Anytime between 2010 and 2015, if you had told me that de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would survive Syria's Civil War and eventually once again preside over a government that was recognized by the Western Powers, I would consider you to be a bit out of touch with reality. Let's face it; since the Arab Spring gave real impetus to a budding Syrian opposition movement, things had gone progressively bad for Assad. The fact that he faced an armed opposition movement wasn't necessarily a surprise, but the ability of the rebels to almost immediately put government forces on the defensive was shocking. Why? Because up to the arrival of the Arab Spring, the Syrian Ba'ath Party and Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, had never faced a legitimate threat to their authority. For many years, Syria, under Bashar's old man Hafez al-Assad, held a major place on the Middle Eastern chessboard. Syria was and continues to be Russia's greatest ally in the region. Interestingly enough, the fall of the Soviet Union did not have much impact on Russia-Syria relations. Another long-time and trusted ally of Assad is Iran, a fact which has proved beneficial in the evolution of Iran's new partnership with Russia. Regardless, until two months ago, Assad appeared finished. Jabhat al-Nusra, a major opponent of the Assad regime, had been making tremendous advances on the battlefields of northwest Syria since Spring 2015. ISIS was not far behind, harassing regime elements in far east Syria, and also in and around Damascus itself. Everyday seemed to bring a news item detailing the latest defeat of government forces. Then Russia and Iran decided to not only stir the pot, but to tip it over completely. Russia's military intrusion into Syria left very little to the imagination, deploying impressive amounts of military hardware and soldiers from the very beginning. Putin's public announcements attempted to paint Russia's military deployment (and almost immediate targeted bombing campaign) as just another sincere effort on behalf of one of the "good guys", to destroy ISIS. At the same time, Iran increased effortd to involve itself on the conflict through its surrogate Hezbollah. Most experts were not fooled. Putin's vaunted "bombing campaign to destroy ISIS", wasn't targeting ISIS whatsoever.....at least not in the beginning. After the first week or so of watching the Russian Air Force pulverize Assad's indigenous Syrian opposition, complaints. started to be directed toward Moscow. The result? Now, instead of ten out of ten bombing sorties targeting Assad opposition, now eight out of ten were focused on the regime's internal enemies, with the remaining two managing to drop a few bombs on ISIS Headquarters in Raqqah.
All along, the purpose of direct Russian military involvement in Syria was the survival of Bashar al-Assad. Personally, I don't see what Putin appreciates so much about trained opthemologist Bashar and his Ba'ath Party buddies. Russia could easily just have backed the opposition, and with the United States being completely disengaged, they would have no problem creating a new Russian client state through whatever opposition they decided to support. Why was Assad so important? The answer appears to lie somewhere with Vladimir Putin. He was bound and determined not to see a Russian loyal puppet regime fall victim to a variety of different armed Syrian liberation movements, including a few that were allegedly supported by the United States and Europe. Under the previous Bush Administration, it is highly unlikely that Putin would have acted so brazenly (Russian jets killed many rebels who were trained and supported by the United States...remember the Free Syrian Army?). But President Obama has telegraphed to the world that the United States is "checking out" of complicated foreign affairs during his last year in office. His 2016 State of the Union Address, in which he once again dramatically downplayed the threat ISIS poses to the United States, and absurdly exaggerated the amount of discrimination that Muslim-Americans face stateside, appears to suppprt that belief. Today Russia publicly stressed the need for a negotiated settlement to the Syrian situation (after Assad's legitimate opposition has been decimated). Not surprisingly, the United States and the group of Obama sychophants that pretend to be the leaders of Germany, France, and the UK, have agreed to the Russian proposal. What are the odds that the Russian plan calls for the return of President Bashar al-Assad to power (rhetorical question, folks)?
Showing posts with label Jabhat al-Nusrah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jabhat al-Nusrah. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2016
Friday, July 10, 2015
Hezbollah keeping Assad regime from rapid contraction.
Link: Hezbollah assists regime forces to retake Syrian border city.
We have been noting for the past few months that recent losses to Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN) and the Islamic Front (IS) have effectively ended any regime threat in eastern Syria. The Syrian Army still controls a few widely dispersed communities in the east (including Hasaka), but Assad's only real area of influence and control is far west Syria, from Aleppo down south to Damascus. The regime continues to control the air (except when the U.S.-led, anti-IS air coalition is operational), which has limited recent attempts by the rebels to take Aleppo. We have also noted that, along with a decreased regime presence in the east, Assad no longer seems to be receiving much support from Russia. We opined that without his Russian benefactor, that Assad would eventually be obliged to throw in the towel. I'm sorry to say that we didn't take into account the impact of increased aid from Hezbollah, and by proxy, Iran. Hezbollah fighters were instrumental in the regime's capture of Zabadani, a town located on the Syria/Lebanon border that until recently was held by rebels.
If Iranian support for the Assad regime continues (or increases), he will likely survive any offensive by JN or the IS to take Damascus or even Aleppo. Hezbollah has no problem moving fighters from Lebanon to Syria, and former rebel supply lines that went through Lebanon have been eradicated. It will be interesting to see if Hezbollah increases its military presence in Syria, or if we might start to see Iranian advisors among Assad's troops, as we have occasionally seen in Iraq. Depending on how ambitious Iran wants to be, the IS is presently confronted by Iranian-backed regime elements in Syria, and Iranian-supported militia in Iraq. Given that the IS is a Sunni-based movement, we note the extension of the conflict between Shi'a and Sunni. Iran has already influenced the rise of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and the activities of the Shi'a militias in Iran. With the involvement of Hezbollah and the increased support by Iran for the Assad regime, Iran seems intent on setting the stage for another Sunni-Shi'a conflict. As this situation develops, the United States is faced with the difficult task of identifying who is the more dangerous enemy: the IS, with its growing conventional army and its network of affiliates around the globe, or Iran, which is bound and determined to develop a nuclear weapon capability, and can't seem to stop fomenting Shi'a unrest in various hotspots in the Middle East.
All things considered, this might be a good time for the United States to allow both the Shi'a extremists and the Sunni hot heads to "whittle" each other down a bit. Not very long ago, the CIA might take the opportunity to create a covert "influence campaign", to utilize social media and other resources to agitate the two groups, and get them to go after each other. It would certainly keep their focus away from sponsoring international terrorism for a while, or at least that would be the intention. But those type of operations are a thing of the past. The Obama Admnistration would never use the CIA to conduct an operation of that nature. As things stand, we find ourselves supporting the Free Syrian Army, which when we last checked, was actively engaging regime elements, as opposed to the IS, and continuing this nebulous air campaign, that seems to generate no intelligence or news whatsoever. How much are we spending on those two initiative? When Bush was in office, didn't we hear a never-ending cacophony from the left about the taxpayers dollars being wasted? Isn't this a bit of waste as well? If not, then great, but I want to know the details: how hs it been a success?
(Separate Comment)
The Reality of Illegal Immigrant Felons in the U.S.
We have noticed a rash of news stories lately regarding illegal immigrant felons who have been allowed to stay in the United States after being released from jail, only to offend again. Because sensational news gets more attention, the stories that involve children or loss of life will always be the priority. Do you know what a "Sanctuary City is"? For those who don't, a Sanctuary City is a community that purposely choses to NOT inform Federal Law Enforcement when a foreign national felon has served their time and is being released to the street. The law requires the community local law enforcement to notify Homeland Security Deportations, so these felons can be returned to their country of nationality. But some cities, including just about all the big ones on the west coast, allow for something called "Sanctuary" to exist in their cities, because they believe that it is cruel and wrong to deport these individuals, regardless of the crime or how many times that they have re-entered the U.S. illegally.
Statistics show that certain felons are very likely to re-offend, but this doesn't matter to the Sanctuary folks. Who cares if a teenager is shot dead outside a grocery store, or a mother of two is raped and strangled to death on a bike path? The only thing that matters are the INVISIBLE rights of the foreign national who presence in our country is predicated on the fact that broke our Immigration Law, and has since racked up a few more violations. No doubt the groups opposed to Amnesty will use every one of these stories as a means to frighten and mobilize the population, but the truth is the truth. We do have a problem in this country with an outrageously high number of illegal immigrant felons, the majority of which are not presently incarcerated.
Do you know where your children are?
We have been noting for the past few months that recent losses to Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN) and the Islamic Front (IS) have effectively ended any regime threat in eastern Syria. The Syrian Army still controls a few widely dispersed communities in the east (including Hasaka), but Assad's only real area of influence and control is far west Syria, from Aleppo down south to Damascus. The regime continues to control the air (except when the U.S.-led, anti-IS air coalition is operational), which has limited recent attempts by the rebels to take Aleppo. We have also noted that, along with a decreased regime presence in the east, Assad no longer seems to be receiving much support from Russia. We opined that without his Russian benefactor, that Assad would eventually be obliged to throw in the towel. I'm sorry to say that we didn't take into account the impact of increased aid from Hezbollah, and by proxy, Iran. Hezbollah fighters were instrumental in the regime's capture of Zabadani, a town located on the Syria/Lebanon border that until recently was held by rebels.
If Iranian support for the Assad regime continues (or increases), he will likely survive any offensive by JN or the IS to take Damascus or even Aleppo. Hezbollah has no problem moving fighters from Lebanon to Syria, and former rebel supply lines that went through Lebanon have been eradicated. It will be interesting to see if Hezbollah increases its military presence in Syria, or if we might start to see Iranian advisors among Assad's troops, as we have occasionally seen in Iraq. Depending on how ambitious Iran wants to be, the IS is presently confronted by Iranian-backed regime elements in Syria, and Iranian-supported militia in Iraq. Given that the IS is a Sunni-based movement, we note the extension of the conflict between Shi'a and Sunni. Iran has already influenced the rise of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and the activities of the Shi'a militias in Iran. With the involvement of Hezbollah and the increased support by Iran for the Assad regime, Iran seems intent on setting the stage for another Sunni-Shi'a conflict. As this situation develops, the United States is faced with the difficult task of identifying who is the more dangerous enemy: the IS, with its growing conventional army and its network of affiliates around the globe, or Iran, which is bound and determined to develop a nuclear weapon capability, and can't seem to stop fomenting Shi'a unrest in various hotspots in the Middle East.
