Link: Russia bombs 448 ISIS targets in Syria.
In the last three days, the Russia Air Force in Syria has conducted 137 bombing sorties against 448 ISIS targets. This latest uptick in the Russian bombing campaign in Syria comes as ISIS continues to claim responsibility for the October 31 destruction of a Russian passenger airliner over the Sinai. It is beginning to appear likely that ISIS is behind the tragedy, with the recent high-intensity Russian bombing sorties considered to be a response. Russia claims that the bombing raids have targeted ISIS' infrastructure, in particular destroying a munitions warehouse near Damascus which hosted makeshift unguided missiles. The attacks have also resulted in numerous civilian casualties, with multiple claims that non-military targets were bombed. As ISIS and Russia become more familiar dealing with each other as battlefield opponents, and civilian targets on both sides become more frequent, many more episodes of retaliation-type attacks can be expected. If ISIS was able to plan and execute the destruction of the Russian airliner in question, it will signify an expansion of ISIS' ability to reach beyond the battlefield and attack non-combatants outside of the Middle East. If Russia continues to conduct its air sorties with little concern for civilian casualties, ISIS have less trouble recruiting supporters and soldiers from the local population. And if another airliner affiliated with Russia or one of the members of its budding "coalition" becomes victim of ISIS sabotage, expect the Arab community to be less than sympathetic. After all, its their families who are being indiscriminately blown to pieces and their farms and homes that are being destroyed by Russian bombs.
One development that warrants closer review is Russia's claim to have targeted multiple ISIS infrastructure locations and munitions factories. When Russia entered the Syrian conflict, one of its priority concerns should have been the lack of intelligence sources. On the other hand, the United States, with its sponsorship of ISIS opposition groups and its historic close ties to Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and the Kurds, must have a well-developed network of sources providing timely intelligence. Its true that Russia has always been very close to the Assad regime, but the intelligence that is most needed, information on ISIS and its movements, is in no way accessible to elements of the Assad regime. Be that as it may, Russia has managed to locate many important ISIS targets. The question is, if the United States has a well-developed network for collected intelligence in Syria, then why did those ISIS targets exist to be the recipients of Russian bombing sorties? Why hasn't the U.S.-led air coalition already destroyed those facilities and munitions warehouses?
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
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.
Friday, September 18, 2015
The world needs a leader to stand up to ISIS; can Putin fill the role?
Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.
Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place. Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria. What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader. Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode. Whose left? What about Vladimir Putin? Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace. Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you. Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.
ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate. The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. What is a Caliph? A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority. At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops. Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan. The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals. The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States. Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant. As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder. The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear. Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus. How are they able to convince so many young people to join? ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope. For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home. And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr. For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.
Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS. In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well. Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS. There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys. But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job. Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS. Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast. If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS. But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?
In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious. I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends. I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor. I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS. I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish. The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state. Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand? Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago. Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now. Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job.
Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place. Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria. What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader. Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode. Whose left? What about Vladimir Putin? Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace. Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you. Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.
ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate. The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. What is a Caliph? A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority. At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops. Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan. The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals. The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States. Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant. As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder. The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear. Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus. How are they able to convince so many young people to join? ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope. For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home. And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr. For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.
Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS. In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well. Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS. There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys. But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job. Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS. Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast. If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS. But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?
In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious. I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends. I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor. I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS. I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish. The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state. Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand? Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago. Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now. Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Russia steps up aid to Syria's Assad.
Links: A. Russia providing military aid to Syrian regime forces.
B. Russia delivers military aid to Syria's Assad.
Last Spring, when ISIS started to become a household word in Europe and the United States, the Obama Administration made clear its feelings by announcing the formation of the Allied Air Coalition. This coalition, which included warplanes from Kuwait, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Kingdom, allows European nations and the United States the opportunity to militarily strike against ISIS, without risking the lives of one soldier. Russia chose not to be a coalition member, probably because it would have impacted in some way Russia's close relationship with de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. How did Syria and Russia become so close? Decades ago, when Israel was being threatened by its neighbors with the Six-Day War, the War of Attrition, and the Yom Kippur War, the United States aggressively supported Israel, both diplomatically and with military aid. At the time, Russia was still the biggest part of the Soviet Union, and played the part of America's foil on the Cold War game board. When the Arab states would begin to plan attacks on Israel, the Russians were always nearby with T-54/55 and T-62 tanks, Artillery, and Mig warplanes. I always assumed that the Russians supported the enemies of Israel solely because the United States supported Israel so strongly. I'm sure the issue is a bit more complicated, but the close relationship between Damascus and Moscow survived the death of the Soviet Union (1991) and of Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez (2000). In earlier posts we commented on Vladimir Putin's often stated goal of having a port on the Mediterranean Sea for the Russian Navy. Long before ISIS appeared on the scene, the idea of Russia building a naval port on the Syrian coast near Latakia or Tartus was something considered by NATO intelligence experts and the Pentagon. Over the years, the Russians certainly built up enough good will. The issue probably didn't become a serious topic for the Russians until Putin took office. Given the invasion of Crimea and the support for separatists in Ukraine, he obviously pictures Russia as a nation with expanding national boundaries. Giving the Russian navy (and submarines in particular) a base from which to repair, refuel, rearm, etc. on the Mediterranean Sea would be a coup for Putin.
Most of the summer, when the media provided the world with daily stories from Syria of regime defeats, Putin seemed to be purposely keeping a low profile. Granted, the Russian invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, not to mention the destruction of a civilian airliner by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile, must have kept Putin quite busy. We began to wonder if maybe Assad's plight had become so precarious that even the Russians had jumped ship. I was half-expecting to see loads of family members boarding flights to exile in Russia, with their suitcases filled with money and antiquities. But no such luck. Assad has shown a willingness to see this thing through. I think Gadhafi expressed the same willingness, though, and look where it got him. Basically, Assad's regime forces are limited to defending everything west of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range. Two-thirds of Syria are presently occupied by either ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and its allies (give a few towns in the north to the Kurds, who as always, have fought with tremendous courage and determination). Putin may have arrived just in the nick of time, as JN has been expanding its attacks in the northwestern province of Hama, and onto the strategic al-Ghab plain. The Alawites of northwest Syria, always so loyal to the Assad's, are coming under great pressure from JN, and they are making their feelings known in Damascus.
Last week saw the arrival of Russian T-90 tanks to Latakia (the number of tanks is still being debated), and enough living pods for 1,500 persons. One can assume that the Russians will also be sending in intelligence officers and humanitarian aid personnel, so it can't be assumed that all 1,500 are earmarked for use by soldiers. Russia has also delivered artillery and loads of smaller arms, ammunition, and military equipment. Putin obviously believes that Assad can yet win the day. That cannot be accomplished with the military forces at Assad's disposal today. For ISIS to be defeated, the Russians either have to join a coalition with Europe and the United States to destroy ISIS for good, or move in enough Russian forces to combine with the remaining regime units, and finish off ISIS on the battlefield. ISIS is strong, but ISIS cannot defeat the Russian Army. In fact, ISIS would be hard-pressed to last more than a month against the military of France, the UK, Germany, Israel, China, even Iran. Putin doesn't scare easily, and he doesn't blink very often either. We believe he still has intentions for building a Russian Naval Base in Syria, and in order to accomplish this, he must keep his puppet as head of state. If the Russians lead a military offensive that sends ISIS packing, and Assad is hailed as a hero, how will Erdogan in Turkey take the news? Many of Syria's neighbors are anxious to see Assad deposed, but not at the risk of creating the ISIS Caliphate. What would be in the best interest of all, is if a western leader would emerge, who would lead a military coalition including the United States and Europe, and destroy ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. Where can we find such a leader? Lets hope one shows up soon, because ISIS is only getting stronger.
B. Russia delivers military aid to Syria's Assad.
Last Spring, when ISIS started to become a household word in Europe and the United States, the Obama Administration made clear its feelings by announcing the formation of the Allied Air Coalition. This coalition, which included warplanes from Kuwait, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Kingdom, allows European nations and the United States the opportunity to militarily strike against ISIS, without risking the lives of one soldier. Russia chose not to be a coalition member, probably because it would have impacted in some way Russia's close relationship with de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. How did Syria and Russia become so close? Decades ago, when Israel was being threatened by its neighbors with the Six-Day War, the War of Attrition, and the Yom Kippur War, the United States aggressively supported Israel, both diplomatically and with military aid. At the time, Russia was still the biggest part of the Soviet Union, and played the part of America's foil on the Cold War game board. When the Arab states would begin to plan attacks on Israel, the Russians were always nearby with T-54/55 and T-62 tanks, Artillery, and Mig warplanes. I always assumed that the Russians supported the enemies of Israel solely because the United States supported Israel so strongly. I'm sure the issue is a bit more complicated, but the close relationship between Damascus and Moscow survived the death of the Soviet Union (1991) and of Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez (2000). In earlier posts we commented on Vladimir Putin's often stated goal of having a port on the Mediterranean Sea for the Russian Navy. Long before ISIS appeared on the scene, the idea of Russia building a naval port on the Syrian coast near Latakia or Tartus was something considered by NATO intelligence experts and the Pentagon. Over the years, the Russians certainly built up enough good will. The issue probably didn't become a serious topic for the Russians until Putin took office. Given the invasion of Crimea and the support for separatists in Ukraine, he obviously pictures Russia as a nation with expanding national boundaries. Giving the Russian navy (and submarines in particular) a base from which to repair, refuel, rearm, etc. on the Mediterranean Sea would be a coup for Putin.
Most of the summer, when the media provided the world with daily stories from Syria of regime defeats, Putin seemed to be purposely keeping a low profile. Granted, the Russian invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, not to mention the destruction of a civilian airliner by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile, must have kept Putin quite busy. We began to wonder if maybe Assad's plight had become so precarious that even the Russians had jumped ship. I was half-expecting to see loads of family members boarding flights to exile in Russia, with their suitcases filled with money and antiquities. But no such luck. Assad has shown a willingness to see this thing through. I think Gadhafi expressed the same willingness, though, and look where it got him. Basically, Assad's regime forces are limited to defending everything west of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range. Two-thirds of Syria are presently occupied by either ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and its allies (give a few towns in the north to the Kurds, who as always, have fought with tremendous courage and determination). Putin may have arrived just in the nick of time, as JN has been expanding its attacks in the northwestern province of Hama, and onto the strategic al-Ghab plain. The Alawites of northwest Syria, always so loyal to the Assad's, are coming under great pressure from JN, and they are making their feelings known in Damascus.
Last week saw the arrival of Russian T-90 tanks to Latakia (the number of tanks is still being debated), and enough living pods for 1,500 persons. One can assume that the Russians will also be sending in intelligence officers and humanitarian aid personnel, so it can't be assumed that all 1,500 are earmarked for use by soldiers. Russia has also delivered artillery and loads of smaller arms, ammunition, and military equipment. Putin obviously believes that Assad can yet win the day. That cannot be accomplished with the military forces at Assad's disposal today. For ISIS to be defeated, the Russians either have to join a coalition with Europe and the United States to destroy ISIS for good, or move in enough Russian forces to combine with the remaining regime units, and finish off ISIS on the battlefield. ISIS is strong, but ISIS cannot defeat the Russian Army. In fact, ISIS would be hard-pressed to last more than a month against the military of France, the UK, Germany, Israel, China, even Iran. Putin doesn't scare easily, and he doesn't blink very often either. We believe he still has intentions for building a Russian Naval Base in Syria, and in order to accomplish this, he must keep his puppet as head of state. If the Russians lead a military offensive that sends ISIS packing, and Assad is hailed as a hero, how will Erdogan in Turkey take the news? Many of Syria's neighbors are anxious to see Assad deposed, but not at the risk of creating the ISIS Caliphate. What would be in the best interest of all, is if a western leader would emerge, who would lead a military coalition including the United States and Europe, and destroy ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. Where can we find such a leader? Lets hope one shows up soon, because ISIS is only getting stronger.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Thoughts on the Nuclear Treaty with Iraq and partisanship in general.
Link: Netanyahu voices concern over removal of sanctions.
Ever year our nation seems to become more politically partisan, with everyone claiming to be independent, but Independent candidates getting no traction whatsoever. No doubt if an Independent (meaning not Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) candidate arrived on the scene who had Donald Trump's bank account, we might see a very competitive election. But the system is built to support the two existing parties and the established methods for raising campaign funds. Independent candidates can never expect to come close to raising the kind of money that a serious Republican or Democrat can. Aside from that fact, we don't believe an Independent candidate would be representative of the United States electorate, anyways. In 2015, we are an opinionated nation, and people feel very strongly about the validity of their perspectives. w guess we're no different. When we hear someone expressing an opposite viewpoint, we do my best to give them a fair shake. But at the end of the day, after almost half-a-century on this planet, we have confidence in our opinions. And something important we've learned along the way: don't get mouthy and loud about issues in which you have no knowledge or experience. Here at "Mukhabarat, Baby!", we have made a point to avoid posting opinionated commentaries regarding the United States economy. Sure, we have opinions, but I'm not an economist. I do, however, consider myself to be knowledgeable on issues of diplomacy and foreign policy. Some readers may consider our site to be partisan, but you can be sure that we support our positions with evidence.
