Links: A. Turkey unilaterally invades Iraq to launch attacks against Kurdish PKK militants.
B. Iraq claims to have retaken 60% of Ramadi City.
In a move that will no doubt escalate already dangerously high tensions in the area, Turkey deployed military units into northeastern Iraq, just outside of Mosul, in order to more effectively launch attacks against militants from the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). If Turkish President Erdogan was looking for the quickest way to unite the Kurds, and at the same time, bring the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities closer together, they found it. Turkey's actions are almost inexplicable, unless Erdogan is determine to make things difficult for Barack Obama as he tries to leave office gracefully. At the same time, the Pentagon is preparing to deploy roughly 200 U.S. Army Special Forces elements into Iraq, to act as a mobile "hit squad" to take out ISIS leaders, if you will. This policy seems to fly in the face of Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which prohibits any Agent or Representative of the United States Government from involvement in assassinations. I may be nit-picking here, especially since we already are aware of this Administration's perception of the Constitution and the laws of this nation. Either way, the arrival of this American Special Forces Unit has already come under heavy criticism in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Abadi is doing everything he can to keep the ship of state from sinking altogether. Abadi is under particular pressure from the Shi'a elements in the Council of Representatives, who are angling to bring a vote of no confidence against the Iraqi Prime Minister. Also, Iranians in Baghdad are as thick as fleas on a mongrel's back, and they are also putting pressure on the government, both to oppose the deployment of more U.S. troops, and to take action against the Turkish incursion northeast of Mosul. Abadi has been under fire before, but this time his administration may not survive.
One of the most appalling and embarrassing developments in the region has been the continued intransigence from the Iranians with regards to any U.S. diplomatic or military initiatives. I assume that following the nuclear treaty negotiations, the Obama Administration (the President, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Kerry in particular) expected the Iranian government to lighten the anti-U.S. rhetoric and to be less aggressive in opposing every U.S. action in the region. I knew better, and you knew better, but for some reason, the three men with the greatest access to intelligence on this planet, didn't see this coming. Or did they, and it just didn't matter? At the moment, events in Iraq and Syria need to be stabilized, before the Iraqi's end up at war with Turkey, or the Turks decide that the time is right to "ethnic-cleanse" northern Iraq of Kurds once and for all. The action ordered by the President and taken by the Pentagon to deploy Special Forces is way too little and way too late, and will cause more harm than good, especially if Abadi falls from power. It has been suggested (whispered more like) in DC that the Obama Administration is hesitant to take stronger military action against ISIS, because increased U.S. presence in the region will infuriate Iran, and put Obama's "legacy treaty" with Iran in jeopardy.
What we can expect is the Administration attempting to steer the media away from connecting the recent terror attack in San Bernardino to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Obama is bound and determined to avoid getting drawn into a full-scale war in Syria/Iraq. I'm not so reactionary that I don't see the ideological motivation; the United States has a tempestuous relationship with most of the governments in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and lets not forget that we invaded Iraq twice in the last thirty years. Our historical tradition of supporting unpopular governments in Egypt and Iran and our long-term, close relationship with Israel, have not endeared the U.S. to the people of the region, that's for sure. But the clock is ticking (excuse the cliché); ISIL/ISIS/Daesh or whatever you want to call them, have not been really impacted by the Russian intervention in Syria (probably because most of the Russian bombs were dropped on anti-government Syrian groups as opposed to ISIS). ISIS is increasing its activities in Africa and in the Far East, and I expect we will soon see a more regular pattern to domestic terror events (God forbid). Still today, on December 9, 2015, the United States is military capable of destroying ISIS on our own. But a serious effort at building a military coalition, to include our European allies and Russia (who should be told, bluntly, to "get on board or get out of the way"), would a tremendous advantage in eliminating this scourge once and for all. Why now? Because if ISIS continues to raise money and recruit, I have no idea how improved their conventional army will become (with modern weapons, tanks, artillery, and possibly and Air element), nor can we accurately gauge how complicated and dangerous the situation will be in the urban and residential areas of Europe and the United States. Some crusty old General once said, that when you go to war, you must use everything at your disposal, every weapon, no matter how heinous, and you must fight with the utmost aggression and determination. This is the formula for ending a war quickly, which will save countless lives on both sides, especially when compared to wars that drag on and on and on......
Showing posts with label Kurdistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kurdistan. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Kurdish politics, and other confusing headaches.
Links: A. Kurdish political parties trying to resolve presidential debate.
B. Wikipedia entry for Peshmerga.
C. Wikipedia entry for PKK.
During my career, I was fortunate enough to work closely with representatives of both the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). In 2003 and 2004, the opposing Kurdish political parties had set aside much of their differences, at least in Baghdad, for the best interests of the greater Iraqi Kurdish community. Both groups were represented by well-educated, deferential, hard-working people, who were tremendously supportive of the United States and our military forces in particular. I remember that the PUK had taken possession of two large, adjoining compounds in the Mansour neighborhood of Baghdad, which they utilized for a variety of purposes, including regular meetings with representatives of U.S. government agencies. Jalal Talabani, founder and leader of the PUK, maintained a much more elaborate residence in Baghdad, closer to the Karada neighborhood. My initial visit to the PUK compound brought me into contact with Peshmerga (Kurdish for "one who confronts death") for the first, but certainly not the last time. The Peshmerga are the military forces for the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan; they attempt to maintain a non-aligned posture with regards to the PUK and KDP, who have, at times, really had a go at each other. Although I've never seen a female Peshmerga, I've been told that they exist. This group represents the type of self-reliant, hardy, low-maintenance soldier that we don't see much anymore. They are brave, well-trained, and move together flawlessly when operational. That being said, I wouldn't invite them to a candlelight dinner party. From my experience (forgive the stereotyping), they stink, and although not rude, normally haven't picked up much in the way of manners. I wrote in my book about a meeting I had once at the PUK house, where we discovered two Peshmerga asleep under the table because of the volume and frequency of their farts. Aside from the U.S. Armed Forces, I can't think of any group that I would want fighting by my side more than the Peshmerga.
I have at times been accused of being biased towards the Kurds. I am guilty as charged. I have no qualms about admitting that I support the Kurdish struggle for an independent homeland. As a people, they are kind, generous, welcoming, hard-working and very family-oriented. They can also hold a grudge for a very long, long time. The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but the manner of worship in the Kurdish community, regardless of affiliation, is much different than what is normally observed in the Arab world. Kurds are private about their religious observations, although most Kurds are very observant of Islamic obligations. They go about their business in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves. This is a true example of a community that values the private nature of its religious identity. Sure, the majority are Sunni Muslim, but they don't advocate the use of shura to settle every issue, nor do they feel this automatic disconnect with Christians and Jews. I understand the reasoning behind keeping Iraq united. If the Kurds were granted a homeland in northern Iraq, the rest of the country would be in danger of disintegration. Maybe its time for that disintegration to take place, given that the area that was once known as Babylon, then Mesopotamia, and now Iraq, has not made a great success of ethnic integration. It might happen with or without the Kurds, especially if the majority Shi'a continue to assert themselves and the Sunni start to consider life inside the Islamic Republic of Iraq.
Turkey's recent decision to end the de-facto cease fire with the quasi-military organization the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK), has been a reminder that the ISIS crisis is one of a number of unresolved conflicts in this part of the world, that sit just under the skin, waiting to erupt again. Northern Syria is home to a substantial number of ethnic Kurds, and the anti-ISIS coalition has benefitted tremendously from their willingness to stand up and defend their own communities. Even the Turks have benefitted, as Ankara is not keen about having ISIS as a direct neighbor. But the Turks are experts at separating one group of Kurds from another. According to Ankara, the Syrian Kurds who fight ISIS tooth-and-nail are not connected to the "terrorist" PKK. Turkey's decision to conduct bombing sorties against suspected PKK locations was a naked political move on the part of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to energize anti-Kurd elements in Turkey before pivotal fall elections. Not surprisingly, many in the Turkish electorate will scream for vengeance regarding three Turkish soldiers killed in a PKK attack, and not think twice about the Kurds whose murder precipitated the retaliatory ambush. All the while, the Kurdistan Parliament, which sits in Arbil, is struggling with the never-ending debate over the office of President. The current office-holder, President Masoud Barzani, is the head of the KDP. In 2009, Barzani was elected with 69.9 % of the vote, and in 2013, the parliament decided to extend his term until 2015. The five major Kurdish political parties were attempting to resolve the issue of succession, but failed before Barzani's term expired on August 20. Believe me, Kurdish politics can get very complicated. Its imperative that Kurdistan present a united front, given the renewed trouble with Turkey and the continuing war against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. The PDK will argue for another extension for Barzani, which, for political expediency, will be supported by the PUK. The remaining parties do not represent enough votes to budge a joint KDP/PUK effort. Expect the Kurdistan Parliament to extend Barzani's term to 2017, when it meets to debate the issue on August 23.
B. Wikipedia entry for Peshmerga.
C. Wikipedia entry for PKK.
During my career, I was fortunate enough to work closely with representatives of both the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). In 2003 and 2004, the opposing Kurdish political parties had set aside much of their differences, at least in Baghdad, for the best interests of the greater Iraqi Kurdish community. Both groups were represented by well-educated, deferential, hard-working people, who were tremendously supportive of the United States and our military forces in particular. I remember that the PUK had taken possession of two large, adjoining compounds in the Mansour neighborhood of Baghdad, which they utilized for a variety of purposes, including regular meetings with representatives of U.S. government agencies. Jalal Talabani, founder and leader of the PUK, maintained a much more elaborate residence in Baghdad, closer to the Karada neighborhood. My initial visit to the PUK compound brought me into contact with Peshmerga (Kurdish for "one who confronts death") for the first, but certainly not the last time. The Peshmerga are the military forces for the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan; they attempt to maintain a non-aligned posture with regards to the PUK and KDP, who have, at times, really had a go at each other. Although I've never seen a female Peshmerga, I've been told that they exist. This group represents the type of self-reliant, hardy, low-maintenance soldier that we don't see much anymore. They are brave, well-trained, and move together flawlessly when operational. That being said, I wouldn't invite them to a candlelight dinner party. From my experience (forgive the stereotyping), they stink, and although not rude, normally haven't picked up much in the way of manners. I wrote in my book about a meeting I had once at the PUK house, where we discovered two Peshmerga asleep under the table because of the volume and frequency of their farts. Aside from the U.S. Armed Forces, I can't think of any group that I would want fighting by my side more than the Peshmerga.
I have at times been accused of being biased towards the Kurds. I am guilty as charged. I have no qualms about admitting that I support the Kurdish struggle for an independent homeland. As a people, they are kind, generous, welcoming, hard-working and very family-oriented. They can also hold a grudge for a very long, long time. The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but the manner of worship in the Kurdish community, regardless of affiliation, is much different than what is normally observed in the Arab world. Kurds are private about their religious observations, although most Kurds are very observant of Islamic obligations. They go about their business in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves. This is a true example of a community that values the private nature of its religious identity. Sure, the majority are Sunni Muslim, but they don't advocate the use of shura to settle every issue, nor do they feel this automatic disconnect with Christians and Jews. I understand the reasoning behind keeping Iraq united. If the Kurds were granted a homeland in northern Iraq, the rest of the country would be in danger of disintegration. Maybe its time for that disintegration to take place, given that the area that was once known as Babylon, then Mesopotamia, and now Iraq, has not made a great success of ethnic integration. It might happen with or without the Kurds, especially if the majority Shi'a continue to assert themselves and the Sunni start to consider life inside the Islamic Republic of Iraq.
