As terrorism becomes part of our daily lives, President Obama is not even looking for the battlefield.

As much as possible, I try and keep the blog politics-free.  The truth is, that occasionally, its just not possible, nor should it be.  Politics impact every aspect of our lives, and it certainly plays a large part in the current events we address here at Mukhabarat, Baby!  The day of the San Bernardino shootings, I posted a blog that delivered a dire warning regarding the future.  I opined that if Islamic extremists had been able to develop a network of sleeper cells in cities across the United States, than we can expect not a rash of high profile attacks, but a monthly event to keep the issue in the news, and keep the fear alive in our communities.  The enemy doesn't want a body count as much as they want to change the way we live our lives.  An attack in this west coast location this week, and another incident in the southeast two weeks later, will be the modus operandi of a forward-thinking terrorist group.  As long as the newspapers and the media are talking about preparedness and the need to react by altering our schedules and lifestyles, then the bad guys are on track.  The attack in Philadelphia today, and other similar incidents have me very concerned that the enemy is taking this route, in its never-ending effort to see us abandon our hard-won freedoms and retreat behind locked doors and security systems.  I urge my readers to live your lives with a reasonable amount of caution ("no vacation to Damascus this spring, Mildred"), but to fight the enemy with the tools for which so many heroes over the years have made the ultimate sacrifice: enjoy the freedoms we have, spend time out with family and friends, and take that vacation to the Ozarks.  For those of us who can no longer carry a rifle on the battlefield, we have our own way of fighting back.  We must live free.

Last week, President Obama once again used Executive Authority to make law.  Executive Authority exists for a reason.  It provides the president with the tools necessary to make decisions in a time of great national crisis.  President Obama, taking full advantage of the raw emotions relating to the recent events in San Bernardino, signed an ideologically motivated law that will make it more difficult for persons who want to legally purchase a firearm.  Obama sees himself as a master of theater, but truly, he is an amateur.  We've seen the tears before, and bringing the kids on stage isn't a novel idea either.  The law that you passed using abusing Executive Action will not impact criminals and terrorists who want to repeat what occurred in San Bernardino.  Creating more laws to impede law-abiding citizens has been shown time-and-again to accomplish one thing: it strengthens the Black Market, which is where the bad guys usually get their weapons, anyways.  The shooters in San Bernardino allegedly convinced a friend to  buy the weapons.  Will Obama's new law prevent friends from buying firearms and then illegally selling them or giving them away?  I don't think so.  The point is, Obama is anxious to solidify his legacy as a progressive thinker who didn't let something as meaningless as our checks-and-balances system of government interfere with his obligation to help the American people who are too stupid to help themselves.

I've heard a number of Obama supporters screeching about the use of Executive Action by George Bush (oh, how they do still hate Bush! LOL.) and others.  If a president chooses to utilize Executive Action in  manner that does not threaten the separation of powers and our checks-and-balances system, then it is not an ABUSE.   Executive Action has been used in the past, but not for avoiding a confrontation with Congress that the Executive Branch is sure to lose.  Obama put Executive Action into effect because he would not be able to get Congress to pass gun-control legislation that was possibly unconstitutional and did nothing to address the actual problem.  While this issue is being slapped back-and-forth by commentators and analysts in the media, ISIS, Al-Qaida, and all the other party poopers continue to kill people.  I believe we have reached a point in the history of the United States in which domestic terrorism in the form of the activation of Islamic Extremist sleeper cells (not just groups but single operators as well) may very well become a part of our lives.  Our immigration system, built for a moderate level of security by a nation with a tradition and history of welcoming visitors, is not difficult to exploit. Not only would it be possible for the bad guys to set up shop through legal entry on tourist visas, but hiring an expensive and proven smuggler in Mexico is not Rocket Science; the enemy can enter illegally just as well.  But the real problem is our complete unwillingness to address the problem at its root.  If ISIS is destroyed (and we should take out Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, Khorasan, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Boko Haram simultaneously), then the cells in foreign countries, no longer having access to a support network and resources, dry up and disappear.  President Obama would be hard-pressed to declare war on Islamic terrorism, considering he has just sponsored a nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's greatest supporter of terrorism (you know Iran....the "death to America" bunch).

As things are, we can only hope that our superb law enforcement and intelligence organizations can keep a lid on things until we can have a change in the oval Office.  Actually, I'm predicting the use of Executive Action on Amnesty/Immigration Reform as well; President Obama does still have a year to work on that legacy, you know.

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. 

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.  

Just How Much Separation Really Exists Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? (Part II)

Links: A. Conflict Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
           B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?