I recently read an article which introduced ten retired U.S. Army Generals who had come out in support of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Treaty with Iran. Its our understanding that the United States Army has hundreds of certified, true Generals among us, the vast majority of them retired. Something tells me, that if I made a bit of an effort (and you know, to protect this president, the media would make the effort), I could round up ten Generals who believe that the Reptilian People live amongst us. In other words, finding ten Generals to agree on something doesn't get you very far, especially when we are considering something as patently awful as this Treaty. The three issues that bother me the most about this treaty have nothing to do with the controversial subject of nuclear proliferation.
My first complaint has to do with a handful of U.S. citizens that are currently locked away in Iranian prisons. Not surprisingly, each one is being accused of having insulted Islam, being an enemy of the Islamic Republic, or a spy for the Zionists, or just a plain spy, period. The charges are bogus; they are in jail because they are U.S. citizens, and the Iranians thought that they might come in handy someday as bargaining chips of some sort. Normally, given the seriousness of the negotiations between the United States and Iran, you would have expected U.S. negotiators to have tried tooth-and-nail to make the release of our citizens part of any agreed-upon treaty. Can you believe that this president was so obsessed with the issue of his legacy that he allowed the Iranians to remove the subject of the prisoners/hostages from the negotiations, without the slightest complaint? How can a sitting U.S. president agree to a treaty with a foreign power that holds U.S. citizens in its jails, as hostages? The Administration has gone on record stating that the charges against the prisoners are false, and yet they were forsaken. What if that were your parent, or your sister, sitting in that Iranian jail? I wonder if they had promised to vote Democrat in the next election, if he might have tried a bit harder to have them included........
My second complaint: what steps has Iran taken that justify the lifting of weapons sanctions? A nation EARNS removal from a weapons embargo, at least that's the way it's been up to now. Does Iran continue to financially support terror groups around the world? Absolutely, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen (dumping the Houthis in with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch...we ask your indulgence). Iran also provides tremendously important support to the flailing regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Where else does Iran export weapons and warfare? Iraq is a good example; the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which have become so important in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq, include the Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Mahdi Army, and Kata'ib Hezbollah. Each group is trained and supplied by Iran. As for the Iranian Armed Forces, they are in serious need of updated materials. The Iranian Air Force is still flying a combination of ancient U.S.-made F5s (from the days of the Shah), and Migs that it stole from Iraq during the initial Gulf War. And unlike the Chinese, Indians, Israelis and South Africans, the Iranians have had little success utilizing older equipment, and creating an indigenous weapon by incorporating home-grown innovations and technologies. The Iranians need radar, jets, bombers, cargo planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, computerized targeting equipment, missiles, and artillery, and their navy needs submarines and frigates. Luckily, the economic sanctions will make it difficult for Iran to go on a shopping spree, now that the weapons-sanctions have been lifted. Wait....ALL sanctions are being lifted, aren't they? That means billions of dollars for Iran to buy what it wants. And once the Saudis and the U.A.E. realize that Iran is not only closer to a nuclear weapon, but that they are modernizing their Armed Forces as well, we will see a nice little arms race develop in the Persian Gulf. Its not Rocket Science, folks.
For all practical purposes, our last major complaint has already been covered. We believe that the Iranians should have been obliged to disavow the exportation of terror and the support of terrorist groups. It may have been just show, but at least we could make them look a bit foolish on an international stage. In reality, Iran should have been required to limit its aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to strictly humanitarian goods. In the end, nothing was asked of Iran. They were not asked to disavow terror, and they were not asked to dismantle certain facilities in Iran whose sole function is the processing of weapons-grade nuclear material. They were asked to halt all research into nuclear weapons-related projects, and to permit regular inspections. The Iranians refused to agree to the inspections, until Secretary of State John Kerry took a knife and severed the last set of balls that existed in this treaty, which was the option for unannounced inspections. What did Kerry agree to instead? The inspectors must request the opportunity to inspect each respective site, and that request must be made three weeks in advance of the actual inspection. To add to the absurdity, the Iranians reserved the right to DENY the request. In truth, what would we do? If the Iranians said, "we don't give you permission to inspect that particular site", would we automatically re-apply the sanctions? Would be take back the money that would have poured into Iran by then? And what about all the new upgraded military hardware....do you think they will return it, no questions asked?
Previously, we were convinced that the 2010 New Start Treaty was the worst treaty ever negotiated by a U.S. Secretary of State. John Kerry has proved us wrong, and in the same administration, no less.
Ever year our nation seems to become more politically partisan, with everyone claiming to be independent, but Independent candidates getting no traction whatsoever. No doubt if an Independent (meaning not Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) candidate arrived on the scene who had Donald Trump's bank account, we might see a very competitive election. But the system is built to support the two existing parties and the established methods for raising campaign funds. Independent candidates can never expect to come close to raising the kind of money that a serious Republican or Democrat can. Aside from that fact, we don't believe an Independent candidate would be representative of the United States electorate, anyways. In 2015, we are an opinionated nation, and people feel very strongly about the validity of their perspectives. w guess we're no different. When we hear someone expressing an opposite viewpoint, we do my best to give them a fair shake. But at the end of the day, after almost half-a-century on this planet, we have confidence in our opinions. And something important we've learned along the way: don't get mouthy and loud about issues in which you have no knowledge or experience. Here at "Mukhabarat, Baby!", we have made a point to avoid posting opinionated commentaries regarding the United States economy. Sure, we have opinions, but I'm not an economist. I do, however, consider myself to be knowledgeable on issues of diplomacy and foreign policy. Some readers may consider our site to be partisan, but you can be sure that we support our positions with evidence.
I recently read an article which introduced ten retired U.S. Army Generals who had come out in support of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Treaty with Iran. Its our understanding that the United States Army has hundreds of certified, true Generals among us, the vast majority of them retired. Something tells me, that if I made a bit of an effort (and you know, to protect this president, the media would make the effort), I could round up ten Generals who believe that the Reptilian People live amongst us. In other words, finding ten Generals to agree on something doesn't get you very far, especially when we are considering something as patently awful as this Treaty. The three issues that bother me the most about this treaty have nothing to do with the controversial subject of nuclear proliferation.
My first complaint has to do with a handful of U.S. citizens that are currently locked away in Iranian prisons. Not surprisingly, each one is being accused of having insulted Islam, being an enemy of the Islamic Republic, or a spy for the Zionists, or just a plain spy, period. The charges are bogus; they are in jail because they are U.S. citizens, and the Iranians thought that they might come in handy someday as bargaining chips of some sort. Normally, given the seriousness of the negotiations between the United States and Iran, you would have expected U.S. negotiators to have tried tooth-and-nail to make the release of our citizens part of any agreed-upon treaty. Can you believe that this president was so obsessed with the issue of his legacy that he allowed the Iranians to remove the subject of the prisoners/hostages from the negotiations, without the slightest complaint? How can a sitting U.S. president agree to a treaty with a foreign power that holds U.S. citizens in its jails, as hostages? The Administration has gone on record stating that the charges against the prisoners are false, and yet they were forsaken. What if that were your parent, or your sister, sitting in that Iranian jail? I wonder if they had promised to vote Democrat in the next election, if he might have tried a bit harder to have them included........
My second complaint: what steps has Iran taken that justify the lifting of weapons sanctions? A nation EARNS removal from a weapons embargo, at least that's the way it's been up to now. Does Iran continue to financially support terror groups around the world? Absolutely, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen (dumping the Houthis in with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch...we ask your indulgence). Iran also provides tremendously important support to the flailing regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Where else does Iran export weapons and warfare? Iraq is a good example; the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which have become so important in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq, include the Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Mahdi Army, and Kata'ib Hezbollah. Each group is trained and supplied by Iran. As for the Iranian Armed Forces, they are in serious need of updated materials. The Iranian Air Force is still flying a combination of ancient U.S.-made F5s (from the days of the Shah), and Migs that it stole from Iraq during the initial Gulf War. And unlike the Chinese, Indians, Israelis and South Africans, the Iranians have had little success utilizing older equipment, and creating an indigenous weapon by incorporating home-grown innovations and technologies. The Iranians need radar, jets, bombers, cargo planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, computerized targeting equipment, missiles, and artillery, and their navy needs submarines and frigates. Luckily, the economic sanctions will make it difficult for Iran to go on a shopping spree, now that the weapons-sanctions have been lifted. Wait....ALL sanctions are being lifted, aren't they? That means billions of dollars for Iran to buy what it wants. And once the Saudis and the U.A.E. realize that Iran is not only closer to a nuclear weapon, but that they are modernizing their Armed Forces as well, we will see a nice little arms race develop in the Persian Gulf. Its not Rocket Science, folks.
For all practical purposes, our last major complaint has already been covered. We believe that the Iranians should have been obliged to disavow the exportation of terror and the support of terrorist groups. It may have been just show, but at least we could make them look a bit foolish on an international stage. In reality, Iran should have been required to limit its aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to strictly humanitarian goods. In the end, nothing was asked of Iran. They were not asked to disavow terror, and they were not asked to dismantle certain facilities in Iran whose sole function is the processing of weapons-grade nuclear material. They were asked to halt all research into nuclear weapons-related projects, and to permit regular inspections. The Iranians refused to agree to the inspections, until Secretary of State John Kerry took a knife and severed the last set of balls that existed in this treaty, which was the option for unannounced inspections. What did Kerry agree to instead? The inspectors must request the opportunity to inspect each respective site, and that request must be made three weeks in advance of the actual inspection. To add to the absurdity, the Iranians reserved the right to DENY the request. In truth, what would we do? If the Iranians said, "we don't give you permission to inspect that particular site", would we automatically re-apply the sanctions? Would be take back the money that would have poured into Iran by then? And what about all the new upgraded military hardware....do you think they will return it, no questions asked?
Previously, we were convinced that the 2010 New Start Treaty was the worst treaty ever negotiated by a U.S. Secretary of State. John Kerry has proved us wrong, and in the same administration, no less.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Allies look to the U.S. to expand its military profile in the region; Turkish Air Force bombs both PKK and ISIS targets.
Links: A. Turkish Air Force hits both Kurdish/PKK and ISIS targets.
B. BBC comments on Turkish air strikes.
The current environment in the Middle East and the Levant (can't we just go back to using Mesopotamia?) has evolved so dramatically in the last month that regional players have been obliged to review, adjust, and re-apply strategies. The treaty drafted between Iranian officials and representatives from the United States and various European interested parties (the Foreign Minister of Austria was involved, and I swear to you that I have cans of corn older than he is) has been approved by the United Nations and now must be reviewed by the U.S. Congress and the Iranian Parliament. For the most part, the Iranians love this treaty, so the real test will be in the U.S. Congress. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (who, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, constitute the Gulf Monarchies) have unleashed their diplomats and foreign friends to investigate the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons without having a production facility. Being rich in fossil fuels, The Gulf Emirates have no need for nuclear power; but you can guarantee that they will be looking to purchase a nuclear weapon or three and a delivery system effective enough to at least act as a deterrent (how far are Tehran and Qom from King Khalid Air Force Base?). Not surprisingly, since the United States is responsible for the Iranian nuclear treaty, its allies in the region (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait and Iraq) fully expect the U.S. to strengthen its military presence and involvement in the region. The argument will be that since the U.S. took it upon itself to make the region all the more dangerous, then the U.S. needs to share in the security responsibility. Obviously the Administration agrees, as diplomats have been scurrying to various capitals, including Baghdad and Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, to discuss the possibility of new arms treaties.
Also, Turkey has decided to become more aggressive on the military front, bombing both PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) and ISIS (Islamic State) targets simultaneously. Turkey's attack on the PKK ended an unofficial truce between Ankara and the Kurdish independence organization that had existed since 2013. Before conducting the PKK raid, Turkey concluded an agreement with the United States for the use of the U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik, Turkey, by the allied air coalition currently active against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. Its obvious that Turkey timed its attack on the PKK only after placating U.S. efforts to use Incirlik. Also, Turkey sweetened the pot a bit by also bombing ISIS targets in Syria. We strongly suspect that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning to call for elections in the fall. His decision ratchet up military attacks on PKK targets after a two-year unofficial cease-fire is calculated to appeal to the Turkish voters, who are opposed to the PKK by a large percentage. At the same time, Turkish military action against ISIS, and the relaxation of opposition to the use of Incirlik, will no-doubt help to repair a damaged relationship with the United States, which is another issue that is very important to the average Turkish voter.
If Turkey were to decide to become one-hundred percent involved militarily in the efforts to defeat ISIS, the impact on the battlefield would be staggering. Similar to a full Iranian intervention in Iraq, the Turkish military would make short-order of ISIS, especially given that the Turks do not play with the same rule book as the United States. Turkey would have no hesitation using ISIS tactics to combat ISIS, which is one of the most effective ways to combat organizations of this nature. Any squeamishness or hesitance to act as barbarously as ISIS is automatically accepted as a sign of weakness, and used to ISIS' advantage, especially when utilizing the world press and social media. But Turkey will not be the agent of destruction for ISIS, because that result would leave Bashir al-Assad and his depleted regime military as the next biggest-fish in Syria. Erdogan despises Assad and will do nothing to aid the Syrian de-facto president and his Syrian Ba'ath Party cronies. Ideally, Iranian and Turkish diplomats and military leaders would convene a summit and create a military plan (with the U.S. and its European allies in full support) to destroy ISIS from two directions. Can you imagine two militarily powerful Muslim nations working together to destroy the world's worst terrorist threat of all time? It would send a tremendous message about the power of peace, and set an example for Christian nations to follow (Russia/Ukraine). Again, it won't happen, and not just because Erdogan hates Assad. The deep, ingrained prejudice that Sunnis and Shi'a have for one another will prevent any serious Muslim coalition. The best that can be hoped for is continued cooperation between the much smaller Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, and the Popular Mobilization Units/PMUs (Shi'a militias). The tripartite grouping of the supposed secular Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), and the Shi'a PMUs and Sunni tribal groups, has been kept in a very delicate balance up to now. The reason it has succeeded is because very little pressure has been exerted, i.e. the groups haven't been forced to merge as a fighting unit. Also, every effort is being made to keep one group from getting more credit for battlefield victories than the others. This effort has not always been successful.