Turkey's recent decision to end the de-facto cease fire with the quasi-military organization the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK), has been a reminder that the ISIS crisis is one of a number of unresolved conflicts in this part of the world, that sit just under the skin, waiting to erupt again. Northern Syria is home to a substantial number of ethnic Kurds, and the anti-ISIS coalition has benefitted tremendously from their willingness to stand up and defend their own communities. Even the Turks have benefitted, as Ankara is not keen about having ISIS as a direct neighbor. But the Turks are experts at separating one group of Kurds from another. According to Ankara, the Syrian Kurds who fight ISIS tooth-and-nail are not connected to the "terrorist" PKK. Turkey's decision to conduct bombing sorties against suspected PKK locations was a naked political move on the part of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to energize anti-Kurd elements in Turkey before pivotal fall elections. Not surprisingly, many in the Turkish electorate will scream for vengeance regarding three Turkish soldiers killed in a PKK attack, and not think twice about the Kurds whose murder precipitated the retaliatory ambush. All the while, the Kurdistan Parliament, which sits in Arbil, is struggling with the never-ending debate over the office of President. The current office-holder, President Masoud Barzani, is the head of the KDP. In 2009, Barzani was elected with 69.9 % of the vote, and in 2013, the parliament decided to extend his term until 2015. The five major Kurdish political parties were attempting to resolve the issue of succession, but failed before Barzani's term expired on August 20. Believe me, Kurdish politics can get very complicated. Its imperative that Kurdistan present a united front, given the renewed trouble with Turkey and the continuing war against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. The PDK will argue for another extension for Barzani, which, for political expediency, will be supported by the PUK. The remaining parties do not represent enough votes to budge a joint KDP/PUK effort. Expect the Kurdistan Parliament to extend Barzani's term to 2017, when it meets to debate the issue on August 23.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Should Iraq be partitioned?
Links: A. Considerations on partitioning Iraq.
B. The U.S. contemplates partitioning Iraq.
In 2006, then-Senator Joe Biden suggested that consideration be given to the partition of Iraq. I believe at the time, that the idea was to allow the Kurds a homeland in the north, the Sunni would stay put in the central belt region, and the Shi'a would have an independent state in the south. For some reason, I couldn't buy into this argument, although for the life of me I can't recall why. I know that Turkey would have had a proverbial herd of cows if the Kurds had been given a homeland, and the Sunni, who as a minority have always ruled Iraq, would've been forced to accept a smaller and less-wealthy nation, but something else kept me from joining the "pro-partition" partisans. I think it was probably just an example of the traditionalist in me not wanted to change the maps again. But we've reached that point again, when folks in position of authority are whispering about partitioning Iraq. It does piss me off a bit, because this discussion wasn't really necessary. We could have avoided this position if we hadn't been in such a hurry to get out of Iraq.
Our rapid departure from Iraq was not necessary. The Iraqis were not requesting it, and our military leaders were strongly advising otherwise. Everyone seemed to be in agreement that the Iraqi military needed to be responsible for Iraq's external security, but only after sufficient training had taken place. Its my understanding that the training program that had been approved by the administration hadn't even started before Obama changed his mind and pulled the rug out from under everyone. So we left Iraq in the hands of an untrained, unprofessional army, with a huge invitation to ISIS to "come on in, folks!" And they didn't need to be asked twice. The real tragedy is that Iraq was beginning to settle into existence as a unitary state, with an economy that connected all the various regions and ethnicities. As its traditional boundaries are drawn, Iraq is fortunate to have natural resources distributed in all parts of the nation. This fact contributed to the successful re-establishment of an internationally-focused economy. The presence of the U.S. military allowed for consecutive years of peace, something foreign to many Iraqis. Markets were open and full of produce, schools were full, traffic lights worked, the electoral process was improving with each election, Iraq's airports were using the designation "international" again, the national soccer team was winning (occasionally), and an Olympic team existed to represent all Iraqis. Compare those few facts with the situation in Iraq today. You can lay all of this at the feet of Barrack Obama. He felt the political pressure from his base to follow through on his irresponsible pledge to rid Iraq of U.S. military forces at the earliest possible opportunity. And lets face it: the ultimate sacrifice of all those American young men and women....does it mean nothing to Obama? Peace was achieved and prosperity was at hand, and for politics' sake, he turned success into failure. His actions did everything possible to encourage sectarian movement amongst the various ethnicities of Iraq. Without the U.S. Army, the only security is with your own kind. That is the perspective of the various groups trying to survive in Iraq today.
Back to the idea of partitioning Iraq. First and foremost, its really absurd of the United States to be considering the limits of the national boundaries of a sovereign nation which is diplomatically accredited in the United States and a member in good standing of the United Nations (what the hell is that, anyway?). Be that as it may, I have always supported the Kurdish independence movement. The Kurds have played the game so long, and been such good team players, that they deserve the opportunity to govern themselves. The truth is, Kurdistan would probably exist today as a separate and legitimate nation-state if it weren't for issues regarding oil. How much oil are the Kurds sitting on, and should it belong to all the people of Iraq, and not just the Kurds? A specious argument, considering that the Kurds have never benefitted from any of the other oil deposits in Iraq. Most Iraqis don't consider the Kurds to be Iraqi, even though most Kurds are Muslim. If Iraq were at peace, it might not be a bad idea to consider three separate nations, one for each ethnicity. But given the current conflict raging against the Islamic State, its really a moot point. The good guys are hoping to find a way to keep Iraq from becoming one united nation under the Islamic State, and don't have much time to sit around discussing the viability of a Kurdish, Sunni and Shia separation.
A quick review of the excellent links that I've provided will remind everyone that efforts to create multiple nations based on ethnicity, from the remains of a failed, much larger state (Yugoslavia, for example), have usually not been successful. I don't know if those examples are applicable in this instance, though. If Iraq were divided into three nations, the two voices that would be screeching the loudest would be Turkey and the Iraqi Sunnis. The Turks are paranoid that the establishment of a Kurdish state will eventually lead to an attempt to annex parts of eastern Asia Minor (Turkey), where the Turks constitute a majority of the population. As long as Erdogan is in office, I'm all for anything that will piss off the Turks, so no problem there. The Iraqi Sunnis will also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out, because they've always been the chosen ones. The Kurds, the Assyrians, the Shi'a, the Jews, have always had to sit way in the back of the Iraqi bus, so to speak. Even though Saddam rarely spent money on infrastructure or social projects, when he did, it was for the benefit of a Sunni community. That explains the abject poverty that exists in the Iraqi Shi'a communities located in the south-central and southern parts of Iraq. The Kurds, God love 'em, didn't wait around for a handout from Saddam's Baghdad; they created their own economy, and also benefitted greatly from the Kurdish diaspora. For all practical purposes, Kurdistan has been a self-sufficient nation-state for some time now. Its just not recognized outside of Sulimaniyah. The Kurds even have their own military, and as I've commented before, you don't want to pick a fit with the Pesh Merga. As for the Iraqi Sunni, I don't think they will have much luck finding a sympathetic ear anytime soon.
Under ideal circumstances, It might just be time for serious consideration to be given to the partition of Iraq. But given the current state of affairs, it just doesn't make sense. We might be re-writing the boundaries of a nation that won't exist in 2016. Lets focus on winning this war first.
B. The U.S. contemplates partitioning Iraq.
In 2006, then-Senator Joe Biden suggested that consideration be given to the partition of Iraq. I believe at the time, that the idea was to allow the Kurds a homeland in the north, the Sunni would stay put in the central belt region, and the Shi'a would have an independent state in the south. For some reason, I couldn't buy into this argument, although for the life of me I can't recall why. I know that Turkey would have had a proverbial herd of cows if the Kurds had been given a homeland, and the Sunni, who as a minority have always ruled Iraq, would've been forced to accept a smaller and less-wealthy nation, but something else kept me from joining the "pro-partition" partisans. I think it was probably just an example of the traditionalist in me not wanted to change the maps again. But we've reached that point again, when folks in position of authority are whispering about partitioning Iraq. It does piss me off a bit, because this discussion wasn't really necessary. We could have avoided this position if we hadn't been in such a hurry to get out of Iraq.
Our rapid departure from Iraq was not necessary. The Iraqis were not requesting it, and our military leaders were strongly advising otherwise. Everyone seemed to be in agreement that the Iraqi military needed to be responsible for Iraq's external security, but only after sufficient training had taken place. Its my understanding that the training program that had been approved by the administration hadn't even started before Obama changed his mind and pulled the rug out from under everyone. So we left Iraq in the hands of an untrained, unprofessional army, with a huge invitation to ISIS to "come on in, folks!" And they didn't need to be asked twice. The real tragedy is that Iraq was beginning to settle into existence as a unitary state, with an economy that connected all the various regions and ethnicities. As its traditional boundaries are drawn, Iraq is fortunate to have natural resources distributed in all parts of the nation. This fact contributed to the successful re-establishment of an internationally-focused economy. The presence of the U.S. military allowed for consecutive years of peace, something foreign to many Iraqis. Markets were open and full of produce, schools were full, traffic lights worked, the electoral process was improving with each election, Iraq's airports were using the designation "international" again, the national soccer team was winning (occasionally), and an Olympic team existed to represent all Iraqis. Compare those few facts with the situation in Iraq today. You can lay all of this at the feet of Barrack Obama. He felt the political pressure from his base to follow through on his irresponsible pledge to rid Iraq of U.S. military forces at the earliest possible opportunity. And lets face it: the ultimate sacrifice of all those American young men and women....does it mean nothing to Obama? Peace was achieved and prosperity was at hand, and for politics' sake, he turned success into failure. His actions did everything possible to encourage sectarian movement amongst the various ethnicities of Iraq. Without the U.S. Army, the only security is with your own kind. That is the perspective of the various groups trying to survive in Iraq today.
Back to the idea of partitioning Iraq. First and foremost, its really absurd of the United States to be considering the limits of the national boundaries of a sovereign nation which is diplomatically accredited in the United States and a member in good standing of the United Nations (what the hell is that, anyway?). Be that as it may, I have always supported the Kurdish independence movement. The Kurds have played the game so long, and been such good team players, that they deserve the opportunity to govern themselves. The truth is, Kurdistan would probably exist today as a separate and legitimate nation-state if it weren't for issues regarding oil. How much oil are the Kurds sitting on, and should it belong to all the people of Iraq, and not just the Kurds? A specious argument, considering that the Kurds have never benefitted from any of the other oil deposits in Iraq. Most Iraqis don't consider the Kurds to be Iraqi, even though most Kurds are Muslim. If Iraq were at peace, it might not be a bad idea to consider three separate nations, one for each ethnicity. But given the current conflict raging against the Islamic State, its really a moot point. The good guys are hoping to find a way to keep Iraq from becoming one united nation under the Islamic State, and don't have much time to sit around discussing the viability of a Kurdish, Sunni and Shia separation.
A quick review of the excellent links that I've provided will remind everyone that efforts to create multiple nations based on ethnicity, from the remains of a failed, much larger state (Yugoslavia, for example), have usually not been successful. I don't know if those examples are applicable in this instance, though. If Iraq were divided into three nations, the two voices that would be screeching the loudest would be Turkey and the Iraqi Sunnis. The Turks are paranoid that the establishment of a Kurdish state will eventually lead to an attempt to annex parts of eastern Asia Minor (Turkey), where the Turks constitute a majority of the population. As long as Erdogan is in office, I'm all for anything that will piss off the Turks, so no problem there. The Iraqi Sunnis will also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out, because they've always been the chosen ones. The Kurds, the Assyrians, the Shi'a, the Jews, have always had to sit way in the back of the Iraqi bus, so to speak. Even though Saddam rarely spent money on infrastructure or social projects, when he did, it was for the benefit of a Sunni community. That explains the abject poverty that exists in the Iraqi Shi'a communities located in the south-central and southern parts of Iraq. The Kurds, God love 'em, didn't wait around for a handout from Saddam's Baghdad; they created their own economy, and also benefitted greatly from the Kurdish diaspora. For all practical purposes, Kurdistan has been a self-sufficient nation-state for some time now. Its just not recognized outside of Sulimaniyah. The Kurds even have their own military, and as I've commented before, you don't want to pick a fit with the Pesh Merga. As for the Iraqi Sunni, I don't think they will have much luck finding a sympathetic ear anytime soon.
Under ideal circumstances, It might just be time for serious consideration to be given to the partition of Iraq. But given the current state of affairs, it just doesn't make sense. We might be re-writing the boundaries of a nation that won't exist in 2016. Lets focus on winning this war first.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Just what is Iran's strategy in Syria and Iraq?
Link: What is the Iranian Strategy?