I believe that Yemen and Iraq, and possibly locations in Pakistan and Africa, are currently being utilized as training locations for the IS foot soldier.  Intelligence services have already located a number of locations in Iraq which are suspected of being training centers of IS, but I believe that Yemen should be added to the list.  Those who disagree with me with point out that AQ already uses Yemen as a "breaking-in" location for its members.  No doubt AQ continues to conduct certain types of training in Yemen, alongside the IS.  In fact, I believe that they are one and the same.  We will know soon enough.  Eventually a few IS prisoners of war from the Iraq and Syria conflict will, during interrogation, mention travel to Yemen for training purposes.  If I'm correct, hopefully this will be the catalyst for the west to stop the damaging and wasteful routine of differentiating between these Sunni Muslim extremist groups.  I do not buy into the narrative that the leader of Khorasan is angry at al-Baghdadi, so the IS and Khorasan can't be friends, or that AQ is embarrassed by the number of young men who were decapitated by IS this week, so AQ can't be tainted by association.  Believe me, at the end of the day, that AK47 will be pointed at you and I and our children, it will not be pointed at another extremist.  I might be a bit more sympathetic to the argument that major rifts exist between various Sunni Muslim extremist groups, if I could be presented with hard evidence.  Social media captures aren't worth a bucket of shit, and neither are rumors that someone from one group shot up a few people from another group.

Islamic extremism is a giant of a beast, but at present, it has only one head, and that is Ayman al-Zawahiri.  Beneath that head, a number of phalanges are jockeying, positioning themselves to move into the void once the sixty-three year old Zawahiri finally floats off to meet his virgins (we might just find him as well).  For anyone who argues that these groups are not fighting together with a unique, singular goal in mind, I would ask them to please have look at the state of affairs in the world today.  I cannot recall a time in my life when terrorism was so rampant and so conventional.  Our military is handicapped by an Administration made up of political appointees and outright amateurs, and every move we make is reactive.  Not surprisingly, the same can be said for our efforts and strategy in the Ukraine.  When IS originally became aggressive in Iraq, our attempt at being an ally resulted in an entire Iraqi Army Corps deserting the field of battle, and people scurrying out of Baghdad as if it were Atlanta before Sherman came to town.  The Iranians step in, and IS appears to be in retreat.  The case is different in Syria, which is almost impossible to evaluate effectively.  The IS (and AQ) are active in Tunisia, Libya, and various other countries in Africa.  Its interesting to note that the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram recently declared its allegiance to the IS.  Well guess what folks; Boko Haram has already declared its loyalty to AQ.  Really, what is the difference?  Both groups are working in the same arena towards the same goal: the destruction of the west and Israel.  You can put all that Caliphate bullshit into the backseat.  No doubt Mr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi envisions himself as the Caliph in such a manifestation, but Zawahiri sees it for what it is: just another story in a sea of distractions, that keep the infidels from unifying their aim at the singular target.

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.

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. 

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 air

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.

The 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!

What's Up With The Republic Of Turkey Nowadays?

Links: War Moves Into Turkey


Wikipedia On Turkey



Where have you been, Turkey?  Every few days I am obliged to create a post about the struggle against the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIS, ISIL or IS); bad news seldom takes a holiday.  How did we get to this place?  Following the ritualistic beheading of two Americans, President Obama announced that the United States was taking military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria.  Obama added that the United States would, under no circumstances, introduce ground forces into the conflict.  Instead, the U.S. Air Force would bomb the IS into the Stone Age.  For good measure, we are training and arming a surrogate army to finish off the IS with a ground campaign (but not for four, maybe five months because that's how long it takes to train and equip a surrogate army in 2014).  The surrogate element identifies itself as the "Free Syrian Army", and consists of many Syrian Army former officers and front-line troops.  President Obama was able to enlist France, The United Kingdom, and the Arab Gulf monarchies to join his "Coalition of the Unwilling to use Ground Troops", but some enormously important questions remain unanswered.  What will the Free Syrian Army do after the IS has been defeated?  Will it turn its weapons on the regular Syrian Army, which is heavily supported by Vladimir Putin and Russia?  What about all the other groups the Administration has parade by during press conferences (Al-Nusra Front, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda)?  Are they also targets of the Free Syrian Army? And if not, how does the IS tell them apart?