B. BBC comments on Turkish air strikes.
The current environment in the Middle East and the Levant (can't we just go back to using Mesopotamia?) has evolved so dramatically in the last month that regional players have been obliged to review, adjust, and re-apply strategies. The treaty drafted between Iranian officials and representatives from the United States and various European interested parties (the Foreign Minister of Austria was involved, and I swear to you that I have cans of corn older than he is) has been approved by the United Nations and now must be reviewed by the U.S. Congress and the Iranian Parliament. For the most part, the Iranians love this treaty, so the real test will be in the U.S. Congress. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (who, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, constitute the Gulf Monarchies) have unleashed their diplomats and foreign friends to investigate the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons without having a production facility. Being rich in fossil fuels, The Gulf Emirates have no need for nuclear power; but you can guarantee that they will be looking to purchase a nuclear weapon or three and a delivery system effective enough to at least act as a deterrent (how far are Tehran and Qom from King Khalid Air Force Base?). Not surprisingly, since the United States is responsible for the Iranian nuclear treaty, its allies in the region (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait and Iraq) fully expect the U.S. to strengthen its military presence and involvement in the region. The argument will be that since the U.S. took it upon itself to make the region all the more dangerous, then the U.S. needs to share in the security responsibility. Obviously the Administration agrees, as diplomats have been scurrying to various capitals, including Baghdad and Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, to discuss the possibility of new arms treaties.
Also, Turkey has decided to become more aggressive on the military front, bombing both PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) and ISIS (Islamic State) targets simultaneously. Turkey's attack on the PKK ended an unofficial truce between Ankara and the Kurdish independence organization that had existed since 2013. Before conducting the PKK raid, Turkey concluded an agreement with the United States for the use of the U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik, Turkey, by the allied air coalition currently active against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. Its obvious that Turkey timed its attack on the PKK only after placating U.S. efforts to use Incirlik. Also, Turkey sweetened the pot a bit by also bombing ISIS targets in Syria. We strongly suspect that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is planning to call for elections in the fall. His decision ratchet up military attacks on PKK targets after a two-year unofficial cease-fire is calculated to appeal to the Turkish voters, who are opposed to the PKK by a large percentage. At the same time, Turkish military action against ISIS, and the relaxation of opposition to the use of Incirlik, will no-doubt help to repair a damaged relationship with the United States, which is another issue that is very important to the average Turkish voter.
If Turkey were to decide to become one-hundred percent involved militarily in the efforts to defeat ISIS, the impact on the battlefield would be staggering. Similar to a full Iranian intervention in Iraq, the Turkish military would make short-order of ISIS, especially given that the Turks do not play with the same rule book as the United States. Turkey would have no hesitation using ISIS tactics to combat ISIS, which is one of the most effective ways to combat organizations of this nature. Any squeamishness or hesitance to act as barbarously as ISIS is automatically accepted as a sign of weakness, and used to ISIS' advantage, especially when utilizing the world press and social media. But Turkey will not be the agent of destruction for ISIS, because that result would leave Bashir al-Assad and his depleted regime military as the next biggest-fish in Syria. Erdogan despises Assad and will do nothing to aid the Syrian de-facto president and his Syrian Ba'ath Party cronies. Ideally, Iranian and Turkish diplomats and military leaders would convene a summit and create a military plan (with the U.S. and its European allies in full support) to destroy ISIS from two directions. Can you imagine two militarily powerful Muslim nations working together to destroy the world's worst terrorist threat of all time? It would send a tremendous message about the power of peace, and set an example for Christian nations to follow (Russia/Ukraine). Again, it won't happen, and not just because Erdogan hates Assad. The deep, ingrained prejudice that Sunnis and Shi'a have for one another will prevent any serious Muslim coalition. The best that can be hoped for is continued cooperation between the much smaller Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, and the Popular Mobilization Units/PMUs (Shi'a militias). The tripartite grouping of the supposed secular Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), and the Shi'a PMUs and Sunni tribal groups, has been kept in a very delicate balance up to now. The reason it has succeeded is because very little pressure has been exerted, i.e. the groups haven't been forced to merge as a fighting unit. Also, every effort is being made to keep one group from getting more credit for battlefield victories than the others. This effort has not always been successful.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Is Hamas working with ISIS in Sinai?
Link: A. Is Hamas working with ISIS?
B. Developments in Sinai.
The Islamic State has a new name, folks. First, we struggled with ISIS; then we were challenged with "The Islamic State for the Creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", which, I guess, could become "ISCOCIL". Thank goodness someone had better sense. As for the new name on the scene, it has been selected to identify the nascent establishment of an armed element of the Islamic State that has been active in the Sinai region, and its name is "Wilayat Sinai". I'm no Arabic scholar, but the name "Wilayat" reminds me of "Vilayet", a term used to describe communities in the Ottoman Empire. My superior skills of deduction tell me that "Wilayat Sinai" identifies what the Islamic State has decided is a part of its future Caliphate. When they organize an armed group for a part of Jordan, it may be named, "Wilayat Amman". This new group located in north Sinai, traditional home of Hamas, introduced itself with a bang last week, by attacking an Egyptian Army checkpoint and killing all the soldiers on duty. The attack was coordinated to coincide with vehicle/suicide attacks on other Egyptian military targets, but things didn't go exactly as planned. The Egyptians acquitted themselves admirably and gave hell to the Wilayat Sinai fighters. Interestingly enough, this action took place under the noses of the U.S. military, which currently has a presence in Sinai. Task Force Sinai, a regiment-sized U.S. Army contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers, the U.N. peacekeeping organization in pace in Sinai since 1982. Aside from the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Unit, what exactly are these U.S. troops doing in Sinai?
When I think of Sinai, I think of that large land-mass that separate Egypt and Israel. When I was a child, I used to imagine the plight of the poor Israelites, crossing the Sinai desert, with Moses at the lead, to escape Pharaoh and slavery. The Sinai has been the location of a number of recent terrorist attacks against Egyptian soldiers and police. Last week, the ISIS-baby Wilayat Sinai got in on the act. The attacks against the Egyptian military were obviously a probing operation, to test the reaction time and effectiveness of the Egyptian contingent. The Pentagon has estimated that the Islamic State has roughly 200 fighters in north Sinai. We estimate the number to be closer to 500, but this includes new recruits, some of whom were probably present in last week's attacks, and gained experience through one helluva baptism of fire. We know that ISIS is spreading, and has established branches as far away as Nigeria. Yesterday Barrack Obama publicly announced that ISIS was on is heels. This guy really has Chutzpah. Only a few years ago, he described ISIS as being a "JV" (junior varsity) organization. They now control most of Syria and Iraq. He's a keeper, that's for sure. We can only imagine how Israel is digesting this recent news of ISIS presenting itself so near Israel's southern border. ISIS in the north, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and now ISIS in the south. I have a degree in Geography, so when I say that Israel is looking a bit "boxed in", you can take it to the bank.
I wasn't so much shocked about the coming-out party for Wilayat Sinai as I was the rumors of cooperation between the Islamic State and Hamas. I would have thought that ideologically, there would be some problems with this relationship, not to mention that Hamas considers itself the sage of terrorist activity, with ISIS being the snot-nosed upstart. But it does appear as if some level of cooperation has taken place, which really complicates an already muddy picture. For the moment, though, my concern is with Task Force Sinai. Again, I'm really confused about the marching order for these young men and women. Are they armed? Do they patrol? If they're peacekeepers, are they under the command of a foreigner? It wasn't so long ago that Hamas had militarized Gaza, and turned schools and hospitals into missile depositories, forcing the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to enter Gaza. This is a dangerous place, folks. What kind of peacekeeping are our soldiers doing? For now, lets forget about yesterday and deal with today and tomorrow. If ISIS has decided to extend its war for the Caliphate to the Sinai, I demand that our troops be armed all the time, with orders to defend themselves as appropriate to any self-defense situation. If the Administration is going to insist that our troops be unarmed, then its time to pull back our soldiers and replace them with diplomats. That would be there function after all, n'est pas?
B. Developments in Sinai.
The Islamic State has a new name, folks. First, we struggled with ISIS; then we were challenged with "The Islamic State for the Creation of a Caliphate in the Levant", which, I guess, could become "ISCOCIL". Thank goodness someone had better sense. As for the new name on the scene, it has been selected to identify the nascent establishment of an armed element of the Islamic State that has been active in the Sinai region, and its name is "Wilayat Sinai". I'm no Arabic scholar, but the name "Wilayat" reminds me of "Vilayet", a term used to describe communities in the Ottoman Empire. My superior skills of deduction tell me that "Wilayat Sinai" identifies what the Islamic State has decided is a part of its future Caliphate. When they organize an armed group for a part of Jordan, it may be named, "Wilayat Amman". This new group located in north Sinai, traditional home of Hamas, introduced itself with a bang last week, by attacking an Egyptian Army checkpoint and killing all the soldiers on duty. The attack was coordinated to coincide with vehicle/suicide attacks on other Egyptian military targets, but things didn't go exactly as planned. The Egyptians acquitted themselves admirably and gave hell to the Wilayat Sinai fighters. Interestingly enough, this action took place under the noses of the U.S. military, which currently has a presence in Sinai. Task Force Sinai, a regiment-sized U.S. Army contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers, the U.N. peacekeeping organization in pace in Sinai since 1982. Aside from the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Unit, what exactly are these U.S. troops doing in Sinai?
When I think of Sinai, I think of that large land-mass that separate Egypt and Israel. When I was a child, I used to imagine the plight of the poor Israelites, crossing the Sinai desert, with Moses at the lead, to escape Pharaoh and slavery. The Sinai has been the location of a number of recent terrorist attacks against Egyptian soldiers and police. Last week, the ISIS-baby Wilayat Sinai got in on the act. The attacks against the Egyptian military were obviously a probing operation, to test the reaction time and effectiveness of the Egyptian contingent. The Pentagon has estimated that the Islamic State has roughly 200 fighters in north Sinai. We estimate the number to be closer to 500, but this includes new recruits, some of whom were probably present in last week's attacks, and gained experience through one helluva baptism of fire. We know that ISIS is spreading, and has established branches as far away as Nigeria. Yesterday Barrack Obama publicly announced that ISIS was on is heels. This guy really has Chutzpah. Only a few years ago, he described ISIS as being a "JV" (junior varsity) organization. They now control most of Syria and Iraq. He's a keeper, that's for sure. We can only imagine how Israel is digesting this recent news of ISIS presenting itself so near Israel's southern border. ISIS in the north, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and now ISIS in the south. I have a degree in Geography, so when I say that Israel is looking a bit "boxed in", you can take it to the bank.
I wasn't so much shocked about the coming-out party for Wilayat Sinai as I was the rumors of cooperation between the Islamic State and Hamas. I would have thought that ideologically, there would be some problems with this relationship, not to mention that Hamas considers itself the sage of terrorist activity, with ISIS being the snot-nosed upstart. But it does appear as if some level of cooperation has taken place, which really complicates an already muddy picture. For the moment, though, my concern is with Task Force Sinai. Again, I'm really confused about the marching order for these young men and women. Are they armed? Do they patrol? If they're peacekeepers, are they under the command of a foreigner? It wasn't so long ago that Hamas had militarized Gaza, and turned schools and hospitals into missile depositories, forcing the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to enter Gaza. This is a dangerous place, folks. What kind of peacekeeping are our soldiers doing? For now, lets forget about yesterday and deal with today and tomorrow. If ISIS has decided to extend its war for the Caliphate to the Sinai, I demand that our troops be armed all the time, with orders to defend themselves as appropriate to any self-defense situation. If the Administration is going to insist that our troops be unarmed, then its time to pull back our soldiers and replace them with diplomats. That would be there function after all, n'est pas?
Monday, March 23, 2015
Just A Sign Of The Times......
Link: Did Obama Threaten To Shoot Down Israeli Warplanes?
Its so hard to believe, but 2016 is almost upon us. For me, the years pass so quickly, now that time has become so valuable. When I was younger, the term "middle age" was always confusing to me. It was meant to describe people in their 50s and early 60s (if my memory serves me correctly), but I found myself doing the math each and every time, and coming away perplexed. When I was fourteen, my middle-aged Grandmother was fifty-nine years old. Since she was considered middle-aged, shouldn't she expect to live to be somewhere near one-hundred twenty? She departed for her just rewards at around seventy-three years old. So "middle age" will just remain one of those quaint American terms that are impossible to translate. But my age is immaterial to this post. Hillary Clinton's age is a more apropos topic. How old is Hillary nowadays, anyway? Wikipedia says she's sixty-seven. Wow; the years have been rough on Hillary, and I mean no disrespect. Washington DC is a stressful town, and the cost of doing the nation's business can always be seen on the faces of the veterans like Hillary. Poor Mitch McConnell; his turkey neck will on occasion catch a gust of wind and blow him backwards five feet. I was going to say that Barbara Mikulski has been in DC so long that you can't really determine her gender, but actually, she arrived that way. Not too many pretty faces in Congress nowadays, and some of it is self-inflicted. I'm still totally confused about John Boehner's merry-go-round of tans. Sometimes he's Bahamas brown as a coconut, and the next day he will be lightly bronzed like a peanut. What a circus.