The article which I have linked is so concise, well-written and full of relevant details, that I had no need to added a second link. You might be assuming that it was written by me, but in this instance, I can't take the credit. With regard to the ISIS/ISIL conflict playing out in Syria and Iraq, Iran is a major player. The Iranians support Bashir al-Assad in Damascus, and currently appear to be calling the shots in Baghdad, Yemen, and Lebanon (Iran is also close with Oman's Sultan Qaboos). The recent military gains near the oil refinery in Baiji have been attributed to support provided to the Iraqi Army by Shia militias directed by Teheran. While Turkey purposely steps on everyone's toes, the United States fumbles around, searching for a coherent strategy, and ISIL spends every waking moment looking for a woman to rape or a head to chop off, the Iranians have stealthily strengthened their position in every theater. Don't get me wrong, I'm still very pessimistic regarding the future of Baghdad, but the Iranians are beginning to apply a few more resources to the struggle, which traditionally signals a new, more aggressive policy on the part of Teheran. Actually, the Iranians almost seem to be in the catbird seat. ISIL has been stopped, temporarily, from its efforts to control the northern Iraqi oil fields, and the Iranians have yet to deploy one regular army brigade (although the Badr Corps and Kataib Hezbollah are bound to have Iranian military advisors on hand). Assad, Teheran's man in Syria, has been given a new lease on life due to the allied air campaign against ISIL, al-Nusra Front, Khorasan and the Partridge Family (excuse the sarcasm, I'm still full of myself after the geniuses in the Pentagon discovered that the groups were part of the same network, which I've been declaring for two months). In fact, by the time the Free Syrian Army has been trained to adequately fight defensively, the regular Syrian Army will be reconstituted to the point of being the strongest military element in Syria. And once Assad is back on top, I doubt seriously that Putin and Teheran will allow his removal without a legitimate fight.
Where do the Kurds fit into all this?
.jpg)
I worry about the Kurds. The fortunes of the Kurdish people can change in the blink of an eye. They fight like madmen, are courageous to a fault, have never really betrayed anyone, and only want to be left alone in their own little piece of nationhood. However, since that nationhood dream includes access to oil, it is unlikely to become a reality. This conflict has Syrian Kurds fighting in Kobani, Iraqi Kurds fighting around Mosul and Erbil, and the never-ending shooting contest with the Turkish Army. I see an opportunity for the Iranians to add Suleymaniyah, Kurdistan to their list of friends: If the Iranians were to intervene militarily against ISIL in defense of the Kurds and the Yazidi, can you imagine the public relations jackpot Iran will enjoy? What a development: Iranian ground forces move in to mop up ISIL, when the Americans couldn't be bothered (and we all know that this is the American's mess to begin with). The Iranian Army fighting alongside the Iraqi Army, removing the ISIL butchers, should push aside any distaste from the influential Sunni Shaykhs and politicians. It would solidify the pro-Iranian political forces in Baghdad, and stabilize its own northeastern border with Kurdistan. Assad finishes off ISIL in Syria, and the Iranians become the power broker in the region. True, a lot would have to fall into place for this scenario to come to pass. The Kurds and Iranians would have to get past years of distrust to work that closely together. And the Sunni community in central Iraq would be the most difficult audience of all. But when I examine the current situation, I can see no one as well-placed as the Iranians. The Turks had an opportunity to become that same power broker, but Erdogan can't keep his personal prejudices from impacting his decisions. The Turks should have co-opted the Kurds, gained access to the Kurdish oil fields, and ended centuries of conflict. Turkey should have done the United States one better and rolled its tanks and F-16s into Syria, blasting both ISIL and Syrian regular forces into smithereens. Erdogan could have appealed to the sense of destiny that sits in the heart of every Turk. At the beginning of this conflict was the time for Turkey to reclaim its natural position as savior and leader of the region, and the first step would have been to crush the band of butchers who call themselves ISIL, and then remove the band of butchers that call themselves the Ba'ath Party in Damascus. And what would have been the worst-case reaction from the United States and Europe? That they might have gotten so angry that they enacted a sanctions regime to prohibit Turkish leaders from traveling to Miami Beach in the winter? At the same time, the Iranians would have been too focused on their all-consuming obsession to build nuclear weapons, and Putin was otherwise too engaged in Ukraine to have made a big stink. Ok, that last point is probably not true: Putin will not let Assad go without a serious fight, because of Putin's desire for a Mediterranean Port for his navy.
So today's post began as an examination of Iran's options in Syria and Iraq, and ended with a review of what Turkey had to gain by being more aggressive and less-impulsive. But Turkey's opportunity has now passed, especially in light of recent anti-American, anti-European, events in Turkey. Erdogan is probably happy right now just to sit back and regroup. This is of course after he has the pleasure of visiting for a few days with Egg-Head of the millennium, Joe Biden. But Iran is still in the moment, and if the leaders in Teheran showed a bit of innovation and strategic urgency, they could turn this conflict into an Iranian diplomatic coming-out party.
The article which I have linked is so concise, well-written and full of relevant details, that I had no need to added a second link. You might be assuming that it was written by me, but in this instance, I can't take the credit. With regard to the ISIS/ISIL conflict playing out in Syria and Iraq, Iran is a major player. The Iranians support Bashir al-Assad in Damascus, and currently appear to be calling the shots in Baghdad, Yemen, and Lebanon (Iran is also close with Oman's Sultan Qaboos). The recent military gains near the oil refinery in Baiji have been attributed to support provided to the Iraqi Army by Shia militias directed by Teheran. While Turkey purposely steps on everyone's toes, the United States fumbles around, searching for a coherent strategy, and ISIL spends every waking moment looking for a woman to rape or a head to chop off, the Iranians have stealthily strengthened their position in every theater. Don't get me wrong, I'm still very pessimistic regarding the future of Baghdad, but the Iranians are beginning to apply a few more resources to the struggle, which traditionally signals a new, more aggressive policy on the part of Teheran. Actually, the Iranians almost seem to be in the catbird seat. ISIL has been stopped, temporarily, from its efforts to control the northern Iraqi oil fields, and the Iranians have yet to deploy one regular army brigade (although the Badr Corps and Kataib Hezbollah are bound to have Iranian military advisors on hand). Assad, Teheran's man in Syria, has been given a new lease on life due to the allied air campaign against ISIL, al-Nusra Front, Khorasan and the Partridge Family (excuse the sarcasm, I'm still full of myself after the geniuses in the Pentagon discovered that the groups were part of the same network, which I've been declaring for two months). In fact, by the time the Free Syrian Army has been trained to adequately fight defensively, the regular Syrian Army will be reconstituted to the point of being the strongest military element in Syria. And once Assad is back on top, I doubt seriously that Putin and Teheran will allow his removal without a legitimate fight.
Where do the Kurds fit into all this?
I worry about the Kurds. The fortunes of the Kurdish people can change in the blink of an eye. They fight like madmen, are courageous to a fault, have never really betrayed anyone, and only want to be left alone in their own little piece of nationhood. However, since that nationhood dream includes access to oil, it is unlikely to become a reality. This conflict has Syrian Kurds fighting in Kobani, Iraqi Kurds fighting around Mosul and Erbil, and the never-ending shooting contest with the Turkish Army. I see an opportunity for the Iranians to add Suleymaniyah, Kurdistan to their list of friends: If the Iranians were to intervene militarily against ISIL in defense of the Kurds and the Yazidi, can you imagine the public relations jackpot Iran will enjoy? What a development: Iranian ground forces move in to mop up ISIL, when the Americans couldn't be bothered (and we all know that this is the American's mess to begin with). The Iranian Army fighting alongside the Iraqi Army, removing the ISIL butchers, should push aside any distaste from the influential Sunni Shaykhs and politicians. It would solidify the pro-Iranian political forces in Baghdad, and stabilize its own northeastern border with Kurdistan. Assad finishes off ISIL in Syria, and the Iranians become the power broker in the region. True, a lot would have to fall into place for this scenario to come to pass. The Kurds and Iranians would have to get past years of distrust to work that closely together. And the Sunni community in central Iraq would be the most difficult audience of all. But when I examine the current situation, I can see no one as well-placed as the Iranians. The Turks had an opportunity to become that same power broker, but Erdogan can't keep his personal prejudices from impacting his decisions. The Turks should have co-opted the Kurds, gained access to the Kurdish oil fields, and ended centuries of conflict. Turkey should have done the United States one better and rolled its tanks and F-16s into Syria, blasting both ISIL and Syrian regular forces into smithereens. Erdogan could have appealed to the sense of destiny that sits in the heart of every Turk. At the beginning of this conflict was the time for Turkey to reclaim its natural position as savior and leader of the region, and the first step would have been to crush the band of butchers who call themselves ISIL, and then remove the band of butchers that call themselves the Ba'ath Party in Damascus. And what would have been the worst-case reaction from the United States and Europe? That they might have gotten so angry that they enacted a sanctions regime to prohibit Turkish leaders from traveling to Miami Beach in the winter? At the same time, the Iranians would have been too focused on their all-consuming obsession to build nuclear weapons, and Putin was otherwise too engaged in Ukraine to have made a big stink. Ok, that last point is probably not true: Putin will not let Assad go without a serious fight, because of Putin's desire for a Mediterranean Port for his navy.
So today's post began as an examination of Iran's options in Syria and Iraq, and ended with a review of what Turkey had to gain by being more aggressive and less-impulsive. But Turkey's opportunity has now passed, especially in light of recent anti-American, anti-European, events in Turkey. Erdogan is probably happy right now just to sit back and regroup. This is of course after he has the pleasure of visiting for a few days with Egg-Head of the millennium, Joe Biden. But Iran is still in the moment, and if the leaders in Teheran showed a bit of innovation and strategic urgency, they could turn this conflict into an Iranian diplomatic coming-out party.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Turkey, Where Do You Stand?
Links: A. U.S. Sailors Attacked In Turkey
B. Erdogan Cleans Out The Turkish General Staff
The diplomatic mess that has been created by our semi-military entry into the Syrian conflict is something to behold. The main reason we are mired in this mess is because we do not have a clear policy in the region. Turkey is a beast to try and understand politically.
Internally, President Tayyip Erdogan has won the battle with the military and no longer has to sweat under the constant fear of a coup. There can be no doubt that Erdogan is the driving force behind the slow, methodical creep of Turkey towards Islamization. Erdogan gained the respect of European liberals when he apologized for the Armenian massacres of the past, and in 2009, it appeared that Turkey might actually be prepared to co-exist with a Kurdish nation. But understanding the reality of Turko-politics requires an almost day-to-day study of the subject matter. Simply put, Turkey is interested in developing a relationship with a Kurdish group that has access to Iraqi/Kurdish oil. Turkey will pretend to support the idea of Kurdish statehood as long as it has access to Kurdish oil. Once things start to get serious, Turkey switches allegiances to another Kurdish political group and the process starts all over. If allowed, the Turks will play this game all day. The reality is, Ankara will never agree to the creation of a legitimate Kurdish state that shares a border with Turkey. The Turks have absolutely no good will towards the Kurdish people and they never will. Additionally, Erdogan is determined to see Syria's Bashir al-Assad removed from power. The whispers that Turkey secretly supports the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) probably has more to do with Erdogan's hatred of Assad than anything else. I have no clue what Erdogan's long-term strategy is towards the Kurds, although he has made his economic interest quite clear. And something I do know: Erdogan wants out from under Gazprom (Russian natural gas exporter) and Vladimir Putin's finger.
In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, Turkey made its position clear by limiting the use of our own Air Force Bases (albeit in Turkey). At the time, President George W. Bush, who could be supremely naïve at times, assumed that Erdogan wanted to support the U.S. efforts, but couldn't because of internal issues. Bullshit. Erdogan was sending the message that "business as usual" was no longer the acceptable. Erdogan does not want Turkey to be allied to the United States. In fact, I don't think Erdogan wants EU membership. Has anyone noticed that Erdogan played the same, "well, I can't be Prime Minister anymore, so I might as well be President" game that Putin invented? Erdogan sees himself as a latter-day Sultan, who will usher in a new age of international Turkish power and influence. He sees Turkey as being ideally situated to lead a group of moderate
Islamic states into the next century. What makes Erdogan so dangerous is the size and strength of the Turkish military (built by the U.S.). For many years, the Turks were solely interested in keeping abreast militarily of their historic enemy, Greece. Turkey always needed one more Frigate, one more F-16 squadron, or one more tank batallion, than Greece. The times have changed. Turkey became a huge customer of U.S. military equipment (some of which arrived as part of aid packages); and the U.S. military always obliges when a friend requests training. The United States has equipped and trained the Turkish military, which is now one of the world's elite. Behind the scenes, the U.S. was always happy to provide whatever the Turks wanted, because we thought we were feeding the "safety valve": the Turkish General Staff. When Erdogan and his AKP party took power, the Pentagon whispered, "as soon as he starts preaching Islamic mumbo-jumbo, the Army will have him under arrest". However, Tayyip was smarter than the crusty old birds at the Pentagon. He played the role of moderate reformer, until he was in a position to stage a reverse-coup (see the second link). The four top Generals who bit the dust, I mean "resigned", were examples of Turkey's move away from the threat of military intervention in civilian politics. But it left the Pentagon asking, "who is driving that expensive Turkish Lamborghini that we've spent decades paying for?"