All things considered, this might be a good time for the United States to allow both the Shi'a extremists and the Sunni hot heads to "whittle" each other down a bit. Not very long ago, the CIA might take the opportunity to create a covert "influence campaign", to utilize social media and other resources to agitate the two groups, and get them to go after each other. It would certainly keep their focus away from sponsoring international terrorism for a while, or at least that would be the intention. But those type of operations are a thing of the past. The Obama Admnistration would never use the CIA to conduct an operation of that nature. As things stand, we find ourselves supporting the Free Syrian Army, which when we last checked, was actively engaging regime elements, as opposed to the IS, and continuing this nebulous air campaign, that seems to generate no intelligence or news whatsoever. How much are we spending on those two initiative? When Bush was in office, didn't we hear a never-ending cacophony from the left about the taxpayers dollars being wasted? Isn't this a bit of waste as well? If not, then great, but I want to know the details: how hs it been a success?
(Separate Comment)
The Reality of Illegal Immigrant Felons in the U.S.
We have noticed a rash of news stories lately regarding illegal immigrant felons who have been allowed to stay in the United States after being released from jail, only to offend again. Because sensational news gets more attention, the stories that involve children or loss of life will always be the priority. Do you know what a "Sanctuary City is"? For those who don't, a Sanctuary City is a community that purposely choses to NOT inform Federal Law Enforcement when a foreign national felon has served their time and is being released to the street. The law requires the community local law enforcement to notify Homeland Security Deportations, so these felons can be returned to their country of nationality. But some cities, including just about all the big ones on the west coast, allow for something called "Sanctuary" to exist in their cities, because they believe that it is cruel and wrong to deport these individuals, regardless of the crime or how many times that they have re-entered the U.S. illegally.
Statistics show that certain felons are very likely to re-offend, but this doesn't matter to the Sanctuary folks. Who cares if a teenager is shot dead outside a grocery store, or a mother of two is raped and strangled to death on a bike path? The only thing that matters are the INVISIBLE rights of the foreign national who presence in our country is predicated on the fact that broke our Immigration Law, and has since racked up a few more violations. No doubt the groups opposed to Amnesty will use every one of these stories as a means to frighten and mobilize the population, but the truth is the truth. We do have a problem in this country with an outrageously high number of illegal immigrant felons, the majority of which are not presently incarcerated.
Do you know where your children are?
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Developments in Iraq, Syria.
Links: A. Iraqi forces confront ISIS in Anbar.
B. Al-Qaeda celebrates as Assad regime collapses.
In a positive move, the Iraqi military has begun a well-supported effort to recapture the city of Ramadi and roll-up ISIS fighters in eastern Anbar Province. In a surprise development, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are fighting alongside the "Popular Mobilization" (Shi'a militia), and at the same time, enjoying air support from the allied coalition, which continues to wreck havoc with any ISIS attempts to operate during clear weather. Early indications are that the ISF is having success retaking neighborhood after neighborhood, and that ISIS forces in Ramadi are virtually surrounded. Since we've been down this road before, the Iraqis know to expect very few if any prisoners, and that the mopping up operation could take weeks. An important element of the effort to retake Ramadi, is that it is taking place concurrently with operations in Salah ad-Din Province, where the Shi'a militias Asa'aib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) and the Badr Organization have been successfully retaking territory northeast of Fallujah. In fact, the Popular Mobilization is active throughout Salah ad-Din Province, as Shi'a militias have retaken territory from ISIS south and southwest of Samarrah city. The key to current operations against ISIS is the joint-activity of the allied air campaign and the Popular Mobilization. At times, both the air coalition, led by the United States, and the Shi'a militias, backed by Iran, refused to participate in military operations as long as the other was involved. It was an odd situation, given that at the time, Iran and the United States were conducting negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. Be that as it may, the tide appears to be turning in Iraq (again), especially given that ISIS has been unable to gain complete control of the Baiji refinery, a piece of real estate that may appear to be worth more than it actually is. But it has become a bit of a rallying cry for the ISF, and they are very determined to relieve its defenders and remove the threat of ISIS control of the entire refinery. Once Ramadi has been relieved, and the ISF and its militia partners are able to consolidate gains in Salah ad-Din province and around Baiji, then ISIS may be obliged to re-evaluate its long-term strategy. Almost everyday brings more bad news for Bashir al-Assad in Syria, and its not necessarily ISIS that is causing the trouble. Jabhat al-Nusrah, considered by many analysts to by Al-Qaeda's "representative" in Syria, has been conducting one successful military operation after another. In reality, all the Islamic extremist groups who envision some form of a Sunni-based caliphate, are representing Al-Qaeda, including ISIS. That certainly does not imply that Assad is a friend to the west, it only means that the various Islamic Sunni extremist military groups around the world all have the same goal and the same motivation. At this point, keeping them separate no longer seems to serve a point.
News from northwest Syria is that Idlib Province has, for the most part, fallen to Jabhat al-Nusrah. Everyday, village by village, town by town, and province by province, the end draws nearer for Bashir Al-Assad; and once it comes, no doubt there will be a serious vengeance visited upon all those who were loyal to the regime. And as the situation becomes more desperate, the regime continues to make enemies by its use of weaponized chlorine gas attacks, barrel bombs, and indiscriminate air attacks on civilian areas. Sooner or later, the last handful of troops loyal to Assad will realize that he and his closest comrades will escape Damascus to end their days in luxury, probably in a villa on the Black Sea. Its no secret that the Assad family has treated the Syrian treasury as its own personal bank account, not to mention all the cash derived from all manner of bribes. So the Assad clan will be just fine, but what about the troops who have been loyal to the end? In Libya, the number of loyal troops disintegrated at the end, and I expect the same situation to happen in Syria. Assad will have a limited amount of time to decide when to leave, and if he misses the deadline by the smallest of margins, we might just see Bashir lit up like a Christmas tree, inside of a cage.
We have been monitoring the media reports regarding Syria, for any indication that the clocks are ticking in Paris, Moscow, Washington, London, etc., on Bashir al-Assad's Syria. The west was taken by surprise at the swift removal of Gaddafi (no doubt he was surprised by the swift removal of his head), and I wonder if the analysts aren't giving Assad a bit more staying power than he actually has. True, we had him practically written off once before and he bounced back. But the giant difference between then and now is Russia. We believe that Putin is willing to allow Assad and his flock of butchers and thieves to go into exile in Russia, but that's about it. He does not appear willing to expend anymore political capital or money on the Syrian Ba'ath movement. Assad's predicament isn't complicated; its simply a matter of diminishing returns. Unless the Syrian military is preparing some awe-inspiring major offensive (it would have to be out of Damascus) to turn the tide of battle, then everyday Assad can expect his loyalists to decrease in number. A few gone over here, and a few more missing over there. Don't be surprised to see a Syrian pilot asking for asylum soon, although I don't know if any are left that can pretend to have clean hands, i.e. never having targeted civilians. The truth is, we're getting a little impatient. We want to know what will happen "apres les deluge", so we are discreetly trying to nudge Assad in the right direction. "Hey Bashir, I understand that Black Sea caviar is the richest. Don't take any chances, Bashir; you already have no chin, how will you look with no head? Be careful, Bashir, I opened the refrigerator this morning only to find a frozen Jabhat al-Nusrah guy inside. Oh, that was your doing? Sorry....."
B. Al-Qaeda celebrates as Assad regime collapses.
In a positive move, the Iraqi military has begun a well-supported effort to recapture the city of Ramadi and roll-up ISIS fighters in eastern Anbar Province. In a surprise development, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are fighting alongside the "Popular Mobilization" (Shi'a militia), and at the same time, enjoying air support from the allied coalition, which continues to wreck havoc with any ISIS attempts to operate during clear weather. Early indications are that the ISF is having success retaking neighborhood after neighborhood, and that ISIS forces in Ramadi are virtually surrounded. Since we've been down this road before, the Iraqis know to expect very few if any prisoners, and that the mopping up operation could take weeks. An important element of the effort to retake Ramadi, is that it is taking place concurrently with operations in Salah ad-Din Province, where the Shi'a militias Asa'aib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) and the Badr Organization have been successfully retaking territory northeast of Fallujah. In fact, the Popular Mobilization is active throughout Salah ad-Din Province, as Shi'a militias have retaken territory from ISIS south and southwest of Samarrah city. The key to current operations against ISIS is the joint-activity of the allied air campaign and the Popular Mobilization. At times, both the air coalition, led by the United States, and the Shi'a militias, backed by Iran, refused to participate in military operations as long as the other was involved. It was an odd situation, given that at the time, Iran and the United States were conducting negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. Be that as it may, the tide appears to be turning in Iraq (again), especially given that ISIS has been unable to gain complete control of the Baiji refinery, a piece of real estate that may appear to be worth more than it actually is. But it has become a bit of a rallying cry for the ISF, and they are very determined to relieve its defenders and remove the threat of ISIS control of the entire refinery. Once Ramadi has been relieved, and the ISF and its militia partners are able to consolidate gains in Salah ad-Din province and around Baiji, then ISIS may be obliged to re-evaluate its long-term strategy. Almost everyday brings more bad news for Bashir al-Assad in Syria, and its not necessarily ISIS that is causing the trouble. Jabhat al-Nusrah, considered by many analysts to by Al-Qaeda's "representative" in Syria, has been conducting one successful military operation after another. In reality, all the Islamic extremist groups who envision some form of a Sunni-based caliphate, are representing Al-Qaeda, including ISIS. That certainly does not imply that Assad is a friend to the west, it only means that the various Islamic Sunni extremist military groups around the world all have the same goal and the same motivation. At this point, keeping them separate no longer seems to serve a point.
