Last Monday, December 19, less than one week before Christmas, an act of terror perpetrated at a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany, reminded us that the struggle against Islamic terrorism has not abated. In a scene rememisent of the terror attack in Nice, France last year, a large truck was driven into a cafe/market area which was packed with people enjoying the holiday festivities. Parents, spouses and children of the victims are left to answer the question, "why"? Everytime you turn on the news, one talking head after another is attempting to explain the motivations behind violence committed against civiliams; what a colossal waste of time. Regardless if its ISIS or Al Qaida, Boko Haram or Al Shabaab, Islamic terrorism has is intended to intimidate, frighten and murder Christians, Jews, and on the Indian subcontinent, Hindus. Terrorism for the sake of Islamic Extremism is not a recent development, but the frequency with which these groups are able to strike in Europe and the United States is disturbimg to say the least. No doubt Donald Trump appealed to many voters when he promised during the recent presidential campaign to aggressively combat ISIS. Over the next year, voters in France and Holland will have the opportunity to decide if the current batch of Prime Ministers and Presidents have been doing enough in response to these attacks. The refugee issue, which is directly related to concerns regarding terrorism, is presently the hot-button issue in Europe.
The continued presence of ISIS (and other Islamic extremist groups) in Syria has created a monumental refugee crisis. The Obama Administration has been useless with regards to ending the conflict or addressing the refugee crisis. The Syrian conflict has destroyed almost every urban community outside of Damascus, and the inhabitants have been forced to leave their homes. The European Union has responded to this development by opening its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Not to be outdone, the Obama Administration agreed to resettle large numbers of refugees in the United States. The decision to create humdreds of thousands of new Europeans and Americans has been met with a great deal of opposition in both the United States and various nations in Europe. It has become obvious that ISIS and other terror groups have been planting operatives within the refugee population. The resettlement processes in Europe and the United States have no effective method of identifying the throngs of refugees who continue to show up on the borders of Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and Greece. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has led to campaign to open Europe's borders, is hoping against hope that the person who committed this most recent attack, won't in the end be identified as a recent refugee; I would advise her not to hold her breath.
The organizations and political leaders who argue for quick resettlement of the Syrian refugees are justifiably trying to avoid a human catastrophe. But the answer to this problem should never imclude comprimising the security of persons in North America and Europe. Settimg up quota systems to pressure European governments to quickly resettle thousands of people will only create another kind of human catastrophe. Another issue which seems to get swept under the carpet is the cost of resettlement. Barack Obama has left the American people with a twenty trillion dollar national debt. The EU is facing a major economic crisis in Italy, and France, the second largest economy in the EU, is dealing with a crippling unemployment problem. Many middle and lower income folks in Europe and America are asking the question, "just when did this become my problem?"
The permanent solution to the refugee crisis is to end the conflict in Syria. This goal could have been accomplished years ago if Obama would have had the courage to militarily combat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Russia has stepped in, but will commit itself only as far as its proxy Bashar al-Assad is concerned. Regardless, one cannot escape the fact that Syrians should live in Syria; it's their home. A decided military effort achieved by a military coalition can only be achieved by a leader with great determination, courage, and influence. The conflicts in both Syria and Iraq can only have a military solution, but the good news is that a military solution is possible. Destroying ISIS and resolving the Syrian Civil War will end the refugee problem. Does Donald Trump have what it takes to forge a solution? He certainly believes he does; but for the rest of us, action will speak louder than Twitter.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, December 22, 2016
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.
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.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
The media is driving this election season right off a cliff.
The media in the United States has found it difficult to cultivate a reputation of non-bias. The political right accuses the media of actively promoting liberal candidates and causes, and the left either points out the conservative sympathies of the dominant Fox News Network, or scoffs at hearing the same complaint once again. I was raised in Europe in a multi-cultural household (meaning French-American), and my brother and sister and I developed an international perspective to life at an early age. I have always attempted to stay abreast of political developments in far-off places, and chose an occupation that would ensure a healthy dose of unique environments to live in and absorb. In particular, I have enjoyed international politics. That being said, I rarely commented about politics in other countries unless I had accrued some living time in said location. I may devour the statistical results of Burkina Faso's last Congressional election, but I will keep my comments to myself. Why? Because the political events in most foreign countries do not directly impact me (I said most, not all), and frankly put, it's none of my business. I have spend two decades of my life battling against the specter of "The Ugly Anerican", who continues to expect everyone in Paris to speak English and to have a McDonald's on every street corner of Tbilisi. I refuse to add to the problem by telling people how they should run their own country. In fact, except for providing basic information, I rarely notice U.S. media editorializing about foreign elections (the unavoidable exception being any French election which includes Marine Le Pen and the National Front political party).
That being said, we certainly are not given the same courtesy. Yesterday, while vainly training to reach "Radio Classics-148" on my Sirius Satellite radio without getting distracted on the way (I failed), I caught a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) commentary on the current U.S. political scene. The announcer was forgettable, and his material shockingly predictable, but it still managed to infuriate me, which I'm sure would please Mr. BBC if he knew. The first "fact" regarding the 2016 election that I managed to get from the commentary was that "ignorant, racist" (my quotation marks) people were voting in droves, hence the success that Donald Trump has enjoyed to date. On the left, Bernie Sanders has also enjoyed a surprising level of popularity, but his voters were "young, thoughtful college students determined to have their say". The BBC, picking up where NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and CBS left off, has no problem expressing its own opinion regarding U.S. politics. I'm so ancient, I remember a time when the media at least made an effort to appear unbiased. The commentary continued to insult, repeatedly referring to Donald Trump's political ideology as "racist and bigoted". I don't recall Ted Cruz being mentioned much, but I belief Kasich was introduced as the only moderate in the Republican field, so therefore obviously having no chance whatsoever. The commentator mentioned Hillary Clinton, barely disguising his sadness regarding her high negative ratings and continued problems with "server-gate".
I should have anticipated what the BBC had to offer beforehand and kept that dial moving until I reached "Dragnet" or "Johnny Dollar, Insurance Investigator". Instead, I listened to the entire commentary and was reminded of just how stupid the British people must think we are, as they ponder how in the heck we managed to defeat them in two wars. If I had been delivering a commentary instead of Mr. BBC, my perspective wouldn't have taken long to share. Donald Trump, who I DO NOT support, is on the receiving end of a angry and frightened electorate's attempt to change the direction in which our country is headed. Contrary to the smart folks at the BBC, I do not believe that the "bigot and racist" voting bloc has finally showed its strenth in 2016. The simple truth is that changes are taking place in the United States that are subtlety impacting the way our children are raised and the way in which we represent ourselves internationally. The current administration has been determined to steadily increase the number of Americans who are dependent upon Washington DC for a paycheck, for programs regarding elementary education, and to make moral decisions without really taking into account the perspective of the majority of Americans. The Obama Administration has purposely politicized the government to the point that career civil service employees either jump on board the entitlement express, or retire. The Justice Department and the FBI have been told what and who to investigate, just as the IRS, with a brand-new politically appointed Director, starts harassing Conservative political organizations and lining up their supporters for audits. President Obama has decided that he is just too intelligent to be burdened with the Constitution, so instead of working with Congress, Executive Action is used to handle controversial issues. As for our international standing, the free world has been effectively without a leader since 2008. Actually, the Obama Administration did decide to impact one particular foreign environment: Iraq. Because we unexpectedly removed our troops (and military instructors) in 2010, ISIS took full advantage, crossed back into Iraq from Syria, forced military engagement with the Iraqi Army outside Tikrit, and when the scared, untrained 17-year old Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and ran back towards Baghdad, ISIS was on the receiving end of a military weapons and supplies haul like has never before been seen.