Circus or not, 2016 is almost upon us. I am so appalled at the state of affairs in the United States that I try to avoid addressing the long-term. My view is, that from an integrity perspective, its never to late to start doing the right thing. If the 2016 President-elect, with a compliant Congress, decides to tackle the national debt, how exactly do you get your hands around twenty trillion dollars? Don't forget, all of those outstretched hands aren't going anywhere, and the first elected leader who realistically attempts to attack Entitlements had better have thick skin. The only way to effectively attack the national debt is with targeted, substantial cuts to Entitlements. The current Administration has presided over the most massive growth in Entitlements that this country has ever seen. Commercials are produced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that encourage people to examine themselves to look for evidence of partial disability. There can be no doubt that the Obama Administration is determined to create a population that is solely dependent on the government from cradle to grave. I can't think of anything more un-American. But President Obama can't run for re-election, and currently he's singularly focused on trying to salvage his legacy by sponsoring a Nuclear Power Treaty with Tehran. Is there an American in this country who actually believes that the government of Iran will abide by a Treaty it signs with the U.S.? Since they've been so quick to remind us of our "Great Satan" reputation, why would we expect them to feel bound to any agreement they might sign? But you can rest assured that a Treaty will be signed. President Obama likes to pretend before the cameras that his tough-as-nails negotiators won't accept a weak or unverifiable Treaty, but you know just as well as I do, that their marching orders were to conclude a Treaty first, apply window dressing second. Welcome to Operation Salvaging the Legacy.
Out here in the Texas Hill Country, I rarely hear rumors. But believe it or not, we do get the internet down here deep in Red State territory, and so close to the Cradle of Texas Liberty, the Alamo. Per the link that I have provided above, a few weeks back a Kuwaiti newspaper (with a respected Editor) published a report, claiming that sometime in 2014, the Israelis were considering a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear research facilities, and that U.S. President Barrack Obama threatened to intercept and shoot down any Israeli planes who attempted such unilateral military action. We have learned only recently that negotiations with the Iranians were ongoing in 2014 as well. What have we become? And how was it accomplished in such a short period of time? I have no choice but to assume that the approval numbers for Obama, which currently reside near fifty percent, are accurate. Is it possible that fifty percent of the American public believe that Obama has done a good job with the economy, and has made the United States a safer place to raise our children? I'm old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976; it was the year of the bicentennial, and the year my beloved Guinea Pig, Snowball, died of heat stroke. I remember my father supported President Gerald Ford for re-election, but many people, especially in the younger subgroups, were visibly excited about a Carter Presidency. Many folks associated the Republicans with two negative issues: the Vietnam War and the Nixon scandal. Governor (of Georgia) Jimmy Carter promised an entire new direction.
Carter was victorious is one of the most astonishingly close elections in our nation's history, and his was true to his convictions. His policies were implemented at the earliest opportunity. And before you could say "oops", the country began to come apart at the seams. The economy was stagnant and refuse to grow. Our foreign policy appeared to be crafted as the day went on, with a public opposition to all terrorism but a behind-the-scenes willingness to talk to anyone. By the time an attempt to rescue the American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran had failed, even Carter seemed to understand that his ideas just weren't in sync with the American people. he did run for re-election, beating Senator Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination, but he was thoroughly trounced by the former Republican Governor of California, Ronald Reagan. The reason we have taken this little trip down memory lane, is because I can recall that many people who originally voted for Carter in 1976, had not trouble admitting that they had made a mistake. Just as many Republicans were quick to acknowledge their support of Richard Nixon as an error. In fact, being big enough to own up to a bad political decision seems very American to me. But we have undergone a tremendous Sea Change in the last twenty years. The country could be burning to the ground around us, with Al-Qaeda chopping of heads for lunch at the local Dollar General, and folks would still vote for Barrack Obama. This explains why, with a twenty trillion dollar deficit, a confused and bumbling foreign policy, a military that can't provide basic health care to its veterans, and a small group of elite politicians who continue to live above the law (Hello, Hillary). I guess its all just a sign of the times......
Its so hard to believe, but 2016 is almost upon us. For me, the years pass so quickly, now that time has become so valuable. When I was younger, the term "middle age" was always confusing to me. It was meant to describe people in their 50s and early 60s (if my memory serves me correctly), but I found myself doing the math each and every time, and coming away perplexed. When I was fourteen, my middle-aged Grandmother was fifty-nine years old. Since she was considered middle-aged, shouldn't she expect to live to be somewhere near one-hundred twenty? She departed for her just rewards at around seventy-three years old. So "middle age" will just remain one of those quaint American terms that are impossible to translate. But my age is immaterial to this post. Hillary Clinton's age is a more apropos topic. How old is Hillary nowadays, anyway? Wikipedia says she's sixty-seven. Wow; the years have been rough on Hillary, and I mean no disrespect. Washington DC is a stressful town, and the cost of doing the nation's business can always be seen on the faces of the veterans like Hillary. Poor Mitch McConnell; his turkey neck will on occasion catch a gust of wind and blow him backwards five feet. I was going to say that Barbara Mikulski has been in DC so long that you can't really determine her gender, but actually, she arrived that way. Not too many pretty faces in Congress nowadays, and some of it is self-inflicted. I'm still totally confused about John Boehner's merry-go-round of tans. Sometimes he's Bahamas brown as a coconut, and the next day he will be lightly bronzed like a peanut. What a circus.
Circus or not, 2016 is almost upon us. I am so appalled at the state of affairs in the United States that I try to avoid addressing the long-term. My view is, that from an integrity perspective, its never to late to start doing the right thing. If the 2016 President-elect, with a compliant Congress, decides to tackle the national debt, how exactly do you get your hands around twenty trillion dollars? Don't forget, all of those outstretched hands aren't going anywhere, and the first elected leader who realistically attempts to attack Entitlements had better have thick skin. The only way to effectively attack the national debt is with targeted, substantial cuts to Entitlements. The current Administration has presided over the most massive growth in Entitlements that this country has ever seen. Commercials are produced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that encourage people to examine themselves to look for evidence of partial disability. There can be no doubt that the Obama Administration is determined to create a population that is solely dependent on the government from cradle to grave. I can't think of anything more un-American. But President Obama can't run for re-election, and currently he's singularly focused on trying to salvage his legacy by sponsoring a Nuclear Power Treaty with Tehran. Is there an American in this country who actually believes that the government of Iran will abide by a Treaty it signs with the U.S.? Since they've been so quick to remind us of our "Great Satan" reputation, why would we expect them to feel bound to any agreement they might sign? But you can rest assured that a Treaty will be signed. President Obama likes to pretend before the cameras that his tough-as-nails negotiators won't accept a weak or unverifiable Treaty, but you know just as well as I do, that their marching orders were to conclude a Treaty first, apply window dressing second. Welcome to Operation Salvaging the Legacy.
Out here in the Texas Hill Country, I rarely hear rumors. But believe it or not, we do get the internet down here deep in Red State territory, and so close to the Cradle of Texas Liberty, the Alamo. Per the link that I have provided above, a few weeks back a Kuwaiti newspaper (with a respected Editor) published a report, claiming that sometime in 2014, the Israelis were considering a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear research facilities, and that U.S. President Barrack Obama threatened to intercept and shoot down any Israeli planes who attempted such unilateral military action. We have learned only recently that negotiations with the Iranians were ongoing in 2014 as well. What have we become? And how was it accomplished in such a short period of time? I have no choice but to assume that the approval numbers for Obama, which currently reside near fifty percent, are accurate. Is it possible that fifty percent of the American public believe that Obama has done a good job with the economy, and has made the United States a safer place to raise our children? I'm old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976; it was the year of the bicentennial, and the year my beloved Guinea Pig, Snowball, died of heat stroke. I remember my father supported President Gerald Ford for re-election, but many people, especially in the younger subgroups, were visibly excited about a Carter Presidency. Many folks associated the Republicans with two negative issues: the Vietnam War and the Nixon scandal. Governor (of Georgia) Jimmy Carter promised an entire new direction.
Carter was victorious is one of the most astonishingly close elections in our nation's history, and his was true to his convictions. His policies were implemented at the earliest opportunity. And before you could say "oops", the country began to come apart at the seams. The economy was stagnant and refuse to grow. Our foreign policy appeared to be crafted as the day went on, with a public opposition to all terrorism but a behind-the-scenes willingness to talk to anyone. By the time an attempt to rescue the American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran had failed, even Carter seemed to understand that his ideas just weren't in sync with the American people. he did run for re-election, beating Senator Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination, but he was thoroughly trounced by the former Republican Governor of California, Ronald Reagan. The reason we have taken this little trip down memory lane, is because I can recall that many people who originally voted for Carter in 1976, had not trouble admitting that they had made a mistake. Just as many Republicans were quick to acknowledge their support of Richard Nixon as an error. In fact, being big enough to own up to a bad political decision seems very American to me. But we have undergone a tremendous Sea Change in the last twenty years. The country could be burning to the ground around us, with Al-Qaeda chopping of heads for lunch at the local Dollar General, and folks would still vote for Barrack Obama. This explains why, with a twenty trillion dollar deficit, a confused and bumbling foreign policy, a military that can't provide basic health care to its veterans, and a small group of elite politicians who continue to live above the law (Hello, Hillary). I guess its all just a sign of the times......
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Islamic State Weakesses Exposed In Iraq; Netanyahu Struggling To Get Electoral Traction
Links: A. Islamic State Losses Mount In Iraq
B. Netanyahu Facing Difficult Election
The Obama Administration and the governments in Tehran and Baghdad have reason to breathe a long sigh of relief. It seems as if only yesterday, the Islamic State (IS) was aggressively expanding its military presence, to include Diyala Province and the Shi'a holy cities in central and southern Iraq. The allied air campaign appeared to have little impact against an enemy that was comfortable using the weather forecast in its operational planning, and the Iranian government was faced with increased international attention because of intended diplomatic discussions with the Obama Administration regarding its Nuclear Program. The IS was threatening Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) positions in the west, and U.S. instructors and advisors at the al-Asad Air Base, after overrunning the nearby town of al-Baghdadi. Roughly four weeks later, the ISF has successfully conducted a multi-faceted operation to retake Saddam Hussein's home of Tikrit, The Peshmerga are consolidating their control over important communities in northwest Iraq, and operations outside of Kirkuk might demonstrate a level of cooperation between the Peshmerga, the ISF, and local militia that has yet to be noted. Last year, the Kirkuk government had expressed opposition to federal forces (ISF) operating in the province. If the hardline position taken by authorities in Kirkuk has been reversed, it would be significant, as the IS would be forced to defend against a united enemy, as opposed to three separate, smaller opponents, each with their own focus and agenda.
The string of recent IS losses point to an opponent that has become better funded, equipped and motivated. There was some concern that regular Iranian forces would be obliged to enter the conflict, especially if the IS had been able to consolidate its operations in Diyala Province. But the IS has adopted a defensive posture in much of Iraq, as its units were over-extended in numerous locations, and unable to find adequate supplies or food. It should be noted, however, that the structure of the IS allows it to continue aggressive offensive operations in Ramadi and Fallujah, while pulling back in Tikrit and Kirkuk. It took some time and a few desperate engagements, but the ISF and its surrogate Shi'a militia partners have started to function much more like a single unit, which increases the impact of offensive operations. If you include the Peshmerga and local anti-IS Sunni militia in the mix, and the IS is in real danger of being swept up in north central Iraq. The existence of an effective support network has proven invaluable for the ISF and the Peshmerga, and the lack of has been crippling for IS forces. If the ISF and Peshmerga successfully continue their campaign to push the IS out of the areas of Erbil, Mosul, Baiji and Kirkuk, then we will be returning almost exclusively to the still-familiar battlefields of 2007-2008: Ramadi and Fallujah. It will be interesting to observe what lessons the IS has learned from the battle of Fallujah between insurgents and the U.S. military, and also if the ISF will follow the same strategy that eventually won the day for U.S. and Iraqi government forces.
Iranian Diplomacy and the Issue of Iraq: recent positive developments on the battlefields of Iraq have given the Iranian government a bit more breathing room. The announcement last month by the Obama Administration of an effort to engage the Iranian government directly and address the nuclear issue, increased the pressure on the government in Tehran to avoid the appearance of aggressive, unwelcome military operations in Iraq. Tehran has been able to support the Iraqi government (and military) with advisors and military aid, but the real benefit from Iran comes from the involvement of the Shi'a militias. These militias, who follow the guidance of religious leaders as opposed to the orders of politicians or generals, act as a surrogate military presence in lieu of regular Iranian units. They are not necessarily well-trained, but are usually well-equipped and highly motivated to die for their religion (they consider the IS to be the worst kind of Sunni movement, one that directly threatens the very existence of the Shi'a community). Even with the presence of the militias, there was a period when analysts were considering the probability of direct Iranian military intervention. By avoiding this development, Tehran can keep the international focus on its apparent "forward-leaning" attitude vis-a-vis meeting with the Obama Administration to discuss a possible resolution to the nuclear issue. Such an agreement would not only help to reform the Iranian image worldwide, it would more than likely include a return to normal diplomatic relations with the United States (first Cuba, then Iran....whose next, North Korea?).
