrah" with "Islamic State of the Levant", who would know the difference? And yet, according to Twitter, the international media, and the Pentagon, the two groups are at each other's throats. It is believed that many of the original members of Al-Nusrah are Syrians who were fighting with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) group during Operation Enduring Freedom. The members of Al-Nusrah are believed to be the best trained and the best equipped of all the Sunni Extremist groups in the Syria/Iraq theater. Al-Nusrah is known for conducting suicide attacks. The leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the head of Al-Nusrah, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, appear to have had numerous discussions about the merging of the two groups. According to Al-Jazeera, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the only remaining leader of Al-Qaeda without two bullet holes in his forehead (so far), instructed the two groups not to merge. Al-Baghdadi ignored this instruction and continued to publicly declare a merger between the two. Since they appear to be separate today, I'm assuming al-Julani won that argument. But lets be honest; who really gives a shit about any of the back-and-forth that I just repeated (direct from Wikipedia)? Al-Nusrah is on the battlefield in Syria, its fighters are well-trained, disciplined, and like to blow themselves up for Allah. Much of the same can be said for the Islamic State, so as far as I see it, we are looking at two peas in a pod. When the bullets start to fly, I guarantee that these two groups (and any other Sunni-affiliated armed extremist groups) will join ranks. To be honest, the war in Syria means very little to me. The Russians will find a way to protect their interests in the end, so I am forced to accept that Assad isn't going anywhere. My interest is in Iraq, where we have easily identified allies in the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga/Kurdish regular forces. Actually, it becomes more apparent everyday that Iranian military units have been participating in the war against IS. From Assad in Syria to the Iranians in Iraq, we keep ending up with the strangest of bedfellows! I recognize that the Iraqi Army has been strengthened by groups of both Shia militia and Sunni tribal fighters. I see a real opportunity in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda/IS, solidify the Kurdish homeland, and greatly improve Sunni/Shia relations. Insha'Allah!
B. Al-Nusrah Front, Jun al-Aqsa Terrorist Groups In Idlib
C. Al-Nusrah Forces U.S.-Backed Group From Idlib
We've managed to dissect just about every player in Syria except Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front), the regular Syrian Army, and the Free Syrian Army.
The Regular Syrian Army
The regular Syrian Army consists of whatever Syrian President Bashir al-Assad has been able to patch together from the pre-war Syrian Army. The Syrian Air Force has been decimated and will have to be rebuilt from scratch (which isn't necessarily that difficult if you have the cash to buy new jets from Russia), but the Army, which has basically been inactive over the past few months, really only needs reorganizing and a strong leader who can inspire men to fight. Syria continues to have an absurd advantage in armor over all the players in this drama, and I imagine a great deal has been done to repair vehicles/tanks and train new soldiers. For Assad, the allied air intervention was like water to the man in the desert dying of thirst. He has been given a reprieve, and I have no doubt that he has been making the most of this down-time. We can't forget that Russia continues to support the Syrian government in Damascus. Vlad Putin is also grateful of the allied air campaign because the situation in Syria was becoming dire for Assad and his Ba'athist buddies. The IS was making preparations for an assault on Aleppo, which would have only been the precursor to an attack on Damascus itself. The Syrian Air Force, with most of its Air Bases overrun by the IS and other Islamic terrorist groups, had basically collapsed (with the exception of a few helicopter gunships, which Assad loves to call into action). Without airThe Free Syrian Army