I have always loved Turkey and the Turks. Istanbul is an amazing place full of mystery, intrigue and danger. And once you get out of the city and into the countryside, you will never find a friendlier, more generous people than the Turks. If you don't believe me, then take a trip to Turkey yourself . . . but hurry. I remember as a young boy going to the Judson 4 Drive-In Theater with my family, and watching the movie "Midnight Express" (not a kids movie for sure, but my parents had to get some culture sometime). After seeing this movie, I remember that being frightened out of my wits by all things "Turkish". The film did a tremendous disservice to the Turkish nation and to this day still causes bad feelings. The truth is, the young American Billy Hayes got caught trying to board a Pan Am flight to New York with a load of Hashish taped to his stomach. Turkey felt the need to make an example out of Hayes, and the rest is history. For the record, Hayes has since apologized to the Turkish people for the negative image of Turkey that his book encouraged. The new Turkey, though, has negative emotions about the United States that have nothing to do with a 1970's movie. Turkey has taken a decided step towards Islamization. Although Erdogan has driven the chariot, the entire blame for this movement can't be laid on him. For some reason, the Turkish people, who for so many years proudly embraced the secular legacy of Kemal Ataturk, started looking towards their Islamic heritage for direction. At the same time, a smaller, less influential movement is encouraging young Turks to embrace the image of Turkey as a political leader of nations, not tied to any religious ideology or diplomatic obligations. It was supporters of this perspective who, this week, attacked the three U.S. sailors dressed in their civilian clothes and who were hoping to do a bit of sightseeing on their day of leave. This attack, which was videotaped, is very disturbing if only for the fear you can imagine these young men must have been feeling. As I have pointed out ad nauseam: we currently have no influence diplomatically anywhere in the world. So it came as no surprise that the Turkish authorities simply released the persons responsible for this assault. Oh, I yearn for the days of Ronald Reagan, when these punks would have been hung out to dry.
So this is the Turkey of 2014. Lumbering towards Islamization, no longer an ally of the United States, hostile to the Kurds, the Israelis, Assad, and the Iraqi government (is the Iraqi government still there? I haven't checked yet today), and brandishing a military that
would make Mehmet II proud. Recently, I had a Turkish friend of mine ask me to explain the United States policy regarding Syria, Iraq and the ISIL. All I could say is that we have collected a few Qatari and Emirati friends, and alongside our Air Force, we are in the process of bombing the shit out of the ISIL. Oh, and we are also training the Free Syrian Army to be defensive when the time comes. In other words, I had no answer. True that I'm no fan of the current administration, but as an American I wish I could have given a better response. What really frightens me is that Joe Biden is heading to Ankara for talks with Erdogan, after recently insulting Erdogan and having to issue an apology. Erdogan must be salivating, waiting for this opportunity to embarrass this ASS of a Vice President. How did we end up with such amateurs in the White House? Eventually, something is going to give. Either the ISIL is going to sack Baghdad, or Assad is going to retake the initiative militarily and piss off the Turks to no end (then it will be our fault for degrading ISIL). Hey, at least it won't be boring.
B. Erdogan Cleans Out The Turkish General Staff
The diplomatic mess that has been created by our semi-military entry into the Syrian conflict is something to behold. The main reason we are mired in this mess is because we do not have a clear policy in the region. Turkey is a beast to try and understand politically.
 |
| Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey |
In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, Turkey made its position clear by limiting the use of our own Air Force Bases (albeit in Turkey). At the time, President George W. Bush, who could be supremely naïve at times, assumed that Erdogan wanted to support the U.S. efforts, but couldn't because of internal issues. Bullshit. Erdogan was sending the message that "business as usual" was no longer the acceptable. Erdogan does not want Turkey to be allied to the United States. In fact, I don't think Erdogan wants EU membership. Has anyone noticed that Erdogan played the same, "well, I can't be Prime Minister anymore, so I might as well be President" game that Putin invented? Erdogan sees himself as a latter-day Sultan, who will usher in a new age of international Turkish power and influence. He sees Turkey as being ideally situated to lead a group of moderate
I have always loved Turkey and the Turks. Istanbul is an amazing place full of mystery, intrigue and danger. And once you get out of the city and into the countryside, you will never find a friendlier, more generous people than the Turks. If you don't believe me, then take a trip to Turkey yourself . . . but hurry. I remember as a young boy going to the Judson 4 Drive-In Theater with my family, and watching the movie "Midnight Express" (not a kids movie for sure, but my parents had to get some culture sometime). After seeing this movie, I remember that being frightened out of my wits by all things "Turkish". The film did a tremendous disservice to the Turkish nation and to this day still causes bad feelings. The truth is, the young American Billy Hayes got caught trying to board a Pan Am flight to New York with a load of Hashish taped to his stomach. Turkey felt the need to make an example out of Hayes, and the rest is history. For the record, Hayes has since apologized to the Turkish people for the negative image of Turkey that his book encouraged. The new Turkey, though, has negative emotions about the United States that have nothing to do with a 1970's movie. Turkey has taken a decided step towards Islamization. Although Erdogan has driven the chariot, the entire blame for this movement can't be laid on him. For some reason, the Turkish people, who for so many years proudly embraced the secular legacy of Kemal Ataturk, started looking towards their Islamic heritage for direction. At the same time, a smaller, less influential movement is encouraging young Turks to embrace the image of Turkey as a political leader of nations, not tied to any religious ideology or diplomatic obligations. It was supporters of this perspective who, this week, attacked the three U.S. sailors dressed in their civilian clothes and who were hoping to do a bit of sightseeing on their day of leave. This attack, which was videotaped, is very disturbing if only for the fear you can imagine these young men must have been feeling. As I have pointed out ad nauseam: we currently have no influence diplomatically anywhere in the world. So it came as no surprise that the Turkish authorities simply released the persons responsible for this assault. Oh, I yearn for the days of Ronald Reagan, when these punks would have been hung out to dry.
So this is the Turkey of 2014. Lumbering towards Islamization, no longer an ally of the United States, hostile to the Kurds, the Israelis, Assad, and the Iraqi government (is the Iraqi government still there? I haven't checked yet today), and brandishing a military that
 |
| Mehmet II, Ottoman Sultan 1441-1446, 1451-1481 |
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!
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Battle Of Baghdad.....The End Of the Beginning
Links: A. Iraqi Army Struggles On In Anbar
B. Suicide Attack In Baiji
I'm hoping to eventually stumble onto a blog that is exclusively devoted to disseminating articles about Iraqi military engagements. I am fascinated with the Iraqi Defense Force and its attempt to combat the Islamic Front in Anbar Province. The conflict in Syria is ugly, disorganized, and hidden most of the time. But for us armchair generals, Iraq presents the opportunity to watch at least one army as it pursues strategic goals. The Iraqi Army is attempting to engage and destroy elements of the Islamic State in The Levant (IS) in Anbar Province. Over the past month we have taken a close look at the strategies of both parties as the Iraqis seek to defend greater Baghdad. Since its initial military movements in northern Iraq, the IS has presented a difficult target. I had fallen into the trap of expecting IS forces engaged in Iraq to resemble the IS elements that had been engaged in Syria since 2012. I was taken by surprise with the IS and its use of heavy weaponry (artillery in particular). I had grown accustomed to groups of men riding around in Toyota pick-ups that had been rigged with an anti-aircraft or large caliber machine-gun in the bed. From the beginning, the IS has shown a military sophistication in Iraq that includes the ability to effectively use artillery, strategically move large numbers of fighters from one area to another, and to control extensive resupply lines. Most importantly, the IS has demonstrated the ability to adapt. The IS appears just as comfortable using guerilla tactics as they do utilizing heavy weaponry and fighting in larger units.
The IS rarely makes a public statement without barking something or other about the creation of an Islamic Fundamentalist Nation. They seem to prefer the word, "Caliphate", but who gives a shit. This beast, which rose like a phoenix from the ashes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has a true organizational structure. If we were in a boardroom and I had a flip chart, I could probably draw a nice diagram (and one of the numerous people sleeping would fart in appreciation). We have the political IS and the military IS; the talented folks in CTC at Langley have the complete political picture, no doubt. At the moment we here at MB are solely concerned with the military wing of the IS. Link A seems to be a carbon copy of a situational update that I read last week in the NY Times. Who controls Fallujah, the IS or the Iraqi Army? And Ramadi? The truth is that the only time the Iraqi Army makes any headway in Anbar is when they participate in a U.S.- planned ground attack (with armor) coordinated with allied air attacks. The current state of the Iraqi Air Force seems to be a complete mystery. They were supposed to receive 18 F16s over a period of two years. The pilots are currently training in the United States, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a typical show of Iraqi ingratitude, complained about the F16 and purchased five second-hand Sukhoi (Su) 25's to counter the IS threat. (Entertaining side note: Iran generously "gave" Iraq a handful of Su-25's as well, as a show of solidarity against the IS. And by the way, the majority of the Su-25's that arrived from Iran were ex-Iraqi Air Force planes that had fled Iraq at the start of the Gulf War, rather than face sure death in combat with U.S. Air Force F16s.) So we know that the Iraqi Air Force has a few Migs and Su-25s, not to mention a handful of Russian Helicopters. Does anyone know if the Iraqi Air Force is participating in the allied air campaign?
Link B is a reminder that the IS is very familiar with urban-warfare tactics. The suicide car bombs were a specialty of Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Iraqis are experiencing them all over again. Even though the heavier elements of the IS forces are engaged with the Iraqi Army in Anbar (and with allied air attacks in Syria), the plan to seed the poorer Sunni neighborhoods of greater Baghdad is in full swing. From today onward, You can be sure that any mortars launched toward government buildings, military targets, or foreign diplomatic property in Baghdad, will originate from the poor Sunni bedroom communities of Baghdad. And the car bombs will be built in the same neighborhoods. The IS is conducting this war in a very sophisticated manner, successfully engaging in what is a three-front war (In September Secretary of Defense Hagel was quoted as saying that the goal was to force the IS to fight a three-front war). The current areas of conflict include Syria, Anbar Province in eastern Iraq, and Kurdistan/northern Iraq. I am surprised at the IS's ability to function so effectively. I had anticipated that IS fortunes would suffer somewhere, but it hasn't happened. They are hanging tough in Kobani, staying on the offensive against regular Syrian forces, threatening again in northern Iraq, and giving the Iraqi Army fits in Anbar. Just this morning I learned that the IS had restarted the "Great Yezidi Roundup of 2014". Yee Ha. You would think that after a while they would run out of Yezidis.
I'm going out on a limb and predicting that as the days go by, the focus of this conflict will become less on Syria and more on Iraq. The IS is determined to capture Baghdad. It hasn't always been a target, but once it became apparent that Baghdad could be captured, the IS created a plan. Seed the poorer neighborhoods with operatives, play-up the Sunni/Shia conflict, conduct daily car bombings and mortar attacks, and destabilize the city. With no U.S. ground forces, the IS will have little trouble taking Baghdad one street at a time, the same MO presently in use in Ramadi and Fallujah. I think we can call the last week of October 2014, the end of the beginning of The Battle of Baghdad.