On March 17, the people of Israel will elect a new Knesset. This election was not mandatory; when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the decision to conduct early elections, analysts anticipated a strong Likud victory, and possibly a bit of a mandate for Netanyahu to continue his hardline policies. What has transpired has been nothing short of astounding, and I'm sure will result in an interesting documentary ort film one day. Forces opposed to Netanyahu coalesced, and using lessons learned from the last two U.S. presidential elections, have created an electoral juggernaut that could very well put a center-left government in office, when over seventy percent of Israelis still identify themselves as either conservatives or supporters of Likud. The strategy relies on a number of factors: first, all voters who support or lean towards the center-left must be identified, located and registered to vote. Next, a full-proof transportation network must be put in place, to ensure that voters reach the correct voting station before it closes (Israeli electoral law has no absentee voting provision, and voting locations are instructed to close exactly on a pre-designated time; if you arrived late, too bad). As is usually the case, this election will be decided by turnout. The Israeli press, much of it hostile to Netanyahu, has been aggressively attacking the Prime Minister on every aspect of his leadership, and Netanyahu's allegation that foreign money has entered the Israeli political system is correct. A great deal of money from outside Israel has found its way into this election, especially with regards to anti-Netanyahu advertisements. On the other hand, Netanyahu is wildly popular in the United States, and Likud has certainly benefited from the financial support of Americans. I'm not prepared to write-off Netanyahu. He has worked tirelessly to galvanize Likud voters against a threat to the party, and no doubt on election day, a certain percentage of other rightist and religious parties will cross lines and vote Likud, just to show opposition to The Zionist Union.
B. Netanyahu Facing Difficult Election
The Obama Administration and the governments in Tehran and Baghdad have reason to breathe a long sigh of relief. It seems as if only yesterday, the Islamic State (IS) was aggressively expanding its military presence, to include Diyala Province and the Shi'a holy cities in central and southern Iraq. The allied air campaign appeared to have little impact against an enemy that was comfortable using the weather forecast in its operational planning, and the Iranian government was faced with increased international attention because of intended diplomatic discussions with the Obama Administration regarding its Nuclear Program. The IS was threatening Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) positions in the west, and U.S. instructors and advisors at the al-Asad Air Base, after overrunning the nearby town of al-Baghdadi. Roughly four weeks later, the ISF has successfully conducted a multi-faceted operation to retake Saddam Hussein's home of Tikrit, The Peshmerga are consolidating their control over important communities in northwest Iraq, and operations outside of Kirkuk might demonstrate a level of cooperation between the Peshmerga, the ISF, and local militia that has yet to be noted. Last year, the Kirkuk government had expressed opposition to federal forces (ISF) operating in the province. If the hardline position taken by authorities in Kirkuk has been reversed, it would be significant, as the IS would be forced to defend against a united enemy, as opposed to three separate, smaller opponents, each with their own focus and agenda.
The string of recent IS losses point to an opponent that has become better funded, equipped and motivated. There was some concern that regular Iranian forces would be obliged to enter the conflict, especially if the IS had been able to consolidate its operations in Diyala Province. But the IS has adopted a defensive posture in much of Iraq, as its units were over-extended in numerous locations, and unable to find adequate supplies or food. It should be noted, however, that the structure of the IS allows it to continue aggressive offensive operations in Ramadi and Fallujah, while pulling back in Tikrit and Kirkuk. It took some time and a few desperate engagements, but the ISF and its surrogate Shi'a militia partners have started to function much more like a single unit, which increases the impact of offensive operations. If you include the Peshmerga and local anti-IS Sunni militia in the mix, and the IS is in real danger of being swept up in north central Iraq. The existence of an effective support network has proven invaluable for the ISF and the Peshmerga, and the lack of has been crippling for IS forces. If the ISF and Peshmerga successfully continue their campaign to push the IS out of the areas of Erbil, Mosul, Baiji and Kirkuk, then we will be returning almost exclusively to the still-familiar battlefields of 2007-2008: Ramadi and Fallujah. It will be interesting to observe what lessons the IS has learned from the battle of Fallujah between insurgents and the U.S. military, and also if the ISF will follow the same strategy that eventually won the day for U.S. and Iraqi government forces.
Iranian Diplomacy and the Issue of Iraq: recent positive developments on the battlefields of Iraq have given the Iranian government a bit more breathing room. The announcement last month by the Obama Administration of an effort to engage the Iranian government directly and address the nuclear issue, increased the pressure on the government in Tehran to avoid the appearance of aggressive, unwelcome military operations in Iraq. Tehran has been able to support the Iraqi government (and military) with advisors and military aid, but the real benefit from Iran comes from the involvement of the Shi'a militias. These militias, who follow the guidance of religious leaders as opposed to the orders of politicians or generals, act as a surrogate military presence in lieu of regular Iranian units. They are not necessarily well-trained, but are usually well-equipped and highly motivated to die for their religion (they consider the IS to be the worst kind of Sunni movement, one that directly threatens the very existence of the Shi'a community). Even with the presence of the militias, there was a period when analysts were considering the probability of direct Iranian military intervention. By avoiding this development, Tehran can keep the international focus on its apparent "forward-leaning" attitude vis-a-vis meeting with the Obama Administration to discuss a possible resolution to the nuclear issue. Such an agreement would not only help to reform the Iranian image worldwide, it would more than likely include a return to normal diplomatic relations with the United States (first Cuba, then Iran....whose next, North Korea?).
On March 17, the people of Israel will elect a new Knesset. This election was not mandatory; when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the decision to conduct early elections, analysts anticipated a strong Likud victory, and possibly a bit of a mandate for Netanyahu to continue his hardline policies. What has transpired has been nothing short of astounding, and I'm sure will result in an interesting documentary ort film one day. Forces opposed to Netanyahu coalesced, and using lessons learned from the last two U.S. presidential elections, have created an electoral juggernaut that could very well put a center-left government in office, when over seventy percent of Israelis still identify themselves as either conservatives or supporters of Likud. The strategy relies on a number of factors: first, all voters who support or lean towards the center-left must be identified, located and registered to vote. Next, a full-proof transportation network must be put in place, to ensure that voters reach the correct voting station before it closes (Israeli electoral law has no absentee voting provision, and voting locations are instructed to close exactly on a pre-designated time; if you arrived late, too bad). As is usually the case, this election will be decided by turnout. The Israeli press, much of it hostile to Netanyahu, has been aggressively attacking the Prime Minister on every aspect of his leadership, and Netanyahu's allegation that foreign money has entered the Israeli political system is correct. A great deal of money from outside Israel has found its way into this election, especially with regards to anti-Netanyahu advertisements. On the other hand, Netanyahu is wildly popular in the United States, and Likud has certainly benefited from the financial support of Americans. I'm not prepared to write-off Netanyahu. He has worked tirelessly to galvanize Likud voters against a threat to the party, and no doubt on election day, a certain percentage of other rightist and religious parties will cross lines and vote Likud, just to show opposition to The Zionist Union.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Why Won't Someone Help The Poor Palestinians? (Part II)
(Part II)
Funding from the west (the EU, UN and the United States...please see links) also poured into the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The eternal optimists with all the loose cash continued to believe that they were paying for the rebuilding of homes, infrastructure, possibly an airport, harbor facilities in Gaza, a medical system for both the West Bank and Gaza, a unified education system for both primary and secondary education, etc. None of it happened. The Arabs and those that espouse the cause of the Palestinians try to find reason to blame the Israelis, but the reality is, the money was stolen, plain and simple. It continues to be stolen and it will always be stolen until someone creates some system of accountability. A few Palestinians who have managed to reach the top of the political structure, not to mention the bosses in Hamas and the PA, have done very well. But the five million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank still live in absolute destitution. Hamas and the PA (and the anti-Zionists) have tried repeatedly to blame the plight of the Palestinians on the lack of a political resolution to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (and the continued Jewish settlements, and the Israeli control of the economy of Gaza, etc.) But the reality is, if Israel were to pull out of the West Bank tomorrow and dismantle all of the Jewish settlements, it would not result in the building of one Palestinian home, supermarket, crèche, or hospital. The Palestinian communities would continue to exist as the have for the last four decades. One fact would change: Israel would be handing over territory that would OVERNIGHT become a base for terror operations into Israel proper. If you don't see that coming then you are too blind to have a balanced conversation on the subject. The groups and individuals that represent the Palestinians (in many instances chosen by the Palestinians) do not call for sharing the land and living peacefully together. They are still dedicated to destruction of Israel, and make no effort to disguise their intentions.
As complicated as it seems in this short commentary, believe me, this issue is one hundred times more convoluted. No one can be satisfied with the reality that five million Palestinians, whose parents and grandparents actually called Israel home sixty years ago (they called it Palestine, not Israel), are obliged to live under a military occupation and without any real hope for the future. The PA, who should have used the financial aid from the west to build some sort of functioning economic system that creates jobs and grows wealth, builds new homes and sanitation systems, and improves the lives of the people. It never happens. The PA owns one plane, I think its an old 737, and they have no real airport from which to fly it (the operative word being "real"). Can you imagine the fishing industry that would take root in Gaza with a legitimate port facility, not to mention revenue and jobs from imports and exports that could be charged to Israel and Egypt? The only way a port facility will ever be built in Gaza is if someone arrives TO BUILD IT. Any funds donated for that kind of a project will be stolen.
I used to have this idea in my head that one day Israel would be able to foster the development of a separate Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. it won't be easy getting the Israelis to agree to leave the West Bank and to leave Gaza in peace, but I have a feeling that if a year passed without any terrorist attacks on Israeli targets originating from the West Bank or tunnels dug from Gaza, that the Israeli people would be amenable. The next step would be to find some mechanism to ensure that development aid gets spent on infrastructure and education, instead of ending up in Swiss Bank Accounts. I made an effort to calculate the total amount of money that had been given to the Palestinian people through their political representatives over the years. I quit when I reached the thirty billion dollar mark. That equals six thousand dollars for every Palestinian man, woman and child. And there is nothing to show for it. The development that has occurred in the West Bank and Gaza includes a few "showy" projects for the Europeans, and that's all. The rest has been accomplished by the sacrifice and hard work of the Palestinian people, who are taxed, by the way. I can't help but wonder exactly what they are paying for with their taxes. In some cases, running water and electricity. And the right to live under the authority of the PA or Hamas, within the occupation of the Israeli military. Can you imagine a more discouraging environment in which to raise a family?
Funding from the west (the EU, UN and the United States...please see links) also poured into the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The eternal optimists with all the loose cash continued to believe that they were paying for the rebuilding of homes, infrastructure, possibly an airport, harbor facilities in Gaza, a medical system for both the West Bank and Gaza, a unified education system for both primary and secondary education, etc. None of it happened. The Arabs and those that espouse the cause of the Palestinians try to find reason to blame the Israelis, but the reality is, the money was stolen, plain and simple. It continues to be stolen and it will always be stolen until someone creates some system of accountability. A few Palestinians who have managed to reach the top of the political structure, not to mention the bosses in Hamas and the PA, have done very well. But the five million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank still live in absolute destitution. Hamas and the PA (and the anti-Zionists) have tried repeatedly to blame the plight of the Palestinians on the lack of a political resolution to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (and the continued Jewish settlements, and the Israeli control of the economy of Gaza, etc.) But the reality is, if Israel were to pull out of the West Bank tomorrow and dismantle all of the Jewish settlements, it would not result in the building of one Palestinian home, supermarket, crèche, or hospital. The Palestinian communities would continue to exist as the have for the last four decades. One fact would change: Israel would be handing over territory that would OVERNIGHT become a base for terror operations into Israel proper. If you don't see that coming then you are too blind to have a balanced conversation on the subject. The groups and individuals that represent the Palestinians (in many instances chosen by the Palestinians) do not call for sharing the land and living peacefully together. They are still dedicated to destruction of Israel, and make no effort to disguise their intentions.
As complicated as it seems in this short commentary, believe me, this issue is one hundred times more convoluted. No one can be satisfied with the reality that five million Palestinians, whose parents and grandparents actually called Israel home sixty years ago (they called it Palestine, not Israel), are obliged to live under a military occupation and without any real hope for the future. The PA, who should have used the financial aid from the west to build some sort of functioning economic system that creates jobs and grows wealth, builds new homes and sanitation systems, and improves the lives of the people. It never happens. The PA owns one plane, I think its an old 737, and they have no real airport from which to fly it (the operative word being "real"). Can you imagine the fishing industry that would take root in Gaza with a legitimate port facility, not to mention revenue and jobs from imports and exports that could be charged to Israel and Egypt? The only way a port facility will ever be built in Gaza is if someone arrives TO BUILD IT. Any funds donated for that kind of a project will be stolen.
I used to have this idea in my head that one day Israel would be able to foster the development of a separate Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. it won't be easy getting the Israelis to agree to leave the West Bank and to leave Gaza in peace, but I have a feeling that if a year passed without any terrorist attacks on Israeli targets originating from the West Bank or tunnels dug from Gaza, that the Israeli people would be amenable. The next step would be to find some mechanism to ensure that development aid gets spent on infrastructure and education, instead of ending up in Swiss Bank Accounts. I made an effort to calculate the total amount of money that had been given to the Palestinian people through their political representatives over the years. I quit when I reached the thirty billion dollar mark. That equals six thousand dollars for every Palestinian man, woman and child. And there is nothing to show for it. The development that has occurred in the West Bank and Gaza includes a few "showy" projects for the Europeans, and that's all. The rest has been accomplished by the sacrifice and hard work of the Palestinian people, who are taxed, by the way. I can't help but wonder exactly what they are paying for with their taxes. In some cases, running water and electricity. And the right to live under the authority of the PA or Hamas, within the occupation of the Israeli military. Can you imagine a more discouraging environment in which to raise a family?