What about the Free Syrian Army (forgive me; for some time I was referring to this group as the "New Syrian Army")? We digested news reports last week from Idlib (see link C) that detailed the rout of U.S.-backed fighters. Were these fighters part of the Free Syrian Army that we are supposed to be training and wasn't supposed to be operational for at least another month? And what about the statement from the Pentagon that the Free Syrian Army would be deployed in a defensive capacity only. Were "our" fighters in Idlib in a defensive posture before they were run out of town? Maybe this is a different group, and this is an indication that we are training other military elements that will have a more "offensive" plan of action. I find this hypothesis to be the most hard to believe, because until now the Obama Administration has been very generous sharing every last detail of its intentions. I see no reason to believe that the leopard has changed his spots; why train others as offensive pieces on the board, but leave the main body of your forces, the Free Syrian Army, in a purely defensive posture? I am surprised that we don't have more information regarding the Free Syrian Army, especially regarding its timetable. I can't help but wonder if this Free Syrian Army, in its effort to be "defensive", is going to get caught between the various Islamic groups in the east, and a reconstituted regular Syrian military in the west.Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front)
The first two links I chose to share provide important details regarding Jabhat al-Nusrah, or the Nusrah Front. The press, in its daily effort to retweet all the propaganda fed to it by the terrorist groups via social media, continues to remind us that al-Nusrah is the Al-Qaeda representative in Syria and that they are not friends with the IS whatsoever. Common sense, and a career of working against Islamic terror groups, leads me to suspect that someone is falling hook, line and sinker for the most obvious of disinformation campaigns. Khorasan hates al-Nusrah and al-Nusrah hates the Islamic State and since al-Nusrah is the representative of Al-Qaeda in Syria (?), then Al-Qaeda must also hate the Islamic State. Please, folks....listen carefully and try to see the truth in all its simplicity. All of these groups are Sunni affiliated and all have historic Al-Qaeda connections of one type or another. The Islamic State of the Levant was called Al-Qaeda in Iraq not to long ago, for goodness sake. I think the decision by the Qatari Air Force to only bomb targets selectively (no Al-Nusrah targets, please) was part of the effort to convince us that there is freedom of thought and movement in its each individual group. I don't accept this; as far as I'm concerned they are all Sunni terrorist groups who prey upon the weak and helpless. In fact, our military would be best served by keeping all these groups under one header: "THE ENEMY", and let the CTC analysts at Langley worry about the personalities within.Back to Jabhat al-Nusrah. This group announced its formation in Syria in January 2012, and states that its end goal is the creation of a Pan-Islamic State under Sharia Law and ruled by a Caliph. If we switched out "Jabhat al-Nusrah" with "Islamic State of the Levant", who would know the difference? And yet, according to Twitter, the international media, and the Pentagon, the two groups are at each other's throats. It is believed that many of the original members of Al-Nusrah are Syrians who were fighting with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) group during Operation Enduring Freedom. The members of Al-Nusrah are believed to be the best trained and the best equipped of all the Sunni Extremist groups in the Syria/Iraq theater. Al-Nusrah is known for conducting suicide attacks. The leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the head of Al-Nusrah, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, appear to have had numerous discussions about the merging of the two groups. According to Al-Jazeera, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the only remaining leader of Al-Qaeda without two bullet holes in his forehead (so far), instructed the two groups not to merge. Al-Baghdadi ignored this instruction and continued to publicly declare a merger between the two. Since they appear to be separate today, I'm assuming al-Julani won that argument. But lets be honest; who really gives a shit about any of the back-and-forth that I just repeated (direct from Wikipedia)? Al-Nusrah is on the battlefield in Syria, its fighters are well-trained, disciplined, and like to blow themselves up for Allah. Much of the same can be said for the Islamic State, so as far as I see it, we are looking at two peas in a pod. When the bullets start to fly, I guarantee that these two groups (and any other Sunni-affiliated armed extremist groups) will join ranks. To be honest, the war in Syria means very little to me. The Russians will find a way to protect their interests in the end, so I am forced to accept that Assad isn't going anywhere. My interest is in Iraq, where we have easily identified allies in the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga/Kurdish regular forces. Actually, it becomes more apparent everyday that Iranian military units have been participating in the war against IS. From Assad in Syria to the Iranians in Iraq, we keep ending up with the strangest of bedfellows! I recognize that the Iraqi Army has been strengthened by groups of both Shia militia and Sunni tribal fighters. I see a real opportunity in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda/IS, solidify the Kurdish homeland, and greatly improve Sunni/Shia relations. Insha'Allah!