To repeat myself, where are you, Turkey?  The Turks share a southern border with both Iraq and Syria.  (A large part of that geographical piece is considered by the Kurds to be part of Kurdistan).  For centuries, back to the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks and the Kurds have struggled for control of this part of the world (since its not Asia Minor, and its not really Mesopotamia, I will just refer to it as "Asia Minopotamia").  Some of the blackest pages in Turkey's personal history book have to do with Kurdistan.  On more than a few occasions over the past two centuries, the Turks have committed acts of genocide against the Kurds.  I realize that by saying this, I royally piss off a number of very close Turkish friends, but it is my interpretation of history; believe me, I wish it weren't so.  The Kurds have always been a thorn in Turkey's side, and when historically bad famines and droughts hit Turkey, the Kurds were last to receive help.  I won't spend anymore time on the subject, especially since there is so much open source material available.  Fast forward to 2014, the Kurds are fighting for their lives not against the Turks or famine, or even Saddam Hussein, but against the IS.  At present, its not really possible to draw a static map of who-occupies-what.  The Kurds are in possession of some territory in northern Syria, but the main theater of war at the moment is in Iraq.  In the north, the Kurds are fighting the IS, and the central part of Iraq, the Iraqi Army and Shia Brigades are opposing the IS.  Back in Syria, the regular Syrian Army continues to occasionally engage IS forces.  For the time being, though, all eyes seem to be on very north central Syria and the town of Kobani.

At times I find it difficult to accept that Syria and Turkey share such a continuous, strategic border. For many centuries, the border did not exist, as Syria and Turkey were both part of the Ottoman Empire.  Now, for all practical purposes, the border separates wealth from poverty, Europe from the Levant, and West from East.  I know many will disagree, and argue (effectively, I'm sure) that Asia Minor is not Europe and that Turkey is not a first-world country.  I make my call through personal experience.  I was obsessed with Turkey in my younger days, and loved every chance I had to visit.  The Turks are a friendly, proud people; you will rarely see beggars or hungry children in Turkey.  But the Turkey of my youth is disappearing.  Secular Turkey (with its handful of generals ready to take charge if the civilians get too ambitious) has seen a rise in Islamist political activities and a movement to strengthen Turkey's Islamic cultural heritage and traditions.  President Recep Erdogan, who was elected in August 2014 with a 51% to 38% margin over his nearest competitor, is not fan of the Army.  During the later half of the last century, the Turkish military did not hesitate to remove elected leaders at the slightest sign of movement away from secularism.  I believe Erdogan is too popular for the military to act against, so I just keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't allow Turkey to suffer an Islamic revolution like the one that swallowed Iran in 1979.

Regarding the situation in Syria and Iraq, where does Turkey stand?  One thing to keep in mind: Turkey has a FORMIDABLE Armed Forces.  There was a time when Turkey was only interested in keeping an army larger than Greece's, but membership in NATO changed everything.  For all practical purposes, Turkey's military was created, nursed and raised to adulthood by the United States military.  Because of the all-important NATO missile sites located in Turkey (and aimed at Russia, I believe, although there may be one aimed at the Eifel Tower), The United States was more than willing to train and equip the Turkish Army.  Roughly 15 years ago, the Turkish military took the surprising step of conducting joint operations with Israel (the advent of Erdogan has cooled relations between Ankara and Jerusalem).  In equipment, size, and readiness, I believe that the Turkish military is en par with France, the UK and Germany (Greece who?).  Where does Turkey stand?  Why haven't the Turks taken a stand against the IS, which is about as nasty a group as there is?  Allegedly, Erdogan offered to join the Coalition and use the Turkish Army if Obama would guarantee the removal of Assad in Damascus.  Obama does not have the testicular fortitude for such a call, which would piss off Putin to no end.  At the moment, Turkey sees no strategy that benefits Turkey, with the exception of waiting until the dust settles.  If Turkey mobilizes, they would sweep the IS from the face of the earth in a matter of days (Turkish Special Forces....Bad Ass).

 But what good does that do if Assad, the thorn in Turkey's backside, stays in power?  Maybe Erdogan is thinking that an IS government in Damascus is preferable to the Ba'athists and Assad?  Wouldn't that be something...Turkey joins the conflict ON THE SIDE of the IS!  Its just a thought; it can't happen.  Turkey is a functioning Democracy with a Tiger of an economy (which is headed for a fall, say many forecasters...hope not), a thriving tourist industry and a military that would make Suleyman the Magnificent jealous.  An on its southern border Turkey nurses two recurring boils; Kurdistan and the civil war in Syria.  Although Erdogan has been willing to snuggle up to the Kurds for political expediency, I don't think he feels compelled to resolve the issue of Kurdistan at the moment.  Besides, the Kurds have proven to be reasonable.  The IS conflict, though, threatens to spill over into Turkey proper (not to mention the steady flow of refugees).  Surprisingly, the Turks have yet to really mobilize militarily.  What would happen if one of the combatants (count 'em again, folks: Al-Nusra Front, IS, Khorasan, Kurds, regular Syrian Army, and the free Syrian Army) began using Turkish territory as a staging point for military operations?  Unfortunately, I don't see Erdogan acting proactively in this situation.  He is content to let the circumstances come to him.