These are just some of the reasons that the American people are voting for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Both men are considered to be outside the GOP establishment, which has avoided standing up to this Administration at almost every opportunity (there is no shame in being called a "racist", Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan, if the accusation is FALSE). The American Conservative voter is demanding change, and will not relax until steps are taken to address the obscene national debt. Jeb Bush never got off the schneid because conservatives want change. The Democrats are flirting with "Chairman Mao" Bernie Sanders but will eventually rally behind Hillary. Seems to me they are only interested in turning back the clock, some of them to the days of Marx and Engels.
I began this long post with a complaint regarding the media, and I will try and end on that note. We can't control what decisions are made by the press and media, and they would ignore our advice regardless. They are the ultimate elite and understand economics, foreign policy, and the human heart so much better than the Unwashed Masses. What I dream of is a media that presents the news, full stop. Who decided that we needed editorials anyways? When did some network corporate genius come along and decide that we were too stupid to understand the events taking place in our world, so they needed to EXPLAIN it too us. In 2008, the European media fell in love with Barack Obama, and instructed Europeans (including political leaders) to love him as well. Nothing else can explain the blind loyalty with which the EU has supported a president who took office with no military experience, unable to understand any language but English, and having never really had a job. So BBC, following in line behind most U.S. media, has discovered that the voters who have chosen Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to fight it out for the nomination, are crusty, angry, ignorant racist bigots. Let's see how far this gets them as the election heats up.
PS (WANTED: A non-political news service that gives me the news, and has enough faith in me to assume that I can figure out the details on my own.)
That being said, we certainly are not given the same courtesy. Yesterday, while vainly training to reach "Radio Classics-148" on my Sirius Satellite radio without getting distracted on the way (I failed), I caught a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) commentary on the current U.S. political scene. The announcer was forgettable, and his material shockingly predictable, but it still managed to infuriate me, which I'm sure would please Mr. BBC if he knew. The first "fact" regarding the 2016 election that I managed to get from the commentary was that "ignorant, racist" (my quotation marks) people were voting in droves, hence the success that Donald Trump has enjoyed to date. On the left, Bernie Sanders has also enjoyed a surprising level of popularity, but his voters were "young, thoughtful college students determined to have their say". The BBC, picking up where NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and CBS left off, has no problem expressing its own opinion regarding U.S. politics. I'm so ancient, I remember a time when the media at least made an effort to appear unbiased. The commentary continued to insult, repeatedly referring to Donald Trump's political ideology as "racist and bigoted". I don't recall Ted Cruz being mentioned much, but I belief Kasich was introduced as the only moderate in the Republican field, so therefore obviously having no chance whatsoever. The commentator mentioned Hillary Clinton, barely disguising his sadness regarding her high negative ratings and continued problems with "server-gate".
I should have anticipated what the BBC had to offer beforehand and kept that dial moving until I reached "Dragnet" or "Johnny Dollar, Insurance Investigator". Instead, I listened to the entire commentary and was reminded of just how stupid the British people must think we are, as they ponder how in the heck we managed to defeat them in two wars. If I had been delivering a commentary instead of Mr. BBC, my perspective wouldn't have taken long to share. Donald Trump, who I DO NOT support, is on the receiving end of a angry and frightened electorate's attempt to change the direction in which our country is headed. Contrary to the smart folks at the BBC, I do not believe that the "bigot and racist" voting bloc has finally showed its strenth in 2016. The simple truth is that changes are taking place in the United States that are subtlety impacting the way our children are raised and the way in which we represent ourselves internationally. The current administration has been determined to steadily increase the number of Americans who are dependent upon Washington DC for a paycheck, for programs regarding elementary education, and to make moral decisions without really taking into account the perspective of the majority of Americans. The Obama Administration has purposely politicized the government to the point that career civil service employees either jump on board the entitlement express, or retire. The Justice Department and the FBI have been told what and who to investigate, just as the IRS, with a brand-new politically appointed Director, starts harassing Conservative political organizations and lining up their supporters for audits. President Obama has decided that he is just too intelligent to be burdened with the Constitution, so instead of working with Congress, Executive Action is used to handle controversial issues. As for our international standing, the free world has been effectively without a leader since 2008. Actually, the Obama Administration did decide to impact one particular foreign environment: Iraq. Because we unexpectedly removed our troops (and military instructors) in 2010, ISIS took full advantage, crossed back into Iraq from Syria, forced military engagement with the Iraqi Army outside Tikrit, and when the scared, untrained 17-year old Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and ran back towards Baghdad, ISIS was on the receiving end of a military weapons and supplies haul like has never before been seen.
These are just some of the reasons that the American people are voting for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Both men are considered to be outside the GOP establishment, which has avoided standing up to this Administration at almost every opportunity (there is no shame in being called a "racist", Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan, if the accusation is FALSE). The American Conservative voter is demanding change, and will not relax until steps are taken to address the obscene national debt. Jeb Bush never got off the schneid because conservatives want change. The Democrats are flirting with "Chairman Mao" Bernie Sanders but will eventually rally behind Hillary. Seems to me they are only interested in turning back the clock, some of them to the days of Marx and Engels.
I began this long post with a complaint regarding the media, and I will try and end on that note. We can't control what decisions are made by the press and media, and they would ignore our advice regardless. They are the ultimate elite and understand economics, foreign policy, and the human heart so much better than the Unwashed Masses. What I dream of is a media that presents the news, full stop. Who decided that we needed editorials anyways? When did some network corporate genius come along and decide that we were too stupid to understand the events taking place in our world, so they needed to EXPLAIN it too us. In 2008, the European media fell in love with Barack Obama, and instructed Europeans (including political leaders) to love him as well. Nothing else can explain the blind loyalty with which the EU has supported a president who took office with no military experience, unable to understand any language but English, and having never really had a job. So BBC, following in line behind most U.S. media, has discovered that the voters who have chosen Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to fight it out for the nomination, are crusty, angry, ignorant racist bigots. Let's see how far this gets them as the election heats up.
PS (WANTED: A non-political news service that gives me the news, and has enough faith in me to assume that I can figure out the details on my own.)
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Revisiting the Iraq War.
For all of 2016, I have been without a television. It wasn't some moral choice on my part to rid my life of time wasting distractions and bad influences, it was more of a case of changing residences and not finding the time to hire a new Cable or Satellite provider. Once Lent season rolled around, and I still hadn't connected the boob tube, I decided to guilt myself into extending this new lifestyle sans TV. I gave up television for Lent. Granted, when Lent commenced I was already without my 46' flat-screen Sony, but I did have the intention of rejoining the grid. Lent gave me the opportunity to extend this experiment, which no-doubt has been good for me. The most valued benefit of not having a television is being able to keep Donald Trump out of my life. Friends assumed I would spend less time at home without a TV, but having my own personal, guaranteed "no Trump zone" tempts me to spend more time in my empty little apartment, catching up on my reading. But I still function in this society, therefore I am destined to get more than my share of "The Donald". This character manages to increase my dislike for him every single chance he has. If I'm at my friend Sue's house, or visiting my Mother, and the TV is on in the background, the media will find a way to include Trump in the programming. I could be mistaken, but I believe my friend Stacy and I actually saw Trump interjected into a National Geographic Channel program about asexual reproduction in the worm community.....and there's Trump.
