Today President Obama issued a pardon to former US Army Private Bradley Manning, who identifies as a female named Chelsea and will be undergoing sexual reassignment surgery sometime in the future. Last year Manning was convicted by a Military Tribunal of violating the Espionage Act by passing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group Wikileaks. For reasons which are still a mystery to me, then-Private Manning was given access to countless Top Secret documents and US government communications while serving in Iraq in 2009/10. Manning claims that his decision to share classified information was greatly influenced by his discovery of war crimes committed by the US military. Manning also claims to be suffering from a gender identity disorder, which has caused long bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts. From the beginning, the liberal and leftist elements in our society have been openly supportive of Manning. The left strongly opposed the Iraq war, and by extension, see Manning as a hero for exposing part of the corrupt system which created false justification for going to war. A substantial number of political groups and well-known activists opposed Manning's Court Martial and subsequent trial, and after the verdict, put pressure on the Obama Administration to issue a pardon.
Manning has been on the winning side of a number of decisions since his conviction. Last April, the military announced that the US government would pay for Manning to undergo sexual reassignment surgery. So what exactly has happened since Private Bradley Manning chose to commit treason in 2009? Manning was Court-Martialed and given a 35-year sentence. Then the military announced that Manning would be undergoing a sex change procedure, paid for by the US taxpayer. Fast-forward a few months to January 2017, and today Manning is pardoned by President Obama. I assume that Manning will be released almost immediately, and the offers for a book deal will start piling up. So the lesson here is, if you are in the military and you want the government to pay for your sex-change operation, just commit treason and become a hero to the liberal media and left-wing political movement. At the end of the day, a multi-million dollar book deal will be waiting. I wish I had an opportunity to ask President Obama if he has spent much time thinking about the persons whose lives were ruined by Manning. The CIA cadre of reporting contacts includes many foreign nationals who are "assets of conscience". They decide to clandestinely provide the US government with valuable information because they believe in the American system and the freedoms we enjoy, and hope to encourage change in their own countries. We could be referring to citizens of nations like Iran, Russia, and China, for example. These brave people take the chance that their secret relationship with the US is not revealed to their own government. That being said, I can't fathom the number of foreign assets who may have been exposed within the seven-hundred thousand pages of documents that Manning passed to Wikileaks. No doubt the imtellignce community conducted numerous damage assessments, imformation which hopefully will never been known to us. I don't need to know the names and nationalities of persons who may have paid a heavy price for Manning's actions. I understand the environment enough to realize how much more difficult it will be for our Intelligence Officers to find willing reporters on the issues that keep Americans safe day-in and day-out.
At times I have found myself feeling very sympathetic to Chelsea Manning. Obviously she has struggled for years trying to find a place in the world. I cannot imagine any sane person knowingly choosing the path that Manning has followed. At the time, I doubt that Manning comprehended the ramifications of his actions, but every adult in our society has to be held responsible for their decisions. I would not have opposed a commuted sentence of some sort, maybe a five-year sentence, with an agreement that Manning be prohibited from writing a book or benefiting financially from his actions. Instead, Manning has been pardoned, and is about to hit the jackpot as far as money is concerned. Seven years after breaking the oath that he took to serve his country, seven years after committing treason and very likely putting a number of very brave people and their unknowing families in harm's way, Chelsea Manning will be a free and very rich young woman. The revisionist media in our country are jumping through hopes to create a legacy for Barack Obama that deos not include twenty trillion in debt, race relations at their lowest since the Civil Right's era, a flag that is disrespected at home almost as much as it is by the international community, an economy that is bleeding jobs because of over-regulation, and a precedence-setting willingness to abuse Executive Action to avoid working with Congress. Will the Manning pardon be mentioned by the press as part of Obama's legacy? Don't hold your breath.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
If you believe that President-Elect Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election because of hacking on the part of Russia, then I've got some cheap ocean-front property in Nebraska to sell you.
My intention was to take a bit of a break this past December, clear my head from the nastiness of the 2016 election, and let the Christmas spirit re-energize my batteries. I've slowed the blog to a crawl, with the intention of refocusing in 2017 on the international spread of terrorism. Unfortunately, I've been obliged to occasionally deviate from that plan in order to shed some much-needed light on the actions and intentions of the lame-duck Barack Obama Administration. Proceeding on the idea that if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact, the Democrats continue to use different avenues in an attempt to "delegitimize" the incoming Trump Administration. The Democratic Party continues to utilize the mainstream media as its military arm by deluging the public with stories about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the Trump Administration's alleged ties to Russia. Obama, never one to shy away from politicizing the tools of government, used sanctions against Russia and weak investigations by the intelligence community to validate the absurd notion that the Russian government, through the use of computer hacking, impacted the 2016 Presidential Election. Juggling apples and oranges with great nerve, Obama managed to bring together three disparate elements: the WikiLeaks organization, Russia's history of hacking into US computer systems, and Donald Trump's 2016 decisive electoral victory. Explaining the alleged plot takes a bit of effort, but I'm going to give it a try.
As a bit of background, WikiLeaks is the organization which is intent on releasing and publicizing as much US government classified intelligence as it can get its hands on. Throughout 2016, WikiLeaks released various information which had been obtained from the emails of certain US government officials. As the presidential election heated up, WikiLeaks focused on disseminating details which had been obtained through the hacking of John Podesta's email account (Podesta being Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman at the time). The emails were embarrassing, but nothing which has been released to date should have caused any concern in the Clinton camp. The real damage to her campaign was delivered by Clinton's illegal email server, and the concern that said server was used to share classified information with donors to the Clinton Foundation. Be that as it may, The Obama Administration (and its media support network headed up by the New York Times and the Washington Post) is promoting the false narrative that the Russian government, in an effort to get Donald Trump into the White House, hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and other Democratic useful targets, including, I assume, John Podesta. The information that was allegedly obtained was then secretly passed on to WikiLeaks, who proceeded to release whatever details they considered damaging, at the most beneficial time for the Trump Campaign. The end result, according to the Obama narrative, being that thousands of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida chose to vote against Hillary Clinton because they were disturbed by the contents of the released emails. Other bits and pieces of the allegation are difficult to decipher. By accusing Russia of utilizing hackers to impact the 2016 election, does the Obama Administration mean to infer that the election offices of each and every State were under attack by Russian computer experts? Were the Russians trying to change vote totals electronically, or was this effort limited to the targeting of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, in order to obtain controversial email information which would cause enough of a scandal to cost Clinton the election? I can't help but wonder exactly what the Russians might have discovered which would have been so damaging that it would have completely derailed the entire Clinton Campaign.
Please stick with me as I try and inject a bit of sanity into the conversation. First and foremost, yes, the Russians are engaged in espionage which does not have our best interest at heart. So are the Chinese, and our two new friends Cuba and Iran. Anyone with even the slightest grasp of international diplomacy understands that countries are constantly spying on one another. The real issue should not be if Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, but why it took Donald Trump's unexpected electoral victory to finally get the Obama Administration interested in attempts by foreign nations to commit espionage against our government. Put aside the bizarre idea that Russia was responsible for Trump victory for a second. Without giving away any state secrets, I can guarantee you that the Chinese have been robbing us blind for decades through the use of espionage-related computer equipment. Our Laboratories are under constant attack, and the numerous Universities that engage in highly classified Department of Defense research, are always a juicy target for Chinese. In fact, the Obama Administration had been aware of targeted hacking operations by the Russians for months before last week's announcement of new sanctions. It appears that Obama only became interested in this issue once a political angle was uncovered.
At every opportunity, WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange has flatly denied that Russia is the source of the hacked emails in question. In fact, one particular rumor that won't go away is that the emails were provided by a former DNC staffer who became disenchanted with the Clinton candidacy because of its treatment of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Regardless, the actions taken by the Obama Administration to "punish" Russia for interfering in our electoral process do nothing but damage the efforts at a smooth administrative transition. Obama continues to stress the importance of cooperation and good faith whenever the media are about, but as the old cliché reminds us, actions speak louder than words. Donald Trump is the President-Elect and he deserves the opportunity to put together his Administration with as little distraction and interference as possible. This Russian hacking-to-impact-the-election "Red Herring" is a nasty distraction at best, and an organized effort to delegitimize the incoming Administration at worst. Regardless of the protests and the never-ending despicable commentary from various members of the entertainment community, the majority of Americans are looking forward to the Trump Administration, and with good reason. Since the election, thousands of jobs that were headed overseas have decided to stay. Our economy is set for an expansion that we haven't seen since the Reagan Presidency. I would give anything to be a part of the incoming Trump Team; they have my resume and application (a little reminder never hurt!). Trump earned the opportunity to lead this nation, and the American people deserve a smooth transition and a united government that serves the people, not vice-versa. I spent my career as a member of the intelligence community and even as a civilian, I remain dedicated to disrupting any foreign influence in our government, regardless of the target. From the evidence that I've seen presented to date, The Obama Administration's claim that Russian espionage-through-hacking impacted the 2016 election rings flat and very hollow.
As a bit of background, WikiLeaks is the organization which is intent on releasing and publicizing as much US government classified intelligence as it can get its hands on. Throughout 2016, WikiLeaks released various information which had been obtained from the emails of certain US government officials. As the presidential election heated up, WikiLeaks focused on disseminating details which had been obtained through the hacking of John Podesta's email account (Podesta being Hillary Clinton's Campaign Chairman at the time). The emails were embarrassing, but nothing which has been released to date should have caused any concern in the Clinton camp. The real damage to her campaign was delivered by Clinton's illegal email server, and the concern that said server was used to share classified information with donors to the Clinton Foundation. Be that as it may, The Obama Administration (and its media support network headed up by the New York Times and the Washington Post) is promoting the false narrative that the Russian government, in an effort to get Donald Trump into the White House, hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and other Democratic useful targets, including, I assume, John Podesta. The information that was allegedly obtained was then secretly passed on to WikiLeaks, who proceeded to release whatever details they considered damaging, at the most beneficial time for the Trump Campaign. The end result, according to the Obama narrative, being that thousands of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida chose to vote against Hillary Clinton because they were disturbed by the contents of the released emails. Other bits and pieces of the allegation are difficult to decipher. By accusing Russia of utilizing hackers to impact the 2016 election, does the Obama Administration mean to infer that the election offices of each and every State were under attack by Russian computer experts? Were the Russians trying to change vote totals electronically, or was this effort limited to the targeting of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, in order to obtain controversial email information which would cause enough of a scandal to cost Clinton the election? I can't help but wonder exactly what the Russians might have discovered which would have been so damaging that it would have completely derailed the entire Clinton Campaign.
Please stick with me as I try and inject a bit of sanity into the conversation. First and foremost, yes, the Russians are engaged in espionage which does not have our best interest at heart. So are the Chinese, and our two new friends Cuba and Iran. Anyone with even the slightest grasp of international diplomacy understands that countries are constantly spying on one another. The real issue should not be if Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign, but why it took Donald Trump's unexpected electoral victory to finally get the Obama Administration interested in attempts by foreign nations to commit espionage against our government. Put aside the bizarre idea that Russia was responsible for Trump victory for a second. Without giving away any state secrets, I can guarantee you that the Chinese have been robbing us blind for decades through the use of espionage-related computer equipment. Our Laboratories are under constant attack, and the numerous Universities that engage in highly classified Department of Defense research, are always a juicy target for Chinese. In fact, the Obama Administration had been aware of targeted hacking operations by the Russians for months before last week's announcement of new sanctions. It appears that Obama only became interested in this issue once a political angle was uncovered.
At every opportunity, WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange has flatly denied that Russia is the source of the hacked emails in question. In fact, one particular rumor that won't go away is that the emails were provided by a former DNC staffer who became disenchanted with the Clinton candidacy because of its treatment of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Regardless, the actions taken by the Obama Administration to "punish" Russia for interfering in our electoral process do nothing but damage the efforts at a smooth administrative transition. Obama continues to stress the importance of cooperation and good faith whenever the media are about, but as the old cliché reminds us, actions speak louder than words. Donald Trump is the President-Elect and he deserves the opportunity to put together his Administration with as little distraction and interference as possible. This Russian hacking-to-impact-the-election "Red Herring" is a nasty distraction at best, and an organized effort to delegitimize the incoming Administration at worst. Regardless of the protests and the never-ending despicable commentary from various members of the entertainment community, the majority of Americans are looking forward to the Trump Administration, and with good reason. Since the election, thousands of jobs that were headed overseas have decided to stay. Our economy is set for an expansion that we haven't seen since the Reagan Presidency. I would give anything to be a part of the incoming Trump Team; they have my resume and application (a little reminder never hurt!). Trump earned the opportunity to lead this nation, and the American people deserve a smooth transition and a united government that serves the people, not vice-versa. I spent my career as a member of the intelligence community and even as a civilian, I remain dedicated to disrupting any foreign influence in our government, regardless of the target. From the evidence that I've seen presented to date, The Obama Administration's claim that Russian espionage-through-hacking impacted the 2016 election rings flat and very hollow.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Keeping it short and simple- a post-debate reminder why I'm voting for Donald Trump.