Al-Qaeda Group In Syria Planning Attacks In U.S.?

Link: Khorasan is Al-Qaeda


According to the link, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) believes that the recently-identified "Khorasan Group" (sounds more like a Manhattan Hedge Fund than it does a terrorist group) may be planning attacks in the United States.  The article identifies Khorasan as a group of "battle-hardened Al-Qaeda veterans".   If this group consists of members of Al-Qaeda (a club you cannot quit once you join), then why are we STILL using the name "Khorasan"?  If the branches of the federal government are going to persist in disseminating the false idea that the enemy consists of the Islamic States of the Levant (ISIS or IS) and a bunch of disparate, non-aligned groups, then it's time someone forced them to pull their heads out of the sand.  The enemy is not the IS, or Khorasan, or Al-Qaeda in Syria, or the Al-Nusra Front, or Al-Qaeda in my Granny's Panties.  The enemy is Al-Qaeda.  Any group that is Sunni-affiliated and wishes to destroy the west and the United States in particular, is, for practical purposes, Al-Qaeda. Leave the differentiating to Langley, where they understand the ground truth.  They are paid to separate these various groups and collect identifying intelligence on the members.  It is part and parcel to what they do.  But the policy makers need to understand that our enemy is not splintered, but united under one goal: to kill Americans.

If we create a military strategy that is based on attacking and destroying one group at a time, we will find an enemy that can reconstitute itself very quickly. Once our proxy "Free Syrian Army" has been trained and is ready for action, they should be given a map of eastern Syria and ordered to kill everything except civilians and domesticated pets.  Can you imagine an officer trying to explain to his troops, "well, this group isn't Al-Qaeda because they have a different name, so try and leave them in peace for now"?  Approaching hostilities in Syria with the idea that we are dealing with a dozen or so separate groups is suicide.  If The Al-Nusra Front does not want to be in the cross hairs, then they had better get behind Col. Travis' line in the sand.  Everyone on one side gets to live (but we're watching you), and everyone out to the east makes a lovely target.

Wars are not meant to be fought by artists or bohemians.  Its easy to screw things up with too much detail.  My goodness, many wars have been lost due to over complication.  We are starting this effort off on the wrong foot with the recruiting of a mercenary army and a bombing campaign that is not seconded by a ground offensive.  But the enemy is stuck in a bit of a hard spot as well.  The IS is still trying to determine if its a conventional army or a large guerilla force.  What happens just outside of Baghdad may go a long way to resolving that question.  From this point on, the United States and its coalition of the invisible (reminds me of Wonder Woman's invisible plane...the plane was invisible, but there she was flying the damn thing for everyone to see) needs to keep everything as simple as possible.  Remember that since September 11, 2001, we have had only one true enemy: Al-Qaeda (sorry, George W. Bush, but Saddam doesn't count).  I define an enemy as someone who hates everything about you.  It's safe to say that Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda fit that description; regardless of the variety of names under which they fester and erupt.

A Bit More On Khorasan And Al-Qaeda

Link: The Name "Khorasan" A Big Secret?


Here we are talking about the "Khorasan" group again.  Joshua Katz, Managing Partner of "The Enright Group", really rips into the Director of National Intelligence James Klapper, because Klapper revealed the name "Khorasan" Group (see the link).  Like Katz, I also spent a career as an Operations Officer in the CIA and I'm guessing that ninety-nine percent of the time, I agree with Mr. Katz on issues of National Security.  I believe the Obama Administration has politicized the Department of Defense, the CIA, NSA, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and every other phalange of the federal government.  The priority seems to be to elect Democrats at all costs, and the ends will justify the means.  I have heard Mr. Katz speak before, and he acquits himself very well on matters of National Security.  Which is why this commentary on Foxnews.com is so confusing.

Why was the release of the name "Khorasan" such a heinous error?  Did Klapper put some asset's life in danger?  As I read the link carefully I kept expecting to find some additional information that would have made Klapper's comments worthwhile.  But those details never showed up.  As far as I see it, Klapper announced the existence of a group called "Khorasan", who were active in Syria and were a threat to the United States (Klapper opined that Khorasan was a "greater threat" to the United States than ISIS).  That definition sounds like Al-Qaeda to me, and I already knew Al-Qaeda was present in Syria.  I'm actually grateful to Klapper.  If he hadn't spoken up, I would not have known that the Administration was trying to cloak Al-Qaeda's activities in Syria.  In truth, its all a game of semantics.  Al Nusra Front, Khorasan, Islamic State in the Levant, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in my Grandma's Drawers, they are all part of the same enemy.  The sooner we recognize that our foe in Syria and Iraq is not new to the battlefield, the better.  Osama bin-Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be dead, but the hatred they inspired and cultivated is alive and well. Forget all the various names and splinter groups.  The Administration will put forth the narrative that anti-terrorist actions under Obama have decimated Al-Qaeda and reduced the Islamic extremist cause to a handful of squabbling, separately named and motivated groups.