I've already explained my hypothesis regarding Trump, the media, and our future next President, Donald Trump. Today my annoyance is with something I've heard this ignorant bully repeat a number of times. Donald Trump did not support President George Bush's decision to invade Iraq following 9/11. Shockingly, Trump normally explains his lack of support for the invasion by connecting the war and its aftermath to Bush's less-than brilliant attempt to justify the invasion by protecting the free world from Iraq's research into Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Trump, who seems to enjoy soaking in his own ignorance like a chicken in a pot of stew, seems to believe that Iraq, in fact, did not have any WMD and was not conducting banned weapons research. In fact, Iraq was (is?) littered with WMD; Saddam Hussein had poison gas storage facilities in a number of locations around Iraq. Maybe you don't consider Mustard Gas a Weapon of Mass Destruction? I'm sure the Shi'a women and children that Saddam gassed following the first Gulf War will disagree. But Trump, in all his bluster and braggadocio, can't help himself. So he goes on television to brag to the American people that he did not support the Iraq War and that he knew that there were no WMDs. I only wish Trump would have been obliged to spend a bit of time out in the desert as we had to do. A good gust of wind and sand would turn his hair into a magic carpet.
I no longer discuss the subject of WMD as it relates to the Iraq War, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss the conflict in simple, factual terms. After observing the damage that had been inflicted on our transportation grid and our sense of safety, no doubt Osama bin-Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri spent the months following the September 11 tragedy, making every effort to plan and implement a similar attack. The longer we waited to directly respond, the more likely that al-Qaida and their supporters would find the opportunity to hit us again. As a nation, our defense apparati had to undergo a Sea Change, and make terrorism the greatest threat to our security. Fighting a war against s terrorist group is nothing like conventional warfare. They don't want to be forced into prolonged military engagements because they have neither the manpower or the equipment to be successful. Hence their Modus Operandi of utilizing well-trained, heavily-armed and religiously motivated operators with tremendous religious conviction. Terrorists can slip into crowds and disappear like a needle in a haystack. President Bush was faced with a difficult task: how to defeat an enemy that is so far removed from the United States, and relishes the backward, primitive society within which they live. Bush and his advisors came to the conclusion that to destroy Al-Qaida, the conflict must be taken to bin-Laden and his group of butchers. We knew that Al-Qaida was being given a form of Sanctuary by Afghanistan's Islamic Extremist Taliban government. I believe that the Bush Administration chose to deliver the war to Al-Qaida in its own back yard, which ideally would force them into a conventional conflict, and there was no way that Al-Qaida (and the Taliban, for good measure, could hope to triumph over the United States military in a conventional war. But the Bush Administration had a dilemma: a country was needed that was near enough to Afghanistan to support our military efforts against the Taliban, and also present an opportunity for a long-term military presence, in the form of military bases. If this plan were successful, Al-Qaida would not have the resources or operatives to continue launching suicide attacks against Europe and the United States.
We all know that Iraq was chosen as the ideal location. The United Nations had been involved in a protracted struggle with Iraq regarding its attitude towards UN resolutions. The Bush Administration must have considered Iraq as the ideal location the create this semi-permanent military footprint in the Middle East. I imagine that Bush expected the UN and it's member states to welcome the willingness of the United States to go into Iraq, remove a bloodthirsty dictator, and rebuild a nation with tremendous oil reserves. Heck, he probably expected that our troops would be greeted as liberators (at least that's what a number of the Iraqi ex-pats, told Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
In the end, the plan proved successful, at least temporarily. By 2009, much of Iraq had been rebuilt, including its transportation network and refining capacity. But more important is the fact that following 9-11, Islamic Extremists were unable to repeat their destruction. The U.S. military, like an avenging giant, transported itself in a matter of weeks into bin-Laden's front AND back yard. Al-Qaida attempted to combat the U.S. presence, partly by sending Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Iraq with orders to establish an Iraqi-based military force that would conduct lightening raids and ambushes, and make deadly use of Improvised Explosive Devises. In the end, our military dropped a 500 lb bomb in Zarqawi's lap, and his group took off for greener pastures (Syria beckoned). Of course, our foreign policy since 2008 has been at odds with what was accomplished during the Bush Administration. But let's not let Trump trick himself anymore. He wants to brag that he would not have invaded Iraq in 2003, then I wonder just how long it would have been before Donald Trump was witnessing another domestic terror incident. So lay blame as you see fit, Mr. Trump. I'm convinced that history will give the Bush Administration credit for keeping the pressure on Al-Qaida, and disrupting any other attempts at 9-11 type attacks.
Monday, March 7, 2016
The Cease Fire in Syria suspiciously resembles the Cease Fires in Ukraine.
Although U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry put a great deal of effort and time into the crafting of the February 12 Syrian Cease Fire Agreement, he made every effort to downplay expectations. As much as I was disgusted with Kerry's direct involvement in last year's nuclear "research" treaty between Iran and the West, there can be no doubting the man's energy or his desire to succeed. But Kerry is a victim of his own personality. He has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to trust anyone who wants to sign a treaty, regardless of prior experience or suspicious motivation. Kerry is probably a good man at heart, and wants very much to believe that one expression of trust and compromise will be met with trust and compromise. He has staked his reputation and the long-term security of the Persian Gulf to this hope. I see things a bit differently. I strongly believe in giving the benefit of the doubt, until proven wrong. Kerry and the Obama Administration seem content to ignore the never ending violations of treaties by Iran and Russia, I can only assume with the idea that THIS TIME they will be true. Early on in the Ukraine conflict, I was prepared to agree to Cease Fires and dialougue with the Donbas separatists and their Russian masters, but after one violation after another, followed up by the annexation of the Ukrainian province of Crimea, I wouldn't have trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin to fart in the right direction, let alone follow through on diplomatic obligations. As for the Iranians, thirty-five years of direct financial and military support to terrorist organizations around the world, not to mention the Saddamesque difficulties Iran has had following through on United Nations agreements regarding their nuclear program, should not put any U.S. Administration in the mood to trust Iran. The real tragedy is, that everyone involved, including President Barack Obama, realize that Iran will have a nuclear weapon with five-to-seven years. Actually, I don't think this truth has reached Secretary Kerry. His trust in the good-nature of our enemies is disturbingly consistent and a whole lot pathetic.