I spent a good part of tonight's Presidntial Debate trying to understand why someone with Donald Trump's public exposure and profile seems to have the communication skills of a High School sophomore. He has real difficulty staying on topic and finishing points. My friend Jennifer refers to it as talking in "verbal circles", and I think that she has found a great description. That being said, I am able to clearly identitfy what Trump supports and what issues will be a priority should he win this election. This debate only served to solidify my support for Trump and my absolute opposition to Hillary Clinton.
Trump identifies the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, as the worst trade legislation that our nation has ever enacted, and he's right. NAFTA serves to strengthen the economies of Latin America on the back of U.S. workers. Trump boldly announced that any nation who unfairly taxes our products, is going to be met with the same taxes on this side of the border. Are you listening, Mexico, China, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan? The EU will be obliged to revisit some of our Trade Agreements as well. Just because the international community like to encourage the perception that Americans are all filthy rich, and that citizens of the United States unfairly consume most of the world's resources, is no reason for us to regularly enter into unbalanced, damaging Trade Agreements.
Trump promises to curtail useless, unnecessary, and crippling regulations on industry and on businesses. Democrat Administrations love regulation. They seem to always make the assumption that any regulation will help save animals, clean the water and clear the air. Unnecessary regulations financially impact a business owner's ability to expand his workspace and hire more employees. But the real reason I believe Trump will be successful is his plan to provide a tax break to the job creators in this country- the large, medium, and small business owners. In order to grow businesses, you have to let the people keep more of their money. They are capitalists; they will invest any additional tax savings back into our moribund economy. That's a guarantee you can take to the bank. Meanwhile, all we get from Hillary is more of the same Democratic argument that the government should be in charge of creating jobs. A simple review of basic economics illustrates that governments have always been terrible at job creation.
Trump will discourage the continued existence of sanctuary cities, which is part of his effort to re-introduce respect for the rule of law. Persons who are considering breaking U.S. law by trying to enter our nation illegally, should not have certain destination cities already circled on the map. We need a President who will put the backbone back into our Immigration Laws. Americans are only as secure as our international border. We can't reward people for breaking the law, while hundreds of thousands of people fill out the paperwork and wait patiently (and legally) for their opportunity.
Trump intends to destroy ISIS, a worthy goal that should have been accomplished some time ago. Trump will rebiild our military, and put Veterans at the front of the line for school financial aid, home financing, and medical care. Trump will clean out the State Department and remove all of the Clinton apologists and America-haters that have sadly taken root at Foggy Bottom.
During the debate, Clinton came across as just another politician, providing the audience with all these great ideas that I guess never came to mind during her six years as a Congresswoman who never authored any legislation. She had the gall to bring up the "Birther Lie", reflecting on Trump's past support for finding real answers to the Obama birth certificate controversy. Lie is a special word in Clinton's world. She lied about the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, because of her refusal to say "Islamic Terrorists", she lied anout having never received classified emails on her "illegal server", and she lied when she said that "a wall" would exist between her State Department and her husband's Foundation. We now know that fifty-five percent of the lucky folks who received an interview with Secretary of State Clinton, left her office and ran to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder why? And that wall proved invisible on a number of other occasions, including when Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, both high-placed members of her State Department Staff, did work for the Clinton Foundation while collecting a USG check from the State Department. Are you comfortable with her support for the nuclear give-away Treaty with Iran? Where was the benefit in that? What about the ransom paid for the release of U.S. hostages? If Iran should be trusted with a Nuclear Treaty, can't they be depended upon to release innocent U.S. citizens from Iranian jails without a ransom of billions of dollars? And if you need anymore examples of Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, take a look at the New Start ballistic missile reduction Treaty she signed with none-other than Lucifer himself, Vladimir Putin, back in 2010.
I keep hoping that Donald Trump will develop a more effective speaking style, but I don't think its going to happen. So I'm left to dig through the issues, in order to determine who is the best candidate for President in 2016. Fortunately, it didn't take very long.
Trump identifies the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, as the worst trade legislation that our nation has ever enacted, and he's right. NAFTA serves to strengthen the economies of Latin America on the back of U.S. workers. Trump boldly announced that any nation who unfairly taxes our products, is going to be met with the same taxes on this side of the border. Are you listening, Mexico, China, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan? The EU will be obliged to revisit some of our Trade Agreements as well. Just because the international community like to encourage the perception that Americans are all filthy rich, and that citizens of the United States unfairly consume most of the world's resources, is no reason for us to regularly enter into unbalanced, damaging Trade Agreements.
Trump promises to curtail useless, unnecessary, and crippling regulations on industry and on businesses. Democrat Administrations love regulation. They seem to always make the assumption that any regulation will help save animals, clean the water and clear the air. Unnecessary regulations financially impact a business owner's ability to expand his workspace and hire more employees. But the real reason I believe Trump will be successful is his plan to provide a tax break to the job creators in this country- the large, medium, and small business owners. In order to grow businesses, you have to let the people keep more of their money. They are capitalists; they will invest any additional tax savings back into our moribund economy. That's a guarantee you can take to the bank. Meanwhile, all we get from Hillary is more of the same Democratic argument that the government should be in charge of creating jobs. A simple review of basic economics illustrates that governments have always been terrible at job creation.
Trump will discourage the continued existence of sanctuary cities, which is part of his effort to re-introduce respect for the rule of law. Persons who are considering breaking U.S. law by trying to enter our nation illegally, should not have certain destination cities already circled on the map. We need a President who will put the backbone back into our Immigration Laws. Americans are only as secure as our international border. We can't reward people for breaking the law, while hundreds of thousands of people fill out the paperwork and wait patiently (and legally) for their opportunity.
Trump intends to destroy ISIS, a worthy goal that should have been accomplished some time ago. Trump will rebiild our military, and put Veterans at the front of the line for school financial aid, home financing, and medical care. Trump will clean out the State Department and remove all of the Clinton apologists and America-haters that have sadly taken root at Foggy Bottom.
During the debate, Clinton came across as just another politician, providing the audience with all these great ideas that I guess never came to mind during her six years as a Congresswoman who never authored any legislation. She had the gall to bring up the "Birther Lie", reflecting on Trump's past support for finding real answers to the Obama birth certificate controversy. Lie is a special word in Clinton's world. She lied about the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, because of her refusal to say "Islamic Terrorists", she lied anout having never received classified emails on her "illegal server", and she lied when she said that "a wall" would exist between her State Department and her husband's Foundation. We now know that fifty-five percent of the lucky folks who received an interview with Secretary of State Clinton, left her office and ran to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder why? And that wall proved invisible on a number of other occasions, including when Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, both high-placed members of her State Department Staff, did work for the Clinton Foundation while collecting a USG check from the State Department. Are you comfortable with her support for the nuclear give-away Treaty with Iran? Where was the benefit in that? What about the ransom paid for the release of U.S. hostages? If Iran should be trusted with a Nuclear Treaty, can't they be depended upon to release innocent U.S. citizens from Iranian jails without a ransom of billions of dollars? And if you need anymore examples of Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, take a look at the New Start ballistic missile reduction Treaty she signed with none-other than Lucifer himself, Vladimir Putin, back in 2010.
I keep hoping that Donald Trump will develop a more effective speaking style, but I don't think its going to happen. So I'm left to dig through the issues, in order to determine who is the best candidate for President in 2016. Fortunately, it didn't take very long.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
At the end of the day, it was just another Hillary Clinton speech, folks.
Last Thursday night, as I listened to Hillary Clinton's well-crafted and beautifully delivered acceptance speech, I couldn't help but consider the number of inspiring speeches that are born every four years during national convention week. Honestly, this year I didn't listen with much conviction to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump's speech. Unlike so many these days, I don't look to political speeches to influence or entertain. From the number of Hollywood celebrities that were paraded across the stage, one can assume that the Democrats believe that voters can be influenced by entertainers. You can add that to the list of differences I have with Democrats; I don't give a rats ass how my favorite performers are going to vote.
During the evening, Clinton focused on the usual crowd-pleasing issues of her base. We heard about discrimination, inequality and the poor. You would think that as long as the Democrats had been around (and in power), they would have resolved some of these issues. No doubt the trouble has to do with the evil Republicans, whose interests are to discriminate against anyone who isn't white and male, and to make the poor even poorer. Not much new ground here. But Hillary Clinton did discuss the serious issue of terrorism, and the importance of strong national security. She acknowledged that the world has become a very dangerous place, which is ironic, given that the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Clinton are responsible in part for the mess we find ourselves in.
In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped put together the New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Vladimir Putin an Russia. If you google "New Start Treaty", you will find the usual dry but useful Wikipedia entry, and you will also find a decent number of commentaries on the Treaty. Not suprisingly, the folks on the right think its a disaster and the ones on the left couldn't be happier. In order to truly measure the positive versus the negative, its necessary to view the Treaty and its ramifications from a 2016 perspective. Most people seem to have come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is a snake and can't be trusted. The Obama Administration can argue that in 2010, he didn't seem to be such a bad guy. Don't fall for this line. The State Department and the Obama Administration was well aware with what and whom they were negotiating. Since Putin has become the Big Man on Campus in Russia, he has yet to direct his government to abide by any existing treaty. Sure, there are treaties in which the disagreements have been anticipated and par for the course, but there is no way that the Obama Administration can argue that Russia deserved to be trusted with our national security. Basically, the New Start Treaty did away with our last remaining Ballistic deterent, and what did we receive in return? The same NOTHING that we negotiated for with last year's Iranian Nuclear agreement. The treaty has been couched to look like an agreement between Europe and Iran, but with Secretary of State John Kerry practically sitting in the laps of the negotiators, there can be no denying the fact that our fingerprints are all over this monumentally dangerous pact.
During the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama announced that once he took office, he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. At first, it appeared that possibly common sense had caused Obama to change his mind, but once the 2010 midterm elections looked in jeopardy, and it was time to shore up the leftist base, ordered the evacuation of U.S. troops to begin, and to continue without delay. There was a problem; we had an agreement with the Iraqi government that called for the U.S. military to train all branches of the Iraqi Security Forces. The Pentagon was very concerned with the growing level of violence in bordering Syria, which was complicated by the presence of a former Iraqi insurgency/terrorist group which had started calling itself "ISIS" (formerly "Al-Qaida of the Two Rivers" and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). Once U.S. personnel started to leave Iraq in droves, ISIS decided to return. The reasoned correctly that the recently reconstituted Iraqi Security Forces would be in no condition to defeat even a much smaller, battle-hardened ISIS conventional force. During the first major encounter outside Tikrit, the Iraqi troops abandoned their equipment and deserted the battlefield without firing a shot; ISIS was able to add the latest U.S. weaponry and ammunition to its arsenal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave full support to President Obama's decision to abandon Iraq, which left it open to invasion from the same scum that were responsible for the death of thousands of young American men and women in uniform.
What has been discussed above is just a sample of the events that took place when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. She also presided over the State Department when the Arab Spring took us by complete surprise. The year before the Arab Spring (up to two years after) are an example of complete and utter failure on behalf the diplomatic arm of the greatest nation on Earth. You will find the Benghazi incident included in this time period. We repeatedly saw Secretary Clinton accepting full responsiblity for the terrible performance of her State Department, and then going into great detail to explain how it really was SOMEONE ELSE'S responsibility. I can assure you, I would have no problem defending my belief that Hillary was the worst Secretary of State of my lifetime. She likes to brag about her foreign policy experience; I'm waiting for someone from the left to explain to me what it is that she has accomplished which merits "bragging" (my quotations).
During her speech, Clinton also heaped praise on President Obama for all the positive initiatives that he introduced, which saved our nation from economic collapse. We will examine this brave statement, amongst others, later in the week.
During the evening, Clinton focused on the usual crowd-pleasing issues of her base. We heard about discrimination, inequality and the poor. You would think that as long as the Democrats had been around (and in power), they would have resolved some of these issues. No doubt the trouble has to do with the evil Republicans, whose interests are to discriminate against anyone who isn't white and male, and to make the poor even poorer. Not much new ground here. But Hillary Clinton did discuss the serious issue of terrorism, and the importance of strong national security. She acknowledged that the world has become a very dangerous place, which is ironic, given that the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Clinton are responsible in part for the mess we find ourselves in.
In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped put together the New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Vladimir Putin an Russia. If you google "New Start Treaty", you will find the usual dry but useful Wikipedia entry, and you will also find a decent number of commentaries on the Treaty. Not suprisingly, the folks on the right think its a disaster and the ones on the left couldn't be happier. In order to truly measure the positive versus the negative, its necessary to view the Treaty and its ramifications from a 2016 perspective. Most people seem to have come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is a snake and can't be trusted. The Obama Administration can argue that in 2010, he didn't seem to be such a bad guy. Don't fall for this line. The State Department and the Obama Administration was well aware with what and whom they were negotiating. Since Putin has become the Big Man on Campus in Russia, he has yet to direct his government to abide by any existing treaty. Sure, there are treaties in which the disagreements have been anticipated and par for the course, but there is no way that the Obama Administration can argue that Russia deserved to be trusted with our national security. Basically, the New Start Treaty did away with our last remaining Ballistic deterent, and what did we receive in return? The same NOTHING that we negotiated for with last year's Iranian Nuclear agreement. The treaty has been couched to look like an agreement between Europe and Iran, but with Secretary of State John Kerry practically sitting in the laps of the negotiators, there can be no denying the fact that our fingerprints are all over this monumentally dangerous pact.