Identifying this enemy is not difficult.  Any groups associated with Al-Qaeda will be Sunni-affiliated.  Although at times Iran has shown a willingness to assist anti-U.S. operations, the recent Islamic State (IS) actions in Iraq have aggravated existing Sunni-Shia tensions.  I would be very surprised to discover a Shia-dominated terrorist movement with Al-Qaeda connections.  Besides the Sunni angle, any Al-Qaeda group will focus its venom almost exclusively on the United States (and occasionally Europe).  Although its leaders enjoy ranting about "international Jewry", Al-Qaeda has yet to conduct any legitimate operations against Israel (or maybe Mossad has disrupted such operations; its possible).  Not surprisingly, Al-Qaeda was not active in Iraq until the U.S. Army arrived.  Also, Al-Qaeda branches will be well-funded. They always seem to have butt-loads of U.S. dollars to throw around.  Personally, I get suspicious of an Al-Qaeda presence every time I see certain well-known Islamic "Charities".

The most distressing fact regarding Al-Qaeda is its resilience.  These assholes are worse than cockroaches. No doubt the Obama Administration believed that once Bin-Laden's bullet-riddled corpse (I just LOVE that phrase) was disrespectfully dumped from a helicopter into the Indian Ocean, that Al-Qaeda would wilt, dry-up and blow away.  It was never a possibility.  Some will argue that the continued presence of Ayman al-Zawahiri (former leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, reportedly a gifted Physician who speaks Arabic, French and English) is the manna which keeps Al-Qaeda alive, but I disagree.  In order to destroy Al-Qaeda, the message of Al-Qaeda must be thoroughly repudiated.  That can only be accomplished by killing (preferred method) or incarcerating every man and woman who were ever part of (or expressed sympathy for) Al-Qaeda.  Its a fight to the death, my friends.  Al-Qaeda can only flourish as long as they can blame the West and the United States for the miserable plight of the Arab people (at times Al-Qaeda will lash out at moderate Arab states, especially the monarchies).  I don't believe the United States or our culture will be disappearing anytime soon, so we are compelled to defend ourselves.  And the best defense is a great offense.  And we are lucky to have heroes like Joshua Katz on our side, to never let us forget.

Does Khorasan Exist? Does It Really Matter?

Link: Is There An Actual Group Calling Itself Khorasan In Syria/Iraq?


Wikipedia Definition Of Khorasan


Well, I certainly didn't see this coming.  According to Andrew C. McCarthy and National Review, no group calling itself "Khorasan" exists.  Andrew boldly accuses the Obama Administration of inventing Khorasan to provide an enemy with an unknown wrap sheet; a target that exemplifies the threat as the Administration wants it to appear.  This astounding accusation has taken me by complete surprise.  The commentary is not lengthy but still manages to provide a disturbing amount of supporting evidence.  McCarthy alleges that last week's bombing targets were in fact "Al-Nusra Front" locations as opposed to Khorasan.  Last week I argued that we needed to avoid getting caught in the weeds with all the various branches and groups of Islamic extremists.  I remain convinced that sunni groups with extremist religious affiliations are connected.  McCarthy believes that the Administration is disseminating the incorrect idea that Iraq, Syria, and the Near East in general are home to dozens of separate and distinct Sunni extremist groups ("Jabhat al-Nusrsa", "Al-Qaeda in al-Sharm", "Al-Qaeda in -Magreb", "Al-Qaeda on the Indian Sub-Continent", "Al-Qaeda in Yemen", and on and on) who don't coordinate their activities.  During the 2012 presidential election campaign, President Obama made great hay from the death of bin-Laden and the apparent crippling of Al-Qaeda.  This narrative supported other pillars of his foreign policy.  The enemy is splintered into a herd of squabbling, locally focused, unprofessional groups.  The U.S. military is no longer needed in Iraq or Afghanistan if Al-Qaeda is toast.  The reality is that we evacuated Iraq at a record-setting pace as our enemies, not fifteen or twenty feuding, distinct organizations but a handful of groups united under one cause, rested and watching.