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Why Won't Someone Help the Poor Palestinians? (Part I)
Links: A. Wikipedia Entry For Palestine
B. PLO Corruption
C. Endemic Corruption in Palestine
D. EU Audit Of PA Finds Billions Unaccounted For
E. Obama Releases 500 Million In Aid To PA
Now THIS is a tough subject to tackle in four paragraphs or less. Politically speaking, I do not apologize for the fact that I am a great admirer and supporter of the Israeli people. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you unless this is the first time you have visited the blog. Simply put, I tend to look at the history of the region with as little complication as possible. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British-occupied land known as Palestine, and divide it between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. The international Jewish community was still reeling from the damages of the Holocaust, and there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of the idea of a Jewish nation or homeland. Obviously consideration was given to the European survivors of the genocide, and the real possibility that they had no interest in returning to Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, or any other country that had either assisted the Nazis or turned a blind eye to the relocation of European Jews to concentration camps. Before the World Wars, and international Zionist organization existed for the sole purpose of finding a suitable location for a Jewish homeland (the Russian pogroms, miniature versions of the death camps, had sounded the alarm that trouble was on its way). If they had been successful, it would be interesting to know if Israel as we know it would have come into existence.
Following the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was determined to provide the Jewish diaspora some place to claim as their own. Palestine seemed like as good a place as any. the population was very rural, much of it nomadic. It was home to two large urban areas, Jerusalem and Haifa, but otherwise, the UN probably assumed no one would complain about their choice. Certainly the Jews were happy, because Palestine was the land of David and the home of the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem. In truth, the Arab community was not happy, because for as long as anyone could recall, the land was Arab land (occupied by Ottoman Turks from the 14th century until the end of the First World War). The UN and the British expected them to share with the Jews but why should they have to share anything that belongs to them? The Arab countries in the region rose in revolt and invaded the nascent state of Israel. the Israelis, against all odds, prevailed, just as they did in the Six-Day war (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). In each instance Israel was heavily outnumbered in tanks, planes and troops (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, sometimes Lebanon against Israel), but managed to win and occupy formerly Egyptian and Jordanian territory. This is the crux of the problem: Israel's continued occupation of land that the Palestinians claim is their homeland.
Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel militarily occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River (Jordan). Each location was strategic and was used as the invasion route chosen by the Arab armies, so Israel felt justified it keeping this land. The Sinai, which is sparsely populated, was eventually returned to Egypt, but the West Bank, heavily populated, and the Golan Heights, were not returned. When Israel won its war of Independence in 1947, the Arabs that were living in Israel or in territory that was now occupied by Israeli forces, picked up and moved, mostly to Jordan. After the next two wars, Israel assumed possession of the part of Jordan known as the West Bank, which was home to almost three million Arabs, who rightly identified themselves as Palestinians. Initially Israel considered annexing the West Bank permanently, and construction began on Jewish settlements. its possible that the leaders of Israel at the time thought it might encourage the Palestinians to leave the West Bank, but they didn't. Then the Jewish settlements became a hot-button issue in internal Israeli politics. The moderates and the left in the Knesset demanded at least an end to construction, and at best, an evacuation of Israeli Jews. On the other hand, the right-wing coalition not only refused to stop existing construction, they announced intentions to start new developments. The occupying Palestinians were left to consider that three decades previously, the entire land was Arab; they were forced to move in 1947, then again in 1967. There would not be another move. The Golan heights of Syria did not develop into an issue of settlements; instead, it would flare-up every few years when the Syrians would demand Israeli withdrawal, and in response Israel would gas up the tanks for a nice Golan parade.
One very small section of the Egyptian Sinai was heavily populated. The Gaza Strip borders the Mediterranean on the west, Israel on the north and east, and Egypt on the south. The small piece of land (139 square miles) is home to almost two million Palestinians, another example of people being moved from one place to the next because of war. At least Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. It is administered by Hamas, a political party that is recognized as a terrorist organization in the west. In total, roughly five million Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank. They have been demanding independence for as long as I can remember. Gaza is independent, but its economy is controlled by Israel and Egypt, who can shut its borders on a whim. Interestingly enough, the majority of Palestinians (and descendants of the original occupants of Palestine) have probably settled and put down roots in other countries, including the United States, various European nations, Lebanon, and the Gulf States. In a sad aside note, in some of the wealthier Arab countries, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and find it difficult to qualify for anything but manual labor jobs and cleaning up after people. While screaming about how Israel mistreats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, wealthy Arab families in Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE do just the same in their own homes to their Palestinian maids and garden workers. Back to the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. Since we are talking about almost five million souls, the resolution of this issue needs to be a priority. When it became clear that Gaza was going to achieve some level of self-governance, the call went out to the west for financial support. The hope was that Gaza would become a peaceful, economically successful (albeit crowded) nation, able to decide it own affairs. Once the money started flowing in, everything changed. The original political representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat, eventually renounced terrorism when they realized how much money would be donated from the west to help build schools, infrastructure, etc. Arafat and his PLO collected billions of dollars from the west, and managed to steal just about every penny. When Arafat died, the number of bank accounts in his name (many in Paris), and the amount of money that would be inherited by his widow, was nothing short of staggering. After the PLO, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was born to represent the interests of the Palestinian People. Following the renouncing of terror by the PLO, two groups in the region picked up the mantle of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas seated itself right in the middle of the Palestinian "occupied territories", while Hezbollah, addicted to financial support from Iran and Syria, chose Lebanon as a safe place from which to lob the odd missile into northern Israeli settlements. Once financial aid started to flow into Gaza, The PA and Hamas decided to fight for the title of "official political representative of the Palestinian community of Gaza". Hamas won the most recent election, so they are currently the legitimate government in Gaza. And they are also still on just about everyone's short list of nasty terrorist organizations.
B. PLO Corruption
C. Endemic Corruption in Palestine
D. EU Audit Of PA Finds Billions Unaccounted For
E. Obama Releases 500 Million In Aid To PA
Now THIS is a tough subject to tackle in four paragraphs or less. Politically speaking, I do not apologize for the fact that I am a great admirer and supporter of the Israeli people. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you unless this is the first time you have visited the blog. Simply put, I tend to look at the history of the region with as little complication as possible. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British-occupied land known as Palestine, and divide it between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. The international Jewish community was still reeling from the damages of the Holocaust, and there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of the idea of a Jewish nation or homeland. Obviously consideration was given to the European survivors of the genocide, and the real possibility that they had no interest in returning to Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, or any other country that had either assisted the Nazis or turned a blind eye to the relocation of European Jews to concentration camps. Before the World Wars, and international Zionist organization existed for the sole purpose of finding a suitable location for a Jewish homeland (the Russian pogroms, miniature versions of the death camps, had sounded the alarm that trouble was on its way). If they had been successful, it would be interesting to know if Israel as we know it would have come into existence.
Following the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was determined to provide the Jewish diaspora some place to claim as their own. Palestine seemed like as good a place as any. the population was very rural, much of it nomadic. It was home to two large urban areas, Jerusalem and Haifa, but otherwise, the UN probably assumed no one would complain about their choice. Certainly the Jews were happy, because Palestine was the land of David and the home of the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem. In truth, the Arab community was not happy, because for as long as anyone could recall, the land was Arab land (occupied by Ottoman Turks from the 14th century until the end of the First World War). The UN and the British expected them to share with the Jews but why should they have to share anything that belongs to them? The Arab countries in the region rose in revolt and invaded the nascent state of Israel. the Israelis, against all odds, prevailed, just as they did in the Six-Day war (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). In each instance Israel was heavily outnumbered in tanks, planes and troops (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, sometimes Lebanon against Israel), but managed to win and occupy formerly Egyptian and Jordanian territory. This is the crux of the problem: Israel's continued occupation of land that the Palestinians claim is their homeland.
Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel militarily occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank of the Jordan River (Jordan). Each location was strategic and was used as the invasion route chosen by the Arab armies, so Israel felt justified it keeping this land. The Sinai, which is sparsely populated, was eventually returned to Egypt, but the West Bank, heavily populated, and the Golan Heights, were not returned. When Israel won its war of Independence in 1947, the Arabs that were living in Israel or in territory that was now occupied by Israeli forces, picked up and moved, mostly to Jordan. After the next two wars, Israel assumed possession of the part of Jordan known as the West Bank, which was home to almost three million Arabs, who rightly identified themselves as Palestinians. Initially Israel considered annexing the West Bank permanently, and construction began on Jewish settlements. its possible that the leaders of Israel at the time thought it might encourage the Palestinians to leave the West Bank, but they didn't. Then the Jewish settlements became a hot-button issue in internal Israeli politics. The moderates and the left in the Knesset demanded at least an end to construction, and at best, an evacuation of Israeli Jews. On the other hand, the right-wing coalition not only refused to stop existing construction, they announced intentions to start new developments. The occupying Palestinians were left to consider that three decades previously, the entire land was Arab; they were forced to move in 1947, then again in 1967. There would not be another move. The Golan heights of Syria did not develop into an issue of settlements; instead, it would flare-up every few years when the Syrians would demand Israeli withdrawal, and in response Israel would gas up the tanks for a nice Golan parade.
One very small section of the Egyptian Sinai was heavily populated. The Gaza Strip borders the Mediterranean on the west, Israel on the north and east, and Egypt on the south. The small piece of land (139 square miles) is home to almost two million Palestinians, another example of people being moved from one place to the next because of war. At least Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. It is administered by Hamas, a political party that is recognized as a terrorist organization in the west. In total, roughly five million Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank. They have been demanding independence for as long as I can remember. Gaza is independent, but its economy is controlled by Israel and Egypt, who can shut its borders on a whim. Interestingly enough, the majority of Palestinians (and descendants of the original occupants of Palestine) have probably settled and put down roots in other countries, including the United States, various European nations, Lebanon, and the Gulf States. In a sad aside note, in some of the wealthier Arab countries, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and find it difficult to qualify for anything but manual labor jobs and cleaning up after people. While screaming about how Israel mistreats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, wealthy Arab families in Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE do just the same in their own homes to their Palestinian maids and garden workers. Back to the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. Since we are talking about almost five million souls, the resolution of this issue needs to be a priority. When it became clear that Gaza was going to achieve some level of self-governance, the call went out to the west for financial support. The hope was that Gaza would become a peaceful, economically successful (albeit crowded) nation, able to decide it own affairs. Once the money started flowing in, everything changed. The original political representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat, eventually renounced terrorism when they realized how much money would be donated from the west to help build schools, infrastructure, etc. Arafat and his PLO collected billions of dollars from the west, and managed to steal just about every penny. When Arafat died, the number of bank accounts in his name (many in Paris), and the amount of money that would be inherited by his widow, was nothing short of staggering. After the PLO, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was born to represent the interests of the Palestinian People. Following the renouncing of terror by the PLO, two groups in the region picked up the mantle of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas seated itself right in the middle of the Palestinian "occupied territories", while Hezbollah, addicted to financial support from Iran and Syria, chose Lebanon as a safe place from which to lob the odd missile into northern Israeli settlements. Once financial aid started to flow into Gaza, The PA and Hamas decided to fight for the title of "official political representative of the Palestinian community of Gaza". Hamas won the most recent election, so they are currently the legitimate government in Gaza. And they are also still on just about everyone's short list of nasty terrorist organizations.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Review Of The Fight Against Islamic Extremism since 2009
Link: A. What Is Our Strategy To Defeat Terrorism?
B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?
Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009. In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain. Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target. What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense? I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors. Ouch? Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden. The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls. I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan. Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden? Can anyone help me out here? In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda? It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention. I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.
The truth is, there wasn't a plan. What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq. I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well. But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq. The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity. Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there. Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office. But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or
plan did Obama have for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the like? The apology-tour must have been part of someone's plan, because something like that doesn't get decided over night. Strange that during the campaign, he didn't announce his intention to travel to the Middle East, apologizing about the brutish behavior and U.S. history of bullying, to anyone who would listen. And no doubt, behind closed doors, he also announced that Israel would no longer be getting a "free ride", and that the Arabs and Palestinians finally had a friend in the White House. I'm positive this message was shared, if not by Obama directly, then by Hillary and her team of State Department apologists. The coup de grace was Obama's speech in Cairo. Obama certainly has some strong feelings about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but did he mention any of this during the campaign? I don't think the American people would have taken well to our president groveling in front of this particular group of people. Did I say grovel? Remember, this is only my opinion. I saw his attitude as an effort to make the United States appear as a racist, guilty, internally-broken country.
Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office. Let's do this by continent, shall we?
B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?
Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009. In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain. Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target. What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense? I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors. Ouch? Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden. The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls. I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan. Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden? Can anyone help me out here? In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda? It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention. I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.
The truth is, there wasn't a plan. What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq. I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well. But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq. The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity. Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there. Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office. But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or
 |
| Barak Obama at Cairo Univ. 6/4/2009 Source: The Official White House Photostream-Flickr |
Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office. Let's do this by continent, shall we?