During the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama announced that once he took office, he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. At first, it appeared that possibly common sense had caused Obama to change his mind, but once the 2010 midterm elections looked in jeopardy, and it was time to shore up the leftist base, ordered the evacuation of U.S. troops to begin, and to continue without delay. There was a problem; we had an agreement with the Iraqi government that called for the U.S. military to train all branches of the Iraqi Security Forces. The Pentagon was very concerned with the growing level of violence in bordering Syria, which was complicated by the presence of a former Iraqi insurgency/terrorist group which had started calling itself "ISIS" (formerly "Al-Qaida of the Two Rivers" and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). Once U.S. personnel started to leave Iraq in droves, ISIS decided to return. The reasoned correctly that the recently reconstituted Iraqi Security Forces would be in no condition to defeat even a much smaller, battle-hardened ISIS conventional force. During the first major encounter outside Tikrit, the Iraqi troops abandoned their equipment and deserted the battlefield without firing a shot; ISIS was able to add the latest U.S. weaponry and ammunition to its arsenal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave full support to President Obama's decision to abandon Iraq, which left it open to invasion from the same scum that were responsible for the death of thousands of young American men and women in uniform.
What has been discussed above is just a sample of the events that took place when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. She also presided over the State Department when the Arab Spring took us by complete surprise. The year before the Arab Spring (up to two years after) are an example of complete and utter failure on behalf the diplomatic arm of the greatest nation on Earth. You will find the Benghazi incident included in this time period. We repeatedly saw Secretary Clinton accepting full responsiblity for the terrible performance of her State Department, and then going into great detail to explain how it really was SOMEONE ELSE'S responsibility. I can assure you, I would have no problem defending my belief that Hillary was the worst Secretary of State of my lifetime. She likes to brag about her foreign policy experience; I'm waiting for someone from the left to explain to me what it is that she has accomplished which merits "bragging" (my quotations).
During her speech, Clinton also heaped praise on President Obama for all the positive initiatives that he introduced, which saved our nation from economic collapse. We will examine this brave statement, amongst others, later in the week.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Aside from the hyperbole, let's review the policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
*Disclaimer: during today's blog post, I will attempt to compare some of the political views of candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. If, from your perspective, I incorrectly identify a policy position of either nominee, feel free to send me a note, yell at me, or wish me ill-fortune. Any and all errors are undoubtedly not mine, but the fault of the two candidates.
If the American voter makes the effort to examine the issues and the opinions of the two nominees, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, then we should have a good idea just how conservative/liberal the United States has become. The reason the political landscape should become crystal clear is because we have two candidates who couldn't be further apart on the issues. Donald Trump openly espouses conservative beliefs and intentions, while Hillary is sounding more liberal than ever before. Interestingly enough, both candidates have a prior history of being somewhat moderate, but 2016 finds the American populace deeply divided, and both candidates have left moderation behind. The Obama Administration in itself was a tremendous mobilizer for the right. Conservatives have been waiting for the opportunity to voice their disapproval to everything from Obamacare to Gay Marriage. Donald Trump embraced the primary season with an agenda that included insulting every person who had the temerity to disagree (with Mr. Trump). Many unhappy Americans chose to live vicariously through Trump, especially when he addressed either Obama or Clinton directly (through Twitter). To the average conservative, Republicans in Congress appeared unwilling to stand up to the Democrats in any fashion. Sure, Congress convened one investigation after another, but all that was achieved was to aggravate an already open wound. During the primaries, Trump was successful uniting conservative voters at the ballot box, while Hillary had all sorts of trouble shaking her only real opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. The self-identified Democrat-Socialist gave Clinton headaches, and his ability to appeal to young voters made it clear to the Clinton Camp that the S.S. Hillary needed to take a sharp turn to the left. Trump knows his only hope of winning is to ratchet up the same game plan that has worked so well. He must remain confrontational, introducing a different Clinton scandal day after day; Hillary needs to remind voters of Trump's bruises as well. When all is said and done, this election may go down as the most negative in history.
From the beginning, it was assumed that Hillary Clinton would appear more able to handle foreign policy issues that Donald Trump. Not only was Hillary Clinton First Lady for eight years, but she was also a one-term Senator from New York and Barack Obama's Secretary of State during Obama's first term. Clinton has been all over the world and met with hundreds of foreign leaders and dignitaries. Oddly enough, in all that time, Hillary never thought it prudent to learn a foreign language. Regardless, Hillary is recognized as being deeply involved in the negotiations that resulted in 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia. Don't expect to hear Hillary bring up this Treaty very often in the campaign. Basically, it calls for the United States to voluntarily eliminate our remaining ballistic missile deterrent vis-Ã -vis Russia. Now that Vladimir Putin is recognized for the snake that he is, and Russia's signature isn't worth a bucket of shit, you can expect Hillary to avoid the subject altogether. Unfortunately, Hillary was also strongly supportive of Barack Obama's legacy Nuclear Treaty with Iran, which has proven over and over again to be completely untrustworthy. Also, Hillary must explain to the voter how it was that we were caught so unaware during the Arab Spring. Why was the Clinton State Department always so reactive, as opposed to proactive? Trump, on the other hand, must rely on his skills of persuasion and the popularity of his policies to convince voters that his foreign policy ideas are more in-line with the average American.
Trump has made the issue of immigration one of the cornerstones of his campaign. In the beginning, many political pundits considered this decision to be a mistake, but the anticipated backlash has yet to materialize. The truth is, once you dig a little deeper, you discover that most Americans are very concerned about immigration and support increasing security and enforcement on the border. This very well could be the issue which sinks one of these candidates. Our immigration system is broken, and regardless of what you hear from the Obama Administration, deportations have ground to a halt in this country, including deportations of felons. After hearing about another murder committed by a foreign national felon, aren't you getting tired of asking the same question, "why wasn't this guy deported before he committed another crime?" Many Americans are offended to the core to see school children waving and showing reverence to the Mexican flag, while stepping on Old Glory, and we saw it time and time again last summer. Regardless of the cause, this type of imagery, which is repeated ad nauseam during any event related to immigration, is a boon for Mr. Trump. In order to placate Sanders and his crowd of unwashed twenty-first century hippies, Hillary will have to support the most liberal immigration platform that was ever crafted at a Party Convention. No doubt it will include support for the Obama Administration's Amnesty. Support for this policy will make it difficult for Hillary to ever fully step out of Obama's shadow, at least during the election.
Trump and Clinton may actually agree on some foreign trade issues. Both candidates have expressed support for the American laborer, as existing trade agreements with Europe, Asia and North America always seem to be more concerned with the foreign worker. In reality, neither candidate has yet to put forth a detailed plan regarding the restructuring of America's trade agreements. There can be no doubt that the playing field is uneven, with countries like China able to protect their workers and product through trade agreement and tariffs, while the United States appears to always be the one sacrificing. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to hear some loud-mouth politician lecturing about China's economy being so huge that we must ignore human rights violations, aggressive, dangerous espionage, especially in our universities, theft of department of defense property, and daily, deliberate hacking that is costing the United States billions of dollars. I'm a bit worried about Hillary Clinton and the Chinese, only because they always seem to be involved in her political campaigns (google "Hillary Clinton" and "Chinese Campaign Contributions").
Today we have taken a look at a few of the issues that the two candidates will be debating during the next two months. Later this week, we will examine a few additional policy differences. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both have a lot to say regarding Taxes, and who should pay what. At least they agree on the need for a more simple tax form. We look forward to seeing you hear throughout the tumultuous next ten weeks.
If the American voter makes the effort to examine the issues and the opinions of the two nominees, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, then we should have a good idea just how conservative/liberal the United States has become. The reason the political landscape should become crystal clear is because we have two candidates who couldn't be further apart on the issues. Donald Trump openly espouses conservative beliefs and intentions, while Hillary is sounding more liberal than ever before. Interestingly enough, both candidates have a prior history of being somewhat moderate, but 2016 finds the American populace deeply divided, and both candidates have left moderation behind. The Obama Administration in itself was a tremendous mobilizer for the right. Conservatives have been waiting for the opportunity to voice their disapproval to everything from Obamacare to Gay Marriage. Donald Trump embraced the primary season with an agenda that included insulting every person who had the temerity to disagree (with Mr. Trump). Many unhappy Americans chose to live vicariously through Trump, especially when he addressed either Obama or Clinton directly (through Twitter). To the average conservative, Republicans in Congress appeared unwilling to stand up to the Democrats in any fashion. Sure, Congress convened one investigation after another, but all that was achieved was to aggravate an already open wound. During the primaries, Trump was successful uniting conservative voters at the ballot box, while Hillary had all sorts of trouble shaking her only real opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. The self-identified Democrat-Socialist gave Clinton headaches, and his ability to appeal to young voters made it clear to the Clinton Camp that the S.S. Hillary needed to take a sharp turn to the left. Trump knows his only hope of winning is to ratchet up the same game plan that has worked so well. He must remain confrontational, introducing a different Clinton scandal day after day; Hillary needs to remind voters of Trump's bruises as well. When all is said and done, this election may go down as the most negative in history.
From the beginning, it was assumed that Hillary Clinton would appear more able to handle foreign policy issues that Donald Trump. Not only was Hillary Clinton First Lady for eight years, but she was also a one-term Senator from New York and Barack Obama's Secretary of State during Obama's first term. Clinton has been all over the world and met with hundreds of foreign leaders and dignitaries. Oddly enough, in all that time, Hillary never thought it prudent to learn a foreign language. Regardless, Hillary is recognized as being deeply involved in the negotiations that resulted in 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia. Don't expect to hear Hillary bring up this Treaty very often in the campaign. Basically, it calls for the United States to voluntarily eliminate our remaining ballistic missile deterrent vis-Ã -vis Russia. Now that Vladimir Putin is recognized for the snake that he is, and Russia's signature isn't worth a bucket of shit, you can expect Hillary to avoid the subject altogether. Unfortunately, Hillary was also strongly supportive of Barack Obama's legacy Nuclear Treaty with Iran, which has proven over and over again to be completely untrustworthy. Also, Hillary must explain to the voter how it was that we were caught so unaware during the Arab Spring. Why was the Clinton State Department always so reactive, as opposed to proactive? Trump, on the other hand, must rely on his skills of persuasion and the popularity of his policies to convince voters that his foreign policy ideas are more in-line with the average American.
Trump has made the issue of immigration one of the cornerstones of his campaign. In the beginning, many political pundits considered this decision to be a mistake, but the anticipated backlash has yet to materialize. The truth is, once you dig a little deeper, you discover that most Americans are very concerned about immigration and support increasing security and enforcement on the border. This very well could be the issue which sinks one of these candidates. Our immigration system is broken, and regardless of what you hear from the Obama Administration, deportations have ground to a halt in this country, including deportations of felons. After hearing about another murder committed by a foreign national felon, aren't you getting tired of asking the same question, "why wasn't this guy deported before he committed another crime?" Many Americans are offended to the core to see school children waving and showing reverence to the Mexican flag, while stepping on Old Glory, and we saw it time and time again last summer. Regardless of the cause, this type of imagery, which is repeated ad nauseam during any event related to immigration, is a boon for Mr. Trump. In order to placate Sanders and his crowd of unwashed twenty-first century hippies, Hillary will have to support the most liberal immigration platform that was ever crafted at a Party Convention. No doubt it will include support for the Obama Administration's Amnesty. Support for this policy will make it difficult for Hillary to ever fully step out of Obama's shadow, at least during the election.
Trump and Clinton may actually agree on some foreign trade issues. Both candidates have expressed support for the American laborer, as existing trade agreements with Europe, Asia and North America always seem to be more concerned with the foreign worker. In reality, neither candidate has yet to put forth a detailed plan regarding the restructuring of America's trade agreements. There can be no doubt that the playing field is uneven, with countries like China able to protect their workers and product through trade agreement and tariffs, while the United States appears to always be the one sacrificing. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to hear some loud-mouth politician lecturing about China's economy being so huge that we must ignore human rights violations, aggressive, dangerous espionage, especially in our universities, theft of department of defense property, and daily, deliberate hacking that is costing the United States billions of dollars. I'm a bit worried about Hillary Clinton and the Chinese, only because they always seem to be involved in her political campaigns (google "Hillary Clinton" and "Chinese Campaign Contributions").
Today we have taken a look at a few of the issues that the two candidates will be debating during the next two months. Later this week, we will examine a few additional policy differences. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both have a lot to say regarding Taxes, and who should pay what. At least they agree on the need for a more simple tax form. We look forward to seeing you hear throughout the tumultuous next ten weeks.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Iraqi forces surround Fallujah, continue efforts to push ISIS from Anbar Province.
Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have surrounded ISIS elements in Fallujah, taking the northern suburbs and clearing ISIS from the Baghdad area. ISF have also punished ISIS forces further, retaking territory around Hit and giving some relief to hard-pressed Habaniyah. Over the past few months, Iraqi forces, aided by elements of the Popular Mobilization Units (Iranian supported Shi'a militia) and air support from coalition forces, have broken the back of ISIS in Anbar Province and central Iraq. In order to put pressure on the Iraqi government and hopefully encourage the recall of Iraqi troops to the capital, ISIS stepped up suicide bomb attacks against Shi'a targets, inflicting large number of fatalities and injuries. Shi'a leaders did put pressure on the government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, but Abadi has managed to keep control of the government and focus on the efforts to remove ISIS from Iraq altogether. If the military situation doesn't improve for ISIS, the terrorist organization will have to reconsider its intentions in Iraq. No doubt Fallujah will fall, and as the ISF continues to retake territory once occupied by ISIS, it will become impossible for ISIS to not only continue suicide and vehicular explosive attacks, but to keep its units supplied and reinforced.