Back to Syria and the February 12 Cease Fire; it appears that almost all of those who signed on to the Cease Fire have followed through with their commitment. Then why do we continue to have a daily body count in the hundreds? The answer is simple. Since Russia began its little adventure rescuing Bashar al-Assad from certain doom, almost all military action has been directed at Assad's internal Syrian opposition. True, In the beginning, Putin assured the world that Russia's only interest in Syria was to destroy the evil monster ISIS. In truth, since boots-on-the-ground, the Russian military has worked in lockstep with Assad's regime forces to obliterate Assad's internal opposition. By the way, that opposition includes groups that are supported by the United States and Europe. Russian jets are bombing the hell out of forces that have been acting on our behest. Where is the outrage? Where is the quick response? Buried in the ground next to Ronald Reagan, I guess. Putin is masterful at diplomatic chess, but let's face it, he hasn't had to break a sweat on this one. Russia enters the conflict to resurrect their puppet and destroy his opposition. A few months following Russia's entry into the fight, Putin announces his support for a "Cease Fire". And it wasn't even Vlad's birthday. While Merkel, Hollande and Kerry congratulate each other in public, there is some serious sweating taking place behind closed doors. Why? Because Russia and Assad have yet to actually follow through on the Cease Fire. In fact, with all the other combatants (save ISIS) laying down their weapons, Russian bombing raids and Syrian regime armor attacks are ratcheting up the body count. With another ten months to go of Secretary Kerry and the Obama Administration's ambiguous foreign policy, expect to see Assad back in control in Syria. No doubt the Russians will eventually be obliged to confront ISIS head-on and push them out of Syria in order to allow Assad to restart with a Coup de Torchon. No problem for ISIS; Iraq isn't going anywhere.
Back to Syria and the February 12 Cease Fire; it appears that almost all of those who signed on to the Cease Fire have followed through with their commitment. Then why do we continue to have a daily body count in the hundreds? The answer is simple. Since Russia began its little adventure rescuing Bashar al-Assad from certain doom, almost all military action has been directed at Assad's internal Syrian opposition. True, In the beginning, Putin assured the world that Russia's only interest in Syria was to destroy the evil monster ISIS. In truth, since boots-on-the-ground, the Russian military has worked in lockstep with Assad's regime forces to obliterate Assad's internal opposition. By the way, that opposition includes groups that are supported by the United States and Europe. Russian jets are bombing the hell out of forces that have been acting on our behest. Where is the outrage? Where is the quick response? Buried in the ground next to Ronald Reagan, I guess. Putin is masterful at diplomatic chess, but let's face it, he hasn't had to break a sweat on this one. Russia enters the conflict to resurrect their puppet and destroy his opposition. A few months following Russia's entry into the fight, Putin announces his support for a "Cease Fire". And it wasn't even Vlad's birthday. While Merkel, Hollande and Kerry congratulate each other in public, there is some serious sweating taking place behind closed doors. Why? Because Russia and Assad have yet to actually follow through on the Cease Fire. In fact, with all the other combatants (save ISIS) laying down their weapons, Russian bombing raids and Syrian regime armor attacks are ratcheting up the body count. With another ten months to go of Secretary Kerry and the Obama Administration's ambiguous foreign policy, expect to see Assad back in control in Syria. No doubt the Russians will eventually be obliged to confront ISIS head-on and push them out of Syria in order to allow Assad to restart with a Coup de Torchon. No problem for ISIS; Iraq isn't going anywhere.
Monday, February 1, 2016
ISIS and its Global Strategy
Since The start of the new year, the world seems to be paying less attention to ISIS. So many of us were sitting on pins and needles during the various New Year's celebrations in New York, Paris, London, and other great cities around the globe, hoping not to hear any breaking news stories about terrorist attacks. We made it through the new year basically unscathed, and I think that with a huge sigh of relief, many of us went back to "business as usual" before the October 2015 Paris attacks and the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino. The fact that the mainstream press in the United States seems intent on pushing the narrative that ISIS is being beaten on the battlefield, so its OK to do non-stop new stories about Donald Trump and the circus that has become the Republican nomination process (the Republicans are the circus, even though the Democrats are going to nominate a potential felon in Hillary Clinton or an outright lunatic in Bernie Sanders). Why is the press so intent on downplaying the threat by ISIS? Because Barack Obama told us that the threat was being exaggerated. The press always responds in a defensive posture to everything Barack Obama does. No doubt if he farted at a State Funeral, the press would blame the White House Chef. So Obama says that we aren't headed to World War III, and that ISIS is not a threat to the United States. I assume that the family members of U.S. citizens killed in San Bernardino, California, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, by persons claiming allegiance to ISIS would disagree; I know I do. ISIS has a series of strategies, each one going into effect after the previous has been accomplished (or altered by events). ISIS has reviewed the current state of the battlefield, which has it in possession of one-third of Iraq and one-half of Syria, and decided that the time is ripe to exploit its surprisingly successful international outreach efforts. The monsters making the decisions at the top of this organization are no dummies, nor will they put their equities at risk for ideology's sake (are you listening, President Obama?) We are entering a new phase in the battle with ISIS, and it includes the introduction of a new strategy.
ISIS believes that the key to successfully expand its brand of worldwide-revolution is to dedicate resources to its budding operations in nations with strong Islamic traditions. This includes all the nations of North Africa, and it includes Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Most of these nations are in no military position to fight off a serious ISIS invasion, at least not without assistance in the form of "troops on the ground". ISIS rakes in an incredible amount of money on a daily basis. Why the Obama Administration has not been able to dent this flow of financial assistance is a mystery to me, because so many pundits in the media seem to know the various sources of this support. Regardless, ISIS is intent on spreading the conflict outside of the borders of Syria and Iraq. It has been testing its ability to project itself with operations in Libya, West Africa, and Indonesia, and results have been encouraging. ISIS knows that any attention drawn to Southeast Asia or North Africa, will draw the enemy away from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. So by increasing recruitment and eventually, attacks in Tunisia, Libya, and Pakistan, ISIS will be not only spreading the Caliphate revolution, but also forcing the United States and its lock-step European partners to devote resources and attention to other allies and battlefields. I'm still not sure where Russia fits into the picture; with all the hubbub and hardware that Putin brought to his Syria adventure, I expected much more in the way of battlefield victories by now. Assad's internal opposition will eventually disappear completely under the weight of daily Russian attacks, and Putin will be obliged to either leave Syria or attack ISIS.
Obama must be aware that ISIS is expanding all over the globe, and yet he still makes public claims diminishing the threat that ISIS actually poses. If they are so "insignificant", Mr. President, then why haven't we been able to defeat them? True, we haven't really tried. What a joke this Administration's entire Syria policy has been. We still don't know what became of the millions of taxpayer dollars and the "Free Syrian Army" we were training in Jordan to take the place of U.S. infantry. Obama still has one more year in office; no doubt it will be dedicated to domestic politics. We all know that an Executive Order of some sort will be in place before the November election. The uproar this will cause will certainly distract us all from the activities of ISIS in North Africa and Southeast Asia, but what a mess it will leave for his predecessor.