Andrew managed to squeeze a ton of information and argument into a two-page commentary.  I tried to summarize it in the previous paragraph, and I fear I have not succeeded.  The first link is Andrew McCarthy's actual National Review piece.  I'll do everything I can to disseminate this commentary in social media because I believe it to be incredibly insightful.  The key to winning a war begins with knowing your enemy.  Right now we seem to be a bit confused on the matter.  Why did coalition air elements avoid all of the targets identified as "Khorasan" (U.S. jets only, no Qatari or Saudi jets, bombed Khorasan targets)?  Is it because Khorasan is actually the Al-Nusra Front, and our allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia support Al-Nusra's efforts to topple Assad in Syria?  Again, it brings me back to something we discussed last week.  The United States (note that I did not say "The Coalition") must have solid intelligence regarding the players in Syria and who they represent.  If we truly intend to build and equip an army to tackle the Islamic State on the ground, will a U.S. Officer be in command (at a distance, maybe offshore on an aircraft carrier, so his boots aren't on the ground)?  Without that type of hands-on discipline and authority, how can we expect this Army to do our bidding?  Occasionally I'm overwhelmed by this nightmare scenario of the New Syrian Army, weapons et al, deserting to the IS immediately upon completion of training.  Without troops, how can we prevent something like this taking place?  The burr in my saddle has to do with what becomes of the New Syrian Army after the job is done.  Will they turn on Assad and the regular Syrian Army?  you can bet your ass they will, and then the Russians jump into the picture.

I agree with McCarthy's assessment, but I'm not part of the "told ya so" crowd.  I want the IS wiped from the face of the planet and I want the Obama Administration to accomplish this task and add to his legacy.  I don't believe that the religious extremist terrorist groups are separate, distinct entities that seldom communicate.  I believe the network of cooperation and communication is similar to organized crime.  The goal of keeping numerous small units out in the field confuses the enemy and allows for wider access.  If a former British soldier with highly specialized explosives training is recruited on the streets of Ipswich or York or Harrogate, he will not end up swatting flies out in the middle of the Syrian desert.  He will be utilized to train operatives heading out into the field.  The communication network that the extremist community has created is probably impossible to destroy completely (especially in the UK).  We can hope to intercept calls, steal transmissions, and even occasionally bug the correct phone, but the only real way to listen in on the bad guys is through recruited assets.  We are still living in the world dominated by human intelligence (eventually it probably will be run by artificial intelligence, but who am I, Stanley Kubrick?), so lets hope that our Intelligence Organizations are having success penetrating this monster.

When I read "Vengeance: The true Story Of An Israeli Counter Terrorist Team", by George Jonas, I picked up a tremendous amount of useful information regarding Terrorist Cells in the 1960s and 1970s.  What is most fascinating is that the bad guys still do things the same way.  Old habits are hard to break, says the old cliché. Reading this book I learned that the German Terrorist Cell the "Baader-Meinhof Group" had direct contact with Palestinian and Japanese terrorists.  There is no doubt in my mind that the terrorist groups active in Syria and Iraq are bonded to each other through agenda and necessity....and hatred for the enemy.  I do not support the plan to create a surrogate army to fight the ground campaign against the IS, but since we appear to be committed to that plan, then I want it to succeed 100 percent.  Although we can't have U.S. soldiers of any rank on the front lines with the new Syrian Army we are training, I hope we will be able to direct their movement from a centralized location, i.e. offshore or from a nearby friendly country.  Giving authority to make strategic decisions to Officers within the New Syrian Army would be a mistake until they have proven that they won't immediately about-face on the battlefield and head to Damascus to settle old scores with Bashir.  We will not succeed until this coalition, and the United States diplomatic, intelligence and military elements in particular, accept the fact that we are truly facing only one enemy.  That enemy will grow stronger each time we use foreign affairs to score political points, as the minority Republicans are want to do at the moment.  National Security MUST trump all of that bullshit.

Questions About Christian Community in Syria

In the past two weeks I have received a number of emails regarding the status of the Syrian Christian community.  Roughly a tenth of the population of Syria is Christian, with the majority being adherents of the Greek Orthodox Church (formerly known as the Melkite Church or Melkites).  During the days of the crusades, the important Christian community of Edessa was located in Syria, as was the Principality of Antioch.  Following the end of the French United Nations Mandate (1946), Syria has suffered through one political crisis after another.  In 1966, the Syrian Ba'ath Party took control of the government, and in 1970 Hafez al-Assad, a former Air Force officer, became President (I'm disrespectfully running rampant over tons of Syrian history and I apologize).  At the time, the Soviet Union exerted tremendous influence over Syrian diplomacy and military affairs, a circumstance that Assad encouraged during his Presidency.  In 2000 Hafez al-Assad died, and his son Bashir won the subsequent presidential election (as the only candidate).  During the six decades since independence Syria has cultivated a reputation of non-repression towards religious minorities.  The Christian community in Damascus in particular has thrived, with allowances being made for Christian observance of the Sabbath and other traditions.  As Syria began its descent into civil war in 2011, many Christian leaders were concerned about the safety of the various communities in Syria.  In fact, organized Syrian Christian groups actually expressed support for the Assad regime and fear of the anti-government rebels.  What does the future hold for the Christians of Syria?