News from northwest Syria is that Idlib Province has, for the most part, fallen to Jabhat al-Nusrah. Everyday, village by village, town by town, and province by province, the end draws nearer for Bashir Al-Assad; and once it comes, no doubt there will be a serious vengeance visited upon all those who were loyal to the regime. And as the situation becomes more desperate, the regime continues to make enemies by its use of weaponized chlorine gas attacks, barrel bombs, and indiscriminate air attacks on civilian areas. Sooner or later, the last handful of troops loyal to Assad will realize that he and his closest comrades will escape Damascus to end their days in luxury, probably in a villa on the Black Sea. Its no secret that the Assad family has treated the Syrian treasury as its own personal bank account, not to mention all the cash derived from all manner of bribes. So the Assad clan will be just fine, but what about the troops who have been loyal to the end? In Libya, the number of loyal troops disintegrated at the end, and I expect the same situation to happen in Syria. Assad will have a limited amount of time to decide when to leave, and if he misses the deadline by the smallest of margins, we might just see Bashir lit up like a Christmas tree, inside of a cage.
We have been monitoring the media reports regarding Syria, for any indication that the clocks are ticking in Paris, Moscow, Washington, London, etc., on Bashir al-Assad's Syria. The west was taken by surprise at the swift removal of Gaddafi (no doubt he was surprised by the swift removal of his head), and I wonder if the analysts aren't giving Assad a bit more staying power than he actually has. True, we had him practically written off once before and he bounced back. But the giant difference between then and now is Russia. We believe that Putin is willing to allow Assad and his flock of butchers and thieves to go into exile in Russia, but that's about it. He does not appear willing to expend anymore political capital or money on the Syrian Ba'ath movement. Assad's predicament isn't complicated; its simply a matter of diminishing returns. Unless the Syrian military is preparing some awe-inspiring major offensive (it would have to be out of Damascus) to turn the tide of battle, then everyday Assad can expect his loyalists to decrease in number. A few gone over here, and a few more missing over there. Don't be surprised to see a Syrian pilot asking for asylum soon, although I don't know if any are left that can pretend to have clean hands, i.e. never having targeted civilians. The truth is, we're getting a little impatient. We want to know what will happen "apres les deluge", so we are discreetly trying to nudge Assad in the right direction. "Hey Bashir, I understand that Black Sea caviar is the richest. Don't take any chances, Bashir; you already have no chin, how will you look with no head? Be careful, Bashir, I opened the refrigerator this morning only to find a frozen Jabhat al-Nusrah guy inside. Oh, that was your doing? Sorry....."
Friday, May 22, 2015
Thoughts and observations on Iraq and Syria.
[ALink: Washington Post blames Iraq for ISIS success.
A quick read of the Washington Post's latest analysis of the conflict in Iraq has left me a bit disappointed. The Post seems content on laying the blame for the disaster that is Iraq at the feet of the Iraqi government. They would be absolutely correct in their assessment. They would also be displaying a sad lack of journalistic integrity and follow-through. Once the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) retook Iraq without the assistance of the Shi'a militia, the Obama Administration was quick to take as much credit as the press corps would allow. Its probably accurate to opine that Tikrit would not have fallen as quickly if it weren't for the air support provided by the Obama Air Coalition. The fact that Tikrit was retaken without the militias gave support to the idea that the ISF and the Air Coalition could successfully defeat the Islamic State (IS) alone. All the while, analysts with a bit of experience and patience to their credit, were politely reminding the excited Administration folks that trouble was brewing in Anbar. The truth is, trouble never stopped brewing in Anbar. The IS had every intention of an offensive to take Ramadi and isolate Haditha and the al-Asad Air Base, long before the retaking of Tikrit. If anything, it made the task easier by withdrawing the more experienced and reliable elements of the ISF (undeniably necessarily now that the militias have lost favor) from defensive positions in Anbar to the assault on Tikrit. As we expected, Joe Biden's celebration of the fall of Tikrit was short-lived, as everything since has turned to shit. Baiji will probably fall (the Obama Administration is already negating the importance of Baiji by reminding the press that the facility does not have the adequate professional staff on hand to properly function), as will other small pockets of ISF resistance, and Baghdad will begin to sense the noose.
Today we learned that IS had taken Palmyra, and if the Islamic State follows its usual game plan, then antiquities from the time of the Old Testament are likely to be destroyed. We've heard this refrain before, as every sacred archeological site in Mesopotamia seems to either be ruined on or the chopping block. Call me uncaring and cold-hearted, but the loss of Nineveh, Babylon and Palmyra aren't what gives me a case of the Red-Ass. What really burns me up learning about all the vehicles and equipment that the ISF left in Ramadi! I want to know, was this equipment LOANED to Iraq, or was it sold to them? We went through this once before, in the Battle for Tikrit Part I. At that time, the equipment that was deserted on the battlefield and picked up by IS fighters, was all donated to the Iraqi military. But this time around, I expect some accounting! Anyone in the Democratic Party ever heard of financial accountability? How about, "once-burned, twice shy"? I know at least twenty Humvees were left for the IS to confiscate, but what really worries me is, what about artillery, rocket launchers, mortars, ammunition? Did the U.S. taxpayer AGAIN pay for equipping the IS? From this point forward, I suggest we require payment UP-FRONT for any military equipment.
Lets chat a bit about the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA). That's all we can do, is chat a bit, because no one has ever really spoken about it. True, the FSA has a nice introduction, which provided a narrative which the press corps was supposed to read between the lines. The not-so discreetly hidden message in the narrative was that this FSA was supposed to act as the surrogate ground force that the Obama Administration was unwilling to introduce into the conflict. Its my understanding that extensive training was undertaken in Jordan, with careful steps taken not to rush the issue. Well, folks, the issue appears to have rushed itself. I have no clue where the FSA is located and if they have actually seen any action. In fact, I was relying on some form of engagement, so that I would have an idea what side they would be fighting. We can assume that the FSA would not engage regime forces, so would IS forces be the main target? Well, they might want to get moving, because the IS seems about ready to pin-the-tail on this donkey.
I wouldn't advise anyone to keep a lookout for the FSA. I assume that given recent developments, it would be difficult to stop the IS and Jabhat al-Nusrah from finishing off the Assad regime. Certainly the FSA, if it had the numbers, could cause all sorts of problems for the IS in the area south of Damascus and near the Jordan border and the Golan Heights, but I wouldn't advise getting too close to areas patrolled by the Israelis. So yes, the FSA could cause trouble for the IS in the area of Damascus (and south), but what would be the point? All it would accomplish is possibly provide a lifeline to Assad, although even that seems unlikely. The smart move is to disband this army of modern-day mercenaries and give them a bit of cash for their troubles. What worries would be some brilliant military strategist in the Administration making the argument that the FSA should be used in Iraq to fight the IS. Ideally, forcing the IS to defend its western border in Anbar sounds like a smart move. But I have always been opposed to surrogate armies. If the cause isn't important enough to use U.S. troops, then it must be someone else's war.
A quick read of the Washington Post's latest analysis of the conflict in Iraq has left me a bit disappointed. The Post seems content on laying the blame for the disaster that is Iraq at the feet of the Iraqi government. They would be absolutely correct in their assessment. They would also be displaying a sad lack of journalistic integrity and follow-through. Once the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) retook Iraq without the assistance of the Shi'a militia, the Obama Administration was quick to take as much credit as the press corps would allow. Its probably accurate to opine that Tikrit would not have fallen as quickly if it weren't for the air support provided by the Obama Air Coalition. The fact that Tikrit was retaken without the militias gave support to the idea that the ISF and the Air Coalition could successfully defeat the Islamic State (IS) alone. All the while, analysts with a bit of experience and patience to their credit, were politely reminding the excited Administration folks that trouble was brewing in Anbar. The truth is, trouble never stopped brewing in Anbar. The IS had every intention of an offensive to take Ramadi and isolate Haditha and the al-Asad Air Base, long before the retaking of Tikrit. If anything, it made the task easier by withdrawing the more experienced and reliable elements of the ISF (undeniably necessarily now that the militias have lost favor) from defensive positions in Anbar to the assault on Tikrit. As we expected, Joe Biden's celebration of the fall of Tikrit was short-lived, as everything since has turned to shit. Baiji will probably fall (the Obama Administration is already negating the importance of Baiji by reminding the press that the facility does not have the adequate professional staff on hand to properly function), as will other small pockets of ISF resistance, and Baghdad will begin to sense the noose.
Today we learned that IS had taken Palmyra, and if the Islamic State follows its usual game plan, then antiquities from the time of the Old Testament are likely to be destroyed. We've heard this refrain before, as every sacred archeological site in Mesopotamia seems to either be ruined on or the chopping block. Call me uncaring and cold-hearted, but the loss of Nineveh, Babylon and Palmyra aren't what gives me a case of the Red-Ass. What really burns me up learning about all the vehicles and equipment that the ISF left in Ramadi! I want to know, was this equipment LOANED to Iraq, or was it sold to them? We went through this once before, in the Battle for Tikrit Part I. At that time, the equipment that was deserted on the battlefield and picked up by IS fighters, was all donated to the Iraqi military. But this time around, I expect some accounting! Anyone in the Democratic Party ever heard of financial accountability? How about, "once-burned, twice shy"? I know at least twenty Humvees were left for the IS to confiscate, but what really worries me is, what about artillery, rocket launchers, mortars, ammunition? Did the U.S. taxpayer AGAIN pay for equipping the IS? From this point forward, I suggest we require payment UP-FRONT for any military equipment.
Lets chat a bit about the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA). That's all we can do, is chat a bit, because no one has ever really spoken about it. True, the FSA has a nice introduction, which provided a narrative which the press corps was supposed to read between the lines. The not-so discreetly hidden message in the narrative was that this FSA was supposed to act as the surrogate ground force that the Obama Administration was unwilling to introduce into the conflict. Its my understanding that extensive training was undertaken in Jordan, with careful steps taken not to rush the issue. Well, folks, the issue appears to have rushed itself. I have no clue where the FSA is located and if they have actually seen any action. In fact, I was relying on some form of engagement, so that I would have an idea what side they would be fighting. We can assume that the FSA would not engage regime forces, so would IS forces be the main target? Well, they might want to get moving, because the IS seems about ready to pin-the-tail on this donkey.