ISIS believes that the key to successfully expand its brand of worldwide-revolution is to dedicate resources to its budding operations in nations with strong Islamic traditions. This includes all the nations of North Africa, and it includes Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Most of these nations are in no military position to fight off a serious ISIS invasion, at least not without assistance in the form of "troops on the ground". ISIS rakes in an incredible amount of money on a daily basis. Why the Obama Administration has not been able to dent this flow of financial assistance is a mystery to me, because so many pundits in the media seem to know the various sources of this support. Regardless, ISIS is intent on spreading the conflict outside of the borders of Syria and Iraq. It has been testing its ability to project itself with operations in Libya, West Africa, and Indonesia, and results have been encouraging. ISIS knows that any attention drawn to Southeast Asia or North Africa, will draw the enemy away from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. So by increasing recruitment and eventually, attacks in Tunisia, Libya, and Pakistan, ISIS will be not only spreading the Caliphate revolution, but also forcing the United States and its lock-step European partners to devote resources and attention to other allies and battlefields. I'm still not sure where Russia fits into the picture; with all the hubbub and hardware that Putin brought to his Syria adventure, I expected much more in the way of battlefield victories by now. Assad's internal opposition will eventually disappear completely under the weight of daily Russian attacks, and Putin will be obliged to either leave Syria or attack ISIS.
Obama must be aware that ISIS is expanding all over the globe, and yet he still makes public claims diminishing the threat that ISIS actually poses. If they are so "insignificant", Mr. President, then why haven't we been able to defeat them? True, we haven't really tried. What a joke this Administration's entire Syria policy has been. We still don't know what became of the millions of taxpayer dollars and the "Free Syrian Army" we were training in Jordan to take the place of U.S. infantry. Obama still has one more year in office; no doubt it will be dedicated to domestic politics. We all know that an Executive Order of some sort will be in place before the November election. The uproar this will cause will certainly distract us all from the activities of ISIS in North Africa and Southeast Asia, but what a mess it will leave for his predecessor.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Thirteen years later, a look back at the Iraq War, its motivations, and its consequences. (Part II)
Part II
At the time, the only real conflict in the region was taking place in Syria, but the revolution to overthrow Bashar al-Assad had nothing to do with the new Iraq, so there probably was not a rush to fully complete the training program. In 2010, when the training program was still basically in the beginning stages, President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. military to depart Iraq according to a particular timeline. At the end of the day, I believe the timeline called for the removal of all but the most essential military personnel with one year. Allegedly, the Obama Administration was warned by the Pentagon that the Iraqi military was in no shape to take over the security of the nation, but it made no difference. You see, mid-term elections were coming up stateside, and the Administration's political base was not happy that President Obama hadn't fulfilled his campaign pledge to bring U.S. troops home. Because this post has already stretched into two, I will mercifully bring things to a close. We left Iraq with an untrained army, holding a billion dollars worth of the world's most modern weaponry.
Across the border in Syria, ISIS, which had started to draw attention to itself through its regular use of butchery and stark brutality, saw an incredible opportunity. They took an eraser to their previous maps of "the Caliphate" and added Iraq. Then ISIS put together a military campaign that relied heavily on its ability to be mobile and move quickly, and invaded Iraq. The only real opposition facing ISIS were the Kurds and the Peshmerga, as first Mosul fell, and then to the south, Baiji and Tikrit, which was the real catastrophe. The young, untrained Iraqi Army recruits deserted their positions en masse, living in the sand rifles, GPS devices, mortars, electronic warfare equipment, targeting devices, artillery, and even vehicles. ISIS is known for its ability to adapt, and that equipment and ammunition not doubt, has been essential in subsequent operations. As for Iraq, the schools are now only half-open, many of the new highways are destroyed by artillery fire, and the Baiji refinery itself as been one of the most contested battlefields of the conflict. From 2009 to 2016....Iraq is an example of what happens when people who don't respect or understand the military, make decisions that direct impact the battlefield. In this instance, the decision created one.
At the time, the only real conflict in the region was taking place in Syria, but the revolution to overthrow Bashar al-Assad had nothing to do with the new Iraq, so there probably was not a rush to fully complete the training program. In 2010, when the training program was still basically in the beginning stages, President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. military to depart Iraq according to a particular timeline. At the end of the day, I believe the timeline called for the removal of all but the most essential military personnel with one year. Allegedly, the Obama Administration was warned by the Pentagon that the Iraqi military was in no shape to take over the security of the nation, but it made no difference. You see, mid-term elections were coming up stateside, and the Administration's political base was not happy that President Obama hadn't fulfilled his campaign pledge to bring U.S. troops home. Because this post has already stretched into two, I will mercifully bring things to a close. We left Iraq with an untrained army, holding a billion dollars worth of the world's most modern weaponry.
Across the border in Syria, ISIS, which had started to draw attention to itself through its regular use of butchery and stark brutality, saw an incredible opportunity. They took an eraser to their previous maps of "the Caliphate" and added Iraq. Then ISIS put together a military campaign that relied heavily on its ability to be mobile and move quickly, and invaded Iraq. The only real opposition facing ISIS were the Kurds and the Peshmerga, as first Mosul fell, and then to the south, Baiji and Tikrit, which was the real catastrophe. The young, untrained Iraqi Army recruits deserted their positions en masse, living in the sand rifles, GPS devices, mortars, electronic warfare equipment, targeting devices, artillery, and even vehicles. ISIS is known for its ability to adapt, and that equipment and ammunition not doubt, has been essential in subsequent operations. As for Iraq, the schools are now only half-open, many of the new highways are destroyed by artillery fire, and the Baiji refinery itself as been one of the most contested battlefields of the conflict. From 2009 to 2016....Iraq is an example of what happens when people who don't respect or understand the military, make decisions that direct impact the battlefield. In this instance, the decision created one.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Thirteen years later, a look back at the Iraq War, its motivations and its consequences. (Part I)
Link: Wikipedia entry for the Benghazi scandal.
Part I
The recent opening of a well-produced and costly film on the 2012 Benghazi incident in which four Americans, including an Ambassador were killed, reminds us of the sadly dangerous world we live in. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three young men that lost their lives that night, believed that they were in Benghazi, Libya, to help spread America's message of freedom and give hope to a nation in great need of something in which to believe. When I was a child, I would spend hours looking at the globe my parents bought me for my ninth birthday, and try to learn, day by day, a little bit about all the different countries around the world. Over the year, I remember using that globe to identify places where war had broken out. As I've gotten older, the areas free from conflict has continually gotten smaller. Today, as I look at a map of the world, I can no longer identify a place which isn't in some way either directly under attack or threatened by the plague of Islamic Extremist terrorism. In the seven years following the 9-11 tragedy, the United States used its military capability to force the terrorist elements to fight in their own backyard. True, Al-Qaeda was guest-of-honor of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But strategically, the best way to get at Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was by using Iraq as a spring-board. The Bush Administration had been in a war of words with Iraq and its manipulation of the oil-for-food program to ignore United Nation's Resolutions. I don't know the real answer, but it would seem that the Bush Administration gambled that the Democrats, the United Nations, and the rest of the world wouldn't mind if the U.S. borrowed Iraq's U.N. Resolution violations as an excuse to invade Iraq and turn it into a U.S. military base. I understand the reasoning behind the strategy: the best was to annihilate Al-Qaeda was to force them into a conventional war (to which they were wholly unsuited) in their own backyard; no place to retreat.