- North America: The attack at the Boston Marathon was handled brilliantly by local authorities and because of this, the casualty rate was low. The FBI has disrupted a number of planned domestic attacks; remember, the news media doesn't always know what's happening behind the scenes.
- South America: The Islamic Extremist community has been involved in criminal activity in South America for sometime. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of operating in the Tri-Border Region (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina), and recently Al-Qaeda has arrived. Since the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish community office in Buenos Aires, the majority of the Jewish population has emigrated from Argentina. And let's not ignore the fact that a number of South American governments are openly Socialist, and hostile to the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina).
- Africa: Al-Qaeda is having a field day in Africa. The organization is growing in size and influence in West Africa, and its surrogate Boko Haram has repeatedly embarrassed the Nigerian Army. In the East, Al-Shabaab has become more active in Kenya, taking advantage of the endemic poverty and lack of jobs, to recruit in the townships. In the last few years, Al-Shabaab has successfully conducted a number of high-casualty terrorist operations. They have no fear of operating in Mombasa, and enjoy shooting up the wealthier suburbs of Nairobi. The South African anti-terrorism unit of the SAP had better be keeping a close eye on its townships, especially the ones with high-immigrant populations. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are there as we speak, recruiting jobless, disaffected young men — especially those with military experience.
- Europe: Besides the highly-publicized recent episodes in Paris, the UK has also suffered through a number of terrorist-related attacks. No doubt the governments and police of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc., are keeping tight-lipped about the number of operations they have disrupted.
- Australia: Late last year, Australia suffered is own horrific pro-ISIS attack in a cafe in Sydney.
- Asia, which includes Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and is just too much for me to tackle in this post. Thank goodness the terrorists haven't reached Greenland…yet.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Whats Up with Syrian President Assad And His Moscow Handlers?
Links: Russia And The Syrian Civil War
What Are Assad And Putin Up To?
Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, it seems that the Soviet Union/Russia has always sided with the Arabs while the United States sides with the Jewish nation. To be
fair, the Soviet Union voted in favor of the UN resolution that partitioned Palestine and created two separate states (the Palestinian state never really got off the ground; the Jewish half became Israel). Given its strong support of a Jewish state following World War II, it's no surprise that the United States supported Israel from the beginning (I'm not saying a word about the politically influential Jewish lobby). However once Cold War tensions elevated, the Soviets sided with the Arab regimes in the Arab-Israeli conflicts in order to maintain thier position in opposition to the United States, Israel's strongest ally. Conflict between Israel and the Palestinians/Arab states brings to mind three separate military engagements: the War of Independence (1947-1949), the Six Day War (June 1967), and the Yom Kippur War (October 1973). In truth, my earliest memory as a child was my father celebrating President Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972; my family lived on U.S. Army Bases in Germany (Bad Kreuznach, Kaiserslautern, and Bad Hersfeld). But I can still recall the attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. I was barely out of diapers but I remember being so confused at how easy it was for some people to hurt others. As I sit here in 2014, it seems as if Israel and the Palestinians have never really taken a break in their conflict.
The Soviet Union seldom went in for "half-measures". They supported the Arab states both diplomatically and militarily. Egypt's Presidents Nasser and then Sadat were dependent upon the Soviets for a never-ending stream of tanks and jet fighters. The Soviets kept flying the tanks in, the Egyptians and Syrians kept rushing them into battle, and the Israelis kept creating bombed-out crematoriums for their crews. I'm sure that Egypt, Syria and Iraq paid what they could, but there is not doubt in my mind that most of the military equipment that the Arabs lost came gratis from Moscow. To the Soviets it was a necessary expenditure: Syria and Egypt gave the Reds access to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. I don't think that the Russians had a particular dislike for Israel; more than anything else it was a strategic issue (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Its been some years since Syria, Egypt and Israel actually met on the battlefield. The Egyptians are now equipped with modern U.S. military hardware (and training), but the Syrians have stayed loyal to Mother Russia. A number of times in the last two decades there was some concern that Turkey and Syria might duke it out (once over a territorial dispute, and once over the flow of a river). The Turkish military would have humiliated old man Hafez al-Assad and his outdated weaponry.
Syria has had great difficulty keeping its Soviet-era equipment up-to-specs. Before the start
of the Syrian Civil War, the army still laid claim to 2,000 T-55 tanks, for goodness sake. The only way to keep a few of those old junks running would be to cannibalize some of the others. At one time Syria had a healthy number of T-62S, T-72S, and T-72Ms in its arsenal. I have no clue how many have been destroyed in the war, how many have been captured, or how many just don't run anymore; the Soviets were not known for their weapons craftmanship (ever fired an AK-47?). As for the Syrian Air Force, the great majority of its jet fighters were aged Mig 21s, 23s, and 25s. They also have a handful of Sukhois and Mig 29s. It was rumored that Russia has been hesitant to supply Syria with the new model Mig 31 because of pressure from the west. The truth is, for offensive purposes, the Syrian Air Force no longer exists. I realize that the media puts out the odd report of Syrian government Helicopter Gunships shooting up civilian areas, but if the Syrian Air Force had any real offensive capability, they would be laying it to the Islamic State (safe to assume?). Interestingly enough, I have seen more conversation lately regarding the Islamic State and Migs than I have the Syrian Air Force.
Over the past month, the Islamic State has been forced into the dreaded two-front war. It's fighting the Iraqi Army in Anbar Province and in north central Iraq it's waging war on the
Kurds in Kurdistan. Additionally the IS is attacking the Kurds full-force in north central Syria (Kobani) all the while under a regular barrage of death from the sky (Carl von Clausewitz is spinning in his grave). What is most amazing is that the Islamic State continues to have the initiative on all fronts. Be that as it may, Bashir al-Assad could not be happier, as the Americans and their allies (some are hated enemies of Assad and his Ba'ath Party) degrade the fighting ability of the Islamic State forces (I'm being optimistic). No doubt Assad has used this respite to reorganize his army, repair and upgrade his armor, train new recruits, and prepare the West for an inevitable diplomatic offensive, sponsored by Putin. I just hope Bashir has had a few extra minutes to try and locate his missing chin. Seriously. Never in my life have a seen such a "chinless" person. Too bad he doesn't live in Beverly Hills; he could've bought a chin and had it installed over lunch.
Speaking of the upcoming charm offensive, I predict that Assad will try to stay in power by reminding the west of what happens in a vacuum in this part of the world. Can we afford
another Libya? Assad knows that Obama can't support a coup orchestrated by the U.S.-trained New Syrian Army. It would be to much meddling for Obama to stomach, and would also infuriate Russia. If the New Syrian Army defeats the Islamic State, they will probably make a play for control in Damascus. However, Obama can't let that happen, and Assad is aware of this fact. I expect that the New Syrian Army and the regular Syrian Army will actually be fighting side-by-side against the Al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State, Khorasan, and all the other baddies. Assad may offer blanket amnesty to the Syrian military officers who originally deserted to form the New Syrian Army. When the time comes, Assad will have many Aces up his sleeve, and will have Vladimir Putin to watch his back. It's not difficult to imagine Assad making amends with the leaders of the New Syrian Army, and presenting a fait accompli to the United States and its allies. So from my optic, Assad is in the cat bird's seat. The chair is a bit wobbly, though. He needs to continue do everything possible to reconstitute his military, especially the Air Force. I started this post pointing out the historic ties between the Russians and the Arabs, and I want to end it on a similar note. Why is Putin so intent on keeping Assad in power? Because Syria has a bit of land that serves as a coastline to the Mediterranean Sea. Putin has visions of Russian Navy ships and, more importantly, submarines, having a home away from home in the Levant. How the Obama Administration deals with this evolving situation will be a fascinating piece of the puzzle.
What Are Assad And Putin Up To?
Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, it seems that the Soviet Union/Russia has always sided with the Arabs while the United States sides with the Jewish nation. To be
.png) |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict |
The Soviet Union seldom went in for "half-measures". They supported the Arab states both diplomatically and militarily. Egypt's Presidents Nasser and then Sadat were dependent upon the Soviets for a never-ending stream of tanks and jet fighters. The Soviets kept flying the tanks in, the Egyptians and Syrians kept rushing them into battle, and the Israelis kept creating bombed-out crematoriums for their crews. I'm sure that Egypt, Syria and Iraq paid what they could, but there is not doubt in my mind that most of the military equipment that the Arabs lost came gratis from Moscow. To the Soviets it was a necessary expenditure: Syria and Egypt gave the Reds access to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. I don't think that the Russians had a particular dislike for Israel; more than anything else it was a strategic issue (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Its been some years since Syria, Egypt and Israel actually met on the battlefield. The Egyptians are now equipped with modern U.S. military hardware (and training), but the Syrians have stayed loyal to Mother Russia. A number of times in the last two decades there was some concern that Turkey and Syria might duke it out (once over a territorial dispute, and once over the flow of a river). The Turkish military would have humiliated old man Hafez al-Assad and his outdated weaponry.
Syria has had great difficulty keeping its Soviet-era equipment up-to-specs. Before the start
 |
| Syrian T-55 ARV armored recovery vehicle (http://www.armyrecognition.com/News) |
Over the past month, the Islamic State has been forced into the dreaded two-front war. It's fighting the Iraqi Army in Anbar Province and in north central Iraq it's waging war on the
 |
| Bashir al-Assad |
Speaking of the upcoming charm offensive, I predict that Assad will try to stay in power by reminding the west of what happens in a vacuum in this part of the world. Can we afford
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part II)
Link: The Crusades
The Birth Of Israel
Part II
How does a short history lesson relate to the seemingly eternal disagreements between East versus West, Europe/United States against the Arab nations? First and foremost, the Arab community has always believed that the United Nations (and Great Britain in particular) betrayed them with the creation of Israel. The argument has some merit, when the demographics of Palestine in 1947 are examined. From a universal perspective, though, many felt that the Jewish people had suffered enough, with Russian pogroms, European anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust; it was time to unilaterally act in favor of the Jewish community, regardless of the consequences to the Arab Palestinians. The truth is, an effort was made to create two separate states. No effort to work within the United Nations declaration was ever really attempted, which is the real tragedy. Both states could have very easily learned to work and grow together, building symbiotic relationships that encourage friendship as opposed to animosity. Be that as it may, in 1947, the Arab and Muslim communities of the world decided that the West (and Christian nations) unfairly supported Israel. Every conflict since the original war in 1948 has only encouraged this opinion, as the United States strongly supported Israel (while the Soviet Union became the patron of the Arab nations).
Herein lies the root of the issue. The United States and the West are seen by Arab and Muslim states as being unfairly supportive of Israel. During the various internal Israeli conflicts (West Bank, Intifada, Gaza) the United States is always first to declare its support for the state of Israel. If the Palestinians and the Arab states would make two decisions in good faith, they would go along way to improving their image and relations with the United States. Firstly, Israel's right to exist must be acknowledged. Second, terrorist groups cannot be anointed as political representation. It is difficult to criticize the United States for supporting Israel when both Hamas and Hezbollah have been involved in the brutal murder of American civilians. Most Americans see Israel as our most loyal ally, but the desire for an end to this conflict is beginning to affect U.S./Israeli relations. When an American traveling internationally is targeted by terrorists, it usually will be connected in some way to the U.S. unilateral support of Israel. Its true that terror groups like Al-Qaeda have expanded the list of complaints against the United States, but somewhere on this list will be Israel. Many expected that the Obama Administration would slacken the U.S. support for Israel, but the Palestinian cause is a difficult one to embrace. One minute after watching in horror on TV an Israeli tank destroying a Palestinian house, the news broadcast switches to a scene of rockets being launched into Israeli neighborhoods. I want to see this mess come to end in my lifetime. I'm not optimistic. The saddest part of this entire circumstance is that Arabs and Jews are cousins, for goodness sake. I had a cousin once who used to beat me senseless, but afterwards she always apologized. We can't even get to that point with these two.
The Birth Of Israel
Part II
How does a short history lesson relate to the seemingly eternal disagreements between East versus West, Europe/United States against the Arab nations? First and foremost, the Arab community has always believed that the United Nations (and Great Britain in particular) betrayed them with the creation of Israel. The argument has some merit, when the demographics of Palestine in 1947 are examined. From a universal perspective, though, many felt that the Jewish people had suffered enough, with Russian pogroms, European anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust; it was time to unilaterally act in favor of the Jewish community, regardless of the consequences to the Arab Palestinians. The truth is, an effort was made to create two separate states. No effort to work within the United Nations declaration was ever really attempted, which is the real tragedy. Both states could have very easily learned to work and grow together, building symbiotic relationships that encourage friendship as opposed to animosity. Be that as it may, in 1947, the Arab and Muslim communities of the world decided that the West (and Christian nations) unfairly supported Israel. Every conflict since the original war in 1948 has only encouraged this opinion, as the United States strongly supported Israel (while the Soviet Union became the patron of the Arab nations).