I wouldn't advise anyone to keep a lookout for the FSA. I assume that given recent developments, it would be difficult to stop the IS and Jabhat al-Nusrah from finishing off the Assad regime. Certainly the FSA, if it had the numbers, could cause all sorts of problems for the IS in the area south of Damascus and near the Jordan border and the Golan Heights, but I wouldn't advise getting too close to areas patrolled by the Israelis. So yes, the FSA could cause trouble for the IS in the area of Damascus (and south), but what would be the point? All it would accomplish is possibly provide a lifeline to Assad, although even that seems unlikely. The smart move is to disband this army of modern-day mercenaries and give them a bit of cash for their troubles. What worries would be some brilliant military strategist in the Administration making the argument that the FSA should be used in Iraq to fight the IS. Ideally, forcing the IS to defend its western border in Anbar sounds like a smart move. But I have always been opposed to surrogate armies. If the cause isn't important enough to use U.S. troops, then it must be someone else's war.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
The Shit is About to Hit The Fan, Folks.
Links: A. Real-time situation report from the battlefields of Iraq.
B. Real-time situation report from the battlefields of Syria.
C. Real-time situation report from the battlefields of Ukraine.
Before we take a graceful swan-dive into the subject of today's post, I want to bring attention to the three links that I have provided. All three links are generated from the same blog, "The Institute for the Study of War" (ISW). At times I have praised certain websites and blogs, especially if I find myself becoming a regular visitor. But I must truly take my hat off to the people behind this blog. I am repeatedly amazed by the detail, accuracy, and familiarity with ground truth, that is so evident in ISW updates. I am most impressed with ISW's ability to provide the same high-caliber reporting from three separate battlefields. Personally, I'm already combining the Syrian and Iraqi zone of conflict, but Ukraine is entirely different nut altogether. Everyday I wait for my email from ISW; kudos to whoever runs the show for turning me into and out-and-out ISW junkie!
After taking a few minutes to praise another blog, allow me to take a few more to praise my own. We have been raising the warning flag regarding the Islamic State's (IS) ability to threaten Baghdad for some months now. Yesterday, the IS launched a furious assault on Ramadi and also NW of Ramadi in the direction of al-Asad Air Base, a location that had received a great deal of attention from just about everyone. It is likely that the IS will occupy Ramadi, at least most of it, and also probable that the ISF, and or a Shi'a militia, will snatch it back. But this game of give-and-take is accomplishing something strategic and tremendously valuable to IS. You see, the continued battles for the Sunni communities on the road to Jordan provide the IS with the opportunity to seed the bedroom communities of Baghdad with sympathizers, and eventually operatives. The style of semi-urban warfare takes a page out of Vietnam. One of the many reasons that the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were initially so successful in the Tet Offensive of 1968 was the pre-positioning of sympathizers and irregular forces in the close suburb communities outside Saigon, DaNang, and Hue. We are convinced that the IS has been seeding various Sunni residential areas outside the capital with supporters and operatives, waiting for the order to become operational. The IS also seeded the Yarmouk Refugee Camp just outside of Damascus, and they were so successful that analysts are already conceding that territory to the IS. Its not rocket science.
We at Mukhabarat, Baby! are growing more concerned every day for the still-substantial number of American and European non-combatants in Baghdad. Its my understanding that certain agencies have re-deployed officers back to Iraq after the Obama drawdown. Here is a very important question: if the U.S. has non-combatants (intelligence officers, engineers, instructors, linguists, support staff, etc.) widely dispersed in places such as Basra, Erbil, Mosul, and Baghdad, who do these people look to for protection? I'm not exactly sure how many U.S. troops are in Iraq and what their designation happens to be, by last November President Obama was given approval to send 1,500 troops (specifically in a training posture) to Iraq. So whatever civilians the U.S. government and its contractors have in Iraq are relying upon the lightly-trained Iraqi Security Forces and possibly the odd Shi'a militia for protection. Forgive me, but we find this arrangement unacceptable, given the IS' track record in dealing with prisoners. We must be proactive, and either move our people out, or take steps to ensure their safety by the U.S. military.
Syria also appears to be nearing the finishing line, but we've been beating this horse to death lately. Because of the myriad of equities involved, the IS may not go in for the "coup de grace" for some time yet. If Russia had given the slightest inclination of providing Assad the military support he needs, then possibly it would be best for the IS to strike while the iron's hot. But Russia seems solely interested in dumping its excess weaponry and equipment in eastern Ukraine, where it is greedily gobbled up by the various separatists groups. I saw a video clip last week that I haven't been able to relocate, otherwise I would have included it on my links. It was a clip of a group of separatists trying to make heads or tails out of a relatively small missile or grenade launcher of some sort. To cut to the chase, the evil guerilla driving accidentally ran over one of his guerilla buddies. I haven't laughed so much since the photo of the Pakistani guy catching his arm on fire as he tries to ignite a U.S. flag. Priceless. Back to Syria.....certainly it appears that the IS is in position to pick off regime-held towns along the Anti-Lebanon mountain chain, until reaching Damascus. If Assad were still in town, then the IS could seal up the place and starve him out. But by then, Assad will have vacated the premises for more pleasant digs. But the IS must eventually address a few political issues regarding the various factions that have been opposing Assad as well, some of them for a much longer period of time. We have argued that the numerous groups, including Jabhat al-Nusrah, Khorasan, and the IS, are, at the end of the day, loyal to the Sunni cause and the leadership of Osama bin-Laden. Would the IS share authority with the others? And what of the Free Syrian Army? Obviously they can't be abandoned after volunteering to fight as a proxy ground force for the Pentagon. Something tells me that the lot of 'em, families in tow, will be receiving Resident Alien status. And who am I to complain? At least its something that this administration does well.
Of the three trouble spots that we've been examining (with the expert guidance of the ISW), Ukraine appears to be the one with the most staying power. I can't imagine that the Russian Army will roll across the Ukrainian border, make short work of the Ukrainian Army, and then occupy the entire country. This festering boil will continue to fester for some time to come. Putin is obviously committed at some level. Russian troops and tanks are in Ukraine, and Russian Migs and Sukhois are patrolling the skies in the east. At one point, it appeared that Putin was attempting to use the Donbas region as a bargaining chip, to ensure that Kiev and the west recognize the Russian occupation of Crimea. As Putin, who still thinks like an intelligence officer, sees it, a simple trade would have been sufficient. We stop destabilizing Donbas, you forget about Crimea. But we've moved quite a bit down the road since then. The Ukrainian Army has shown itself to be far less effective than originally thought. In fact, in many instances, it has been the separatists who have won the day in direct clashes with the Ukrainian Army. Its possible that the government of Ukraine is holding back its major military resources in case a defense of Kiev of the heartland is necessary. We can't say. One thing is for sure...the Ukrainian Army currently in the field in the southeast, will be chewed up quickly if the anticipated offensive takes place as expected. Its true that members of the U.S. military are currently in Ukraine, assisting in the training of the many new recruits that have poured into the recruitment offices in the west of the country. But what the Ukrainian military needs more than anything else (short of western military intervention), is a dump of military weapons and equipment. If the G.I. from Savannah, Georgia is going to tech the young Ukrainian private how to shoot an M16, it would be nice if an M16 were available for the private to use. Back to the bigger picture....we still aren't convinced that Putin has in interest in swallowing up the entire Ukraine. It would be more trouble than its worth. A struggling economy, reliance on Russia for energy, a vocal, agitated youth movement, and issues with NATO would be waiting for Vladimir if he managed to occupy the entire country. Its possible that he simply wants to bring Ukraine back into the fold, and at the same time, annex both Donbas and Crimea. Crimea is worth the hassle....but Donbas?
B. Real-time situation report from the battlefields of Syria.
C. Real-time situation report from the battlefields of Ukraine.
Before we take a graceful swan-dive into the subject of today's post, I want to bring attention to the three links that I have provided. All three links are generated from the same blog, "The Institute for the Study of War" (ISW). At times I have praised certain websites and blogs, especially if I find myself becoming a regular visitor. But I must truly take my hat off to the people behind this blog. I am repeatedly amazed by the detail, accuracy, and familiarity with ground truth, that is so evident in ISW updates. I am most impressed with ISW's ability to provide the same high-caliber reporting from three separate battlefields. Personally, I'm already combining the Syrian and Iraqi zone of conflict, but Ukraine is entirely different nut altogether. Everyday I wait for my email from ISW; kudos to whoever runs the show for turning me into and out-and-out ISW junkie!
After taking a few minutes to praise another blog, allow me to take a few more to praise my own. We have been raising the warning flag regarding the Islamic State's (IS) ability to threaten Baghdad for some months now. Yesterday, the IS launched a furious assault on Ramadi and also NW of Ramadi in the direction of al-Asad Air Base, a location that had received a great deal of attention from just about everyone. It is likely that the IS will occupy Ramadi, at least most of it, and also probable that the ISF, and or a Shi'a militia, will snatch it back. But this game of give-and-take is accomplishing something strategic and tremendously valuable to IS. You see, the continued battles for the Sunni communities on the road to Jordan provide the IS with the opportunity to seed the bedroom communities of Baghdad with sympathizers, and eventually operatives. The style of semi-urban warfare takes a page out of Vietnam. One of the many reasons that the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were initially so successful in the Tet Offensive of 1968 was the pre-positioning of sympathizers and irregular forces in the close suburb communities outside Saigon, DaNang, and Hue. We are convinced that the IS has been seeding various Sunni residential areas outside the capital with supporters and operatives, waiting for the order to become operational. The IS also seeded the Yarmouk Refugee Camp just outside of Damascus, and they were so successful that analysts are already conceding that territory to the IS. Its not rocket science.