B. Suicide Attack In Baiji
I'm hoping to eventually stumble onto a blog that is exclusively devoted to disseminating articles about Iraqi military engagements. I am fascinated with the Iraqi Defense Force and its attempt to combat the Islamic Front in Anbar Province. The conflict in Syria is ugly, disorganized, and hidden most of the time. But for us armchair generals, Iraq presents the opportunity to watch at least one army as it pursues strategic goals. The Iraqi Army is attempting to engage and destroy elements of the Islamic State in The Levant (IS) in Anbar Province. Over the past month we have taken a close look at the strategies of both parties as the Iraqis seek to defend greater Baghdad. Since its initial military movements in northern Iraq, the IS has presented a difficult target. I had fallen into the trap of expecting IS forces engaged in Iraq to resemble the IS elements that had been engaged in Syria since 2012. I was taken by surprise with the IS and its use of heavy weaponry (artillery in particular). I had grown accustomed to groups of men riding around in Toyota pick-ups that had been rigged with an anti-aircraft or large caliber machine-gun in the bed. From the beginning, the IS has shown a military sophistication in Iraq that includes the ability to effectively use artillery, strategically move large numbers of fighters from one area to another, and to control extensive resupply lines. Most importantly, the IS has demonstrated the ability to adapt. The IS appears just as comfortable using guerilla tactics as they do utilizing heavy weaponry and fighting in larger units.
The IS rarely makes a public statement without barking something or other about the creation of an Islamic Fundamentalist Nation. They seem to prefer the word, "Caliphate", but who gives a shit. This beast, which rose like a phoenix from the ashes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has a true organizational structure. If we were in a boardroom and I had a flip chart, I could probably draw a nice diagram (and one of the numerous people sleeping would fart in appreciation). We have the political IS and the military IS; the talented folks in CTC at Langley have the complete political picture, no doubt. At the moment we here at MB are solely concerned with the military wing of the IS. Link A seems to be a carbon copy of a situational update that I read last week in the NY Times. Who controls Fallujah, the IS or the Iraqi Army? And Ramadi? The truth is that the only time the Iraqi Army makes any headway in Anbar is when they participate in a U.S.- planned ground attack (with armor) coordinated with allied air attacks. The current state of the Iraqi Air Force seems to be a complete mystery. They were supposed to receive 18 F16s over a period of two years. The pilots are currently training in the United States, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a typical show of Iraqi ingratitude, complained about the F16 and purchased five second-hand Sukhoi (Su) 25's to counter the IS threat. (Entertaining side note: Iran generously "gave" Iraq a handful of Su-25's as well, as a show of solidarity against the IS. And by the way, the majority of the Su-25's that arrived from Iran were ex-Iraqi Air Force planes that had fled Iraq at the start of the Gulf War, rather than face sure death in combat with U.S. Air Force F16s.) So we know that the Iraqi Air Force has a few Migs and Su-25s, not to mention a handful of Russian Helicopters. Does anyone know if the Iraqi Air Force is participating in the allied air campaign?
Link B is a reminder that the IS is very familiar with urban-warfare tactics. The suicide car bombs were a specialty of Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Iraqis are experiencing them all over again. Even though the heavier elements of the IS forces are engaged with the Iraqi Army in Anbar (and with allied air attacks in Syria), the plan to seed the poorer Sunni neighborhoods of greater Baghdad is in full swing. From today onward, You can be sure that any mortars launched toward government buildings, military targets, or foreign diplomatic property in Baghdad, will originate from the poor Sunni bedroom communities of Baghdad. And the car bombs will be built in the same neighborhoods. The IS is conducting this war in a very sophisticated manner, successfully engaging in what is a three-front war (In September Secretary of Defense Hagel was quoted as saying that the goal was to force the IS to fight a three-front war). The current areas of conflict include Syria, Anbar Province in eastern Iraq, and Kurdistan/northern Iraq. I am surprised at the IS's ability to function so effectively. I had anticipated that IS fortunes would suffer somewhere, but it hasn't happened. They are hanging tough in Kobani, staying on the offensive against regular Syrian forces, threatening again in northern Iraq, and giving the Iraqi Army fits in Anbar. Just this morning I learned that the IS had restarted the "Great Yezidi Roundup of 2014". Yee Ha. You would think that after a while they would run out of Yezidis.
I'm going out on a limb and predicting that as the days go by, the focus of this conflict will become less on Syria and more on Iraq. The IS is determined to capture Baghdad. It hasn't always been a target, but once it became apparent that Baghdad could be captured, the IS created a plan. Seed the poorer neighborhoods with operatives, play-up the Sunni/Shia conflict, conduct daily car bombings and mortar attacks, and destabilize the city. With no U.S. ground forces, the IS will have little trouble taking Baghdad one street at a time, the same MO presently in use in Ramadi and Fallujah. I think we can call the last week of October 2014, the end of the beginning of The Battle of Baghdad.
Friday, October 10, 2014
What's Up With The Republic Of Turkey Nowadays?
Links: War Moves Into Turkey
Wikipedia On Turkey
Where have you been, Turkey? Every few days I am obliged to create a post about the struggle against the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIS, ISIL or IS); bad news seldom takes a holiday. How did we get to this place? Following the ritualistic beheading of two Americans, President Obama announced that the United States was taking military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria. Obama added that the United States would, under no circumstances, introduce ground forces into the conflict. Instead, the U.S. Air Force would bomb the IS into the Stone Age. For good measure, we are training and arming a surrogate army to finish off the IS with a ground campaign (but not for four, maybe five months because that's how long it takes to train and equip a surrogate army in 2014). The surrogate element identifies itself as the "Free Syrian Army", and consists of many Syrian Army former officers and front-line troops. President Obama was able to enlist France, The United Kingdom, and the Arab Gulf monarchies to join his "Coalition of the Unwilling to use Ground Troops", but some enormously important questions remain unanswered. What will the Free Syrian Army do after the IS has been defeated? Will it turn its weapons on the regular Syrian Army, which is heavily supported by Vladimir Putin and Russia? What about all the other groups the Administration has parade by during press conferences (Al-Nusra Front, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda)? Are they also targets of the Free Syrian Army? And if not, how does the IS tell them apart?
To repeat myself, where are you, Turkey? The Turks share a southern border with both Iraq and Syria. (A large part of that geographical piece is considered by the Kurds to be part of Kurdistan). For centuries, back to the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks and the Kurds have struggled for control of this part of the world (since its not Asia Minor, and its not really Mesopotamia, I will just refer to it as "Asia Minopotamia"). Some of the blackest pages in Turkey's personal history book have to do with Kurdistan. On more than a few occasions over the past two centuries, the Turks have committed acts of genocide against the Kurds. I realize that by saying this, I royally piss off a number of very close Turkish friends, but it is my interpretation of history; believe me, I wish it weren't so. The Kurds have always been a thorn in Turkey's side, and when historically bad famines and droughts hit Turkey, the Kurds were last to receive help. I won't spend anymore time on the subject, especially since there is so much open source material available. Fast forward to 2014, the Kurds are fighting for their lives not against the Turks or famine, or even Saddam Hussein, but against the IS. At present, its not really possible to draw a static map of who-occupies-what. The Kurds are in possession of some territory in northern Syria, but the main theater of war at the moment is in Iraq. In the north, the Kurds are fighting the IS, and the central part of Iraq, the Iraqi Army and Shia Brigades are opposing the IS. Back in Syria, the regular Syrian Army continues to occasionally engage IS forces. For the time being, though, all eyes seem to be on very north central Syria and the town of Kobani.
At times I find it difficult to accept that Syria and Turkey share such a continuous, strategic border. For many centuries, the border did not exist, as Syria and Turkey were both part of the Ottoman Empire. Now, for all practical purposes, the border separates wealth from poverty, Europe from the Levant, and West from East. I know many will disagree, and argue (effectively, I'm sure) that Asia Minor is not Europe and that Turkey is not a first-world country. I make my call through personal experience. I was obsessed with Turkey in my younger days, and loved every chance I had to visit. The Turks are a friendly, proud people; you will rarely see beggars or hungry children in Turkey. But the Turkey of my youth is disappearing. Secular Turkey (with its handful of generals ready to take charge if the civilians get too ambitious) has seen a rise in Islamist political activities and a movement to strengthen Turkey's Islamic cultural heritage and traditions. President Recep Erdogan, who was elected in August 2014 with a 51% to 38% margin over his nearest competitor, is not fan of the Army. During the later half of the last century, the Turkish military did not hesitate to remove elected leaders at the slightest sign of movement away from secularism. I believe Erdogan is too popular for the military to act against, so I just keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't allow Turkey to suffer an Islamic revolution like the one that swallowed Iran in 1979.
Regarding the situation in Syria and Iraq, where does Turkey stand? One thing to keep in mind: Turkey has a FORMIDABLE Armed Forces. There was a time when Turkey was only interested in keeping an army larger than Greece's, but membership in NATO changed everything. For all practical purposes, Turkey's military was created, nursed and raised to adulthood by the United States military. Because of the all-important NATO missile sites located in Turkey (and aimed at Russia, I believe, although there may be one aimed at the Eifel Tower), The United States was more than willing to train and equip the Turkish Army. Roughly 15 years ago, the Turkish military took the surprising step of conducting joint operations with Israel (the advent of Erdogan has cooled relations between Ankara and Jerusalem). In equipment, size, and readiness, I believe that the Turkish military is en par with France, the UK and Germany (Greece who?). Where does Turkey stand? Why haven't the Turks taken a stand against the IS, which is about as nasty a group as there is? Allegedly, Erdogan offered to join the Coalition and use the Turkish Army if Obama would guarantee the removal of Assad in Damascus. Obama does not have the testicular fortitude for such a call, which would piss off Putin to no end. At the moment, Turkey sees no strategy that benefits Turkey, with the exception of waiting until the dust settles. If Turkey mobilizes, they would sweep the IS from the face of the earth in a matter of days (Turkish Special Forces....Bad Ass).
But what good does that do if Assad, the thorn in Turkey's backside, stays in power? Maybe Erdogan is thinking that an IS government in Damascus is preferable to the Ba'athists and Assad? Wouldn't that be something...Turkey joins the conflict ON THE SIDE of the IS! Its just a thought; it can't happen. Turkey is a functioning Democracy with a Tiger of an economy (which is headed for a fall, say many forecasters...hope not), a thriving tourist industry and a military that would make Suleyman the Magnificent jealous. An on its southern border Turkey nurses two recurring boils; Kurdistan and the civil war in Syria. Although Erdogan has been willing to snuggle up to the Kurds for political expediency, I don't think he feels compelled to resolve the issue of Kurdistan at the moment. Besides, the Kurds have proven to be reasonable. The IS conflict, though, threatens to spill over into Turkey proper (not to mention the steady flow of refugees). Surprisingly, the Turks have yet to really mobilize militarily. What would happen if one of the combatants (count 'em again, folks: Al-Nusra Front, IS, Khorasan, Kurds, regular Syrian Army, and the free Syrian Army) began using Turkish territory as a staging point for military operations? Unfortunately, I don't see Erdogan acting proactively in this situation. He is content to let the circumstances come to him.
Wikipedia On Turkey
Where have you been, Turkey? Every few days I am obliged to create a post about the struggle against the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIS, ISIL or IS); bad news seldom takes a holiday. How did we get to this place? Following the ritualistic beheading of two Americans, President Obama announced that the United States was taking military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria. Obama added that the United States would, under no circumstances, introduce ground forces into the conflict. Instead, the U.S. Air Force would bomb the IS into the Stone Age. For good measure, we are training and arming a surrogate army to finish off the IS with a ground campaign (but not for four, maybe five months because that's how long it takes to train and equip a surrogate army in 2014). The surrogate element identifies itself as the "Free Syrian Army", and consists of many Syrian Army former officers and front-line troops. President Obama was able to enlist France, The United Kingdom, and the Arab Gulf monarchies to join his "Coalition of the Unwilling to use Ground Troops", but some enormously important questions remain unanswered. What will the Free Syrian Army do after the IS has been defeated? Will it turn its weapons on the regular Syrian Army, which is heavily supported by Vladimir Putin and Russia? What about all the other groups the Administration has parade by during press conferences (Al-Nusra Front, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda)? Are they also targets of the Free Syrian Army? And if not, how does the IS tell them apart?