As for the politics involved, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, I understand the frustration of folks who did not follow the Bush Administration's lead. But Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who had ignored every attempt by the United Nations to get him in line. And by 2009, the Iraqi insurgency was over, and Iraq was beginning, for the first time as an independent and free nation, to stand on its own feet (thank you, U.S. taxpayer). You see, while the military was defeating first, Saddam loyalists and second, the insurgency, we had engineers, architects, plumbers, construction specialists, electricians, town planners, and all sorts of other "nation rebuilding" experts in place, to rebuild Iraq. Highways were put back in order, from one side of Iraq to the other. The urban transportation systems were modernized and put back on line, along with traffic lights and speed limits. The water distribution and waste disposal systems in place were practically from the time of the Ottomans, and we fixed what was repairable and replaced the rest. Education was important to President Bush, and school building was a priority, from grade school to university-level education. A tremendous effort to put Iraq's refining capacity back on line was not complete by 2009, but a great deal had been accomplished. Also, the U.S. military was in the process of training a streamlined, effective, modern Iraqi Armed Forces.
Part I
The recent opening of a well-produced and costly film on the 2012 Benghazi incident in which four Americans, including an Ambassador were killed, reminds us of the sadly dangerous world we live in. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three young men that lost their lives that night, believed that they were in Benghazi, Libya, to help spread America's message of freedom and give hope to a nation in great need of something in which to believe. When I was a child, I would spend hours looking at the globe my parents bought me for my ninth birthday, and try to learn, day by day, a little bit about all the different countries around the world. Over the year, I remember using that globe to identify places where war had broken out. As I've gotten older, the areas free from conflict has continually gotten smaller. Today, as I look at a map of the world, I can no longer identify a place which isn't in some way either directly under attack or threatened by the plague of Islamic Extremist terrorism. In the seven years following the 9-11 tragedy, the United States used its military capability to force the terrorist elements to fight in their own backyard. True, Al-Qaeda was guest-of-honor of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But strategically, the best way to get at Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was by using Iraq as a spring-board. The Bush Administration had been in a war of words with Iraq and its manipulation of the oil-for-food program to ignore United Nation's Resolutions. I don't know the real answer, but it would seem that the Bush Administration gambled that the Democrats, the United Nations, and the rest of the world wouldn't mind if the U.S. borrowed Iraq's U.N. Resolution violations as an excuse to invade Iraq and turn it into a U.S. military base. I understand the reasoning behind the strategy: the best was to annihilate Al-Qaeda was to force them into a conventional war (to which they were wholly unsuited) in their own backyard; no place to retreat.
As for the politics involved, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, I understand the frustration of folks who did not follow the Bush Administration's lead. But Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who had ignored every attempt by the United Nations to get him in line. And by 2009, the Iraqi insurgency was over, and Iraq was beginning, for the first time as an independent and free nation, to stand on its own feet (thank you, U.S. taxpayer). You see, while the military was defeating first, Saddam loyalists and second, the insurgency, we had engineers, architects, plumbers, construction specialists, electricians, town planners, and all sorts of other "nation rebuilding" experts in place, to rebuild Iraq. Highways were put back in order, from one side of Iraq to the other. The urban transportation systems were modernized and put back on line, along with traffic lights and speed limits. The water distribution and waste disposal systems in place were practically from the time of the Ottomans, and we fixed what was repairable and replaced the rest. Education was important to President Bush, and school building was a priority, from grade school to university-level education. A tremendous effort to put Iraq's refining capacity back on line was not complete by 2009, but a great deal had been accomplished. Also, the U.S. military was in the process of training a streamlined, effective, modern Iraqi Armed Forces.
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......
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
ISIS hopes for anti-Muslim backlash; can ISIS be defeated by a conventional army?
Link: ISIS hoping for backlash against western Muslims.
In the intelligent, thought-provoking editorial that I have linked, Harleen Gambhir, a contributor to the Washington Post and a counterterrorism analyst for the Institute for the Study of War, explains
ISIS' plan to create a backlash against Muslims living in the west. Gambhir predicts that recent attacks against civilian targets in the United States, Paris, Spain and over the Sinai, is intended to cause fear and anger towards Muslims living in western communities. When western governments, in response to ISIS attacks and demands by the majority of their citizens, cracks down on Muslims living in Paris, Vienna, Chicago, New York, London and Sydney, young Muslims will feel marginalized and ISIS will benefit through increased recruitment. History has already proven Gambhir to be correct; after each terrorist attack in a western city, law enforcement has increased its focus on Muslim members of the community. At first, it would appear that this focus is necessary to identify any additional terrorists that may be concealing themselves amongst their neighbors. The truth is, after a terrorist attack which leaves civilian casualties, both the government and law enforcement are under tremendous pressure from the populous to at least "appear" to be aggressively working against the bad guys. If law enforcement doesn't have any real leads, then it becomes even more tempting to increase surveillance and random searches against persons who share the religion and ethnic background of the terrorists. Intelligence reveals that recruitment numbers increase for terrorist groups in the period following high-profile attacks similar to the recent shootings and explosions in Paris.
On a separate subject, an important issue that is currently being discussed by political commentators and some politicians involves the supposed difficulty in defeating ISIS on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. One of the GOP candidates for president (Ben Carson) remarked that the U.S. military had the capacity to destroy ISIS in a relatively short period of time. I believe that President Obama may have taken exception to the remark, and the conversation was started. Actually, defeating a terrorist organization requires a tremendous amount of patience and planning, and ideally, regular access to time-sensitive intelligence. Normally, locating the terrorists is half the battle. But ISIS is a completely different animal altogether. The Islamic State, or ISIS, has developed a conventional military capability. In other words, they have an army, and that army is currently fighting on two fronts: Iraq and Syria. In order to destroy ISIS, the conventional army must be annihilated, and the more traditional network of operatives hiding in cities all over the world (and also in rat holes and caves in Sudan and Afghanistan) must be identified, located, and wiped out. Ideally, both incarnations of ISIS should be targeted simultaneously. The United States, the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, China and probably a half-dozen other nations have the military capacity to destroy ISIS, but it won't be a localized affair and a few diplomatic toes might get stepped on in the process. You would think that anyone who stands up and announces a willingness to single-handedly destroy the nastiest bunch of assholes the world has ever seen, would be given a pass, as far as diplomatic obligations go. Vladimir Putin stepped up and announced Russia's intention to destroy ISIS, but within a few days we discovered that Putin was more interested in keeping his ally, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in power. After a few days of Russian bombing raids obliterating the Syrian indigenous opposition to Assad with nary a fart in the direction of ISIS, it became clear the regardless of the outcome, Russia's entry into the Syria sweepstakes was about much more than fighting ISIS.
Again, Russia is one of a number of countries who have the military capacity to destroy ISIS. It can't be done without a commitment to using ground troops in both Syria and Iraq, and it may be necessary to take chances where civilian lives are concerned, when an important target has been located. ISIS will use every opportunity to hide themselves amongst women, children and the elderly, because unlike ISIS, we are a bit squeamish about killing innocents. But make no mistake; in order to destroy ISIS, there will be civilian casualties. It might also be necessary to use weapons that are frowned upon, and interrogation techniques that are much criticized. Some great military leader once said (I can't remember who), that when a country enters into a war, it must do so with a willingness to use its total military might, and every weapon at its disposal. The enemy must be given no quarter. This will end the conflict soonest, and limit the number of casualties for both combatants. I remember that comment because it truly makes great sense. The longer the war, the higher the number of casualties. We need to throw the book at ISIS. The Marines, Special Forces, Navy Seals, and whoever else we can squeeze in. This group thinks that it can outmatch any opponent for ruthlessness. When it comes to the battlefield, we need to prove them wrong. Right now, we are still fortunate enough to have ISIS limited to Syria and Iraq, at least as far as its conventional capabilities go. Eastern Syria and western Iraq is basically one big, occasionally rocky desert. ISIS has no place to hide from our satellites, spies in the sky, and spies on the ground. While our military deals with ISIS on the battlefield, our intelligence forces will track down and wipe out each and every cell, regardless of country, until there are none.