We at Mukhabarat, Baby! are growing more concerned every day for the still-substantial number of American and European non-combatants in Baghdad. Its my understanding that certain agencies have re-deployed officers back to Iraq after the Obama drawdown. Here is a very important question: if the U.S. has non-combatants (intelligence officers, engineers, instructors, linguists, support staff, etc.) widely dispersed in places such as Basra, Erbil, Mosul, and Baghdad, who do these people look to for protection? I'm not exactly sure how many U.S. troops are in Iraq and what their designation happens to be, by last November President Obama was given approval to send 1,500 troops (specifically in a training posture) to Iraq. So whatever civilians the U.S. government and its contractors have in Iraq are relying upon the lightly-trained Iraqi Security Forces and possibly the odd Shi'a militia for protection. Forgive me, but we find this arrangement unacceptable, given the IS' track record in dealing with prisoners. We must be proactive, and either move our people out, or take steps to ensure their safety by the U.S. military.
Syria also appears to be nearing the finishing line, but we've been beating this horse to death lately. Because of the myriad of equities involved, the IS may not go in for the "coup de grace" for some time yet. If Russia had given the slightest inclination of providing Assad the military support he needs, then possibly it would be best for the IS to strike while the iron's hot. But Russia seems solely interested in dumping its excess weaponry and equipment in eastern Ukraine, where it is greedily gobbled up by the various separatists groups. I saw a video clip last week that I haven't been able to relocate, otherwise I would have included it on my links. It was a clip of a group of separatists trying to make heads or tails out of a relatively small missile or grenade launcher of some sort. To cut to the chase, the evil guerilla driving accidentally ran over one of his guerilla buddies. I haven't laughed so much since the photo of the Pakistani guy catching his arm on fire as he tries to ignite a U.S. flag. Priceless. Back to Syria.....certainly it appears that the IS is in position to pick off regime-held towns along the Anti-Lebanon mountain chain, until reaching Damascus. If Assad were still in town, then the IS could seal up the place and starve him out. But by then, Assad will have vacated the premises for more pleasant digs. But the IS must eventually address a few political issues regarding the various factions that have been opposing Assad as well, some of them for a much longer period of time. We have argued that the numerous groups, including Jabhat al-Nusrah, Khorasan, and the IS, are, at the end of the day, loyal to the Sunni cause and the leadership of Osama bin-Laden. Would the IS share authority with the others? And what of the Free Syrian Army? Obviously they can't be abandoned after volunteering to fight as a proxy ground force for the Pentagon. Something tells me that the lot of 'em, families in tow, will be receiving Resident Alien status. And who am I to complain? At least its something that this administration does well.
Of the three trouble spots that we've been examining (with the expert guidance of the ISW), Ukraine appears to be the one with the most staying power. I can't imagine that the Russian Army will roll across the Ukrainian border, make short work of the Ukrainian Army, and then occupy the entire country. This festering boil will continue to fester for some time to come. Putin is obviously committed at some level. Russian troops and tanks are in Ukraine, and Russian Migs and Sukhois are patrolling the skies in the east. At one point, it appeared that Putin was attempting to use the Donbas region as a bargaining chip, to ensure that Kiev and the west recognize the Russian occupation of Crimea. As Putin, who still thinks like an intelligence officer, sees it, a simple trade would have been sufficient. We stop destabilizing Donbas, you forget about Crimea. But we've moved quite a bit down the road since then. The Ukrainian Army has shown itself to be far less effective than originally thought. In fact, in many instances, it has been the separatists who have won the day in direct clashes with the Ukrainian Army. Its possible that the government of Ukraine is holding back its major military resources in case a defense of Kiev of the heartland is necessary. We can't say. One thing is for sure...the Ukrainian Army currently in the field in the southeast, will be chewed up quickly if the anticipated offensive takes place as expected. Its true that members of the U.S. military are currently in Ukraine, assisting in the training of the many new recruits that have poured into the recruitment offices in the west of the country. But what the Ukrainian military needs more than anything else (short of western military intervention), is a dump of military weapons and equipment. If the G.I. from Savannah, Georgia is going to tech the young Ukrainian private how to shoot an M16, it would be nice if an M16 were available for the private to use. Back to the bigger picture....we still aren't convinced that Putin has in interest in swallowing up the entire Ukraine. It would be more trouble than its worth. A struggling economy, reliance on Russia for energy, a vocal, agitated youth movement, and issues with NATO would be waiting for Vladimir if he managed to occupy the entire country. Its possible that he simply wants to bring Ukraine back into the fold, and at the same time, annex both Donbas and Crimea. Crimea is worth the hassle....but Donbas?
Monday, May 18, 2015
Developments in Ukraine and Syria.
Links: A. U.S. Troops Training Ukrainian Army.
B. Syrian War Nearing Conclusion?
No doubt the Ukrainian military is pleased that the United States has provided military trainers to prepare the growing number of Ukrainian Army recruits for combat, as all indications point to an escalation in hostilities. Although I don't recall the legislation that allows for U.S. troops to be peripherally involved in the conflict, I'm glad that at least we have made it clear that we believe Russia to be the antagonist. Like most of Congress, I urgently call for the Obama Administration to provide immediate military assistance to Ukraine. Today I noticed a Reuters Article that quoted Vladimir Putin as identifying Ukraine as a "fascist state". Not to be outdone, Reuters took the time to educate all of us idiots out here that the Ukrainian government and parliament were passing legislation that could be interpreted as "fascist". News flash to Reuters (News Flash to a premier news organization?): Ukraine is under military assault by a nation with a much larger army and greater access to military resources. What country does not rely on extreme internal measures during war, to protect the safety of the people and the integrity of the state? Heck, Russia has draconian internal laws and they are always the aggressor in these instances. By my history book, Russia has not been invaded since Hitler's Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Since the dissolution of Communist Russia, the Russians have managed to be militarily aggressive towards Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. I'm waiting for Reuters to point out that "invading your neighbors under false pretenses" is a tad bit fascist, but I'm not holding my breath.
During the 9 May May Day celebrations in Donetsk and Luhansk, the separatists paraded all sorts of military gear in front of small of enthusiastic crowds. Interestingly enough, much of the hardware on display was supposed to be removed from Ukraine according to the provisions of the 12 February Cease Fire signed in Minsk by Russia and Ukraine. Of course, the Russians will claim that the military vehicles and weapons on display were removed according to the Cease Fire obligations, but had only recently been returned. And those of us with a shred of common sense will chalk that claim up to another in a long list of outright Russian lies. Here is a bit of free intelligence for everyone who hasn't caught on yet: Vladimir Putin is a liar, and the Russian government cannot be trusted to fulfill a treaty requiring it to clean a litter box. And yet, looking about as moronic as is humanly possible, here is Secretary of State John "Frankenstein" Kerry, discussing the possibility of a new Cease Fire with Putin. What is congenitally wrong with these people, that they continue to go on trusting people who have proven time and again that they can't be trusted? Has it been that long since the Russian separatists in Ukraine, misusing the latest in Russian military equipment, shot down a commercial jet full of innocent men, women and children? Lets not forget that the Russian government disseminated every kind of bizarre "breaking news story" to try and blame the incident on everyone from the Ukrainians to the United States. The Ukrainian front line in southeastern Ukraine is soon to be assaulted by Russian weapons, Russian warplanes, and probably even Russian troops. The brave of ineffectual Ukrainian Army (and the undisciplined collection of foreign mercenaries they've contracted, who can walk off the battlefield at any moment, and will) will be no match for the firestorm that approaches, and when we all wake up a few weeks later, Kiev itself maybe in the Russian's gun sights.
Simply put, the only action that Putin will respect is a hard military response. And you can bet your last ruble that he needn't worry about seeing one.
As we have been reporting over the last month, the pro-Assad military has suffered one strategic calamity after another, mostly at the hands of Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN). In reality, aside from a few isolated and unimportant outposts out in the eastern desert, Assad's authority is limited to Syria "west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. He has lost both the border in the north to the Kurds, and the Jordanian border to a variety of opposition. Folks are beginning to grumble about chemical agents because the use of such unpredictable weapons is usually reserved for desperate times. And lets be clear about one thing: the clock is ticking on the Assad Presidency. The key was the lack of real support from his usual sugar daddy, Russia. We had expected the Russians to take advantage of last year's lull in fighting to rebuild Assad's armor capabilities and air force. Aside from a few new helicopters, we see no indication that Russia has made any kind of effort to strengthen Assad's army. Is it possible that Putin realized that his dream of a Russian naval port on the Mediterranean wasn't going to happen, at least not on the Syrian coast? Is it possible that the situation in Ukraine demanded too much focus from the Russian military, so Assad was cut lose? That would be highly unlikely, so the decision was more of a pragmatic, realistic choice on the part of Putin. With the extremist armies growing in strength, and Turkey screaming for Assad's removal, Putin probably weighed his equities and decided that Assad would have to sink-or-swim on his own. And the last few weeks have been all about swimming for Assad and his dwindling military.
Indications are that the Islamic State (IS), which had been quiet on the Syrian front as of late (and making lots of noise in Iraq), is about to launch a two-pronged offensive in Syria, exclusively targeting regime forces. So let me scream this from the rafters, so those in Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon can hear: we need a proactive plan regarding what happens after Assad leaves. The United States cannot find itself in a Libya, part II situation. Even though the Free Syrian Army still hasn't made an impression on the battlefield, is it possible that they can be utilized to protect our interests and equities in Syria? We didn't spend billions of dollars on training an army and leading an air campaign in order to have no say-so in post-Assad Syria. But this is where my suggestions end. I have no idea what to do with this mess. If it had been up to me, we would have mobilized the entire U.S. military to destroy the IS in both Syria and Iraq, and left a few useful military bases behind us. But I guess I can be labeled as a bit of a "Hawk". Both JN and IS have legitimate claim to rule in Syria, if we follow the law of the desert: he who stands last, stands tallest. If the IS flushes Assad and his herd of cronies out of Damascus, have they not earned their "Caliphate"? I have a sneaky feeling that the end of Assad will result in a "rapprochement" with JN, the IS, Khorasan, and all the other shitty little groups out here in the desert. They all fight for the same goal: Islamic extremist hegemony, under the guise of Al-Qaeda. So dealing with is may be all that will be needed. Either way, do we try and negotiate with them, or do we go to war again? Is there another option? I guess we could just evacuate all of our folks and let Israel sort it out.