The Obama Administration has declared war on the Islamic State of the Levant, or simply the Islamic State (IS), which currently occupies most of eastern Syria.  The IS is a dedicated Sunni Islam fundamentalist group, which has a nasty habit of executing non-Muslims who do not convert.  The IS butchered many adherents of the Christian Chaldean and Yezidi sects in northern Iraq, and no doubt would do the same to the Assyrian and Greek Orthodox communities in Syria if they win the civil war.  Christians concerned about the welfare of Syrian Christian communities should welcome the Obama Administration's military campaign against the IS.  The real question mark continues to be the New Syrian Army (NSA) that the Administration is equipping and training to conduct the necessary ground campaign against the IS.  If the NSA is successful, will all sides (except the IS, of course) agree to some sort of armistice, to let the diplomats sort out the future of Syria?  No way.  The regular Syrian Army, which keeps a firm grip on Damascus, and President Bashir al-Assad will never agree to negotiations with the NSA.  Assad and the Ba'athists are convinced of their legitimacy, and Vladimir Putin will never agree to a new election monitored by the United Nations.  It astounds me how this argument in the media continues to ignore the Russian element.  Not to worry, because as far as I'm concerned, the NSA, if successful in dispatching the IS, will immediately turn its U.S.-supplied military hardware on Assad and the regular Syrian Army.  Keep in mind, the NSA was organized by disgruntled former elements of the Iraqi Armed Forces officer corps.  Their end goal is not the dismantling of the IS, but the occupation of the Presidential Palace in Damascus and Bashir al-Assad's head on the end of a stick.  They are happy to act as Obama's proxy for the moment, but what happens once the IS is destroyed?

The Christians of Syria have one real concern: the success of the IS.  If the regular Syrian Army and Russian stooge Assad keep power, then its business as usual and the Assyrians and Greek Orthodox Christians can breathe a sigh of relief.  Since the leaders of the NSA are former members of the Syrian military, I am comfortable assuming that if they come to power, they will adopt the same "laissez faire" attitude to the Syrian Christians.  The true enemy of Syrian Christians (and Christians everywhere, to be honest) is the IS, and the Khorasan, and the Al-Nusra Front.  The groups that are motivated by Sunni extremist ideology are the ones most likely to demand forced conversions.  A quick focus of this issue makes it even more apparent that the Sunni extremist groups who fall under different banners, are in fact part of one large, growing mass of hatred.  Al-Qaeda and Ayman al-Zawahiri are at the heart of this evolving mass of evil.  The longer we continue to view the enemy as a handful of separate, distinct Sunni extremists, the more dangerous and powerful it becomes.  I am glad to address the concerns regarding Christians in the battle zone, but I am petrified that sooner rather than later we may discover that the battle zone has come to us.

A Brief Look at al-Nusra and Khorasan

Link: Khorasan a Threat to the West?
          What is Khorasan?

Recently I posted comments relating to the various terror groups currently active in Syria.  I believe that it is best to focus more on the overall threat posed by these groups, than to get lost in the weeds trying to determine what name belongs to which faction.  Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Al-Qaeda in Magreb, al-Nusra, . . . they all have the same goal: they are determined to destroy our way of life.  The enemy does not separate the French infidels from the Danish infidels, or the Austrian blasphemers from the British infidels.  For those of us who are intelligence freaks, though, breaking down the various terror networks is what we enjoy.  I have stated my preferred strategy for militarily confronting these groups quite clearly in recent posts.  Today I would like to use my experience, training, and intuition to look into some of these groups.

On September 2, I spent an entire post detailing the evolution of the Islamic State (IS).  Not surprisingly, we could create a flow chart that connects all of these groups to Al-Qaeda in one way or another.  In fact, I believe all of the groups we have been reading about lately have an Al-Qaeda angle.  If these groups have an Al-Qaeda genesis and the same motivation, why have they splintered into so many factions?  First and foremost, its human nature.  These young men and women did not join a terrorist group to march on a parade ground and shine medals, they joined to kill in the name of Allah.  Without the discipline of a modern army unit, disagreements become arguments, and groups tend to splinter.  It doesn't mean that they hate you any less, it only means that personality clashes happen everywhere.  Also, smaller groups can be a strategic advantage in certain types of warfare.  Units of five to eight fighters can travel lightly and cover much more ground than two dozen armed men.  And if by chance the various groups come together for battle, they can splinter again just as quickly and disappear into the bush or mountains.  Its much harder to locate and keep track of smaller groups.  Another very important reason why we have so many groups with different monikers is vanity.  Everyone wants their five minutes of fame, so what better way than to create your own movement, name, and flag?