In the intelligent, thought-provoking editorial that I have linked, Harleen Gambhir, a contributor to the Washington Post and a counterterrorism analyst for the Institute for the Study of War, explains
ISIS' plan to create a backlash against Muslims living in the west. Gambhir predicts that recent attacks against civilian targets in the United States, Paris, Spain and over the Sinai, is intended to cause fear and anger towards Muslims living in western communities. When western governments, in response to ISIS attacks and demands by the majority of their citizens, cracks down on Muslims living in Paris, Vienna, Chicago, New York, London and Sydney, young Muslims will feel marginalized and ISIS will benefit through increased recruitment. History has already proven Gambhir to be correct; after each terrorist attack in a western city, law enforcement has increased its focus on Muslim members of the community. At first, it would appear that this focus is necessary to identify any additional terrorists that may be concealing themselves amongst their neighbors. The truth is, after a terrorist attack which leaves civilian casualties, both the government and law enforcement are under tremendous pressure from the populous to at least "appear" to be aggressively working against the bad guys. If law enforcement doesn't have any real leads, then it becomes even more tempting to increase surveillance and random searches against persons who share the religion and ethnic background of the terrorists. Intelligence reveals that recruitment numbers increase for terrorist groups in the period following high-profile attacks similar to the recent shootings and explosions in Paris.
On a separate subject, an important issue that is currently being discussed by political commentators and some politicians involves the supposed difficulty in defeating ISIS on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. One of the GOP candidates for president (Ben Carson) remarked that the U.S. military had the capacity to destroy ISIS in a relatively short period of time. I believe that President Obama may have taken exception to the remark, and the conversation was started. Actually, defeating a terrorist organization requires a tremendous amount of patience and planning, and ideally, regular access to time-sensitive intelligence. Normally, locating the terrorists is half the battle. But ISIS is a completely different animal altogether. The Islamic State, or ISIS, has developed a conventional military capability. In other words, they have an army, and that army is currently fighting on two fronts: Iraq and Syria. In order to destroy ISIS, the conventional army must be annihilated, and the more traditional network of operatives hiding in cities all over the world (and also in rat holes and caves in Sudan and Afghanistan) must be identified, located, and wiped out. Ideally, both incarnations of ISIS should be targeted simultaneously. The United States, the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, China and probably a half-dozen other nations have the military capacity to destroy ISIS, but it won't be a localized affair and a few diplomatic toes might get stepped on in the process. You would think that anyone who stands up and announces a willingness to single-handedly destroy the nastiest bunch of assholes the world has ever seen, would be given a pass, as far as diplomatic obligations go. Vladimir Putin stepped up and announced Russia's intention to destroy ISIS, but within a few days we discovered that Putin was more interested in keeping his ally, de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in power. After a few days of Russian bombing raids obliterating the Syrian indigenous opposition to Assad with nary a fart in the direction of ISIS, it became clear the regardless of the outcome, Russia's entry into the Syria sweepstakes was about much more than fighting ISIS.
Again, Russia is one of a number of countries who have the military capacity to destroy ISIS. It can't be done without a commitment to using ground troops in both Syria and Iraq, and it may be necessary to take chances where civilian lives are concerned, when an important target has been located. ISIS will use every opportunity to hide themselves amongst women, children and the elderly, because unlike ISIS, we are a bit squeamish about killing innocents. But make no mistake; in order to destroy ISIS, there will be civilian casualties. It might also be necessary to use weapons that are frowned upon, and interrogation techniques that are much criticized. Some great military leader once said (I can't remember who), that when a country enters into a war, it must do so with a willingness to use its total military might, and every weapon at its disposal. The enemy must be given no quarter. This will end the conflict soonest, and limit the number of casualties for both combatants. I remember that comment because it truly makes great sense. The longer the war, the higher the number of casualties. We need to throw the book at ISIS. The Marines, Special Forces, Navy Seals, and whoever else we can squeeze in. This group thinks that it can outmatch any opponent for ruthlessness. When it comes to the battlefield, we need to prove them wrong. Right now, we are still fortunate enough to have ISIS limited to Syria and Iraq, at least as far as its conventional capabilities go. Eastern Syria and western Iraq is basically one big, occasionally rocky desert. ISIS has no place to hide from our satellites, spies in the sky, and spies on the ground. While our military deals with ISIS on the battlefield, our intelligence forces will track down and wipe out each and every cell, regardless of country, until there are none.
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?
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.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
The CIA in 2015: balancing force protection, terrorism, and traditional intelligence collection.
Since I formally retired from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) roughly five years ago, and I was given the opportunity to come out from under cover, I have been regularly approached by young people who are interested in a career with the organization. The fact that I published a memoir, and had the misfortune to be poisoned during my career while working operationally, has created an awkward, public persona with my name attached. I don't mind, because I come from the mindset that only experienced officers can truly recognize the attitude and determination necessary to be a successful Case Officer. Unfortunately, I've never been approached regarding one of the many other opportunities the Agency offers. The CIA consists of four separate Directorates, and each one promises a career unlike any other, with tremendous opportunity to learn about the world we live in, and to be part of supporting National Security. Any job with the Agency also provides regular opportunity for advancement in an environment of great challenges. When I chose to write this blog post, I decided to avoid any appearance of a recruitment pitch. No job is perfect, and the CIA exists under intense public and even international scrutiny. I had instances of frustration, but they were almost always connected to the unfortunate bureaucracy that comes with working for Uncle Sam. If someone is under the mistaken belief that typical government problems don't exist at the Agency, the reality is, because of the sensitive nature of the job, scrutiny is even more a part of everyday work, and officers must be vigilant to follow ALL rules, regulations, and guidelines. That being said, let me take a little time to express to you why my career with the CIA was the pivotal, most incredible experience of my life.
As a Case Ofiicer, I was given the opportunity to complete the most intense, all-encompassing training regime that has ever existed for an Intelligence Officer. The organization will not put officers in the field who have not demonstrated a thorough understanding and respect for security, counter-intelligence, and tradecraft. What is tradecraft? Simply put, tradecraft are the skills a Case Officer requires to operate successfully in an overseas environment. Because of the current public obsession with the subject of espionage, the average American has a distorted perception of the Agency. The CIA has no law enforcement authority, and only functions domestically in joint-arrangements with our Federal Law Enforcement partners. Following the horrific and mind-numbing events of September 11, 2001, the Agency began an aggressive effort to share resources with Law Enforcement in support of National Security. I have worked closely in just such an environment, and the results have been more successful than the public realizes. Also, CIA officers, beyond the security officers the Agency hires for its facilities, DO NOT carry weapons domestically. Outside of war zones, CIA officers aren't normally armed overseas. And if an officer has been assigned to a war zone or dangerous environment, he or she is required to complete a thorough weapons training and familiarization course. Having to work in a wartime environment should not come naturally to most Case Officers, but the changed circumstances of National Security have necessitated the Agency's involvement in various conflicts worldwide. This effort is part of the mission to ensure Force Protection- the collection of vital intelligence to protect our young men and women in uniform. I was also fortunate to work in a number of denied environments, and I can assure you that there is no more important job than defending our troops, and no greater satisfaction after the successful completion of a job-well-done.