With the encouraging advances the ISF has made in Samarra and Baiji, and the advances made by the Kurds in the north, ISIS will be hard-pressed to regain the initiative on any of the Iraqi fronts. Mosul is also in the sights of the ISF, with word that except for a small contingent of die-hard operatives, ISIS has basically already abandoned the city. That remains to be seen, but there can ge no doubt that the ISF appears to be in the last stages of defeating ISIS in Iraq. This development has already started to impact the political environment in Baghdad. For some time, Shi'a politicians and religious leaders have been engaging in efforts to discredit and destabilize the Ababi Administration. No doubt Iran, who continues to interfere in internal Iraqi affairs, has been behind the effort to see Abadi replaced. The dynamics of this situation can be very confusing to anyone who has not been following Iraqi politics. losels. When Abadi took office as Iraq's second Shi'a Prime Minister, the Sunni community was convinced that we would act in Iran's interest foremost, and the Sunni community would suffer. In fact, Abadi has not taken one side over the other. He has proven to be a true statesman and leader, and he truly deserves tremendous credit for the optimistic military situation.
With the encouraging advances the ISF has made in Samarra and Baiji, and the advances made by the Kurds in the north, ISIS will be hard-pressed to regain the initiative on any of the Iraqi fronts. Mosul is also in the sights of the ISF, with word that except for a small contingent of die-hard operatives, ISIS has basically already abandoned the city. That remains to be seen, but there can ge no doubt that the ISF appears to be in the last stages of defeating ISIS in Iraq. This development has already started to impact the political environment in Baghdad. For some time, Shi'a politicians and religious leaders have been engaging in efforts to discredit and destabilize the Ababi Administration. No doubt Iran, who continues to interfere in internal Iraqi affairs, has been behind the effort to see Abadi replaced. The dynamics of this situation can be very confusing to anyone who has not been following Iraqi politics. losels. When Abadi took office as Iraq's second Shi'a Prime Minister, the Sunni community was convinced that we would act in Iran's interest foremost, and the Sunni community would suffer. In fact, Abadi has not taken one side over the other. He has proven to be a true statesman and leader, and he truly deserves tremendous credit for the optimistic military situation.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Dont be surprised if Russia's current strategy in Syria looks familiar.....
Of all the things I can say about Vladimir Putin, you'll never hear me accuse him of abandoning a winning strategy. Russia has no hesitation whatsoever in repeating tactics in Syria that have proven effective elsewhere, as on this occasion, Ukraine. Putin understands his opponent well, and can predict his next move. Unfortunately for us (the good guys/gals), Putin's opponent at present is Barack Obama and his State Department, under Secretary of State John Kerry. During the current conflict in Ukraine, Putin has used the tool of diplomacy to win engagement after engagement, without ever firing a shot. The entire situation in Ukraine would be a farce, if it weren't so tragic. Let's be frank, shall we? Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a province of the Republic of Ukraine. To confuse the issue and distract, Putin created a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine. Even Putin was caught by suprise by how quickly the European powers and the United States (which calls the shots for NATO), immediately backed down to Russian aggression and begged for Russia and the separatists to negotiate. Why did Europe and the West fold so quickly? The answer lies with the Oval Office of the United States of America. After winning the 2008 presidential election, the European leaders fought over who was going to fete the first African-American President of the United States. It was a huge occasion in Paris, Berlin and London. Not only could Obama do no wrong socially, but he was given carte blanche with foreign policy as well. Since his inauguration, Obama has controled the foreign policy decisions of just about every European nation. Under normal circumstances, I would consider this development to be prudent, but not under President Obama, who will negotiate himself out of his own underwear, if he gets a chance. Obama seems to believe that showing any strength and momentum in foreign policy is somehow an embarrassment, or an innapropriate expression of aggression. Today is April 30, 2016- after almost eight years of Obama's foreign policy (including a first-term with the worst Secretary of State in memory, Hillary Clinton), terrorism is present on almost every continent, the number of nations either researching nuclear weapons or actually building them has doubled, and right-wing political movements are threatening to take over European governments in the next elections. The Obama Administration has had no proactive policy regarding ANY foreign policy issue. The war in Syria has been raging for over five years; why wasn't the U.S. State Department advising our allies in Europe (especially Turkey and Greece) about the likelihood of refugees? Not to mention the Arab Spring...why were our diplomats so woefully unprepared for the explosion of this political movement, Madame Secretary of State Clinton?
So we return to Syria, where Russian President Putin and his stoolies in Damascus and Teheran are able to implement their plan to use the ISIS emergency to further their efforts at political expansion. Iran has long dreamed of two, apparently impossible dreams: to be the strongest nation in the Persian Gulf region, and to possess atomic weapons. Thanks to two terms of Barack Obama, and both dreams are soon to be reality. Because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi army was prepared to defend itself, ISIS marched in, swallowed up Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and threatened Baghdad. In come the Iranians, playing the role of "advisors" and "instructors", and several Shi'a militias take the field of battle and fight ISIS to a stalemate, until the Iraqi army is prepared to fight its own battles. The Iranians were given the opportunity to be the heroes, the brave soldiers who defeated ISIS. Currently, Iran has more resources at play in Iraq than the United States. Iran has also taken to the battlefield against ISIS in Syria. Iran has traditionally supported the quasi-political religious movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. Iranian volunteers are fighting ISIS in Syria as part of Hezbollah's military support for de facto Syrian President and Putin puppet Bashar al-Assad. Obama's unwillingness to get anywhere near U.S. troops on the ground is well-known to Putin and his Syrian and Iranian pigeons. Russia and Iran have moved into the vacuum created when the Obama Adminstration telegraphed its unwillingness to use the military for diplomatic obligations. And our enemies have taken full advantage.
Whenever new negotiations are announced regarding either Syria or Ukraine, you can rest assured the Russians are planning large-scale military operational activity, either by Russian proxies or by the Russian military itself. If a Republican president is elected this November, it will be interesting to see how much of the Obama approach to foreign policy is adopted, or left behind. As for the Democrats, lets not even consider the nightmare of a President Hillary or President Sanders.
So we return to Syria, where Russian President Putin and his stoolies in Damascus and Teheran are able to implement their plan to use the ISIS emergency to further their efforts at political expansion. Iran has long dreamed of two, apparently impossible dreams: to be the strongest nation in the Persian Gulf region, and to possess atomic weapons. Thanks to two terms of Barack Obama, and both dreams are soon to be reality. Because Obama pulled troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi army was prepared to defend itself, ISIS marched in, swallowed up Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and threatened Baghdad. In come the Iranians, playing the role of "advisors" and "instructors", and several Shi'a militias take the field of battle and fight ISIS to a stalemate, until the Iraqi army is prepared to fight its own battles. The Iranians were given the opportunity to be the heroes, the brave soldiers who defeated ISIS. Currently, Iran has more resources at play in Iraq than the United States. Iran has also taken to the battlefield against ISIS in Syria. Iran has traditionally supported the quasi-political religious movement "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. Iranian volunteers are fighting ISIS in Syria as part of Hezbollah's military support for de facto Syrian President and Putin puppet Bashar al-Assad. Obama's unwillingness to get anywhere near U.S. troops on the ground is well-known to Putin and his Syrian and Iranian pigeons. Russia and Iran have moved into the vacuum created when the Obama Adminstration telegraphed its unwillingness to use the military for diplomatic obligations. And our enemies have taken full advantage.
Whenever new negotiations are announced regarding either Syria or Ukraine, you can rest assured the Russians are planning large-scale military operational activity, either by Russian proxies or by the Russian military itself. If a Republican president is elected this November, it will be interesting to see how much of the Obama approach to foreign policy is adopted, or left behind. As for the Democrats, lets not even consider the nightmare of a President Hillary or President Sanders.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Iraqi Armed Forces, alongside Shi'a militia, making progress in retaking territory from ISIS.
Since the recovery of Ramadi, the Iraqi Armed Forces have continued to put pressure on ISIS elements by clearing ISIS from the Hit District, and moving to isolate ISIS forces in Fallujah. The Shi'a militias, still fighting under the banner of "Popular Mobilization Units", have also been successful, as ISIS seems to be unable to conduct the daily terror attacks and suicide bombings that were conducted last summer with such frequency. In particular, Baghdad and Diyala Province are no longer suffering from the terrorist attacks that had become so familiar. The Iraqi military is determined to consolidate its position in Baiji and to end ISIS operations against Hadithah, but efforts to retake Mosul remain a priority. ISIS has had the opportunity to consolidate its hold on Mosul and to fortify the city in typical ISIS fashion, which includes booby traps and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The Iraqi Army currently in the field is not the Iraqi Army that faced off against ISIS outside of Tikrit in 2014. The Iraqi military of today has become familiar with the strategy and tactics of ISIS, including the use of human hostages and hidden explosive devices, and has turned the table on ISIS attempts to utilize fear and intimidation as a weapon. The Iraqi military has benefitted greatly from the training providing by U.S. Special Forces. ISIS was using the same strategies employed by the Iraqi insurgents in 2006-7, which included targeting civilians and taking hostages; the Iraqi Army is using tactics employed by the U.S. Army against the insurgency, which included using superior manpower, weaponry and air elements to constantly harass the enemy into retreating. The Iranian-supported and Shi'a led Popular Mobilization Forces have been acting in concert with the Iraqi military, and has succeeded in pushing ISIS out of Sammarah.
It is obvious that ISIS has suffered some serious setbacks in Iraq during the first months of 2016. ISIS has had difficulty resupplying its forces in Iraq, and continued Russian pressure in Syria is forcing ISIS leaders to make difficult decisions regarding reinforcements. Although ISIS has not been forced to retreat in Syria as it has been obliged to do in Iraq, the issue of supply has become a priority. ISIS continues to successfully recruit outside of the Middle East, and funding has not diminished. But the United States and its European partners have had success intercepting and disrupting some of ISIS' funding mechanisms, which has impacted the organization's ability to pay its operatives. Also, resupplying has been very difficult, and almost always conducted under the cover of night. The overall situation on the ground in Syria and Iraq and moved decidedly in favor of the U.S., Russia, Iran, and Bashar al-Assad. With the involvement of Russia in Syria, very attempt to degrade ISIS will be an effort in support of al-Assad and his Syrian Ba'ath party. This conclusion is unavoidable. Given the nuclear treaty drafted last year and signed by the U.S., major European nations, and Iran, it appears as if the U.S. is interested in furthering the influence and military presence of Iran. For the moment, the Iranians appear content to meddle with Iraqi internal political affairs, and will let the Popular Mobilization Units do its fighting. It will be interesting to see what policy is adopted by the United States, provided a Republican wins the presidency in 2016. Obviously, its traditional to oppose the Iranians, but if events continue to favor al-Assad, Russia and Iran, it will prove very difficult to revert to previous policy.
It is obvious that ISIS has suffered some serious setbacks in Iraq during the first months of 2016. ISIS has had difficulty resupplying its forces in Iraq, and continued Russian pressure in Syria is forcing ISIS leaders to make difficult decisions regarding reinforcements. Although ISIS has not been forced to retreat in Syria as it has been obliged to do in Iraq, the issue of supply has become a priority. ISIS continues to successfully recruit outside of the Middle East, and funding has not diminished. But the United States and its European partners have had success intercepting and disrupting some of ISIS' funding mechanisms, which has impacted the organization's ability to pay its operatives. Also, resupplying has been very difficult, and almost always conducted under the cover of night. The overall situation on the ground in Syria and Iraq and moved decidedly in favor of the U.S., Russia, Iran, and Bashar al-Assad. With the involvement of Russia in Syria, very attempt to degrade ISIS will be an effort in support of al-Assad and his Syrian Ba'ath party. This conclusion is unavoidable. Given the nuclear treaty drafted last year and signed by the U.S., major European nations, and Iran, it appears as if the U.S. is interested in furthering the influence and military presence of Iran. For the moment, the Iranians appear content to meddle with Iraqi internal political affairs, and will let the Popular Mobilization Units do its fighting. It will be interesting to see what policy is adopted by the United States, provided a Republican wins the presidency in 2016. Obviously, its traditional to oppose the Iranians, but if events continue to favor al-Assad, Russia and Iran, it will prove very difficult to revert to previous policy.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Current political situation in Iraq may result in the fall of Prime Minister al-Albadi
The current Iraqi political mess appears to be more focused and organized than in the past. A rump parallel paliament, determined to increase Iranian influence in Baghdad, continues to challenge the authority of the Council of Representatives. The Iraqi Constitution is written to provide a checks and balances system that is similar to the U.S. Constitution, but Iraqi politics really is about who has the most supporters and authority with the militias. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has managed to fight off a number of efforts to remove him from office. When the war against ISIS goes badly, the various political groups lay-off the anti-Abadi campaign, for fear that if Abadi falls and ISIS takes comtrol of Baghdad, then the Iranians may not be so willing to interfere in Iraqi politics. But when the military situation is positive, as appears to be the case currently, the effort to remove Abadi and install an Iranian puppet regime. As long as ISIS constitues a real threat to Iraq, the Iranians will not commit themselves militarily. Currently the Iranians are content to have operatives on the ground in every province, and to to keep advisors in place with the various Shia militias. The recent successes on the battlefield have emboldened the pro-Iranian elements to attempt a coup and install a pro-Iranian government while the military situation is positive. Teheran is a bit more pragmatic than its Shia supporters in Iraq, and will no doubt wait for what it considers to be an ideal environment before commiting regular forces to the conflict in Iraq.