B. Syrian War Nearing Conclusion?
No doubt the Ukrainian military is pleased that the United States has provided military trainers to prepare the growing number of Ukrainian Army recruits for combat, as all indications point to an escalation in hostilities. Although I don't recall the legislation that allows for U.S. troops to be peripherally involved in the conflict, I'm glad that at least we have made it clear that we believe Russia to be the antagonist. Like most of Congress, I urgently call for the Obama Administration to provide immediate military assistance to Ukraine. Today I noticed a Reuters Article that quoted Vladimir Putin as identifying Ukraine as a "fascist state". Not to be outdone, Reuters took the time to educate all of us idiots out here that the Ukrainian government and parliament were passing legislation that could be interpreted as "fascist". News flash to Reuters (News Flash to a premier news organization?): Ukraine is under military assault by a nation with a much larger army and greater access to military resources. What country does not rely on extreme internal measures during war, to protect the safety of the people and the integrity of the state? Heck, Russia has draconian internal laws and they are always the aggressor in these instances. By my history book, Russia has not been invaded since Hitler's Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Since the dissolution of Communist Russia, the Russians have managed to be militarily aggressive towards Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. I'm waiting for Reuters to point out that "invading your neighbors under false pretenses" is a tad bit fascist, but I'm not holding my breath.
During the 9 May May Day celebrations in Donetsk and Luhansk, the separatists paraded all sorts of military gear in front of small of enthusiastic crowds. Interestingly enough, much of the hardware on display was supposed to be removed from Ukraine according to the provisions of the 12 February Cease Fire signed in Minsk by Russia and Ukraine. Of course, the Russians will claim that the military vehicles and weapons on display were removed according to the Cease Fire obligations, but had only recently been returned. And those of us with a shred of common sense will chalk that claim up to another in a long list of outright Russian lies. Here is a bit of free intelligence for everyone who hasn't caught on yet: Vladimir Putin is a liar, and the Russian government cannot be trusted to fulfill a treaty requiring it to clean a litter box. And yet, looking about as moronic as is humanly possible, here is Secretary of State John "Frankenstein" Kerry, discussing the possibility of a new Cease Fire with Putin. What is congenitally wrong with these people, that they continue to go on trusting people who have proven time and again that they can't be trusted? Has it been that long since the Russian separatists in Ukraine, misusing the latest in Russian military equipment, shot down a commercial jet full of innocent men, women and children? Lets not forget that the Russian government disseminated every kind of bizarre "breaking news story" to try and blame the incident on everyone from the Ukrainians to the United States. The Ukrainian front line in southeastern Ukraine is soon to be assaulted by Russian weapons, Russian warplanes, and probably even Russian troops. The brave of ineffectual Ukrainian Army (and the undisciplined collection of foreign mercenaries they've contracted, who can walk off the battlefield at any moment, and will) will be no match for the firestorm that approaches, and when we all wake up a few weeks later, Kiev itself maybe in the Russian's gun sights.
Simply put, the only action that Putin will respect is a hard military response. And you can bet your last ruble that he needn't worry about seeing one.
As we have been reporting over the last month, the pro-Assad military has suffered one strategic calamity after another, mostly at the hands of Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN). In reality, aside from a few isolated and unimportant outposts out in the eastern desert, Assad's authority is limited to Syria "west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. He has lost both the border in the north to the Kurds, and the Jordanian border to a variety of opposition. Folks are beginning to grumble about chemical agents because the use of such unpredictable weapons is usually reserved for desperate times. And lets be clear about one thing: the clock is ticking on the Assad Presidency. The key was the lack of real support from his usual sugar daddy, Russia. We had expected the Russians to take advantage of last year's lull in fighting to rebuild Assad's armor capabilities and air force. Aside from a few new helicopters, we see no indication that Russia has made any kind of effort to strengthen Assad's army. Is it possible that Putin realized that his dream of a Russian naval port on the Mediterranean wasn't going to happen, at least not on the Syrian coast? Is it possible that the situation in Ukraine demanded too much focus from the Russian military, so Assad was cut lose? That would be highly unlikely, so the decision was more of a pragmatic, realistic choice on the part of Putin. With the extremist armies growing in strength, and Turkey screaming for Assad's removal, Putin probably weighed his equities and decided that Assad would have to sink-or-swim on his own. And the last few weeks have been all about swimming for Assad and his dwindling military.
Indications are that the Islamic State (IS), which had been quiet on the Syrian front as of late (and making lots of noise in Iraq), is about to launch a two-pronged offensive in Syria, exclusively targeting regime forces. So let me scream this from the rafters, so those in Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon can hear: we need a proactive plan regarding what happens after Assad leaves. The United States cannot find itself in a Libya, part II situation. Even though the Free Syrian Army still hasn't made an impression on the battlefield, is it possible that they can be utilized to protect our interests and equities in Syria? We didn't spend billions of dollars on training an army and leading an air campaign in order to have no say-so in post-Assad Syria. But this is where my suggestions end. I have no idea what to do with this mess. If it had been up to me, we would have mobilized the entire U.S. military to destroy the IS in both Syria and Iraq, and left a few useful military bases behind us. But I guess I can be labeled as a bit of a "Hawk". Both JN and IS have legitimate claim to rule in Syria, if we follow the law of the desert: he who stands last, stands tallest. If the IS flushes Assad and his herd of cronies out of Damascus, have they not earned their "Caliphate"? I have a sneaky feeling that the end of Assad will result in a "rapprochement" with JN, the IS, Khorasan, and all the other shitty little groups out here in the desert. They all fight for the same goal: Islamic extremist hegemony, under the guise of Al-Qaeda. So dealing with is may be all that will be needed. Either way, do we try and negotiate with them, or do we go to war again? Is there another option? I guess we could just evacuate all of our folks and let Israel sort it out.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
What can we expect if Bashir al-Assad is forced to abandon Damascus?
Links: A. Assad forces losing more ground in Syria.
B. Assad's weaknesses being exploited.
Everyday the headlines bring news of more territory lost to pro-government forces, as the hodge-podge of various anti-Assad groups push closer and closer to Damascus. In recent weeks, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), a well-organized group that many identify as Al-Qaeda's proxy in the Syrian conflict, has taken the lead, and delivered a string of defeats to the regular Syrian Army near the northwest town of Idlib. Syria's second-largest city of Aleppo, which is just north of Idlib, presently is not controlled by either side. Within the last year, regime forces have suffered losses in every corner of the country. The Iraqi border area is controlled by the Islamic State, while the northeast border with Turkey appears to be under mostly Kurdish control. The Jordanian border area in the southwest has seen a successful push by Jabhat al-Nusrah as of late, with the regime no longer able to claim control of any of the towns.
Although I have argued on numerous occasions that the IS, JN, and the Khorosan group were basically separate digits connected to the same hand, the hand of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda. I have always based my opinion on the strong historic links between all the groups and Al-Qaeda, and the usefulness of having the enemy imagine ten separate opponents on the battlefield as opposed to one. In truth, I'm sure these groups do have certain issues of ideology or ceremony that aren't the same, but at the end of the day, they share they same basic goal: creating an Islamic Extremist state in Syria (and the entire Levant, for that matter). Interestingly enough, now that the Kurds have solidified their defensive positions in the north eastern border region, all of these groups can focus exclusively on regime military targets. I would imagine that if they truly were opposed to each other, then we would eventually see some sign of conflict; it's human nature. Even the nebulous "Free Syrian Army", equipped and trained by the United States, appears to be focused on Syrian military units. In a nutshell, Its all against one.
If the regime is unable to respond effectively, what can be expected? Right now, Assad's control basically is limited to everything west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountain Range, which includes the entire Mediterranean coast, and the area around Damascus, although the Yarmouk refugee camp just outside Damascus has apparently been co-opted by the IS. As difficult as it is to imagine, Assad controls roughly one-eighth of Syria, the enemy is collecting at the gates. No doubt, when it becomes necessary, Assad and his family will be able to find asylum in Iran, Oman, or some friendly country, and plenty of money has been squirrelled away in various banks to keep him and his henchmen living comfortably for the remainder of their days. The question is, will Assad recognize the moment, when the time has come to abandon ship? He has shown a great deal of determination in the past, and he has stayed in Damascus when many others would have left.
Who picks up the pieces? Will it be Jabhat al-Nusrah? Or possibly Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State? Don't put your hopes on the Free Syrian Army. As soon as the U.S. money goes away, these guys will disappear into the hills. I believe that the Islamic State will take charge, and the experts will begin to consider that maybe these groups weren't so far apart after all. While the IS solidifies its position, maybe Angela Merkel and President Obama and convene a summit to enact sanctions. One thing is certain; whatever military resources that will be made available because of the end of hostilities in Syria, will quickly make their way to the battlefields of Iraq.
B. Assad's weaknesses being exploited.
Everyday the headlines bring news of more territory lost to pro-government forces, as the hodge-podge of various anti-Assad groups push closer and closer to Damascus. In recent weeks, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), a well-organized group that many identify as Al-Qaeda's proxy in the Syrian conflict, has taken the lead, and delivered a string of defeats to the regular Syrian Army near the northwest town of Idlib. Syria's second-largest city of Aleppo, which is just north of Idlib, presently is not controlled by either side. Within the last year, regime forces have suffered losses in every corner of the country. The Iraqi border area is controlled by the Islamic State, while the northeast border with Turkey appears to be under mostly Kurdish control. The Jordanian border area in the southwest has seen a successful push by Jabhat al-Nusrah as of late, with the regime no longer able to claim control of any of the towns.