A review of open source media reveals (for the most part), four groups currently operating in Syria in opposition to the regular Syrian Army (loyal to President Bashir al-Assad).  The four names that seem to pop up most frequently are the IS, al-Nusra, Khorasan, and the New Syrian Army (NSA).  No doubt Al-Qaeda in present, advising the leaders of these various groups (NSA excepted, of course).  The NSA is the one anti-Assad group in Syria that appears to also oppose the Islamic extremist element.  The Obama Administration has selected the NSA to be our surrogates against the IS.  We spent time examining the NSA on September 21, so there is no need to revisit them so soon.  Personally, I am most fascinated by this group that calls itself the "al-Nusra Front" (ANF), or just "al-Nusra".  ANF is a direct extension of Al-Qaeda, straight from the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan (its so fascinating how history repeats itself, especially from a military perspective.  The Pakistan/Afghanistan border reminds me of the Vietnam War-era Vietnamese border with Laos and Cambodia).  Khorasan is an extension of al-Nusra.  During the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, the African National Congress (ANC) had a military wing (Umkhonto we sizwe- Spear of the Nation) to carry out attacks against the State.  It appears some of the terrorist groups are operating on similar lines.  Khorasan is known to favor western recruits, especially anyone with explosives training.  I believe Khorasan will attempt to exploit the training of its recruits to not only attack the enemy in Syria, but to also conduct more prolific attacks against western targets.

Khorasan is led by Muhsin Fadhli, a senior Al-Qaeda operative who was probably hiding out in Iran until recently (the Iran angle in this mess is most intriguing, and will be the subject of tomorrow's post).  It is believed that Fadhli was personally tasked by current Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to recruit westerners.  Why are the westerners so important?  Because some are former military and have specialized training, and (ostensibly) all can travel unhindered on western passports.  Examining the flow of recent media reporting on al-Nusra and Khorasan can be confusing.  Is Khorasan designed to be a specialized unit of western recruits with bomb-making experience, who can create explosives to be smuggled onto commercial airplanes?  Or will Khorasan use its skills to create I.E.Ds (Improvised Explosive Devices)?  ANF will be militarily active in Syria regardless of the presence of Khorasan, which leaves me with the impression that Khorasan will be used for specialized operations.

The Syrian conflict seems to become more complicated by the hour.  During a conversation with two colleagues, we couldn't help but laugh at some of the odd bedfellows that have evolved.  Will IS fight alongside ANF and Khorasan?  If events unfold as planned (by the Obama Administration), the New Syrian Army will be fighting both the IS and ANF/Khorasan.  Here is where it gets humorous.  If the situation on the ground develops logically, then the IS and the ANF/Khorasan will be fighting both the NEW Syrian Army and the OLD Syrian Army simultaneously.  And I'm sure before all is said and done, the NAS will settle its conflict with the regular Syrian Army.

One of the greatest books ever written (and I am an expert, just ask anyone) is Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia).  Seven Pillars is a poetic,

stylized biographic account of Lawrence during his efforts to organize Arab resistance to the Ottoman Turks during the First World War.  Don't be discouraged by the beginning...its can be a bit "thick".  Once you leave the beginning behind, you won't be able to put it down.  The book is written so beautifully as to provide the mind's eye with the most amazing Arabian landscapes and events.  True, you must wade through a passage or two of Lawrence's "boy-lust", but its not as bad as its made out to be. I strongly recommend Seven Pillars to everyone who will be serving in this part of the world, or who has an interest in Arabia.  I mention Lawrence and Seven Pillars because it provides great detail to the 1916 "Sykes-Picot Agreement" (I imagine if the Ottoman Empire and the Triple Alliance had gone on to win the war, Sykes-Picot would had become cage-liner for some Parakeet).  In a nutshell, Sykes-Picot was an agreement between France and the British, which defined "spheres of influence" (read: occupation) for each nation following the successful resolution of the war.  The Brits would get Palestine and Jordan, and the French would receive Syria and Lebanon.  The Treaty, which made Lawrence appear deceitful, was drafted without Lawrence's knowledge.  Lawrence had been preaching to the Arabs that their participation in defeating the Turks would result in freedom and independence.  Once the details of the treaty became public, the Arabs were incensed.  If you look close enough, you can always find some episode of western idiocy that stains the reputation of Europe and the United States indefinitely (the Chinese are still going on about the 1840s Opium Wars).  The point is, people in this part of the world do not trust westerners.  Every effort to win the "Hearts and Minds" has been unsuccessful.  The Obama Administration, alongside whatever coalition he is able to crochet together, must have a reasonable exit strategy that leaves the Syrian and Iraqi people in control of their own destiny.