Given the equities involved, why haven't the Iranians moved into Iraqi full-force and push ISIS out of Iraq? Such an effort would certainly increase the public support for Iran and embarrass the United States, which has been supporting the Abadi Administration with military aid and U.S. Special Forces. No doubt Iran is determined to control Iraq, and the Iranians would welcome the opportunity to play the role of "liberators", but the Iranian military is not up to the task of providing military support and troops to the Hezbollah-supported effort in Syria. Iran has a long history of supporting Hezbollah and the de facto president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. The situation could change dramatically within the next month. If the Russian effort to prop-up Bashar al-Assad is successful, and the Iranian troops who have been fighting on the Syrian front are welcomed home as victors, the pressure would be on Teheran to follow up the victory in Syria with a successful campaign against ISIS in Iraq. As things stand, Teheran does not appear to be ready to commit regular military elements into Iraq, especially when Iran has ongoing commitments in Syria and Yemen. Don't expect to see an increase in Iranian military activity while the conflict in Syria continues. Teheran loves a military parade, but when it comes to commiting resources in a foreign conflict, the Iranians will be patient and wait until the situation either deteriorates further, or an armistace or ceasefire manages to take hold. Another variable in the mix is the U.S. political season. The Iranians will want to know who sits in the Oval Office before embarking on a full-scale military effort in Iraq. The Iranians do not want a confrontation with the United States, especially given the freedom they have to basically act unilaterally in the region. The Iranians will be content to continue its efforts in supporting Hezbollah in Syria, and by providing advisors and military specialists to the Shia militias in Iraq. So much will depend on who sits in the White House in 2017.
Given the equities involved, why haven't the Iranians moved into Iraqi full-force and push ISIS out of Iraq? Such an effort would certainly increase the public support for Iran and embarrass the United States, which has been supporting the Abadi Administration with military aid and U.S. Special Forces. No doubt Iran is determined to control Iraq, and the Iranians would welcome the opportunity to play the role of "liberators", but the Iranian military is not up to the task of providing military support and troops to the Hezbollah-supported effort in Syria. Iran has a long history of supporting Hezbollah and the de facto president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. The situation could change dramatically within the next month. If the Russian effort to prop-up Bashar al-Assad is successful, and the Iranian troops who have been fighting on the Syrian front are welcomed home as victors, the pressure would be on Teheran to follow up the victory in Syria with a successful campaign against ISIS in Iraq. As things stand, Teheran does not appear to be ready to commit regular military elements into Iraq, especially when Iran has ongoing commitments in Syria and Yemen. Don't expect to see an increase in Iranian military activity while the conflict in Syria continues. Teheran loves a military parade, but when it comes to commiting resources in a foreign conflict, the Iranians will be patient and wait until the situation either deteriorates further, or an armistace or ceasefire manages to take hold. Another variable in the mix is the U.S. political season. The Iranians will want to know who sits in the Oval Office before embarking on a full-scale military effort in Iraq. The Iranians do not want a confrontation with the United States, especially given the freedom they have to basically act unilaterally in the region. The Iranians will be content to continue its efforts in supporting Hezbollah in Syria, and by providing advisors and military specialists to the Shia militias in Iraq. So much will depend on who sits in the White House in 2017.
Friday, February 12, 2016
The Nine LIves of Syria's Basar al-Assad.
Anytime between 2010 and 2015, if you had told me that de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would survive Syria's Civil War and eventually once again preside over a government that was recognized by the Western Powers, I would consider you to be a bit out of touch with reality. Let's face it; since the Arab Spring gave real impetus to a budding Syrian opposition movement, things had gone progressively bad for Assad. The fact that he faced an armed opposition movement wasn't necessarily a surprise, but the ability of the rebels to almost immediately put government forces on the defensive was shocking. Why? Because up to the arrival of the Arab Spring, the Syrian Ba'ath Party and Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, had never faced a legitimate threat to their authority. For many years, Syria, under Bashar's old man Hafez al-Assad, held a major place on the Middle Eastern chessboard. Syria was and continues to be Russia's greatest ally in the region. Interestingly enough, the fall of the Soviet Union did not have much impact on Russia-Syria relations. Another long-time and trusted ally of Assad is Iran, a fact which has proved beneficial in the evolution of Iran's new partnership with Russia. Regardless, until two months ago, Assad appeared finished. Jabhat al-Nusra, a major opponent of the Assad regime, had been making tremendous advances on the battlefields of northwest Syria since Spring 2015. ISIS was not far behind, harassing regime elements in far east Syria, and also in and around Damascus itself. Everyday seemed to bring a news item detailing the latest defeat of government forces. Then Russia and Iran decided to not only stir the pot, but to tip it over completely. Russia's military intrusion into Syria left very little to the imagination, deploying impressive amounts of military hardware and soldiers from the very beginning. Putin's public announcements attempted to paint Russia's military deployment (and almost immediate targeted bombing campaign) as just another sincere effort on behalf of one of the "good guys", to destroy ISIS. At the same time, Iran increased effortd to involve itself on the conflict through its surrogate Hezbollah. Most experts were not fooled. Putin's vaunted "bombing campaign to destroy ISIS", wasn't targeting ISIS whatsoever.....at least not in the beginning. After the first week or so of watching the Russian Air Force pulverize Assad's indigenous Syrian opposition, complaints. started to be directed toward Moscow. The result? Now, instead of ten out of ten bombing sorties targeting Assad opposition, now eight out of ten were focused on the regime's internal enemies, with the remaining two managing to drop a few bombs on ISIS Headquarters in Raqqah.
All along, the purpose of direct Russian military involvement in Syria was the survival of Bashar al-Assad. Personally, I don't see what Putin appreciates so much about trained opthemologist Bashar and his Ba'ath Party buddies. Russia could easily just have backed the opposition, and with the United States being completely disengaged, they would have no problem creating a new Russian client state through whatever opposition they decided to support. Why was Assad so important? The answer appears to lie somewhere with Vladimir Putin. He was bound and determined not to see a Russian loyal puppet regime fall victim to a variety of different armed Syrian liberation movements, including a few that were allegedly supported by the United States and Europe. Under the previous Bush Administration, it is highly unlikely that Putin would have acted so brazenly (Russian jets killed many rebels who were trained and supported by the United States...remember the Free Syrian Army?). But President Obama has telegraphed to the world that the United States is "checking out" of complicated foreign affairs during his last year in office. His 2016 State of the Union Address, in which he once again dramatically downplayed the threat ISIS poses to the United States, and absurdly exaggerated the amount of discrimination that Muslim-Americans face stateside, appears to suppprt that belief. Today Russia publicly stressed the need for a negotiated settlement to the Syrian situation (after Assad's legitimate opposition has been decimated). Not surprisingly, the United States and the group of Obama sychophants that pretend to be the leaders of Germany, France, and the UK, have agreed to the Russian proposal. What are the odds that the Russian plan calls for the return of President Bashar al-Assad to power (rhetorical question, folks)?
All along, the purpose of direct Russian military involvement in Syria was the survival of Bashar al-Assad. Personally, I don't see what Putin appreciates so much about trained opthemologist Bashar and his Ba'ath Party buddies. Russia could easily just have backed the opposition, and with the United States being completely disengaged, they would have no problem creating a new Russian client state through whatever opposition they decided to support. Why was Assad so important? The answer appears to lie somewhere with Vladimir Putin. He was bound and determined not to see a Russian loyal puppet regime fall victim to a variety of different armed Syrian liberation movements, including a few that were allegedly supported by the United States and Europe. Under the previous Bush Administration, it is highly unlikely that Putin would have acted so brazenly (Russian jets killed many rebels who were trained and supported by the United States...remember the Free Syrian Army?). But President Obama has telegraphed to the world that the United States is "checking out" of complicated foreign affairs during his last year in office. His 2016 State of the Union Address, in which he once again dramatically downplayed the threat ISIS poses to the United States, and absurdly exaggerated the amount of discrimination that Muslim-Americans face stateside, appears to suppprt that belief. Today Russia publicly stressed the need for a negotiated settlement to the Syrian situation (after Assad's legitimate opposition has been decimated). Not surprisingly, the United States and the group of Obama sychophants that pretend to be the leaders of Germany, France, and the UK, have agreed to the Russian proposal. What are the odds that the Russian plan calls for the return of President Bashar al-Assad to power (rhetorical question, folks)?
Saturday, January 9, 2016
As terrorism becomes part of our daily lives, President Obama is not even looking for the battlefield.
As much as possible, I try and keep the blog politics-free. The truth is, that occasionally, its just not possible, nor should it be. Politics impact every aspect of our lives, and it certainly plays a large part in the current events we address here at Mukhabarat, Baby! The day of the San Bernardino shootings, I posted a blog that delivered a dire warning regarding the future. I opined that if Islamic extremists had been able to develop a network of sleeper cells in cities across the United States, than we can expect not a rash of high profile attacks, but a monthly event to keep the issue in the news, and keep the fear alive in our communities. The enemy doesn't want a body count as much as they want to change the way we live our lives. An attack in this west coast location this week, and another incident in the southeast two weeks later, will be the modus operandi of a forward-thinking terrorist group. As long as the newspapers and the media are talking about preparedness and the need to react by altering our schedules and lifestyles, then the bad guys are on track. The attack in Philadelphia today, and other similar incidents have me very concerned that the enemy is taking this route, in its never-ending effort to see us abandon our hard-won freedoms and retreat behind locked doors and security systems. I urge my readers to live your lives with a reasonable amount of caution ("no vacation to Damascus this spring, Mildred"), but to fight the enemy with the tools for which so many heroes over the years have made the ultimate sacrifice: enjoy the freedoms we have, spend time out with family and friends, and take that vacation to the Ozarks. For those of us who can no longer carry a rifle on the battlefield, we have our own way of fighting back. We must live free.
Last week, President Obama once again used Executive Authority to make law. Executive Authority exists for a reason. It provides the president with the tools necessary to make decisions in a time of great national crisis. President Obama, taking full advantage of the raw emotions relating to the recent events in San Bernardino, signed an ideologically motivated law that will make it more difficult for persons who want to legally purchase a firearm. Obama sees himself as a master of theater, but truly, he is an amateur. We've seen the tears before, and bringing the kids on stage isn't a novel idea either. The law that you passed using abusing Executive Action will not impact criminals and terrorists who want to repeat what occurred in San Bernardino. Creating more laws to impede law-abiding citizens has been shown time-and-again to accomplish one thing: it strengthens the Black Market, which is where the bad guys usually get their weapons, anyways. The shooters in San Bernardino allegedly convinced a friend to buy the weapons. Will Obama's new law prevent friends from buying firearms and then illegally selling them or giving them away? I don't think so. The point is, Obama is anxious to solidify his legacy as a progressive thinker who didn't let something as meaningless as our checks-and-balances system of government interfere with his obligation to help the American people who are too stupid to help themselves.
I've heard a number of Obama supporters screeching about the use of Executive Action by George Bush (oh, how they do still hate Bush! LOL.) and others. If a president chooses to utilize Executive Action in manner that does not threaten the separation of powers and our checks-and-balances system, then it is not an ABUSE. Executive Action has been used in the past, but not for avoiding a confrontation with Congress that the Executive Branch is sure to lose. Obama put Executive Action into effect because he would not be able to get Congress to pass gun-control legislation that was possibly unconstitutional and did nothing to address the actual problem. While this issue is being slapped back-and-forth by commentators and analysts in the media, ISIS, Al-Qaida, and all the other party poopers continue to kill people. I believe we have reached a point in the history of the United States in which domestic terrorism in the form of the activation of Islamic Extremist sleeper cells (not just groups but single operators as well) may very well become a part of our lives. Our immigration system, built for a moderate level of security by a nation with a tradition and history of welcoming visitors, is not difficult to exploit. Not only would it be possible for the bad guys to set up shop through legal entry on tourist visas, but hiring an expensive and proven smuggler in Mexico is not Rocket Science; the enemy can enter illegally just as well. But the real problem is our complete unwillingness to address the problem at its root. If ISIS is destroyed (and we should take out Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, Khorasan, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Boko Haram simultaneously), then the cells in foreign countries, no longer having access to a support network and resources, dry up and disappear. President Obama would be hard-pressed to declare war on Islamic terrorism, considering he has just sponsored a nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's greatest supporter of terrorism (you know Iran....the "death to America" bunch).
As things are, we can only hope that our superb law enforcement and intelligence organizations can keep a lid on things until we can have a change in the oval Office. Actually, I'm predicting the use of Executive Action on Amnesty/Immigration Reform as well; President Obama does still have a year to work on that legacy, you know.