Although I have argued on numerous occasions that the IS, JN, and the Khorosan group were basically separate digits connected to the same hand, the hand of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda. I have always based my opinion on the strong historic links between all the groups and Al-Qaeda, and the usefulness of having the enemy imagine ten separate opponents on the battlefield as opposed to one. In truth, I'm sure these groups do have certain issues of ideology or ceremony that aren't the same, but at the end of the day, they share they same basic goal: creating an Islamic Extremist state in Syria (and the entire Levant, for that matter). Interestingly enough, now that the Kurds have solidified their defensive positions in the north eastern border region, all of these groups can focus exclusively on regime military targets. I would imagine that if they truly were opposed to each other, then we would eventually see some sign of conflict; it's human nature. Even the nebulous "Free Syrian Army", equipped and trained by the United States, appears to be focused on Syrian military units. In a nutshell, Its all against one.
If the regime is unable to respond effectively, what can be expected? Right now, Assad's control basically is limited to everything west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountain Range, which includes the entire Mediterranean coast, and the area around Damascus, although the Yarmouk refugee camp just outside Damascus has apparently been co-opted by the IS. As difficult as it is to imagine, Assad controls roughly one-eighth of Syria, the enemy is collecting at the gates. No doubt, when it becomes necessary, Assad and his family will be able to find asylum in Iran, Oman, or some friendly country, and plenty of money has been squirrelled away in various banks to keep him and his henchmen living comfortably for the remainder of their days. The question is, will Assad recognize the moment, when the time has come to abandon ship? He has shown a great deal of determination in the past, and he has stayed in Damascus when many others would have left.
Who picks up the pieces? Will it be Jabhat al-Nusrah? Or possibly Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State? Don't put your hopes on the Free Syrian Army. As soon as the U.S. money goes away, these guys will disappear into the hills. I believe that the Islamic State will take charge, and the experts will begin to consider that maybe these groups weren't so far apart after all. While the IS solidifies its position, maybe Angela Merkel and President Obama and convene a summit to enact sanctions. One thing is certain; whatever military resources that will be made available because of the end of hostilities in Syria, will quickly make their way to the battlefields of Iraq.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Just How Much Separation Really Exists Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? (Part I)
Links: A. Conflict Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?
If I get something wrong, I can rely upon my readers to send enough emails to ensure that I am corrected. I get so little correspondence (the email address is provided below), that I welcome a polite scolding, just for the opportunity to interact with someone who has given consideration to my perspective. And that, basically, is what the blog means to me. It provides an opportunity for me to share my perspective with an unlimited number of people around the world. Now my perspective is biased by definition. I do my best to present a balanced viewpoint, supported by my personal life experiences. But I am a citizen of the United States, and I fully believe in the exceptional nature of our Constitution and the American people; let there be no doubt that I would lay down my life for my country. But I am half-French, and I cherish every part of me that is France. That being said, I have been a world traveler, and I make a supreme effort to give full consideration to all viewpoints. One issue that seems to draw sharp dividing lines is the relationship between the two terrorist groups Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State (IS). I have included two links that present opinions which are contrary to my own, in an effort to jump-start a conversation which is truly very important. The sources for the links I have provided, continually use information obtained from Social Media as evidence of a rift between the two organizations. We have also heard vague rumors of actual violence between the groups, and also conflict with some of the other players on the ground in Iraq, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the Khorasan Group (K). Both links are well-written and ideally sourced. I found both commentaries to be full of well-intended, useful information. But in the end, I disagree with their basic premise. I believe that AQ and IS are closely linked and work within a loose, coordinated Confederation of sorts. And the sooner we recognize this fact, the better.
Its no secret that the IS has evolved from the remnants of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). I see many similarities. The first link above continues to highlight the atrocities committed by IS and its obvious propensity towards violence, as if AQ plays the game differently. The history of the AQ movement begs to differ. AQ brought us televised beheadings from Afghanistan when such demonstrations were still good for a bit of shock value. AQ has ordered the slaughter of entire villages in Afghanistan and whole families in Pakistan. I assume that I don't have to remind anyone about the amount of blood shed on September 11, 2001, or the desecration of the bodies of three U.S. contractors in Fallujah/Ramadi during Operation Enduring Freedom. Osama bin-Laden fully understood the power of violence as a tool in both warfare and perception. Bin-Laden frequently used violence to create fear in his enemies and the public in general, who would in turn acquiesce to his will. Its not a new approach, nor is it Rocket Science (damn to hell all those clichés!). I believe the attacks of September 11 carried a different message, a declaration of war against Christianity, Judaism and the west, as represented by the United States. President George W. Bush recognized the determination in his enemy, and decided upon a course of action that will be debated until the end of time. Bush decided to force AQ into a conventional conflict, in AQ's own backyard. He used the issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a platform (excuse? justification?) from which to force AQ into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. He correctly deduced that AQ could not avoid the confrontation with the U.S. Army in the heart of Islam, or risk losing legitimacy with the Muslim community internationally. He was also correct in assuming that AQ would suffer logistics and funding crises, which would hamper its ability to stay active elsewhere. I don't believe Bush, Rumsfeld or the Pentagon anticipated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the depth of the Iraqi insurgency, but before leaving office in 2008, he could be satisfied with the status quo in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bin-Laden and his elderly Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Physician-turned sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri (now that was a mouthful) obviously assessed the situation and realized early on that Bush was attempting to paint them into a corner. But for the time being, they were obliged to play the game. But Bin-Laden considered our Democratic habits to be our Achilles tendon, and in this instance he may have been correct. in 2008, the American people voted for a new direction, and a new direction is what we received. Although it didn't begin immediately, you might as well circle President Obama's first day in office as the start of the U.S. military's draw-down and eventual departure from Iraq. Bin-Laden and Zawahiri anticipated this, and focused on rebuilding their movement from the ground-up (I'm frequently including Zawahiri because he now runs the show, and we need to get accustomed to his brand of terrorism. He is methodical, detail-oriented, brilliant and probably a sociopath, and he is the enemy). If the west wanted a conventional war, then the movement was happy to oblige. First and foremost, I believe that sometime in between 2007 and 2009, AQ reviewed and rebuilt its internal security network. Bin-Laden realized that many parts of his network had been compromised and a simpler, more effective plan was put in place. The key to this plan was to limit the amount of time members engaged in face to face contact outside of the battlefield, and to severely limit all contact with Bin-Laden and Zawahiri. Steps were taken to eliminate the need for direct contact. As long as the brain could communicate with the limbs, everything else was almost superfluous. Also, a designation must exist between highly-trained, professional operatives and the continued stream of unskilled volunteers that make there way into the organization. I believe the root of the original AQ, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which trains highly skilled and motivated operatives for complex operations, still functions as it always has. What has changed is the growth of another type of operative, the foot soldier who will give the movement a resource which was sorely lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq: a conventional offensive capability.
B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?
If I get something wrong, I can rely upon my readers to send enough emails to ensure that I am corrected. I get so little correspondence (the email address is provided below), that I welcome a polite scolding, just for the opportunity to interact with someone who has given consideration to my perspective. And that, basically, is what the blog means to me. It provides an opportunity for me to share my perspective with an unlimited number of people around the world. Now my perspective is biased by definition. I do my best to present a balanced viewpoint, supported by my personal life experiences. But I am a citizen of the United States, and I fully believe in the exceptional nature of our Constitution and the American people; let there be no doubt that I would lay down my life for my country. But I am half-French, and I cherish every part of me that is France. That being said, I have been a world traveler, and I make a supreme effort to give full consideration to all viewpoints. One issue that seems to draw sharp dividing lines is the relationship between the two terrorist groups Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State (IS). I have included two links that present opinions which are contrary to my own, in an effort to jump-start a conversation which is truly very important. The sources for the links I have provided, continually use information obtained from Social Media as evidence of a rift between the two organizations. We have also heard vague rumors of actual violence between the groups, and also conflict with some of the other players on the ground in Iraq, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the Khorasan Group (K). Both links are well-written and ideally sourced. I found both commentaries to be full of well-intended, useful information. But in the end, I disagree with their basic premise. I believe that AQ and IS are closely linked and work within a loose, coordinated Confederation of sorts. And the sooner we recognize this fact, the better.
Its no secret that the IS has evolved from the remnants of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). I see many similarities. The first link above continues to highlight the atrocities committed by IS and its obvious propensity towards violence, as if AQ plays the game differently. The history of the AQ movement begs to differ. AQ brought us televised beheadings from Afghanistan when such demonstrations were still good for a bit of shock value. AQ has ordered the slaughter of entire villages in Afghanistan and whole families in Pakistan. I assume that I don't have to remind anyone about the amount of blood shed on September 11, 2001, or the desecration of the bodies of three U.S. contractors in Fallujah/Ramadi during Operation Enduring Freedom. Osama bin-Laden fully understood the power of violence as a tool in both warfare and perception. Bin-Laden frequently used violence to create fear in his enemies and the public in general, who would in turn acquiesce to his will. Its not a new approach, nor is it Rocket Science (damn to hell all those clichés!). I believe the attacks of September 11 carried a different message, a declaration of war against Christianity, Judaism and the west, as represented by the United States. President George W. Bush recognized the determination in his enemy, and decided upon a course of action that will be debated until the end of time. Bush decided to force AQ into a conventional conflict, in AQ's own backyard. He used the issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a platform (excuse? justification?) from which to force AQ into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. He correctly deduced that AQ could not avoid the confrontation with the U.S. Army in the heart of Islam, or risk losing legitimacy with the Muslim community internationally. He was also correct in assuming that AQ would suffer logistics and funding crises, which would hamper its ability to stay active elsewhere. I don't believe Bush, Rumsfeld or the Pentagon anticipated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the depth of the Iraqi insurgency, but before leaving office in 2008, he could be satisfied with the status quo in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bin-Laden and his elderly Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Physician-turned sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri (now that was a mouthful) obviously assessed the situation and realized early on that Bush was attempting to paint them into a corner. But for the time being, they were obliged to play the game. But Bin-Laden considered our Democratic habits to be our Achilles tendon, and in this instance he may have been correct. in 2008, the American people voted for a new direction, and a new direction is what we received. Although it didn't begin immediately, you might as well circle President Obama's first day in office as the start of the U.S. military's draw-down and eventual departure from Iraq. Bin-Laden and Zawahiri anticipated this, and focused on rebuilding their movement from the ground-up (I'm frequently including Zawahiri because he now runs the show, and we need to get accustomed to his brand of terrorism. He is methodical, detail-oriented, brilliant and probably a sociopath, and he is the enemy). If the west wanted a conventional war, then the movement was happy to oblige. First and foremost, I believe that sometime in between 2007 and 2009, AQ reviewed and rebuilt its internal security network. Bin-Laden realized that many parts of his network had been compromised and a simpler, more effective plan was put in place. The key to this plan was to limit the amount of time members engaged in face to face contact outside of the battlefield, and to severely limit all contact with Bin-Laden and Zawahiri. Steps were taken to eliminate the need for direct contact. As long as the brain could communicate with the limbs, everything else was almost superfluous. Also, a designation must exist between highly-trained, professional operatives and the continued stream of unskilled volunteers that make there way into the organization. I believe the root of the original AQ, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which trains highly skilled and motivated operatives for complex operations, still functions as it always has. What has changed is the growth of another type of operative, the foot soldier who will give the movement a resource which was sorely lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq: a conventional offensive capability.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Its Time To Get To Know Jabhat al-Nusrah
Links: A. Al-Nusrah Claims That U.S. Has Bombed Its Territory
B. Al-Nusrah Front, Jun al-Aqsa Terrorist Groups In Idlib
C. Al-Nusrah Forces U.S.-Backed Group From Idlib
We've managed to dissect just about every player in Syria except Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front), the regular Syrian Army, and the Free Syrian Army.