To repeat myself, where are you, Turkey? The Turks share a southern border with both Iraq and Syria. (A large part of that geographical piece is considered by the Kurds to be part of Kurdistan). For centuries, back to the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks and the Kurds have struggled for control of this part of the world (since its not Asia Minor, and its not really Mesopotamia, I will just refer to it as "Asia Minopotamia"). Some of the blackest pages in Turkey's personal history book have to do with Kurdistan. On more than a few occasions over the past two centuries, the Turks have committed acts of genocide against the Kurds. I realize that by saying this, I royally piss off a number of very close Turkish friends, but it is my interpretation of history; believe me, I wish it weren't so. The Kurds have always been a thorn in Turkey's side, and when historically bad famines and droughts hit Turkey, the Kurds were last to receive help. I won't spend anymore time on the subject, especially since there is so much open source material available. Fast forward to 2014, the Kurds are fighting for their lives not against the Turks or famine, or even Saddam Hussein, but against the IS. At present, its not really possible to draw a static map of who-occupies-what. The Kurds are in possession of some territory in northern Syria, but the main theater of war at the moment is in Iraq. In the north, the Kurds are fighting the IS, and the central part of Iraq, the Iraqi Army and Shia Brigades are opposing the IS. Back in Syria, the regular Syrian Army continues to occasionally engage IS forces. For the time being, though, all eyes seem to be on very north central Syria and the town of Kobani.
At times I find it difficult to accept that Syria and Turkey share such a continuous, strategic border. For many centuries, the border did not exist, as Syria and Turkey were both part of the Ottoman Empire. Now, for all practical purposes, the border separates wealth from poverty, Europe from the Levant, and West from East. I know many will disagree, and argue (effectively, I'm sure) that Asia Minor is not Europe and that Turkey is not a first-world country. I make my call through personal experience. I was obsessed with Turkey in my younger days, and loved every chance I had to visit. The Turks are a friendly, proud people; you will rarely see beggars or hungry children in Turkey. But the Turkey of my youth is disappearing. Secular Turkey (with its handful of generals ready to take charge if the civilians get too ambitious) has seen a rise in Islamist political activities and a movement to strengthen Turkey's Islamic cultural heritage and traditions. President Recep Erdogan, who was elected in August 2014 with a 51% to 38% margin over his nearest competitor, is not fan of the Army. During the later half of the last century, the Turkish military did not hesitate to remove elected leaders at the slightest sign of movement away from secularism. I believe Erdogan is too popular for the military to act against, so I just keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't allow Turkey to suffer an Islamic revolution like the one that swallowed Iran in 1979.
Regarding the situation in Syria and Iraq, where does Turkey stand? One thing to keep in mind: Turkey has a FORMIDABLE Armed Forces. There was a time when Turkey was only interested in keeping an army larger than Greece's, but membership in NATO changed everything. For all practical purposes, Turkey's military was created, nursed and raised to adulthood by the United States military. Because of the all-important NATO missile sites located in Turkey (and aimed at Russia, I believe, although there may be one aimed at the Eifel Tower), The United States was more than willing to train and equip the Turkish Army. Roughly 15 years ago, the Turkish military took the surprising step of conducting joint operations with Israel (the advent of Erdogan has cooled relations between Ankara and Jerusalem). In equipment, size, and readiness, I believe that the Turkish military is en par with France, the UK and Germany (Greece who?). Where does Turkey stand? Why haven't the Turks taken a stand against the IS, which is about as nasty a group as there is? Allegedly, Erdogan offered to join the Coalition and use the Turkish Army if Obama would guarantee the removal of Assad in Damascus. Obama does not have the testicular fortitude for such a call, which would piss off Putin to no end. At the moment, Turkey sees no strategy that benefits Turkey, with the exception of waiting until the dust settles. If Turkey mobilizes, they would sweep the IS from the face of the earth in a matter of days (Turkish Special Forces....Bad Ass).
But what good does that do if Assad, the thorn in Turkey's backside, stays in power? Maybe Erdogan is thinking that an IS government in Damascus is preferable to the Ba'athists and Assad? Wouldn't that be something...Turkey joins the conflict ON THE SIDE of the IS! Its just a thought; it can't happen. Turkey is a functioning Democracy with a Tiger of an economy (which is headed for a fall, say many forecasters...hope not), a thriving tourist industry and a military that would make Suleyman the Magnificent jealous. An on its southern border Turkey nurses two recurring boils; Kurdistan and the civil war in Syria. Although Erdogan has been willing to snuggle up to the Kurds for political expediency, I don't think he feels compelled to resolve the issue of Kurdistan at the moment. Besides, the Kurds have proven to be reasonable. The IS conflict, though, threatens to spill over into Turkey proper (not to mention the steady flow of refugees). Surprisingly, the Turks have yet to really mobilize militarily. What would happen if one of the combatants (count 'em again, folks: Al-Nusra Front, IS, Khorasan, Kurds, regular Syrian Army, and the free Syrian Army) began using Turkish territory as a staging point for military operations? Unfortunately, I don't see Erdogan acting proactively in this situation. He is content to let the circumstances come to him.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The Politization of the ISIS Threat: Business as Usual.
Link: Juan Williams says ISIS will Benefit Democrats in Midterms
Former CIA Director Panetta Critical of Iraq Pullout
The first news story that grabbed my attention today focused on threats made by the Islamic State (IS) to French, Australian and American citizens, and it came as no surprise. IS is not pleased with the ongoing air campaign which has disrupted IS attempts to establish itself in oil-rich areas of Kurdistan. It is estimated that IS already earns over one billion dollars a day in oil revenue. By the way, who is purchasing oil from IS? Shouldn't our military resources be focused on shutting down this IS cash cow? Now that kind of valuable intelligence would make an Accessions List sparkle (excuse the Agency insider comment). As for the threats against Yanks, Frenchies, and Aussies, take it at face value. This part of the world is known for drama. Remember the Iraqi Spokesman who, during Operation Enduring Freedom, continued to broadcast about Iraqi battlefield victories, as Abrams tanks were pulling up outside his office? In warfare, bullets are a lot more dangerous than words. The second article that grabbed my attention highlighted comments by Fox News contributor Juan Williams on the IS issue and how it plays into U.S. politics. Williams hypothesized that President Obama's approval ratings would improve because of his declaration of "war" against the IS. Williams added that Obama's improved image would benefit Democratic Senate and House candidates in this year's November midterm elections. I normally disagree with Juan regarding policy, but he is usually on the money with political forecasting. I agree that an increased military effort in support of our national security is a no-lose proposition for President Obama. But it doesn't make me happy.
I am one of those folks who believe that Hurricane Sandy helped President Obama win re-election in 2012. Mitt Romney playing defense for the last month and bizarre instances of voter fraud in key battleground states also played a role, but in the end President Obama won re-election in 2012, and it appears he might be about to do it again, albeit in a different political venue. I really like Juan Williams. I have heard he is a true gentleman and I believe he plays his part of the Fox News "counter argument" in fine fashion. But I am thoroughly disturbed with the glee he seems to express, as he pronounces that, yet again, smoke and mirrors will decide a major U.S. election. I did not vote for Barack Obama, and I am not a supporter of his policies. Oddly enough, considering the subject of this blog, foreign policy is not my "Obama complaint". Simply put, he has taken our grandchildren's credit card out of the White House wallet, and has charged up seventeen trillion dollars in debt in six years. This is not a GOP-doctored number. Check it out for yourself. Now what have we purchased that was worth going into debt (much of it to China) for seventeen trillion dollars (and counting)? The economy is sluggish, employment figures are disturbing, and we keep on spending. Be that as it may, I write this blog to comment on issues of intelligence and international conflict, not domestic economics. In my position as host of this blog, I have opined on more than one occasion that I believe the Obama Administration has not handled the "IS" issue very well. As former CIA Director Leon Panetta (an Obama appointee) has stated, we should not have left Iraq without some military presence in place. In the second link provided above, Panetta argues that the IS has become an issue because of Obama's desire to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan quickly. Panetta also argues that the Administration should have made the decision last summer to support the New Syrian Army (NAS). I don't agree with Panetta on the last point, but I am very concerned by what appears to be a military policy that is designed to affect U.S. elections. No doubt the Democrats were not seeding the Tropics to create Hurricane Sandy and give Obama the opportunity to look "presidential" just prior to a national election, but in this instance I would not be surprised if politics was at play in forming military policy. And I am frustrated by the voting public for being such a patsy.
U.S. Air Force strikes on IS positions in Iraq and Syria will make nice clips for the evening news. Every American (count me in) will no doubt find some satisfaction in our response to the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff. But would we be engaged in this bombing campaign if we weren't approaching a pivotal election? Why am I so cynical? I have trouble supporting a policy that has so many questions and so few answers. More importantly, I believe our policy to arm surrogates to fight the ground campaign of this conflict is a repeat of past errors. One of the hallmarks of this Administration has been its unwillingness to provide a complete policy for any of its initiatives. I will repeat a few of the questions I have been asking over the past week. Will IS also be engaging regular Syrian forces with the weapons we provide? Of course they will, and the Russians, with their guy Assad sitting in Damascus, will respond. I do not believe that we should be involved in the Syrian civil war. But we will be, once the New Syrian Army turns its focus away from the IS and towards its real target, the Ba'ath regime in Damascus. Call me old school, but I believe wars are terrible things and should be fought with all vigor and ended as soon as possible. If the IS is a threat to our national security, then we need to revisit the original decision to high-tail it out of Iraq, and hit IS from three directions: Iraq, Kurdistan, and Syria. We should use every appropriate military tool to obliterate this group. It is possible to defeat an ideology; we ended the scourge of National Socialism (Nazis) in 1945, and we discredited communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall. If we attack the IS with this kind of approach, we will discourage the next nut job who wants to take us on. Instead, we have an air campaign, conducted alongside our French friends (again, this conflict is making for some strange bedfellows), and a surrogate army of ex-Syrian soldiers to bleed out for us "in proxy". I believe the New Syrian Army, trained and equipped by the U.S., alongside an air campaign that destroys the IS supply routes, will be successful. And this is where the problem begins. What if our surrogate is successful? Do we recognize them as the next Syrian government? Do we immediately end all military support and say "you've gotten all your getting from us, folks- good luck?" Again, no answers. Actually, that's not true. Someone may proffer up a vague response or two, but the real issue is, NO POLICY.
Juan Williams is a Democrat, and understandably looks forward to the political "bump" the Democrats will gain from the image of a "wartime President". But its an illusion. We all know that Obama is no Hawk. But he can play one on TV for a while in order to win an election. I hope Juan is wrong. I hope that the Democrats don't keep control of the Senate, so that I don't have to listen to people regret their vote for the next two years. President Obama does not appear to have a "complete" strategy for entering into this conflict with the IS. But he is very strategic when it comes to the political battlefield. I am very concerned by Obama's repeated threats to use Executive Authority to create and enforce domestic policy. Most important is the issue of Immigration; are we are going to reward folks whose presence in the United States is predicated on breaking our laws? Any form of Amnesty will only increase the flow of undocumented aliens crossing into the United States from Mexico; its not Rocket Science. So it becomes an issue of National Security. The only reason Obama is able to accuse Congress of not doing its job, is because the Democratically-controlled Senate under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, refuses to let any House-passed legislation reach the floor of the Senate. It gives Obama the "manufactured" authority to act unilaterally. If the GOP controls both the House and the Senate, Obama will be forced to either pass or veto all sorts of issue-driven legislation. And the reasonable and well-thought House Immigration Bill provides an alternative to Amnesty. President Obama will no longer be able to tell the American people that he must use Executive Authority because Congress is lazy. Basically, we would have a government that utilizes the "checks and balances" theory of administration, which is the way its supposed to be.