Last week, President Obama once again used Executive Authority to make law. Executive Authority exists for a reason. It provides the president with the tools necessary to make decisions in a time of great national crisis. President Obama, taking full advantage of the raw emotions relating to the recent events in San Bernardino, signed an ideologically motivated law that will make it more difficult for persons who want to legally purchase a firearm. Obama sees himself as a master of theater, but truly, he is an amateur. We've seen the tears before, and bringing the kids on stage isn't a novel idea either. The law that you passed using abusing Executive Action will not impact criminals and terrorists who want to repeat what occurred in San Bernardino. Creating more laws to impede law-abiding citizens has been shown time-and-again to accomplish one thing: it strengthens the Black Market, which is where the bad guys usually get their weapons, anyways. The shooters in San Bernardino allegedly convinced a friend to buy the weapons. Will Obama's new law prevent friends from buying firearms and then illegally selling them or giving them away? I don't think so. The point is, Obama is anxious to solidify his legacy as a progressive thinker who didn't let something as meaningless as our checks-and-balances system of government interfere with his obligation to help the American people who are too stupid to help themselves.
I've heard a number of Obama supporters screeching about the use of Executive Action by George Bush (oh, how they do still hate Bush! LOL.) and others. If a president chooses to utilize Executive Action in manner that does not threaten the separation of powers and our checks-and-balances system, then it is not an ABUSE. Executive Action has been used in the past, but not for avoiding a confrontation with Congress that the Executive Branch is sure to lose. Obama put Executive Action into effect because he would not be able to get Congress to pass gun-control legislation that was possibly unconstitutional and did nothing to address the actual problem. While this issue is being slapped back-and-forth by commentators and analysts in the media, ISIS, Al-Qaida, and all the other party poopers continue to kill people. I believe we have reached a point in the history of the United States in which domestic terrorism in the form of the activation of Islamic Extremist sleeper cells (not just groups but single operators as well) may very well become a part of our lives. Our immigration system, built for a moderate level of security by a nation with a tradition and history of welcoming visitors, is not difficult to exploit. Not only would it be possible for the bad guys to set up shop through legal entry on tourist visas, but hiring an expensive and proven smuggler in Mexico is not Rocket Science; the enemy can enter illegally just as well. But the real problem is our complete unwillingness to address the problem at its root. If ISIS is destroyed (and we should take out Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, Khorasan, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Boko Haram simultaneously), then the cells in foreign countries, no longer having access to a support network and resources, dry up and disappear. President Obama would be hard-pressed to declare war on Islamic terrorism, considering he has just sponsored a nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's greatest supporter of terrorism (you know Iran....the "death to America" bunch).
As things are, we can only hope that our superb law enforcement and intelligence organizations can keep a lid on things until we can have a change in the oval Office. Actually, I'm predicting the use of Executive Action on Amnesty/Immigration Reform as well; President Obama does still have a year to work on that legacy, you know.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Obama Administration changes backtracks in Syria, stating that regime change is not imperative.
Link: U.S. accepts Russia's stance regarding Bashar al-Assad.
In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq. Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State. In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS. Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar. Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity. Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States. In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property. But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad. No need to ask why. The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.
Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news. Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road. The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions. No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times. At this moment in time, Putin is running the show. The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines. Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower. The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking. Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower. Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner. His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart. For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets. In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?
In a move which reflects the complete collapse of coherent policy in the latter days of the Obama Administration, United States Secretary of State John Kerry announced this week that the U.S. no longer believed that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq. Until now, the U.S. policy had been squarely behind the conviction that a future, peaceful Syria would not have Bashar al-Assad as it's Chief of State. In fact, U.S. policy (and money) had been focused on various indigenous Syrian groups who were opposing both the Assad regime and ISIS. Over the years, Syria has been a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy in the Levant, basically because of the Syrian Ba'ath Party and two men, Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar. Both men ruled Syria as Presidential strongmen, tolerating no opposition, playing any internal opposition of against each other, and declaring "death to Israel" at just about every opportunity. Syria and the Assad-led Ba'athists had no reason to expect generosity from the United States. In fact, a good argument can be made that Syria has on more than a few occasions has supported terrorist actions against U.S. civilians and property. But for some reason, the U.S. State Department chose this week to make up with Assad. No need to ask why. The reason the Obama Administration removed its previous insistence that Assad had to go is because the United States Department of State has become unwilling to oppose Russia on any terms.
Earlier this year, the conflict in Ukraine was headline news. Watching the drama unfold was fascinating, as Russia openly manipulated an emasculated Europe and United States, to solidify its annexation of Crimea and set the stage for further dismemberment of Ukraine down the road. The only action the Obama Administration was willing to take to confront Russia was the threat of more sanctions. No doubt the sanctions regime that eventually took hold caused some disruption in the Russian economy, but the Russian people are used to sacrifice, and over the years they have shown their disdain for the use of economics as a weapon; the Germans tried to starve Russia in both the first and second World Wars, and failed miserably both times. At this moment in time, Putin is running the show. The EU, NATO, and the United States show no real inclination to stand up to Russian aggression, and the Chinese seem to be content to watch from the sidelines. Russia intends on destroying ISIS and remaking the Middle East, but according to its designs, which include Iran as a regional superpower. The disappearance of the United States has been breathtaking. Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are scrambling to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran, supported by Russia as the world's sole superpower. Putin has laid his cards on the table; he is determined to rewrite the legacy of the Cold War, this time with Russia as the winner. His timing has been perfect, with U.S. President Barack Obama apparently uninterested in facing down his Russian counterpart. For the moment, what Russia wants, Russia gets. In 2016, a new President moves into the Oval Office; will it be too late to set things right again?
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Iraq: U.S. compromises with Iran have not influenced the Iranians to abandon the policy of undermining United States initiatives.
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......
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......
Monday, November 30, 2015
Iraqi military and special police preparing assault to retake Ramadi.
Link: Iraqi government forces close in on Ramadi.
With recent events in Syria and Paris dominating the international press, the Iraqi government's much-publicized offensive to retake Ramadi is no longer front-page news. Actually, the struggle to retake Ramadi has taken much longer than the government and the Iraqi people expected. Combat around Baiji and in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq have made for much more interesting journalism, as the average person begins to consider that the Ramadi campaign has become a stalemate. Fortunately, in the last few days, news reports from the Iraqi government and the Pentagon indicate that the Iraqi Armed Forces are getting very close to recapturing the capital city of Anbar Province. It is estimated that ISIS has roughly 600 to 1000 fighters still hunkered down in the few downtown neighborhoods that government forces have yet to reoccupy. The fact that the Iraqi government is determined to complete this operation according to plan, with minimal casualties and damage to infrastructure, is very encouraging. Its true that the campaign to retake the city has not followed the most ideal timetable, but the Iraqi authorities have been able to carefully search areas formally occupied by ISIS, in order to remove any improvised explosive devices or abandoned munitions.
Last Wednesday, Iraqi forces took possession of the Palestine Bridge in the northwest part of the city. The bridge, which spans the Euphrates River, was a vital link to food and other supplies for ISIS. The coalition air campaign continues to harass ISIS by strafing supply routes and bombing key defensive positions. In fact, air support has proven particularly effective in destroying explosives that were purposely planted in abandoned structures in the downtown part of the city. Aggressive action by the coalition air support has been instrumental in saving the lives of ground troops, as explosives disposal teams prepare to enter neighborhoods that have been cleared of ISIS snipers. Iraqi authorities fully expect the remaining ISIS operatives to fight to the death.
Once the military campaign to liberate Ramadi is complete, the Iraqi military will focus on bringing relief to Haditha, which although occupied by Iraqi forces, has been under assault by ISIS for most of the year. In recent weeks, coalition air attacks have successfully targeted ISIS positions and prevented the delivery of supplies to ISIS operatives near Haditha. Al-Asad Air Base in outside of Haditha, and presents a valuable target for ISIS. U.S. troops have been present at Al-Asad for some time, providing important training to Iraqi personnel. For some inexplicable reason, the Obama Administration made no attempt to keep this particular bit of information confidential. Once the international media got wind of the presence of U.S. troops at Al-Asad, ISIS wasn't far behind. Can you imagine if ISIS were to overrun that base and take our young men and women prisoner? Fortunately, recent combat in the Haditha area has severely compromised ISIS' ability to conduct offensive activity. No doubt the Iraqis are also determined to remove ISIS from Fallujah, which sits northeast of Ramadi and is actually closer to Baghdad (as the crow flies). The various Shi'a militias were more-or-less assigned the task of retaking Fallujah, while the Iraqi Regular Army and Special Police targeted Ramadi. At various times over the past six months, it appeared that Fallujah would fall first. The fact that Ramadi will indeed be reoccupied by government forces before the Iranian-backed militias have removed ISIS from Fallujah will be celebrated in Baghdad, where the populace has begun to voice its annoyance at what is perceived to be Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs.
With recent events in Syria and Paris dominating the international press, the Iraqi government's much-publicized offensive to retake Ramadi is no longer front-page news. Actually, the struggle to retake Ramadi has taken much longer than the government and the Iraqi people expected. Combat around Baiji and in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq have made for much more interesting journalism, as the average person begins to consider that the Ramadi campaign has become a stalemate. Fortunately, in the last few days, news reports from the Iraqi government and the Pentagon indicate that the Iraqi Armed Forces are getting very close to recapturing the capital city of Anbar Province. It is estimated that ISIS has roughly 600 to 1000 fighters still hunkered down in the few downtown neighborhoods that government forces have yet to reoccupy. The fact that the Iraqi government is determined to complete this operation according to plan, with minimal casualties and damage to infrastructure, is very encouraging. Its true that the campaign to retake the city has not followed the most ideal timetable, but the Iraqi authorities have been able to carefully search areas formally occupied by ISIS, in order to remove any improvised explosive devices or abandoned munitions.
Last Wednesday, Iraqi forces took possession of the Palestine Bridge in the northwest part of the city. The bridge, which spans the Euphrates River, was a vital link to food and other supplies for ISIS. The coalition air campaign continues to harass ISIS by strafing supply routes and bombing key defensive positions. In fact, air support has proven particularly effective in destroying explosives that were purposely planted in abandoned structures in the downtown part of the city. Aggressive action by the coalition air support has been instrumental in saving the lives of ground troops, as explosives disposal teams prepare to enter neighborhoods that have been cleared of ISIS snipers. Iraqi authorities fully expect the remaining ISIS operatives to fight to the death.
Once the military campaign to liberate Ramadi is complete, the Iraqi military will focus on bringing relief to Haditha, which although occupied by Iraqi forces, has been under assault by ISIS for most of the year. In recent weeks, coalition air attacks have successfully targeted ISIS positions and prevented the delivery of supplies to ISIS operatives near Haditha. Al-Asad Air Base in outside of Haditha, and presents a valuable target for ISIS. U.S. troops have been present at Al-Asad for some time, providing important training to Iraqi personnel. For some inexplicable reason, the Obama Administration made no attempt to keep this particular bit of information confidential. Once the international media got wind of the presence of U.S. troops at Al-Asad, ISIS wasn't far behind. Can you imagine if ISIS were to overrun that base and take our young men and women prisoner? Fortunately, recent combat in the Haditha area has severely compromised ISIS' ability to conduct offensive activity. No doubt the Iraqis are also determined to remove ISIS from Fallujah, which sits northeast of Ramadi and is actually closer to Baghdad (as the crow flies). The various Shi'a militias were more-or-less assigned the task of retaking Fallujah, while the Iraqi Regular Army and Special Police targeted Ramadi. At various times over the past six months, it appeared that Fallujah would fall first. The fact that Ramadi will indeed be reoccupied by government forces before the Iranian-backed militias have removed ISIS from Fallujah will be celebrated in Baghdad, where the populace has begun to voice its annoyance at what is perceived to be Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Russia to host Syrian peace conference; any Assad opposition that the Russian's haven't killed will be invited to attend.
Links: A. ISIS considered strong suspect in downing of Russian passenger jet over Sinai.
B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.
Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS. Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane. Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt. In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash. This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS. As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary. Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched. This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start. This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives. If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.
Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference. Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference? How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks? As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater. No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive". Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran. The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf. Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli". How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal. The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region. Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism. The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS. Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur. Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS. Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer". Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS. By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.
The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin.
B. Russian action in Syria strengthens Iran.
C. Russian sending clear message to Syrian civilians about support for Assad.
Since the destruction of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai on October 31, the international community was left to decide the veracity of claims of responsibility by ISIS. Although ISIS proved that it had influence in the Sinai last year when an ISIS group attacked an Egyptian military compound, many questioned their ability to actually carry out a successful attack on a passenger plane. Sadly, it seems to be more apparent everyday that ISIS was indeed responsible for this tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of 224 mostly Russians on holiday at Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt. In addition, experts now believe that an onboard bomb was most likely responsible for the crash. This event raises the stakes in the war against ISIS. As most European nations and the United States come to grips with the likelihood that open-border policies have allowed ISIS operatives into the EU and the U.S., security and inspection procedures at airports, ports, and other likely targets will have to be reviewed and increased when necessary. Any person having access to a passenger plane on the ground or a tourist cruise liner in port will have to be vetted and searched. This includes regular employees like pilots, cabin crew, ship officers and crew, maintenance and repair staff, medical personnel, refueling crews, and food and beverage suppliers, for a start. This necessary policy will cause a decided inconvenience for many, but ISIS has shown no regard whatsoever for civilian lives. If they can successfully access a Russian passenger plane on the ground at an Egyptian Airport (Egyptian Airport Security has a solid reputation), then western nations can not take chances.