support, the army had lost its eyes and was finding itself caught in one ambush after another. But the regular Syrian Army has been given the opportunity to retreat behind the front lines and lick its wounds, while the Kurds struggle against the IS in Kobani and forces supported by the U.S.(?) are driven out of Idlib (were the elements that were routed in Idlib connected to the Free Syrian Army?). Make no mistake, when the time is most advantageous to Assad, his military will return to the battlefield, and don't be surprised if Putin has assisted in rebuilding the Syrian Air Force.
Back to Jabhat al-Nusrah. This group announced its formation in Syria in January 2012, and states that its end goal is the creation of a Pan-Islamic State under Sharia Law and ruled by a Caliph. If we switched out "Jabhat al-Nusrah" with "Islamic State of the Levant", who would know the difference? And yet, according to Twitter, the international media, and the Pentagon, the two groups are at each other's throats. It is believed that many of the original members of Al-Nusrah are Syrians who were fighting with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) group during Operation Enduring Freedom. The members of Al-Nusrah are believed to be the best trained and the best equipped of all the Sunni Extremist groups in the Syria/Iraq theater. Al-Nusrah is known for conducting suicide attacks. The leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the head of Al-Nusrah, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, appear to have had numerous discussions about the merging of the two groups. According to Al-Jazeera, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the only remaining leader of Al-Qaeda without two bullet holes in his forehead (so far), instructed the two groups not to merge. Al-Baghdadi ignored this instruction and continued to publicly declare a merger between the two. Since they appear to be separate today, I'm assuming al-Julani won that argument. But lets be honest; who really gives a shit about any of the back-and-forth that I just repeated (direct from Wikipedia)? Al-Nusrah is on the battlefield in Syria, its fighters are well-trained, disciplined, and like to blow themselves up for Allah. Much of the same can be said for the Islamic State, so as far as I see it, we are looking at two peas in a pod. When the bullets start to fly, I guarantee that these two groups (and any other Sunni-affiliated armed extremist groups) will join ranks. To be honest, the war in Syria means very little to me. The Russians will find a way to protect their interests in the end, so I am forced to accept that Assad isn't going anywhere. My interest is in Iraq, where we have easily identified allies in the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga/Kurdish regular forces. Actually, it becomes more apparent everyday that Iranian military units have been participating in the war against IS. From Assad in Syria to the Iranians in Iraq, we keep ending up with the strangest of bedfellows! I recognize that the Iraqi Army has been strengthened by groups of both Shia militia and Sunni tribal fighters. I see a real opportunity in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda/IS, solidify the Kurdish homeland, and greatly improve Sunni/Shia relations. Insha'Allah!
B. Al-Nusrah Front, Jun al-Aqsa Terrorist Groups In Idlib
C. Al-Nusrah Forces U.S.-Backed Group From Idlib
We've managed to dissect just about every player in Syria except Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front), the regular Syrian Army, and the Free Syrian Army.
The Regular Syrian Army
The regular Syrian Army consists of whatever Syrian President Bashir al-Assad has been able to patch together from the pre-war Syrian Army. The Syrian Air Force has been decimated and will have to be rebuilt from scratch (which isn't necessarily that difficult if you have the cash to buy new jets from Russia), but the Army, which has basically been inactive over the past few months, really only needs reorganizing and a strong leader who can inspire men to fight. Syria continues to have an absurd advantage in armor over all the players in this drama, and I imagine a great deal has been done to repair vehicles/tanks and train new soldiers. For Assad, the allied air intervention was like water to the man in the desert dying of thirst. He has been given a reprieve, and I have no doubt that he has been making the most of this down-time. We can't forget that Russia continues to support the Syrian government in Damascus. Vlad Putin is also grateful of the allied air campaign because the situation in Syria was becoming dire for Assad and his Ba'athist buddies. The IS was making preparations for an assault on Aleppo, which would have only been the precursor to an attack on Damascus itself. The Syrian Air Force, with most of its Air Bases overrun by the IS and other Islamic terrorist groups, had basically collapsed (with the exception of a few helicopter gunships, which Assad loves to call into action). Without airThe Free Syrian Army
What about the Free Syrian Army (forgive me; for some time I was referring to this group as the "New Syrian Army")? We digested news reports last week from Idlib (see link C) that detailed the rout of U.S.-backed fighters. Were these fighters part of the Free Syrian Army that we are supposed to be training and wasn't supposed to be operational for at least another month? And what about the statement from the Pentagon that the Free Syrian Army would be deployed in a defensive capacity only. Were "our" fighters in Idlib in a defensive posture before they were run out of town? Maybe this is a different group, and this is an indication that we are training other military elements that will have a more "offensive" plan of action. I find this hypothesis to be the most hard to believe, because until now the Obama Administration has been very generous sharing every last detail of its intentions. I see no reason to believe that the leopard has changed his spots; why train others as offensive pieces on the board, but leave the main body of your forces, the Free Syrian Army, in a purely defensive posture? I am surprised that we don't have more information regarding the Free Syrian Army, especially regarding its timetable. I can't help but wonder if this Free Syrian Army, in its effort to be "defensive", is going to get caught between the various Islamic groups in the east, and a reconstituted regular Syrian military in the west.Jabhat al-Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front)
The first two links I chose to share provide important details regarding Jabhat al-Nusrah, or the Nusrah Front. The press, in its daily effort to retweet all the propaganda fed to it by the terrorist groups via social media, continues to remind us that al-Nusrah is the Al-Qaeda representative in Syria and that they are not friends with the IS whatsoever. Common sense, and a career of working against Islamic terror groups, leads me to suspect that someone is falling hook, line and sinker for the most obvious of disinformation campaigns. Khorasan hates al-Nusrah and al-Nusrah hates the Islamic State and since al-Nusrah is the representative of Al-Qaeda in Syria (?), then Al-Qaeda must also hate the Islamic State. Please, folks....listen carefully and try to see the truth in all its simplicity. All of these groups are Sunni affiliated and all have historic Al-Qaeda connections of one type or another. The Islamic State of the Levant was called Al-Qaeda in Iraq not to long ago, for goodness sake. I think the decision by the Qatari Air Force to only bomb targets selectively (no Al-Nusrah targets, please) was part of the effort to convince us that there is freedom of thought and movement in its each individual group. I don't accept this; as far as I'm concerned they are all Sunni terrorist groups who prey upon the weak and helpless. In fact, our military would be best served by keeping all these groups under one header: "THE ENEMY", and let the CTC analysts at Langley worry about the personalities within.Back to Jabhat al-Nusrah. This group announced its formation in Syria in January 2012, and states that its end goal is the creation of a Pan-Islamic State under Sharia Law and ruled by a Caliph. If we switched out "Jabhat al-Nusrah" with "Islamic State of the Levant", who would know the difference? And yet, according to Twitter, the international media, and the Pentagon, the two groups are at each other's throats. It is believed that many of the original members of Al-Nusrah are Syrians who were fighting with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) group during Operation Enduring Freedom. The members of Al-Nusrah are believed to be the best trained and the best equipped of all the Sunni Extremist groups in the Syria/Iraq theater. Al-Nusrah is known for conducting suicide attacks. The leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the head of Al-Nusrah, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, appear to have had numerous discussions about the merging of the two groups. According to Al-Jazeera, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the only remaining leader of Al-Qaeda without two bullet holes in his forehead (so far), instructed the two groups not to merge. Al-Baghdadi ignored this instruction and continued to publicly declare a merger between the two. Since they appear to be separate today, I'm assuming al-Julani won that argument. But lets be honest; who really gives a shit about any of the back-and-forth that I just repeated (direct from Wikipedia)? Al-Nusrah is on the battlefield in Syria, its fighters are well-trained, disciplined, and like to blow themselves up for Allah. Much of the same can be said for the Islamic State, so as far as I see it, we are looking at two peas in a pod. When the bullets start to fly, I guarantee that these two groups (and any other Sunni-affiliated armed extremist groups) will join ranks. To be honest, the war in Syria means very little to me. The Russians will find a way to protect their interests in the end, so I am forced to accept that Assad isn't going anywhere. My interest is in Iraq, where we have easily identified allies in the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga/Kurdish regular forces. Actually, it becomes more apparent everyday that Iranian military units have been participating in the war against IS. From Assad in Syria to the Iranians in Iraq, we keep ending up with the strangest of bedfellows! I recognize that the Iraqi Army has been strengthened by groups of both Shia militia and Sunni tribal fighters. I see a real opportunity in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda/IS, solidify the Kurdish homeland, and greatly improve Sunni/Shia relations. Insha'Allah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)