Former CIA Director Panetta Critical of Iraq Pullout
The first news story that grabbed my attention today focused on threats made by the Islamic State (IS) to French, Australian and American citizens, and it came as no surprise. IS is not pleased with the ongoing air campaign which has disrupted IS attempts to establish itself in oil-rich areas of Kurdistan. It is estimated that IS already earns over one billion dollars a day in oil revenue. By the way, who is purchasing oil from IS? Shouldn't our military resources be focused on shutting down this IS cash cow? Now that kind of valuable intelligence would make an Accessions List sparkle (excuse the Agency insider comment). As for the threats against Yanks, Frenchies, and Aussies, take it at face value. This part of the world is known for drama. Remember the Iraqi Spokesman who, during Operation Enduring Freedom, continued to broadcast about Iraqi battlefield victories, as Abrams tanks were pulling up outside his office? In warfare, bullets are a lot more dangerous than words. The second article that grabbed my attention highlighted comments by Fox News contributor Juan Williams on the IS issue and how it plays into U.S. politics. Williams hypothesized that President Obama's approval ratings would improve because of his declaration of "war" against the IS. Williams added that Obama's improved image would benefit Democratic Senate and House candidates in this year's November midterm elections. I normally disagree with Juan regarding policy, but he is usually on the money with political forecasting. I agree that an increased military effort in support of our national security is a no-lose proposition for President Obama. But it doesn't make me happy.
I am one of those folks who believe that Hurricane Sandy helped President Obama win re-election in 2012. Mitt Romney playing defense for the last month and bizarre instances of voter fraud in key battleground states also played a role, but in the end President Obama won re-election in 2012, and it appears he might be about to do it again, albeit in a different political venue. I really like Juan Williams. I have heard he is a true gentleman and I believe he plays his part of the Fox News "counter argument" in fine fashion. But I am thoroughly disturbed with the glee he seems to express, as he pronounces that, yet again, smoke and mirrors will decide a major U.S. election. I did not vote for Barack Obama, and I am not a supporter of his policies. Oddly enough, considering the subject of this blog, foreign policy is not my "Obama complaint". Simply put, he has taken our grandchildren's credit card out of the White House wallet, and has charged up seventeen trillion dollars in debt in six years. This is not a GOP-doctored number. Check it out for yourself. Now what have we purchased that was worth going into debt (much of it to China) for seventeen trillion dollars (and counting)? The economy is sluggish, employment figures are disturbing, and we keep on spending. Be that as it may, I write this blog to comment on issues of intelligence and international conflict, not domestic economics. In my position as host of this blog, I have opined on more than one occasion that I believe the Obama Administration has not handled the "IS" issue very well. As former CIA Director Leon Panetta (an Obama appointee) has stated, we should not have left Iraq without some military presence in place. In the second link provided above, Panetta argues that the IS has become an issue because of Obama's desire to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan quickly. Panetta also argues that the Administration should have made the decision last summer to support the New Syrian Army (NAS). I don't agree with Panetta on the last point, but I am very concerned by what appears to be a military policy that is designed to affect U.S. elections. No doubt the Democrats were not seeding the Tropics to create Hurricane Sandy and give Obama the opportunity to look "presidential" just prior to a national election, but in this instance I would not be surprised if politics was at play in forming military policy. And I am frustrated by the voting public for being such a patsy.
U.S. Air Force strikes on IS positions in Iraq and Syria will make nice clips for the evening news. Every American (count me in) will no doubt find some satisfaction in our response to the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff. But would we be engaged in this bombing campaign if we weren't approaching a pivotal election? Why am I so cynical? I have trouble supporting a policy that has so many questions and so few answers. More importantly, I believe our policy to arm surrogates to fight the ground campaign of this conflict is a repeat of past errors. One of the hallmarks of this Administration has been its unwillingness to provide a complete policy for any of its initiatives. I will repeat a few of the questions I have been asking over the past week. Will IS also be engaging regular Syrian forces with the weapons we provide? Of course they will, and the Russians, with their guy Assad sitting in Damascus, will respond. I do not believe that we should be involved in the Syrian civil war. But we will be, once the New Syrian Army turns its focus away from the IS and towards its real target, the Ba'ath regime in Damascus. Call me old school, but I believe wars are terrible things and should be fought with all vigor and ended as soon as possible. If the IS is a threat to our national security, then we need to revisit the original decision to high-tail it out of Iraq, and hit IS from three directions: Iraq, Kurdistan, and Syria. We should use every appropriate military tool to obliterate this group. It is possible to defeat an ideology; we ended the scourge of National Socialism (Nazis) in 1945, and we discredited communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall. If we attack the IS with this kind of approach, we will discourage the next nut job who wants to take us on. Instead, we have an air campaign, conducted alongside our French friends (again, this conflict is making for some strange bedfellows), and a surrogate army of ex-Syrian soldiers to bleed out for us "in proxy". I believe the New Syrian Army, trained and equipped by the U.S., alongside an air campaign that destroys the IS supply routes, will be successful. And this is where the problem begins. What if our surrogate is successful? Do we recognize them as the next Syrian government? Do we immediately end all military support and say "you've gotten all your getting from us, folks- good luck?" Again, no answers. Actually, that's not true. Someone may proffer up a vague response or two, but the real issue is, NO POLICY.
Juan Williams is a Democrat, and understandably looks forward to the political "bump" the Democrats will gain from the image of a "wartime President". But its an illusion. We all know that Obama is no Hawk. But he can play one on TV for a while in order to win an election. I hope Juan is wrong. I hope that the Democrats don't keep control of the Senate, so that I don't have to listen to people regret their vote for the next two years. President Obama does not appear to have a "complete" strategy for entering into this conflict with the IS. But he is very strategic when it comes to the political battlefield. I am very concerned by Obama's repeated threats to use Executive Authority to create and enforce domestic policy. Most important is the issue of Immigration; are we are going to reward folks whose presence in the United States is predicated on breaking our laws? Any form of Amnesty will only increase the flow of undocumented aliens crossing into the United States from Mexico; its not Rocket Science. So it becomes an issue of National Security. The only reason Obama is able to accuse Congress of not doing its job, is because the Democratically-controlled Senate under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, refuses to let any House-passed legislation reach the floor of the Senate. It gives Obama the "manufactured" authority to act unilaterally. If the GOP controls both the House and the Senate, Obama will be forced to either pass or veto all sorts of issue-driven legislation. And the reasonable and well-thought House Immigration Bill provides an alternative to Amnesty. President Obama will no longer be able to tell the American people that he must use Executive Authority because Congress is lazy. Basically, we would have a government that utilizes the "checks and balances" theory of administration, which is the way its supposed to be.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
President Obama Announces Airstrikes Against ISIL
List: Obama Orders Bombing of ISIL
Tonight, on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York City and Washington DC, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Air Force would be conducting bombing raids into both Syria and Iraq to downgrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group. ISIL is the direct descendant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terrorist organization that was almost destroyed by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006-2007. The remnants of AQI hunkered down in the deserts around Tikrit and Ramadi until they were strong enough to become active in the recent quagmire in Syria. Once the U.S. pullout in Iraq began in earnest, AQI stepped up its activities in northern Iraq. The ISIL discussed by President Obama this evening is stronger than ever, and militarily active in both Syria and Iraq (who are we kidding; I'm sure they are all over Jordan and Lebanon as well).
In his speech, President Obama outlined a multi-faceted approach to defeat ISIL, including providing support to allies already engaged on the ground. This is the place where we usually get into trouble. Who is it exactly that will be receiving U.S. military hardware and ammunition? I'm very curious which groups have been identified as "the good guys". Better yet, how did the administration (through the CIA more than likely) make that decision? It matters a great deal to me. We have made a habit lately of arming our enemies by arming our surrogates. No doubt its much more palatable for the administration to conduct a war without U.S. troops, but finding other folks to die on our behalf (maybe a bit harsh...it is their fight as well or they wouldn't be there) does not come without a price tag. In the late 1970s the CIA armed the Afghan Mujahedeen with all sorts of yummy killing accoutrement. I can tell you that on more than a few occasions, those same weapons have been used to kill young American soldiers. Then we decided to train and arm the Iraqi Army before pulling out recently, and where are those weapons? An unpleasant number were left on the battlefield by deserting Iraqi troops before a shot was even fired. And now, if this conflict does eventually require U.S. troops on the ground, ISIL will have American-made weapons to use. Recently I wrote a post in which I called for immediate military assistance to the Ukrainian Army. I did so safe with the belief that whatever we give the Ukrainians will not one day end up pointed at U.S. soldiers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Another group that gets my full approval for military support is the Kurdish Peshmerga.
If you've been reading my blog, you've probably already noted my affection for the Peshmerga. They may not look like much to the naked eye, but they are as disciplined and intelligent a military organization as you will find. They work well in smaller units, and can transport just about any piece of equipment great distances in no time. They have shown a tendency to avoid prisoners, and they are loyal to the Kurdish cause to the death. I've never known the Peshmerga to leave weapons on the battlefield because I've never known them to lose a battle. The Peshmerga enjoy fighting in conditions that others avoid, which is one of their best assets. The next time you are visiting Sulaymaniyah, have a walk through those rugged mountains where the Peshmerga train. You'll understand why they all seem to be in great physical shape. Oh, And they stink really bad...not big fans of deodorant.
President Obama's plan includes all the hallmarks of his foreign policy as we have come to know it. Once the air campaign begins (still no concrete date), the U.S. Air Force will target ISIL in both Syria and Iraq. One year ago today, this administration was contemplating an air campaign against ISIL's enemies, the repugnant Bashir al-Assad regime. Now we will be bombing Assad's opponents. There is no way that this will not tremendously help Assad and the Syrian military (let me see....the friend of my enemy is my friend, or my friend is my friends enemy, or is it my friend has an enemy who is also my friend, or....I quit!). As a traditionalist, I don't like war that is undeclared, and I don't like conflict that basically involves only one branch of the military. But I am all for ending blood sacrifices in this part of the world without a clear and bold strategy to turn the enemy into a pile of dust.
Basically, I appreciated the speech and I'm glad that we will be raining death upon these bastards somewhere. I understand that there was some concern about where exactly we would be dropping the bombs. I can assure everyone that the Air Force and our intel targeting guys and gals RARELY make mistakes, but someone will be inconvenienced (okay, so someone's house and goat herd may get blown to smithereens...we usually provide some sort of compensation). Also, be prepared for the bodies of innocent victims that will be paraded around. I remember one occasion in Iraq when the locals dug up a previously buried body and declared the corpse to be the victim of "American artillery". Unfortunately the body was roughly 100 yrs old, and when the arm fell off they realized the game was up. As for President Obama and the new strategy to attack ISIL, he has my full support. Again, I don't believe in "sorta" fighting a war. When you have identified that a foe has reached the point of being a deadly threat to the United States, then you utilize all of your resources to defeat the enemy in the quickest time frame possible. This strategy saves lives and makes the necessary point.
I won't spend too much time on the parts of the speech that I found disturbing. Here we go again with the coalitions. How many are we talking about? We have NATO, which is more or less a living coalition. We have separate coalitions in both Bosnia and Kosovo and we have the coalition which has been working with us in Afghanistan. When Obama spoke of a coalition including the United States, and then mentioned a coalition of Arab nations, was he referring to the same coalition? First and foremost, coalitions involving Arab states don't usually achieve much. And if they had any inclination to get involved in this mess, wouldn't they have done so by now? Hell, most of them have internal elements that are raising money for ISIL. And just when President Obama had me warming up, he had to remind us that this conflict is not about religion, and that Islam is about peace. We've heard it ad nauseam, Mr. President. By repeating that same mantra, you enable the average, peace-loving Muslim to avoid getting involved. Regardless of the numbers, true, peaceful Muslims need to stand up and be heard! And not to yell at me, but to do something about these fanatics in our cities and in our own neighborhoods who are using bastardized versions of your holy book to recruit killers. No one gets a free pass anymore. Everyone has a part to play.
Tonight, on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York City and Washington DC, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Air Force would be conducting bombing raids into both Syria and Iraq to downgrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group. ISIL is the direct descendant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terrorist organization that was almost destroyed by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006-2007. The remnants of AQI hunkered down in the deserts around Tikrit and Ramadi until they were strong enough to become active in the recent quagmire in Syria. Once the U.S. pullout in Iraq began in earnest, AQI stepped up its activities in northern Iraq. The ISIL discussed by President Obama this evening is stronger than ever, and militarily active in both Syria and Iraq (who are we kidding; I'm sure they are all over Jordan and Lebanon as well).