Regarding the current conflict in Syria, the latest entrant into the war has decided hold a peace conference. Russia intends to invite all factions involved in the conflict to this conference in Moscow, including Syrian opposition to Russia's favorite, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Two questions must be answered before the conference commences: will the Assad opposition boycott the conference? How many members of the Assad opposition feel safe to travel to Moscow, in light of the beating they have taken from Russian bombs in the last two weeks? As Russia continues to build its own anti-ISIS coalition, this conference is an important opportunity for Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that Russia is indeed a power-broker in the Syrian theater. No doubt the United States, which labeled the conference "premature", will send representatives, in order to not appear "unconstructive". Russia will use the conference as another chance to build up the credentials of its ally, Iran. The captive audience in attendance, diplomatic representatives of China, the United States, European nations, Israel, Turkey, and other concerned parties, will see Iran treated as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf. Russia wishes to perpetuate this idea as often as possible, hoping that the international community will eventually see it as a "fait accompli". How Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates respond will be pivotal. The Gulf monarchies understandably do not want to see Iran become the most powerful leader in the Persian Gulf region. Iran is tied to Shi'a fundamentalism like ISIS is tied to Islamic extremism. The Gulf states are quick to point out Iran's support for Hezbollah, and Iran responds with accusations of Saudi financial support for ISIS. Up to now, this effort to reform Iran's image has been basically diplomatic, but for the world to truly consider Iran in a new light, something monumental must occur. Russia is aware of this fact, and intends on Being the "Eastern Hammer" which will be used to destroy ISIS. Russia, of course, and her budding coalition, will be the "Western Hammer". Once Iran has isolated and minimized the U.S. presence in Iraq, then it will be free to deploy regular divisions from Iran into Iraq, to attack ISIS. By then, Russia will be in a position to fully engage ISIS in the west.
The stage is being set for Russia and Iran to deliver the world from the greatest threat since Nazism.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone else had stepped up to tackle this problem with the conviction of Vladimir Putin.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Russia steps up air campaign in Syria, increasing sorties against ISIS, but continues to target anti-Assad forces.
Link: Russian forces on-the-ground in Syria increase to over 4000.
In response to ISIS advances in the vicinity of Aleppo City, Russian bombing raids against Islamic State targets have increased. On November 2 and 3, Russian warplanes attacked ISIS positions near Palmyra and Qaraytan in eastern Homs, as well as in ar-Raqqah City. Russia claims to be working with Syrian opposition in its targeting of ISIS units. In reality, Russia has coordinated some of its bombing sorties with Syrian opposition that is the least "at odds" with the Assad regime. Russia claimed to have coordinated with Syrian opposition when utilizing precision weapons to attack ISIS targets near Palmyra and Deir ez-Zour, in an effort to pressure the United States to recognize and support the more "moderate" Syrian opposition. As Russia negotiates with Jordan and Israel regarding the make-up of a post-ISIS Syrian government, Putin wants to isolate the more determined and uncompromising of the Syrian opposition groups. A number of the organizations that Russia considers more moderate have only evolved in the more recent stages of the conflict, which will provide a problem for some of the groups who were present in the beginning of the movement to topple Bashar al-Assad. Its easy for some to forget that this conflict began as an offshoot of the Arab Spring, and was a ground-roots, indigenous effort to remove Assad. ISIS took advantage of the breakdown in authority and civil control to expand its base and create a three-dimensional battleground in Syria. In reality, the foreign elements involved in Syria should be exclusively focused on the defeat of ISIS, which is in itself, foreign to Syria. When attempting to create an anti-ISIS ground force in Syria utilizing mostly former Assad regime officers, great efforts were made to avoid contact with regime forces. Russia does not accept the obligation to avoid internal Syrian problems. In fact, Russia has used the excuse of opposing ISIS as a shield to conduct one bombing raid after another against Syrian opposition. Recent Russian focus on ISIS targets have been in response to ISIS advances near Aleppo City and international criticism of its up-to-now almost exclusive targeting of Assad's Syrian opposition, vice ISIS positions.
The United States and Russia have made some progress in deconflicting military operations in Syria; a successful short-range communications test with a U.S. fighter was conducted on November 3. But Russia seems determined to continue with its strategy to build Iran into a dominant regional power, and to counter U.S. efforts at strengthening its military cooperation with its eastern European allies. This week Russia deconflicted a contract with Iran for S-300 anti-aircraft systems. This agreement had been stalled for some time as Iran focused on developments in Iraq and nuclear treaty negotiations with Europe and the United States. In a typically heavy-handed attempt at intimidation, Russia launched one of its largest missile tests of the year on the day of the meeting in Vienna to discuss the Syrian conflict. Russia is also suspected of supporting the action taken by the Moldovan Parliament on October 29 to remove the current government. As NATO stepped up efforts to strengthen its ties in eastern Europe, Russia launched a snap aviation drill in Kaliningrad. Russia has a habit of occupying its opponents with diplomacy and other distractions, while continuing whatever action has caused disagreement. Expect Russia to continue its efforts to prop up Assad and to build Iran into an international player. Iran has a very important role to play in Vladimir Putin's larger plan to propel Russia into the role of sole world superpower.
In response to ISIS advances in the vicinity of Aleppo City, Russian bombing raids against Islamic State targets have increased. On November 2 and 3, Russian warplanes attacked ISIS positions near Palmyra and Qaraytan in eastern Homs, as well as in ar-Raqqah City. Russia claims to be working with Syrian opposition in its targeting of ISIS units. In reality, Russia has coordinated some of its bombing sorties with Syrian opposition that is the least "at odds" with the Assad regime. Russia claimed to have coordinated with Syrian opposition when utilizing precision weapons to attack ISIS targets near Palmyra and Deir ez-Zour, in an effort to pressure the United States to recognize and support the more "moderate" Syrian opposition. As Russia negotiates with Jordan and Israel regarding the make-up of a post-ISIS Syrian government, Putin wants to isolate the more determined and uncompromising of the Syrian opposition groups. A number of the organizations that Russia considers more moderate have only evolved in the more recent stages of the conflict, which will provide a problem for some of the groups who were present in the beginning of the movement to topple Bashar al-Assad. Its easy for some to forget that this conflict began as an offshoot of the Arab Spring, and was a ground-roots, indigenous effort to remove Assad. ISIS took advantage of the breakdown in authority and civil control to expand its base and create a three-dimensional battleground in Syria. In reality, the foreign elements involved in Syria should be exclusively focused on the defeat of ISIS, which is in itself, foreign to Syria. When attempting to create an anti-ISIS ground force in Syria utilizing mostly former Assad regime officers, great efforts were made to avoid contact with regime forces. Russia does not accept the obligation to avoid internal Syrian problems. In fact, Russia has used the excuse of opposing ISIS as a shield to conduct one bombing raid after another against Syrian opposition. Recent Russian focus on ISIS targets have been in response to ISIS advances near Aleppo City and international criticism of its up-to-now almost exclusive targeting of Assad's Syrian opposition, vice ISIS positions.
The United States and Russia have made some progress in deconflicting military operations in Syria; a successful short-range communications test with a U.S. fighter was conducted on November 3. But Russia seems determined to continue with its strategy to build Iran into a dominant regional power, and to counter U.S. efforts at strengthening its military cooperation with its eastern European allies. This week Russia deconflicted a contract with Iran for S-300 anti-aircraft systems. This agreement had been stalled for some time as Iran focused on developments in Iraq and nuclear treaty negotiations with Europe and the United States. In a typically heavy-handed attempt at intimidation, Russia launched one of its largest missile tests of the year on the day of the meeting in Vienna to discuss the Syrian conflict. Russia is also suspected of supporting the action taken by the Moldovan Parliament on October 29 to remove the current government. As NATO stepped up efforts to strengthen its ties in eastern Europe, Russia launched a snap aviation drill in Kaliningrad. Russia has a habit of occupying its opponents with diplomacy and other distractions, while continuing whatever action has caused disagreement. Expect Russia to continue its efforts to prop up Assad and to build Iran into an international player. Iran has a very important role to play in Vladimir Putin's larger plan to propel Russia into the role of sole world superpower.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Russia and Iran; friends for the moment, or for the distance?
Links: A. Russia making military commitment in Syria.
B. Russia warming up to Iran is part of broader Russian policy.
Earlier this year, when it became apparent that Barack Obama had ordered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to successfully conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran, regardless of the sacrifices, there was some confusion regarding the continued closeness of Iran with Russia, who had previously been Iran's closest ally with regards to the nuclear issue. Was it possible that this new treaty, which was actually signed by a few European nations as well, would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Iran, to the detriment of Russia? It certainly wasn't likely, and in fact, within days after the agreement was announced, Iranian religious leaders were up to their tired old bullshit of parading around mass quantities of zealots, screaming, "death to America!". No doubt Vladimir Putin didn't even flinch when news of the treaty reached Moscow. He had been working on his own strategy in the region, and in this plan, Iran is a major player.
Once Putin realized that U.S. President Barack Obama was content to ride out his last term in office, allowing the nuclear treaty to be his "legacy moment in foreign policy", he crafted a new direction for Russian foreign policy, which if successful, would displace the United States as the world's only superpower, to be replaced by Russia. The advent of ISIS and Russia's long-time close relationship with de-facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave Putin the perfect opportunity to implement his plan. Russia would intervene militarily in Syria, and using Assad as a proxy, defeat ISIS. But Putin had no intention of allowing ISIS to retreat into the wastelands of western Iraq, to lick its wounds and reload. Russia's new best friend, Iran, would be the next opponent for ISIS to confront. In fact, Putin's plan was to confront ISIS in Syria with Assad/Russian support, and simultaneously push ISIS westward from Iraq, using the Iranian Shi'a militias, Iraqi Army, and Iranian military units, if necessary. Russia has established itself militarily in Syria, as planned, but Iran has to negotiate its way through a bit of a diplomatic triangle in Iraq. The United States continues to have instructors imbedded with the Iraqi Army, and the U.S.-led air coalition remains active, conducting daily sorties against ISIS targets. Iran's plan is to support the Iraq Army and its Iranian-backed militia partners in action separate from Iraqi Army efforts which involve the U.S., with the intention that one effort will be successful and the other will fail. Currently, the U.S.-supported effort by the Iraqi Army to retake Ramadi appears to be failing, while the recent militia-supported operation to retake Baiji and its important oil refinery was successful. This occurred on the heels of an announcement of the creation of a joint communication cell in Baghdad between the Russians, Iraqis, and Iranians. Putin is convinced that once Iraqi military initiatives directly supported by U.S. personnel fail, that the Obama Administration will throw in the towel. He is betting on the likelihood that a failure in Ramadi will lead to demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq. Once the U.S. is out, then Iran will "lead" the Iraqi Army, militias, and Iranian Special Forces/Republican Guard units in confrontation with ISIS.
Putin's long-term strategy is that by defeating ISIS, Russia and Iran will increase their influence, Russia internationally, and Iran regionally. Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has removed the eyes of the west from Ukraine, allowing Putin to forget that within the last two years, Russia has annexed Crimea, an integral part of the Republic of Ukraine, and that Russian military equipment was responsible for the tragic destruction of a civilian airliner and the murder of hundreds of innocent people. Putin has changed the topic of international conversation. Today, the world is focused on Syria and the continuing refugee problem, which provides Putin with more justification for military involvement in Syria. Someone has to do something; if not Russia, then who? The United States is totally reactive in its international relations, and the current administration does not have the stomach for military casualties. Certainly a united military force created by the various EU nations would handle ISIS without much difficulty, but that option has never even been suggested. Russia had an invitation to take on ISIS, and Iran will have the opportunity to become the dominant nation in the Persian Gulf region because of its impending involvement in the destruction of ISIS.
B. Russia warming up to Iran is part of broader Russian policy.
Earlier this year, when it became apparent that Barack Obama had ordered U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to successfully conclude a nuclear treaty with Iran, regardless of the sacrifices, there was some confusion regarding the continued closeness of Iran with Russia, who had previously been Iran's closest ally with regards to the nuclear issue. Was it possible that this new treaty, which was actually signed by a few European nations as well, would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Iran, to the detriment of Russia? It certainly wasn't likely, and in fact, within days after the agreement was announced, Iranian religious leaders were up to their tired old bullshit of parading around mass quantities of zealots, screaming, "death to America!". No doubt Vladimir Putin didn't even flinch when news of the treaty reached Moscow. He had been working on his own strategy in the region, and in this plan, Iran is a major player.