I decided to write a memoir in order to share my experiences as a victim of intended poisoning by someone I was meeting for intelligence purposes. Please understand, this wasn't a situation involving a foreign government, it was about someone who was mentally unstable and trying to play "spy". When you chose a career as a Case Officer, you do not have the luxury of deciding who has access to vital information. Eventually in their career, every Case Officer will be obliged to meet with unpleasant people. I was young and anxious, and probably missed warning signs that a more experienced officer would have detected. Be that as it may, I discovered the true meaning of dedication once my medical issues became a concern. The Agency supported me in every way, providing access to the best physicians and specialists that the country had to offer. I will always be grateful for the support I received for my medical difficulties while still working. The CIA Office of Medical Services is as good as it can possibly get, with brilliant on staff physicians and nurses, who travel at a moment's notice to treat unexpected illnesses. The Agency will travel anywhere to collect the intelligence that the government needs to keep the American people safe. Therefore, you will on occasion find officers suffering from conditions normally foreign to us. The Office of Medical Services keeps the Agency healthy in both mind and body, because the need for intelligence never sleeps.
During my career, I discovered a support network within the Agency that went well beyond my expectations. In one way or another, everyone working at the CIA does a job in support of life-saving intelligence. In a nutshell, CIA Operations Officers spend time overseas, collecting confidential information that is vitally needed by our government. The information is relayed back to the United States, where it is organized, formatted, and disseminated to the appropriate government agencies. Its obviously much more complicated, and planning, hiring, training, and execution are all essential elements of the CIA's mission. In order to collect the intelligence to keep America safe, the CIA must continue to attract the best and the brightest that our country has to offer. I always tell interested persons that bringing a language skill to the table, especially Arabic, Russian or Chinese, is a good start, as is a history of some overseas living experience. But not every Agency employee ends up, or even desires to go overseas. For those that do, the key is being to assimilate oneself into foreign environments. The name of the game is discretion; the art of NOT being able to draw attention to one's self. Also, any officer serving overseas must understand the no-compromise importance of following the rules. Espionage is not a game or a movie, and people can die if someone gets lazy. A career with the CIA requires extreme discipline, as inevitably you will be exposed to classified information of one kind or another. Understand before you even begin to fill out the application, that the organization can only be successful if the need for secrecy is paramount and non-negotiable. If you have a natural habit of sharing things without thinking, then probably the CIA is not the place for you. But if you enjoy current events and foreign affairs, if you have great discipline and want to be daily challenged, if you love Democracy and want to be a part of protecting national security, then without a doubt, give it some serious consideration.
As a Case Ofiicer, I was given the opportunity to complete the most intense, all-encompassing training regime that has ever existed for an Intelligence Officer. The organization will not put officers in the field who have not demonstrated a thorough understanding and respect for security, counter-intelligence, and tradecraft. What is tradecraft? Simply put, tradecraft are the skills a Case Officer requires to operate successfully in an overseas environment. Because of the current public obsession with the subject of espionage, the average American has a distorted perception of the Agency. The CIA has no law enforcement authority, and only functions domestically in joint-arrangements with our Federal Law Enforcement partners. Following the horrific and mind-numbing events of September 11, 2001, the Agency began an aggressive effort to share resources with Law Enforcement in support of National Security. I have worked closely in just such an environment, and the results have been more successful than the public realizes. Also, CIA officers, beyond the security officers the Agency hires for its facilities, DO NOT carry weapons domestically. Outside of war zones, CIA officers aren't normally armed overseas. And if an officer has been assigned to a war zone or dangerous environment, he or she is required to complete a thorough weapons training and familiarization course. Having to work in a wartime environment should not come naturally to most Case Officers, but the changed circumstances of National Security have necessitated the Agency's involvement in various conflicts worldwide. This effort is part of the mission to ensure Force Protection- the collection of vital intelligence to protect our young men and women in uniform. I was also fortunate to work in a number of denied environments, and I can assure you that there is no more important job than defending our troops, and no greater satisfaction after the successful completion of a job-well-done.
I decided to write a memoir in order to share my experiences as a victim of intended poisoning by someone I was meeting for intelligence purposes. Please understand, this wasn't a situation involving a foreign government, it was about someone who was mentally unstable and trying to play "spy". When you chose a career as a Case Officer, you do not have the luxury of deciding who has access to vital information. Eventually in their career, every Case Officer will be obliged to meet with unpleasant people. I was young and anxious, and probably missed warning signs that a more experienced officer would have detected. Be that as it may, I discovered the true meaning of dedication once my medical issues became a concern. The Agency supported me in every way, providing access to the best physicians and specialists that the country had to offer. I will always be grateful for the support I received for my medical difficulties while still working. The CIA Office of Medical Services is as good as it can possibly get, with brilliant on staff physicians and nurses, who travel at a moment's notice to treat unexpected illnesses. The Agency will travel anywhere to collect the intelligence that the government needs to keep the American people safe. Therefore, you will on occasion find officers suffering from conditions normally foreign to us. The Office of Medical Services keeps the Agency healthy in both mind and body, because the need for intelligence never sleeps.
During my career, I discovered a support network within the Agency that went well beyond my expectations. In one way or another, everyone working at the CIA does a job in support of life-saving intelligence. In a nutshell, CIA Operations Officers spend time overseas, collecting confidential information that is vitally needed by our government. The information is relayed back to the United States, where it is organized, formatted, and disseminated to the appropriate government agencies. Its obviously much more complicated, and planning, hiring, training, and execution are all essential elements of the CIA's mission. In order to collect the intelligence to keep America safe, the CIA must continue to attract the best and the brightest that our country has to offer. I always tell interested persons that bringing a language skill to the table, especially Arabic, Russian or Chinese, is a good start, as is a history of some overseas living experience. But not every Agency employee ends up, or even desires to go overseas. For those that do, the key is being to assimilate oneself into foreign environments. The name of the game is discretion; the art of NOT being able to draw attention to one's self. Also, any officer serving overseas must understand the no-compromise importance of following the rules. Espionage is not a game or a movie, and people can die if someone gets lazy. A career with the CIA requires extreme discipline, as inevitably you will be exposed to classified information of one kind or another. Understand before you even begin to fill out the application, that the organization can only be successful if the need for secrecy is paramount and non-negotiable. If you have a natural habit of sharing things without thinking, then probably the CIA is not the place for you. But if you enjoy current events and foreign affairs, if you have great discipline and want to be daily challenged, if you love Democracy and want to be a part of protecting national security, then without a doubt, give it some serious consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)