In his speech, President Obama outlined a multi-faceted approach to defeat ISIL, including providing support to allies already engaged on the ground. This is the place where we usually get into trouble. Who is it exactly that will be receiving U.S. military hardware and ammunition? I'm very curious which groups have been identified as "the good guys". Better yet, how did the administration (through the CIA more than likely) make that decision? It matters a great deal to me. We have made a habit lately of arming our enemies by arming our surrogates. No doubt its much more palatable for the administration to conduct a war without U.S. troops, but finding other folks to die on our behalf (maybe a bit harsh...it is their fight as well or they wouldn't be there) does not come without a price tag. In the late 1970s the CIA armed the Afghan Mujahedeen with all sorts of yummy killing accoutrement. I can tell you that on more than a few occasions, those same weapons have been used to kill young American soldiers. Then we decided to train and arm the Iraqi Army before pulling out recently, and where are those weapons? An unpleasant number were left on the battlefield by deserting Iraqi troops before a shot was even fired. And now, if this conflict does eventually require U.S. troops on the ground, ISIL will have American-made weapons to use. Recently I wrote a post in which I called for immediate military assistance to the Ukrainian Army. I did so safe with the belief that whatever we give the Ukrainians will not one day end up pointed at U.S. soldiers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Another group that gets my full approval for military support is the Kurdish Peshmerga.
If you've been reading my blog, you've probably already noted my affection for the Peshmerga. They may not look like much to the naked eye, but they are as disciplined and intelligent a military organization as you will find. They work well in smaller units, and can transport just about any piece of equipment great distances in no time. They have shown a tendency to avoid prisoners, and they are loyal to the Kurdish cause to the death. I've never known the Peshmerga to leave weapons on the battlefield because I've never known them to lose a battle. The Peshmerga enjoy fighting in conditions that others avoid, which is one of their best assets. The next time you are visiting Sulaymaniyah, have a walk through those rugged mountains where the Peshmerga train. You'll understand why they all seem to be in great physical shape. Oh, And they stink really bad...not big fans of deodorant.
President Obama's plan includes all the hallmarks of his foreign policy as we have come to know it. Once the air campaign begins (still no concrete date), the U.S. Air Force will target ISIL in both Syria and Iraq. One year ago today, this administration was contemplating an air campaign against ISIL's enemies, the repugnant Bashir al-Assad regime. Now we will be bombing Assad's opponents. There is no way that this will not tremendously help Assad and the Syrian military (let me see....the friend of my enemy is my friend, or my friend is my friends enemy, or is it my friend has an enemy who is also my friend, or....I quit!). As a traditionalist, I don't like war that is undeclared, and I don't like conflict that basically involves only one branch of the military. But I am all for ending blood sacrifices in this part of the world without a clear and bold strategy to turn the enemy into a pile of dust.
Basically, I appreciated the speech and I'm glad that we will be raining death upon these bastards somewhere. I understand that there was some concern about where exactly we would be dropping the bombs. I can assure everyone that the Air Force and our intel targeting guys and gals RARELY make mistakes, but someone will be inconvenienced (okay, so someone's house and goat herd may get blown to smithereens...we usually provide some sort of compensation). Also, be prepared for the bodies of innocent victims that will be paraded around. I remember one occasion in Iraq when the locals dug up a previously buried body and declared the corpse to be the victim of "American artillery". Unfortunately the body was roughly 100 yrs old, and when the arm fell off they realized the game was up. As for President Obama and the new strategy to attack ISIL, he has my full support. Again, I don't believe in "sorta" fighting a war. When you have identified that a foe has reached the point of being a deadly threat to the United States, then you utilize all of your resources to defeat the enemy in the quickest time frame possible. This strategy saves lives and makes the necessary point.
I won't spend too much time on the parts of the speech that I found disturbing. Here we go again with the coalitions. How many are we talking about? We have NATO, which is more or less a living coalition. We have separate coalitions in both Bosnia and Kosovo and we have the coalition which has been working with us in Afghanistan. When Obama spoke of a coalition including the United States, and then mentioned a coalition of Arab nations, was he referring to the same coalition? First and foremost, coalitions involving Arab states don't usually achieve much. And if they had any inclination to get involved in this mess, wouldn't they have done so by now? Hell, most of them have internal elements that are raising money for ISIL. And just when President Obama had me warming up, he had to remind us that this conflict is not about religion, and that Islam is about peace. We've heard it ad nauseam, Mr. President. By repeating that same mantra, you enable the average, peace-loving Muslim to avoid getting involved. Regardless of the numbers, true, peaceful Muslims need to stand up and be heard! And not to yell at me, but to do something about these fanatics in our cities and in our own neighborhoods who are using bastardized versions of your holy book to recruit killers. No one gets a free pass anymore. Everyone has a part to play.
Friday, September 5, 2014
Should the United States work together with Iran to defeat ISIS/ISIL?
Link: Cooperation between the U.S. and Iran?
Are we prepared for the possibility of cooperation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran? On Friday, a plane carrying U.S. contractors on their way from Afghanistan to Dubai was forced to land in Bandar Abbas, Iran. It would have been no surprise if the Iranian authorities had caused headaches for the United States by keeping the plane grounded. But for some reason, the issue was resolved quickly and the contractors made it to Dubai in time for the weekend Camel Races. Personally, I would have expected the Iranians to create some international incident, and the fact that they didn't could be a message that the Iranians are open to some sort of dialogue. Its possible that Iran views the threat of ISIS/ISIL as more of a danger than American Imperialism (at least temporarily). What would lead Iran to consider working with the United States against ISIS/ISIL, and what could be gained by such a rapprochement?
Iran is an Islamic Republic, but it is a Shia-only club. Iraq was traditionally governed by Sunni Muslims, which fueled the animosity that lead to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. ISIS/ISIL is a Sunni-based terrorist movement, and has shown a willingness to attack Iraqi Shia targets. In fact, Iran has sent military support personnel to assist the Shia militias that ostensibly are in place to protect Shia holy sites in Iraq. At this stage Iran must recognize ISIS/ISIL as its most dangerous external threat. ISIS/ISIL has grown in both manpower and firepower as it continues to reap the harvest of new recruits and abandoned Iraqi and Syrian military equipment. For all of its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Iran is basically a functioning republic with a regular army. ISIS/ISIL, with its unpredictable nature and its ability to change strategy quickly, is just the kind of foe the Iranians want to avoid. One would assume that Kurdistan would be the direction from which ISIS would invade Iran, which would mean that ISIS/ISIL would have to defeat the Kurdish Army and the Pesh Merga (Kurdish paramilitary) first. But ISIS/ISIL has shown tremendous quickness of movement and unpredictability, and might just pop up somewhere else on the Iraq/Iran border. The Iranians are correct to consider ISIS/ISIL a real threat to their national security.
Would a joint anti-ISIS/ISIL effort on behalf of Iran and the United States be successful, and is it a possibility to begin with? Both Iran and the United States have the military means to destroy ISIS. But it is doubtful at this stage that either has the conviction. The United States has the means to render ISIS/ISIL ineffectual (at least temporarily) from a prolonged air campaign alone. The Iranians, with an inferior and aged Air Force, would be obliged to use large numbers of troops (and to cross the Iraqi border). But ISIS/ISIL is hindered by its present lack of cohesion. Is it a terrorist organization or an army? Have enough volunteers swelled the ranks that supply has become a daily concern? Has ISIS/ISIL captured so much equipment that it has become a burden to what was once a lean, stealth-like organization? ISIS/ISIL is vulnerable, especially from a supply perspective. But again, the issue for both the Americans and the Iranians is conviction. Does either side want to make the call to devote the resources necessary to send ISIS/ISIL back to the Stone Age? As of right now, the answer is no.
For anyone who seriously hopes for peace in this region, any cooperation between Iran and the United States must be seen as a positive development. But I just don't see it happening. And the problem isn't in Washington DC, its in Teheran (or should we say Qom). The religious leaders of the Islamic Republic will never be able to reconcile themselves to cooperation with "The Great Satan". The United States has extended the Olive Branch on more than one occasion in the last decade, only to be meet with a cold shoulder. The non-interference with a planeload of U.S. contractors on the tarmac of an Iranian Airport is a very surprising and encouraging sign. But this relationship will improve with tiny steps (such as the one just mentioned) over an extended period of time. But the situation could become fluid quickly. The Iranians want to do whatever they can to keep the U.S. Army from returning to Iraq. Maybe some sort of joint military operation (as unlikely as it is) that eliminates ISIS/ISIL, would be the one development that keeps large numbers of U.S. troops from returning to Iraq.
(This is a very interesting question and I very much welcome all other considerations and opinions. Please comment!)
Are we prepared for the possibility of cooperation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran? On Friday, a plane carrying U.S. contractors on their way from Afghanistan to Dubai was forced to land in Bandar Abbas, Iran. It would have been no surprise if the Iranian authorities had caused headaches for the United States by keeping the plane grounded. But for some reason, the issue was resolved quickly and the contractors made it to Dubai in time for the weekend Camel Races. Personally, I would have expected the Iranians to create some international incident, and the fact that they didn't could be a message that the Iranians are open to some sort of dialogue. Its possible that Iran views the threat of ISIS/ISIL as more of a danger than American Imperialism (at least temporarily). What would lead Iran to consider working with the United States against ISIS/ISIL, and what could be gained by such a rapprochement?
Iran is an Islamic Republic, but it is a Shia-only club. Iraq was traditionally governed by Sunni Muslims, which fueled the animosity that lead to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. ISIS/ISIL is a Sunni-based terrorist movement, and has shown a willingness to attack Iraqi Shia targets. In fact, Iran has sent military support personnel to assist the Shia militias that ostensibly are in place to protect Shia holy sites in Iraq. At this stage Iran must recognize ISIS/ISIL as its most dangerous external threat. ISIS/ISIL has grown in both manpower and firepower as it continues to reap the harvest of new recruits and abandoned Iraqi and Syrian military equipment. For all of its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Iran is basically a functioning republic with a regular army. ISIS/ISIL, with its unpredictable nature and its ability to change strategy quickly, is just the kind of foe the Iranians want to avoid. One would assume that Kurdistan would be the direction from which ISIS would invade Iran, which would mean that ISIS/ISIL would have to defeat the Kurdish Army and the Pesh Merga (Kurdish paramilitary) first. But ISIS/ISIL has shown tremendous quickness of movement and unpredictability, and might just pop up somewhere else on the Iraq/Iran border. The Iranians are correct to consider ISIS/ISIL a real threat to their national security.
Would a joint anti-ISIS/ISIL effort on behalf of Iran and the United States be successful, and is it a possibility to begin with? Both Iran and the United States have the military means to destroy ISIS. But it is doubtful at this stage that either has the conviction. The United States has the means to render ISIS/ISIL ineffectual (at least temporarily) from a prolonged air campaign alone. The Iranians, with an inferior and aged Air Force, would be obliged to use large numbers of troops (and to cross the Iraqi border). But ISIS/ISIL is hindered by its present lack of cohesion. Is it a terrorist organization or an army? Have enough volunteers swelled the ranks that supply has become a daily concern? Has ISIS/ISIL captured so much equipment that it has become a burden to what was once a lean, stealth-like organization? ISIS/ISIL is vulnerable, especially from a supply perspective. But again, the issue for both the Americans and the Iranians is conviction. Does either side want to make the call to devote the resources necessary to send ISIS/ISIL back to the Stone Age? As of right now, the answer is no.
For anyone who seriously hopes for peace in this region, any cooperation between Iran and the United States must be seen as a positive development. But I just don't see it happening. And the problem isn't in Washington DC, its in Teheran (or should we say Qom). The religious leaders of the Islamic Republic will never be able to reconcile themselves to cooperation with "The Great Satan". The United States has extended the Olive Branch on more than one occasion in the last decade, only to be meet with a cold shoulder. The non-interference with a planeload of U.S. contractors on the tarmac of an Iranian Airport is a very surprising and encouraging sign. But this relationship will improve with tiny steps (such as the one just mentioned) over an extended period of time. But the situation could become fluid quickly. The Iranians want to do whatever they can to keep the U.S. Army from returning to Iraq. Maybe some sort of joint military operation (as unlikely as it is) that eliminates ISIS/ISIL, would be the one development that keeps large numbers of U.S. troops from returning to Iraq.
(This is a very interesting question and I very much welcome all other considerations and opinions. Please comment!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)