Once Putin realized that U.S. President Barack Obama was content to ride out his last term in office, allowing the nuclear treaty to be his "legacy moment in foreign policy", he crafted a new direction for Russian foreign policy, which if successful, would displace the United States as the world's only superpower, to be replaced by Russia. The advent of ISIS and Russia's long-time close relationship with de-facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave Putin the perfect opportunity to implement his plan. Russia would intervene militarily in Syria, and using Assad as a proxy, defeat ISIS. But Putin had no intention of allowing ISIS to retreat into the wastelands of western Iraq, to lick its wounds and reload. Russia's new best friend, Iran, would be the next opponent for ISIS to confront. In fact, Putin's plan was to confront ISIS in Syria with Assad/Russian support, and simultaneously push ISIS westward from Iraq, using the Iranian Shi'a militias, Iraqi Army, and Iranian military units, if necessary. Russia has established itself militarily in Syria, as planned, but Iran has to negotiate its way through a bit of a diplomatic triangle in Iraq. The United States continues to have instructors imbedded with the Iraqi Army, and the U.S.-led air coalition remains active, conducting daily sorties against ISIS targets. Iran's plan is to support the Iraq Army and its Iranian-backed militia partners in action separate from Iraqi Army efforts which involve the U.S., with the intention that one effort will be successful and the other will fail. Currently, the U.S.-supported effort by the Iraqi Army to retake Ramadi appears to be failing, while the recent militia-supported operation to retake Baiji and its important oil refinery was successful. This occurred on the heels of an announcement of the creation of a joint communication cell in Baghdad between the Russians, Iraqis, and Iranians. Putin is convinced that once Iraqi military initiatives directly supported by U.S. personnel fail, that the Obama Administration will throw in the towel. He is betting on the likelihood that a failure in Ramadi will lead to demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq. Once the U.S. is out, then Iran will "lead" the Iraqi Army, militias, and Iranian Special Forces/Republican Guard units in confrontation with ISIS.
Putin's long-term strategy is that by defeating ISIS, Russia and Iran will increase their influence, Russia internationally, and Iran regionally. Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has removed the eyes of the west from Ukraine, allowing Putin to forget that within the last two years, Russia has annexed Crimea, an integral part of the Republic of Ukraine, and that Russian military equipment was responsible for the tragic destruction of a civilian airliner and the murder of hundreds of innocent people. Putin has changed the topic of international conversation. Today, the world is focused on Syria and the continuing refugee problem, which provides Putin with more justification for military involvement in Syria. Someone has to do something; if not Russia, then who? The United States is totally reactive in its international relations, and the current administration does not have the stomach for military casualties. Certainly a united military force created by the various EU nations would handle ISIS without much difficulty, but that option has never even been suggested. Russia had an invitation to take on ISIS, and Iran will have the opportunity to become the dominant nation in the Persian Gulf region because of its impending involvement in the destruction of ISIS.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Russia masquerades a moderate international powerbroker, while the Obama Administration belatedly attempts to protect U.S. interests.
Links: U.S. troops "on the ground" have usual rules of engagement.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is aggressively pursuing a policy that is intended to re-mold Russia's international image. For the greater part of the Ukrainian crisis, Putin was faced with regular difficulties complicated by Russia's image as the aggressor in the conflict. When the Russians originally demonstrated their intention to militarily support de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the question was, to what extent? Russia has been a long-time ally of Assad, his predecessor father, former President Hafez al-Assad, and the Syrian Ba'ath Party apparatus, and Vladimir Putin's desire for a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean is no secret. How far would Russia go to prop up Assad? When considering this issue, I was missing out on the greater plan that Russia was putting into place. In order to understand Putin's motivations in Syria, it is necessary to understand Russia's international ambitions. First, lets examine Russia's diplomatic initiatives vis-Ã -vis some of the bit players in this drama.
Russia has softened it tone in all its diplomatic conversations, and is portraying itself as moderate and much less militarily focused as in the past. This may seem like a hard sell, given that Russian jets are currently pounding targets in Syria. But Putin has been successful in shifting world opinion to the idea that Russia is truly interested in destroying ISIS, and that support for Assad is secondary. Certainly no one would accuse Russia of wanting to annex Syria as they Crimea. Russia has targeted U.S. allies Jordan, Egypt and Iraq as part of its campaign to "co-opt" U.S. supporters in the region. Although the U.S. has recently made attempts to defend its traditional turf, the Russians had weeks to chip away at the pro-U.S. attitude in all three nations. In particular, Russia wants to perpetuate the idea that United States is no longer willing to support its allies in serious times of crisis. The knowledge that the Obama Administration is theoretically opposed to large-scale military action is no secret, and these "at risk" countries know that ISIS can only be defeated by a full-on, large scale military commitment, similar to the one the Russians are making in Syria. The comparison makes itself. In fact, the pronouncements of the last few days have come in response to Russian activity. The international community is catching on to something that many of us have known for a some time; that the Obama Administration, all the way back to the days of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is intent on being REACTIVE, as opposed to PROACTIVE.
In eastern Europe, Russia has also mended a few diplomatic fences and won some important electoral victories. A number of towns and communities in eastern Ukraine elected pro-Russian representatives, which was a blow to efforts by Kiev to take the electoral momemtum before any serious referendums are planned. The results also take pressure off Russia regarding the current ceasefire. If fighting breaks out again, Kiev won't be able to accuse Russia and its Donbas separatist allies from trying to refocus world attention after disappointing election results. Most important, and visible from the beginning of Russia's direct military involvement in Syria, is the creation of a Russian client-state in Iran. Everyday it becomes more apparent that these two former adversaries have become BFFs, with Iran going so far as to deploy volunteer "militia" members to fight alongside Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria. Russia successfully lobbied to have Iran invited to an upcoming major international conference on the conflict in Syria. This is the first time that Iran has been invited to a conference of this importance. The question is, why was Iran invited? They do not share a border with Syria, although they have been strong allies of Bashar al-Assad. An even more prescient question? Instead of an invitation to attend the conference, why wasn't Iran issued an invitation to remove its "militiamen" from Syria?
Russian President Vladimir Putin is aggressively pursuing a policy that is intended to re-mold Russia's international image. For the greater part of the Ukrainian crisis, Putin was faced with regular difficulties complicated by Russia's image as the aggressor in the conflict. When the Russians originally demonstrated their intention to militarily support de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the question was, to what extent? Russia has been a long-time ally of Assad, his predecessor father, former President Hafez al-Assad, and the Syrian Ba'ath Party apparatus, and Vladimir Putin's desire for a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean is no secret. How far would Russia go to prop up Assad? When considering this issue, I was missing out on the greater plan that Russia was putting into place. In order to understand Putin's motivations in Syria, it is necessary to understand Russia's international ambitions. First, lets examine Russia's diplomatic initiatives vis-Ã -vis some of the bit players in this drama.
Russia has softened it tone in all its diplomatic conversations, and is portraying itself as moderate and much less militarily focused as in the past. This may seem like a hard sell, given that Russian jets are currently pounding targets in Syria. But Putin has been successful in shifting world opinion to the idea that Russia is truly interested in destroying ISIS, and that support for Assad is secondary. Certainly no one would accuse Russia of wanting to annex Syria as they Crimea. Russia has targeted U.S. allies Jordan, Egypt and Iraq as part of its campaign to "co-opt" U.S. supporters in the region. Although the U.S. has recently made attempts to defend its traditional turf, the Russians had weeks to chip away at the pro-U.S. attitude in all three nations. In particular, Russia wants to perpetuate the idea that United States is no longer willing to support its allies in serious times of crisis. The knowledge that the Obama Administration is theoretically opposed to large-scale military action is no secret, and these "at risk" countries know that ISIS can only be defeated by a full-on, large scale military commitment, similar to the one the Russians are making in Syria. The comparison makes itself. In fact, the pronouncements of the last few days have come in response to Russian activity. The international community is catching on to something that many of us have known for a some time; that the Obama Administration, all the way back to the days of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is intent on being REACTIVE, as opposed to PROACTIVE.
In eastern Europe, Russia has also mended a few diplomatic fences and won some important electoral victories. A number of towns and communities in eastern Ukraine elected pro-Russian representatives, which was a blow to efforts by Kiev to take the electoral momemtum before any serious referendums are planned. The results also take pressure off Russia regarding the current ceasefire. If fighting breaks out again, Kiev won't be able to accuse Russia and its Donbas separatist allies from trying to refocus world attention after disappointing election results. Most important, and visible from the beginning of Russia's direct military involvement in Syria, is the creation of a Russian client-state in Iran. Everyday it becomes more apparent that these two former adversaries have become BFFs, with Iran going so far as to deploy volunteer "militia" members to fight alongside Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria. Russia successfully lobbied to have Iran invited to an upcoming major international conference on the conflict in Syria. This is the first time that Iran has been invited to a conference of this importance. The question is, why was Iran invited? They do not share a border with Syria, although they have been strong allies of Bashar al-Assad. An even more prescient question? Instead of an invitation to attend the conference, why wasn't Iran issued an invitation to remove its "militiamen" from Syria?
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Russia taking advantage of disinterested Obama Administration to project military strength internationally.
In the last few months, Russia has aggressively extended its military footprint around the globe. While most eyes are focused on Russian military action in Syria, Moscow has completed construction on a military facility in the Arctic, and stepped up diplomatic efforts vis-a-vis Baghdad, Cuba, and the United Nations. Everytime that Russia succeeds in extending its military influence, the United States suffers accordingly. Russia's move to establish s military base in the Arctic comes on the heels of discoveries that the vast frozen areas north of the Arctic Circle hold great potential for mineral and fossil fuel exploration. Researchers and businesses in the United States have also expressed interest in Arctic resource exploration, but the Obama Administration has responded to such entreaties with suspicion and concern regarding the potential ecological impact. Also, the recent rapprochement between the United States and Cuba has apparently not dimmed the close relationship between Moscow and Havana. Many expect Cuba to lead the proposed Russian military "coalition" in Syria. Presently, this coalition can count Iran, pro-regime Syria, Hezbollah, and possibly Belarus as members; many consider this grouping of Russian allies to be a counter to the U.S. coalition already in place in Syria.
A number of U.S. allies are beginning to discreetly express concern over the apparent apathy that appears to dominate the foreign policy of the United States in the later period of the Obama Presidency. Since the election of 2008, most European leaders have been quick to support the Obama Aministration's policies, with the crises in Ukraine and Syria being two prime examples. But as the failure of these policies become more apparent, and Obama seems unwilling to stand up and confront increased Russian global activity, certain European leaders are reviewing what options might be available that do not require the presence of the United States government in a leadership role. No doubt our allies outside of Europe are also concerned about the lack of movement on the part of the United States. China must also recognize that an opportunity currently exists, and will assuredly take advantage as well, while Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Australia wonder if the status quo can hold until a new administration takes over in Washington DC.
At present, more so than at any point in the last seven years, the United States needs to be an international leader. This administration was quick to mobilize its diplomatic resources to conclude terrible treaties with both Russia (2010 New Start disarmament treaty with Russia), and Iran (2015 agreement on Iranian nuclear research). Given that our allies are simply waiting for some sign of strength and consistency, it's not too late to check Vladimit Putin's strategy to create in Russia the world's sole super-power. A fascinating aspect of these developments is that Russia's aggressive military and diplomatic moves have come while the Obama Administration continues to characterize Russia's economy as being close to collapse. It seems as is if we've been waiting for that collapse ever since the beginning of the sanctions regime that was imposed on Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. I'm glad we weren't holding our breath.....
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Events in Iraq strengthen Iran's position.
On October 14, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) announced the commencement of a military ground offensive in the direction of Baiji and the strategic Baiji Oil Refinery. Possession of the refinery has been contested since the initial early successes of the Islamic State (ISIS) in its invasion of Iraq. This particular military initiative is being conducted in close cooperation with the Iranian-backed Shi'a militia Kata'ib al-Imam Ali, with a number of recognizable Iranian military advisers directly involved. The announcement of this effort came as a bit of a suprise as beforehand the priority of the Haider al-Abadi Administration had been the recapture of Ramadi City and the defeat of ISIS in Anbar Province.
Early reports from Baiji indicate that the ISF and the Kata'ib militia have made impressive gains against ISIS positions. A number a small, strategic communities to the west of Baiji have been recaptured, and The refinery itself has been returned to Iraqi government control. We repeat these reports with a word of caution: the Iraqi press has a tendency to produce over-optimistic battlefield reporting, especially in the early stages of a new ISF offensive. ISIS has been on the run in Baiji before, only to return quickly with stronger forces. The Baiji Refinery has consistently been the site of heavy fighting because of its strategic value. Additionally, the Iraqi people have expressed great interest in this particular contested location, which increases its importance from a public morale perspective. During the next week, the actual success of the ground offensive in Baiji will become clearer. If indeed the ISF, with strong support from the proxy militia Kata'ib al-Imam Ali, has reoccupied both Baiji City and the Refinery, it will constitute another victory for Iran over the United States in the effort to curry favor and influence with the Abadi Administration.
Because the United States was heavily involved in training the military units that are currently engaged in the effort to recapture Ramadi City, if the offensive fails, it will have a potentially catastrophic impact on U.S. influence in Baghdad. Coincidentally, since the genesis of recent direct Russian military involvement in Syria, the Iranians have increased their visibility in Iraq. In the past, the Iranians were content to limit their overt exposure to involvement with the Shi'a militias. This has changed, as the Iranians,Russia and Iraq recently created a military coordination office in Baghdad, alongside offers from Moscow to the Abadi Administration to provide valuable intelligence on ISIS. The U.S. responded with a successful raid alongside Kurdish Peshmerga to rescue seventy Kurdish hostages from imminent beheading, but otherwise, the United States appears content to discuss cooperation with Russia regarding Syria, and to leave present military influence in Iraq to Iran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)