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
What is in a Name? IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh
By Jennifer Jennings, Guest Blogger
sistereight@icloud.com Twitter @Sistereight
sistereight@icloud.com Twitter @Sistereight
B. Levant and al-Sham are not Synonyms
C. France Swtiches to Daesh Acronym
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
- Act II, Scene II of Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare
What is in a name? Well, when it comes to branding … everything. And that includes the branding of political groups. While the truth of what a group represents is defined in large part by their deeds and actions, it is also defined, in part, by what others can be convinced to believe they represent. And this all starts with nomenclature, known in contemporary terms as “spin”. Normally I would have expected that a group lacking a clear, unambiguous, and universally recognized name would have difficulty maintaining legitimacy or attention. Perhaps this is my business background biasing my view. You usually can't get widespread attention for a product or your brand if everyone is referring to it as something different. But over the last four months I've seen the militant terrorists in Iraq and Syria get just this kind of attention despite the fact that no one can quite seem to agree on what to call them. I suppose when you destroy lives and property, take control of and oppress populations, and publicly behead those who disagree . . . well then you are bound to capture attention regardless of what various names are being used to refer to you. So why then all the disparity in names? And why the multiple news articles and mentions addressing the disparity? Wouldn’t it just be easiest to go with the self-given name of the group? Well, let's start with this then.
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام
This is the self-given name of the militant terrorist group in question. Not so easy to use in European/western conversation, or oral news reporting, or even for readers to continually recognize in print. Even the romanization of the Arabic script leaves us with the lengthy: ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām, which is difficult for western ears, tongues and memories. So a translation seems the natural course: Put the name in the native language of the reader/listener. This will make it easier to refer to, easier to remember, and easier to understand in an instant just what it is that the group is self-proclaiming via their name. If only translation were so simple a task . . .
- ad-Dawlah translates easy enough as “the State” (which brings its own issues)
- al-Islāmīyah is also an easy translation to “Islamic” (also creating issues)
- fīl-ʻIraq is accepted to translate as “of Iraq”
The first two easily translated words form the “IS” basis of the names IS, ISIS, and ISIL, since there is no dispute that they translate as “the Islamic State”. And while it’s also readily accepted that the next portion translates as “of Iraq”, it is ambiguity with the final part that leads to the split between the users of ISIS and those of ISIL, and ultimately to those that avoid the dispute entirely by sticking simply with IS.
wa ash-Shām/ ISIS v ISIL
For translators, this is the most complicated portion of the self-given name. It refers to “al-Sham”: a region that is translated either as the Levant or as Syria. There are some that
claim that al-Sham and the Levant are essentially, or even exactly, the same thing, while others argue that there are cultural differences that indicate the true motivation of the jihadist group we are dealing with.
- The Levant: The term first appeared in English in 1497 and is borrowed from the French, levant, meaning “rising”. It is used to refer to the east Mediterranean, where the sun rises and is accepted to refer to a geographical and cultural region that includes Cyrpus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and part of Southern Turkey.
- al-Sham: This term refers to Bilad al-Sham which is sometimes also called “Greater Syria”. It is a province that is roughly incorporated by the same area as the Levant, but was in existence far earlier (630s-940s) as an Islamic Caliphate with Damascus as its capital.
DAESH
Another major difference in nomenclature for this militant jihadist group comes from the refusal to recognize them as a State, or as representing Islam. Daesh is a loose
As a civilized people, we like to label and neatly categorize. I started off feeling this same way; I was simply annoyed when one newscast said "ISIS" while the U.S. Government said "ISIL" and my Kurd Tweeps said "Daesh". Like most people, I am more comfortable if everyone is on the same page. I have come to accept that everyone is not. In my personal journey to figure out the “right name” for this group, I can’t say that I’ve come to any definitive conclusions. I know they’re the bad guys. But I have come to realize that it is much less important what I personally call "them", those evil militant beheaders in the Middle East, and more important that I keep listening to all the different names they call themselves and are being called by others. And that then I ask “why”? What motives and beliefs does each group have that cause it to refuse the name that others use and offer one of its own? Only then can I begin to get a glimmer of understanding into the chaos of this region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)