Herein lies the root of the issue. The United States and the West are seen by Arab and Muslim states as being unfairly supportive of Israel. During the various internal Israeli conflicts (West Bank, Intifada, Gaza) the United States is always first to declare its support for the state of Israel. If the Palestinians and the Arab states would make two decisions in good faith, they would go along way to improving their image and relations with the United States. Firstly, Israel's right to exist must be acknowledged. Second, terrorist groups cannot be anointed as political representation. It is difficult to criticize the United States for supporting Israel when both Hamas and Hezbollah have been involved in the brutal murder of American civilians. Most Americans see Israel as our most loyal ally, but the desire for an end to this conflict is beginning to affect U.S./Israeli relations. When an American traveling internationally is targeted by terrorists, it usually will be connected in some way to the U.S. unilateral support of Israel. Its true that terror groups like Al-Qaeda have expanded the list of complaints against the United States, but somewhere on this list will be Israel. Many expected that the Obama Administration would slacken the U.S. support for Israel, but the Palestinian cause is a difficult one to embrace. One minute after watching in horror on TV an Israeli tank destroying a Palestinian house, the news broadcast switches to a scene of rockets being launched into Israeli neighborhoods. I want to see this mess come to end in my lifetime. I'm not optimistic. The saddest part of this entire circumstance is that Arabs and Jews are cousins, for goodness sake. I had a cousin once who used to beat me senseless, but afterwards she always apologized. We can't even get to that point with these two.
Friday, October 10, 2014
What's Up With The Republic Of Turkey Nowadays?
Links: War Moves Into Turkey
Wikipedia On Turkey
Where have you been, Turkey? Every few days I am obliged to create a post about the struggle against the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIS, ISIL or IS); bad news seldom takes a holiday. How did we get to this place? Following the ritualistic beheading of two Americans, President Obama announced that the United States was taking military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria. Obama added that the United States would, under no circumstances, introduce ground forces into the conflict. Instead, the U.S. Air Force would bomb the IS into the Stone Age. For good measure, we are training and arming a surrogate army to finish off the IS with a ground campaign (but not for four, maybe five months because that's how long it takes to train and equip a surrogate army in 2014). The surrogate element identifies itself as the "Free Syrian Army", and consists of many Syrian Army former officers and front-line troops. President Obama was able to enlist France, The United Kingdom, and the Arab Gulf monarchies to join his "Coalition of the Unwilling to use Ground Troops", but some enormously important questions remain unanswered. What will the Free Syrian Army do after the IS has been defeated? Will it turn its weapons on the regular Syrian Army, which is heavily supported by Vladimir Putin and Russia? What about all the other groups the Administration has parade by during press conferences (Al-Nusra Front, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda)? Are they also targets of the Free Syrian Army? And if not, how does the IS tell them apart?
To repeat myself, where are you, Turkey? The Turks share a southern border with both Iraq and Syria. (A large part of that geographical piece is considered by the Kurds to be part of Kurdistan). For centuries, back to the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks and the Kurds have struggled for control of this part of the world (since its not Asia Minor, and its not really Mesopotamia, I will just refer to it as "Asia Minopotamia"). Some of the blackest pages in Turkey's personal history book have to do with Kurdistan. On more than a few occasions over the past two centuries, the Turks have committed acts of genocide against the Kurds. I realize that by saying this, I royally piss off a number of very close Turkish friends, but it is my interpretation of history; believe me, I wish it weren't so. The Kurds have always been a thorn in Turkey's side, and when historically bad famines and droughts hit Turkey, the Kurds were last to receive help. I won't spend anymore time on the subject, especially since there is so much open source material available. Fast forward to 2014, the Kurds are fighting for their lives not against the Turks or famine, or even Saddam Hussein, but against the IS. At present, its not really possible to draw a static map of who-occupies-what. The Kurds are in possession of some territory in northern Syria, but the main theater of war at the moment is in Iraq. In the north, the Kurds are fighting the IS, and the central part of Iraq, the Iraqi Army and Shia Brigades are opposing the IS. Back in Syria, the regular Syrian Army continues to occasionally engage IS forces. For the time being, though, all eyes seem to be on very north central Syria and the town of Kobani.
At times I find it difficult to accept that Syria and Turkey share such a continuous, strategic border. For many centuries, the border did not exist, as Syria and Turkey were both part of the Ottoman Empire. Now, for all practical purposes, the border separates wealth from poverty, Europe from the Levant, and West from East. I know many will disagree, and argue (effectively, I'm sure) that Asia Minor is not Europe and that Turkey is not a first-world country. I make my call through personal experience. I was obsessed with Turkey in my younger days, and loved every chance I had to visit. The Turks are a friendly, proud people; you will rarely see beggars or hungry children in Turkey. But the Turkey of my youth is disappearing. Secular Turkey (with its handful of generals ready to take charge if the civilians get too ambitious) has seen a rise in Islamist political activities and a movement to strengthen Turkey's Islamic cultural heritage and traditions. President Recep Erdogan, who was elected in August 2014 with a 51% to 38% margin over his nearest competitor, is not fan of the Army. During the later half of the last century, the Turkish military did not hesitate to remove elected leaders at the slightest sign of movement away from secularism. I believe Erdogan is too popular for the military to act against, so I just keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't allow Turkey to suffer an Islamic revolution like the one that swallowed Iran in 1979.
Regarding the situation in Syria and Iraq, where does Turkey stand? One thing to keep in mind: Turkey has a FORMIDABLE Armed Forces. There was a time when Turkey was only interested in keeping an army larger than Greece's, but membership in NATO changed everything. For all practical purposes, Turkey's military was created, nursed and raised to adulthood by the United States military. Because of the all-important NATO missile sites located in Turkey (and aimed at Russia, I believe, although there may be one aimed at the Eifel Tower), The United States was more than willing to train and equip the Turkish Army. Roughly 15 years ago, the Turkish military took the surprising step of conducting joint operations with Israel (the advent of Erdogan has cooled relations between Ankara and Jerusalem). In equipment, size, and readiness, I believe that the Turkish military is en par with France, the UK and Germany (Greece who?). Where does Turkey stand? Why haven't the Turks taken a stand against the IS, which is about as nasty a group as there is? Allegedly, Erdogan offered to join the Coalition and use the Turkish Army if Obama would guarantee the removal of Assad in Damascus. Obama does not have the testicular fortitude for such a call, which would piss off Putin to no end. At the moment, Turkey sees no strategy that benefits Turkey, with the exception of waiting until the dust settles. If Turkey mobilizes, they would sweep the IS from the face of the earth in a matter of days (Turkish Special Forces....Bad Ass).
But what good does that do if Assad, the thorn in Turkey's backside, stays in power? Maybe Erdogan is thinking that an IS government in Damascus is preferable to the Ba'athists and Assad? Wouldn't that be something...Turkey joins the conflict ON THE SIDE of the IS! Its just a thought; it can't happen. Turkey is a functioning Democracy with a Tiger of an economy (which is headed for a fall, say many forecasters...hope not), a thriving tourist industry and a military that would make Suleyman the Magnificent jealous. An on its southern border Turkey nurses two recurring boils; Kurdistan and the civil war in Syria. Although Erdogan has been willing to snuggle up to the Kurds for political expediency, I don't think he feels compelled to resolve the issue of Kurdistan at the moment. Besides, the Kurds have proven to be reasonable. The IS conflict, though, threatens to spill over into Turkey proper (not to mention the steady flow of refugees). Surprisingly, the Turks have yet to really mobilize militarily. What would happen if one of the combatants (count 'em again, folks: Al-Nusra Front, IS, Khorasan, Kurds, regular Syrian Army, and the free Syrian Army) began using Turkish territory as a staging point for military operations? Unfortunately, I don't see Erdogan acting proactively in this situation. He is content to let the circumstances come to him.
Wikipedia On Turkey
Where have you been, Turkey? Every few days I am obliged to create a post about the struggle against the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIS, ISIL or IS); bad news seldom takes a holiday. How did we get to this place? Following the ritualistic beheading of two Americans, President Obama announced that the United States was taking military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria. Obama added that the United States would, under no circumstances, introduce ground forces into the conflict. Instead, the U.S. Air Force would bomb the IS into the Stone Age. For good measure, we are training and arming a surrogate army to finish off the IS with a ground campaign (but not for four, maybe five months because that's how long it takes to train and equip a surrogate army in 2014). The surrogate element identifies itself as the "Free Syrian Army", and consists of many Syrian Army former officers and front-line troops. President Obama was able to enlist France, The United Kingdom, and the Arab Gulf monarchies to join his "Coalition of the Unwilling to use Ground Troops", but some enormously important questions remain unanswered. What will the Free Syrian Army do after the IS has been defeated? Will it turn its weapons on the regular Syrian Army, which is heavily supported by Vladimir Putin and Russia? What about all the other groups the Administration has parade by during press conferences (Al-Nusra Front, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda)? Are they also targets of the Free Syrian Army? And if not, how does the IS tell them apart?
To repeat myself, where are you, Turkey? The Turks share a southern border with both Iraq and Syria. (A large part of that geographical piece is considered by the Kurds to be part of Kurdistan). For centuries, back to the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks and the Kurds have struggled for control of this part of the world (since its not Asia Minor, and its not really Mesopotamia, I will just refer to it as "Asia Minopotamia"). Some of the blackest pages in Turkey's personal history book have to do with Kurdistan. On more than a few occasions over the past two centuries, the Turks have committed acts of genocide against the Kurds. I realize that by saying this, I royally piss off a number of very close Turkish friends, but it is my interpretation of history; believe me, I wish it weren't so. The Kurds have always been a thorn in Turkey's side, and when historically bad famines and droughts hit Turkey, the Kurds were last to receive help. I won't spend anymore time on the subject, especially since there is so much open source material available. Fast forward to 2014, the Kurds are fighting for their lives not against the Turks or famine, or even Saddam Hussein, but against the IS. At present, its not really possible to draw a static map of who-occupies-what. The Kurds are in possession of some territory in northern Syria, but the main theater of war at the moment is in Iraq. In the north, the Kurds are fighting the IS, and the central part of Iraq, the Iraqi Army and Shia Brigades are opposing the IS. Back in Syria, the regular Syrian Army continues to occasionally engage IS forces. For the time being, though, all eyes seem to be on very north central Syria and the town of Kobani.
At times I find it difficult to accept that Syria and Turkey share such a continuous, strategic border. For many centuries, the border did not exist, as Syria and Turkey were both part of the Ottoman Empire. Now, for all practical purposes, the border separates wealth from poverty, Europe from the Levant, and West from East. I know many will disagree, and argue (effectively, I'm sure) that Asia Minor is not Europe and that Turkey is not a first-world country. I make my call through personal experience. I was obsessed with Turkey in my younger days, and loved every chance I had to visit. The Turks are a friendly, proud people; you will rarely see beggars or hungry children in Turkey. But the Turkey of my youth is disappearing. Secular Turkey (with its handful of generals ready to take charge if the civilians get too ambitious) has seen a rise in Islamist political activities and a movement to strengthen Turkey's Islamic cultural heritage and traditions. President Recep Erdogan, who was elected in August 2014 with a 51% to 38% margin over his nearest competitor, is not fan of the Army. During the later half of the last century, the Turkish military did not hesitate to remove elected leaders at the slightest sign of movement away from secularism. I believe Erdogan is too popular for the military to act against, so I just keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't allow Turkey to suffer an Islamic revolution like the one that swallowed Iran in 1979.
Regarding the situation in Syria and Iraq, where does Turkey stand? One thing to keep in mind: Turkey has a FORMIDABLE Armed Forces. There was a time when Turkey was only interested in keeping an army larger than Greece's, but membership in NATO changed everything. For all practical purposes, Turkey's military was created, nursed and raised to adulthood by the United States military. Because of the all-important NATO missile sites located in Turkey (and aimed at Russia, I believe, although there may be one aimed at the Eifel Tower), The United States was more than willing to train and equip the Turkish Army. Roughly 15 years ago, the Turkish military took the surprising step of conducting joint operations with Israel (the advent of Erdogan has cooled relations between Ankara and Jerusalem). In equipment, size, and readiness, I believe that the Turkish military is en par with France, the UK and Germany (Greece who?). Where does Turkey stand? Why haven't the Turks taken a stand against the IS, which is about as nasty a group as there is? Allegedly, Erdogan offered to join the Coalition and use the Turkish Army if Obama would guarantee the removal of Assad in Damascus. Obama does not have the testicular fortitude for such a call, which would piss off Putin to no end. At the moment, Turkey sees no strategy that benefits Turkey, with the exception of waiting until the dust settles. If Turkey mobilizes, they would sweep the IS from the face of the earth in a matter of days (Turkish Special Forces....Bad Ass).
But what good does that do if Assad, the thorn in Turkey's backside, stays in power? Maybe Erdogan is thinking that an IS government in Damascus is preferable to the Ba'athists and Assad? Wouldn't that be something...Turkey joins the conflict ON THE SIDE of the IS! Its just a thought; it can't happen. Turkey is a functioning Democracy with a Tiger of an economy (which is headed for a fall, say many forecasters...hope not), a thriving tourist industry and a military that would make Suleyman the Magnificent jealous. An on its southern border Turkey nurses two recurring boils; Kurdistan and the civil war in Syria. Although Erdogan has been willing to snuggle up to the Kurds for political expediency, I don't think he feels compelled to resolve the issue of Kurdistan at the moment. Besides, the Kurds have proven to be reasonable. The IS conflict, though, threatens to spill over into Turkey proper (not to mention the steady flow of refugees). Surprisingly, the Turks have yet to really mobilize militarily. What would happen if one of the combatants (count 'em again, folks: Al-Nusra Front, IS, Khorasan, Kurds, regular Syrian Army, and the free Syrian Army) began using Turkish territory as a staging point for military operations? Unfortunately, I don't see Erdogan acting proactively in this situation. He is content to let the circumstances come to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)